Heinlein couldn’t help himself though and had to really epically DEMOLISH Marx
He had been droning along about “value,” comparing the Marxist theory with the orthodox “use” theory. Mr. Dubois had said, “Of course, the Marxian definition of value is ridiculous. All the work one cares to add will not turn a mud pie into an apple tart; it remains a mud pie, value zero. By corollary, unskillful work can easily subtract value; an untalented cook can turn wholesome dough and fresh green apples, valuable already, into an inedible mess, value zero. Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
“These kitchen illustrations demolish the Marxian theory of value—the fallacy from which the entire magnificent fraud of communism derives—and illustrate the truth of the common-sense definition as measured in terms of use.”
So he’s at least making the political alignment of his future earth much clearer with this.
I am so tired of rebuttals of Marxism defining the concept of socially necessary labor time and claiming Marxism is now debunked because Marx never accounted for it. It’s literally the first page of Capital.
Heinlein is the earliest example of the mud pie argument I know of, so it’s possible everyone got it from him. There’s also a CS Lewis story about an impoverished kid choosing between a fancy vacation or making mud pies. He chooses the latter because he can’t fathom what a vacation is. I have no idea if that’s related either but I’ve always had a hunch
Conversely, a great chef can fashion of those same materials a confection of greater value than a commonplace apple tart, with no more effort than an ordinary cook uses to prepare an ordinary sweet.
does this just completely contradict the point the character (and author) are trying to make or am i too stoned to read?
It’s a kitchen illustration. It completely demolishes Marx in just a couple paragraphs. What more do you ask for!?
Heinlein goes on to define Value a bit more to make his point, but I can’t be assed to go find the quote again. But his point here is that effort is worthless and only the result of the effort matters. But it’s such a joke of a point that I’d have assumed it was satire, if not for the fact that nothing else about the book is satire.
Its an intentional/unintentional misreading of the idea of “labor adding value”. Literally ascribing to Marx/communists the idea that applying any amount of labor to a production task can fundamentally change the output.
Heinlein’s character is basically saying that Marx believes:
“Garbage in” results in “Not garbage out” if enough labor is applied.
Oh yeah that’s right! There’s that random rant by Rico’s teacher that’s just so obviously the author preaching. I forgot about that. It’s so out of place my brain forgot it was a part of that book!
I love how every single anti-communist who rants about Marx “not getting it” will use examples that Marx specifically addressed in volume 1 of Capital.
Heinlein couldn’t help himself though and had to really epically DEMOLISH Marx
So he’s at least making the political alignment of his future earth much clearer with this.
I am so tired of rebuttals of Marxism defining the concept of socially necessary labor time and claiming Marxism is now debunked because Marx never accounted for it. It’s literally the first page of Capital.
He also wrote a whole book for people that might be specifically interested in value.
Lol I forgot that, what is it with everyone trying to demolish Marx with FACTS and LOGIC and using the exact same example of “mud pies”?
Heinlein is the earliest example of the mud pie argument I know of, so it’s possible everyone got it from him. There’s also a CS Lewis story about an impoverished kid choosing between a fancy vacation or making mud pies. He chooses the latter because he can’t fathom what a vacation is. I have no idea if that’s related either but I’ve always had a hunch
does this just completely contradict the point the character (and author) are trying to make or am i too stoned to read?
Death to America
It’s a kitchen illustration. It completely demolishes Marx in just a couple paragraphs. What more do you ask for!?
Heinlein goes on to define Value a bit more to make his point, but I can’t be assed to go find the quote again. But his point here is that effort is worthless and only the result of the effort matters. But it’s such a joke of a point that I’d have assumed it was satire, if not for the fact that nothing else about the book is satire.
Its an intentional/unintentional misreading of the idea of “labor adding value”. Literally ascribing to Marx/communists the idea that applying any amount of labor to a production task can fundamentally change the output.
Heinlein’s character is basically saying that Marx believes:
“Garbage in” results in “Not garbage out” if enough labor is applied.
Which is complete nonsense.
Oh yeah that’s right! There’s that random rant by Rico’s teacher that’s just so obviously the author preaching. I forgot about that. It’s so out of place my brain forgot it was a part of that book!
The whole book is mostly just Heinlein preachsturbating.
I love how every single anti-communist who rants about Marx “not getting it” will use examples that Marx specifically addressed in volume 1 of Capital.