Why not just go full-Godwin’s Law as long as you’re at it?
Beyond that, natural variations between people and other environmental circumstances (land fertility, climate, etc…) can mean that the same amount of labor produces vastly different amounts of product.
I mean, if someone is a bad farmer, or they’re farming sub-par land, they may put in 3x the labor of someone who’s farming great land, or is a good farmer, or both. Does that somehow mean that the first guy’s farm produce is worth more than the second guy’s, just because he put more effort in? What about a third guy who has one of those nifty GPS-guided tractors and some drip irrigation installed and he puts in even less effort, and harvests more? Is his somehow worth less than the other two, because it was easier to produce?
Of course not. The value of the produce is independent of the amount of labor put in- in a capitalist system, it would be determined by what price others would be willing to pay for that produce. (“the market”).
But Marxists tend to believe that there’s some inherent economic value in labor beyond it merely being an element of producing something, which is kind of absurd.
Because you didn’t invade Czechoslovakia or genocide anyone, you only demonized Marxism based on a faulty understanding of what Marxism is.
Why did you accuse me of being a Marxist just because I corrected your misconception about what Marxism is? That’s a pretty Red Scare thing to do.
Because I quite frankly considered your “correction” uncredible. Exactly the sort of thing that apologists say. The ideological equivalent of being a “tankie”.
[Moderating]
Sigh… I knew I should have been keeping a closer eye on this thread. That’ll be a Warning, @Lumpy , for personal attacks. And I don’t think there’s any more content to be had, here.