Marx And His Take On Value

In context: the fact of someones lower tier on the production ladder makes him or her entitled to ownership of the whole apparatus, - those who do the manual labour which can be done by the uneducated are the true owners of the process.

In broader terms, the implication: Marxism beholds the fate of the downtrodden as the guarantee of their destiny as rulers.

The effect, because humanity is opportunistic and often enough stupid, is that al those who are for some natural reason not qualified for positions of power acquire these positions precisely because they aren’t qualified.

Marx has three notions of value;
Use value, exchange value and human-labour-intensity. These 3 do indeed exist. He manages however to conclude from completely illegitimate argumentation in the outset that all these three values reduce to human-labour-intensity.
He claims that value is ultimately sufficiently and comprehensively defined as that amount of human labour that goes into that thing.
He does not consider that nature has done her labour on the produce before man puts his hands on it, nor does he consider that a things value is the result of someone wanting to have it.

Mind you this is the very outset of his argument. The errors he proceeds on making beyond are based on this ludicrous, but utterly ridiculous failure at thinking.

As a result, the worst have a natural right to the most. Thus, society is ruined and along it the earth, as Marx paves the way for the path for the least labour and the greatest consumption; the consumer society.

The stupidity of his argument and that no one but me has even understood how stupid it is make it all the more laughable that someone recently implied that I am after all a Marxist. No, my dear fellow Huulugun, I am not. I simply have the East in my blood, it is in our heritage and many good men have tried to make something of it and failed. I am not such a man. I am beyond good and evil, I understand that value is what gives. Hail the worker - qua his work, as long as it is good. Hail the Pharaoh, qua his gold, as long as he is glorious.

Hail Nietzsche!

Back when the industrial nations used child labor,
the value of the child was measured by his work and small wages.
Capitalism was different back then.
Marx saw that the family system was just about money and it was really quite terrible.
On the other hand, in places like Canada [where i live] capital isn’t that bad.
They tax the rich and use it for free roads, free healthy care, free education, etc.

Marx’s take on value had to do with the economy.
Soul-less money hogging.
But things changed.

Canada sounds like a swell place.

I take it most of the stuff you own and wear is made there with no child labor? Some of it? Any of it?

Maybe the more socialist the place is the less child labor there is. Is there none in China? Cuba? Vietnam?

Oh. I guess there is simply no child labor in places that can afford it. I guess otherwise children prefer to work than starve. Huh. And I guess your economy includes them. Hm.

Wait.

Does that make you a soul-less money hogger?

Hey OP. If the child does not produce whatever you concieve to be value, should he not be allowed to work?

No wait, I missed something. I knew I must be wrong. Surely Canada got to where it is after a long process of socialism that those other places just started.

Did Canada amass its wealth before or after things changed?