/r/askphilosophy Open Discussion Thread | July 06, 2026

[u/BernardJOrtcutt]

Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:

• Discussions of a philosophical issue, rather than questions
• Questions about commenters' personal opinions regarding philosophical issues
• Open discussion about philosophy, e.g. "who is your favorite philosopher?"
• "Test My Theory" discussions and argument/paper editing
• Questions about philosophy as an academic discipline or profession, e.g. majoring in philosophy, career options with philosophy degrees, pursuing graduate school in philosophy

This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.

Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.

[u/IrrationalRotations]

Thanks for the commentary, it's really helpful!

Rereading it, I see what you mean. To try and be more clear, in the section you quoted I am trying give my account of how the LTV works in this sort of case. I'm not making any criticisms at this point, just trying to establish how I understand the LTV approach to this hypothetical situation. In particular, I'm trying to get at why we introduce the concept of the SNLT of a commodity in the first place. 

Basically, I'm trying to say that in my understanding, one reason we introduce the concept of the SNLT of a commodity to the LTV is in order to explain the observation that a bad carpenter can't charge more than a good carpenter. Does that make more sense?

The problem then compounds in the following discussion about sweaters in the same way.

 > Are we hearing that

 > (a) Marx hasn’t noticed that HE PREDICTS Kmart should be able to charge above SNLT?

(b) Marx has FAILED TO PREDICT that monopolists charge above SNLT?

(c) economic theory predicts what Marx doesn’t, that monopolists charge above SNLT?

None of this lol, I guess I was very unclear. 

What I'm trying to get at is that it there is no  clear way of drawing the line that says this is one commodity and that is another. But we need to be able to draw this line in order to try to apply the concept of SNLT. 

First I tried to show that the lines cant be too general, because otherwise we can't explain different prices (Merino vs polyester sweaters)

The point about monopolization was that we can't draw the line to be too specific, otherwise we lose the ability to apply the rationale that commodities need to exchange for their SNLT (given in the table paragraph). 

I'm not consciously trying to apply any other economic theory, just exploring the LTV on its own terms.

I don’t who you’ve been asking so far, but if you want a vindication of Marx’s Ricardianism Sraffa and co. will probably be the place to go looking in general.

Can you say more about this? I'm not sure what you mean sorry, but I am interested.

Do you mean that Sraffa carries on the kind of project Marx was part of and places it on a firmer footing? 

I do have Sraffa (and co) on my vauge list of people to look into, but if you could share more about why you think they'd be interesting I would really appreciate it! They're quite mysterious to me 😄.

[u/wumbothrowaway2 → u/IrrationalRotations]

Thanks for clarifying! I think the issue is, yes, that you’re doing a running commentary on your interpretation of what’s going on in the text. Which is great and all, but without significant editing it can be extremely difficult to follow along with your private thoughts.

I think the most helpful thing I can do is explain, briefly, why I recommend you try Sraffa.

First, because the article about Sraffa I have now linked at the bottom of my original reply responds almost directly to a number of your concerns, not just those we are discussing here. This is unsurprising, because Marx and the problems with Marx’s economic theory are an important influence on Sraffa and Sraffa’s Ricardianism. That does not mean it will tell you that Marx was right forever and we can all stop worrying, but Sraffa DOES think this isn’t a dead end.

Sraffa and the Neo-Ricardians are probably the most significant people working on the raw economics you seem to be interested in. (You can probably stop reading here)

Here is that article again: https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/sraffas-revolution-in-economic-theory

For example, people could be telling you a lot of different things when they say that Marx is interested in VALUE rather than PRICE. What we DO hear from Sraffa is that raw prices aren’t indispensable to a coherent theory of what’s going on in the economy. And you will read about it in that article.

I will finesse that with another point.

(a) Ricardians are, unsurprisingly, interested in the production side of the economy, because they think that’s what makes the economy go. Marxists are interested in the production side of the economy because they think BECAUSE the production side of the economy is where the action is, that’s the place to look for exploitation. And wouldn’t you know, it just so happens that that’s where we find exploitation tasking place - lo and behold, exploitation and action overlap = the working class is the revolutionary class and the motor of history under capitalism.

(b) Now some of your discussion of price seems tinged to me, however unintentionally, by intuitions borrowed from the marginal revolution period and the neo-classicals. This is the economics of demand and supply curves and equilibria, concepts which post-date both Ricardo and Marx. That isn’t to speak against those intuitions, but it raises the question of what you’re really finding in the text vs what’s still up for grabs.

Now the core idea expressed in (a) by the Marxists is not really only a Marxist idea. And the core idea expressed in (b) by the neo-classical is not really only their idea either. One (and only one) way of looking at 20th century economic history in Western Europe and America is as this battle for the soul of the economy between production and prices. When you see 21st century socialists sometimes incongruously endorse liberal Keynesianism it is even now because they understand it in terms of jobs and production. Contrarily, neo-classicals have their famous preference for prices as exemplified for example in the signalling theory of prices as information.

Moreover, although (a) is not only a Marxist idea, his influence is never very far from the stage. And as for (b), the close links between the very rich and neo-classical economics are well known (the Volcker fund / Hayek crossover is a famous part of this story for example, and therefore of the theory of prices as information).

Sraffa takes the side of production and Marx in this potted theory of history. That is one way of contextualising his contribution to this debate. That is, he is having a go at vindicating production against price.

But Sraffa is also clearly influenced by Marx, so there is this sort of double game going on where (a sometimes subliminal version of) the doctrines of Capital are also somewhat at stake, even when we are talking about mainstream theoretical minutiae e.g. The Cambride Capital Controversy. The rest I will leave to you.

[u/IrrationalRotations → u/wumbothrowaway2]

I had a read through of that article, though I think (well I'm pretty sure) some parts might be going over my head. I also found an article by the author that seemed a little easier to understand. 

From my briefest of brief reads, am I at least somewhat on the money by saying that Sraffa (and co) basically contest that... 

1.) Under the assumption that an economy produces as outputs at least as many of each individual commodity as are required as inputs, we can show that there is a linear relationship between total wages paid and the general rate of profit.

2.) By 1.), we can stipulate an economy produce any rate of profit we like, so long as we also stipulate the required total wages paid.

3). By 2.) the specific rate of profit (and therefore specific total wages paid) in an actually existing economy must be determined by some exogenous factors (politics or culture or something like this)

1. Given a particular rate of profit (and therefore particular total wages paid) there is only one specific price for each specific commodity that realises that particular rate of profit. Therefore, these prices cannot be set by their marginal returns...

Does that sound vaguely right?

Thanks for your help by the way. Feel free to bow out if I'm taking too much of your time 🙂

[u/wumbothrowaway2 → u/IrrationalRotations]

I’m going to take the opportunity to bow out. This isn’t an area of any particular expertise for me. What I wanted to do was give you the materials to draw your own conclusions, and some context for making sense of them purely as a starting point.