Questions on Marxist economics

[AnarchyIsOrder]

1. Cohen's argument that exploitation theory is based upon 18th century concepts of 'natural rights' seems pretty convincing, how would a Marxist respond to this?

2. What do you think of the TSSI?

3. Isn't value a metaphysical notion, rather than one based on reality?

4. Since without technology, nothing could be produced, and nor could most workers work without being taught how, wouldn't everybody responsible for these be creating the 'value', rather than just the worker? After all, the community creates the worker and his tools, which enable production to be possible, so surely the community produces 'value'?

I'm not sure about these, and would want a more balanced perspective, and I haven't seen any Marxist responses to it yet (or anybody they apply to, including non-Marxist socialists who use the classical theory of value).

[ComradeLands]

The Marxist notion of exploitation is based on the simple fact that a worker gets paid only a portion of the value of the commodities in which is produce, it is a purely economic concept however has one major political conclusion. As the working class produce everything under capitalism they do not need capitalists to increase affluence within society, rather the capitalists are a parasitic force the leeches on the productive forces for their own need rather than that of the oppressed classes.

As for the workers who create technology being the ones who create value, it is true that those workers create value, those who also use the technology create value as well.

This is due to technology being a commodity just as the product of that technology is also a commodity. For example, the value in a computer does not just originate from the workers who puts together all the pieces or however the technology which assists in creating the components also has value. However the technology does not create additional value, it only has the value in which the worker has placed into it during its creation.

Marx describes the value of a commodity coming from the socially necessary labour time i.e. the amount of labour the average worker puts into an individual commodity.

The technology in fact lowers the overall value of a commodity as a superior piece of technology allows more commodities to be produced in the same period of time so each individual commodity needs less socially necessary labour time to create it.

As for questions 2 & 3, I will need to read up on them.

[AnarchyIsOrder]

The Marxist notion of exploitation is based on the simple fact that a worker gets paid only a portion of the value of the commodities in which is produce, it is a purely economic concept however has one major political conclusion. As the working class produce everything under capitalism they do not need capitalists to increase affluence within society, rather the capitalists are a parasitic force the leeches on the productive forces for their own need rather than that of the oppressed classes.
Cohen's assertion was that LTV-based exploitation theory is based on a doctrine of 'natural rights' and 'self-ownership'. After all, why else would a worker own all of the value he creates?


As for the workers who create technology being the ones who create value, it is true that those workers create value, those who also use the technology create value as well.

This is due to technology being a commodity just as the product of that technology is also a commodity. For example, the value in a computer does not just originate from the workers who puts together all the pieces or however the technology which assists in creating the components also has value. However the technology does not create additional value, it only has the value in which the worker has placed into it during its creation.
Well, perhaps, but not only the workers building the machine are responsible for its creation, it's the community that is responsible for somebody being able to invent it, and then training people to construct it.

[workers unity]

Cohen's assertion was that LTV-based exploitation theory is based on a doctrine of 'natural rights' and 'self-ownership'. After all, why else would a worker own all of the value he creates?

They wouldn't "own all of the value they create" -- I'm not even sure what that means, to "own value." LTV summarized: "Labor creates value." The question of ownership, rights, etc, are something altogether different. Labor created value under older "more oppressive" societies, and was expropriated in a number of different forms, the modern form of that expropriation is capital. Who owns the capital is relatively unimportant, it is capital itself which encompasses the exploitation.


2. What do you think of the TSSI?

Who?


3. Isn't value a metaphysical notion, rather than one based on reality?

No. Except perhaps in metaphysical questions like, "What is the value of your life?" But everywhere else on earth, value is expressed and resolved in very realistic terms. Any expression of value, from "I love chocolate" to "I value our friendship." -- There are REAL reasons why you love chocolate, or value friendship, if that wasn't the case you'd love and value everything, and if that's the case, then you love and value nothing. The concept of value could not exist if there were not things you didn't value.


4. Since without technology, nothing could be produced, and nor could most workers work without being taught how, wouldn't everybody responsible for these be creating the 'value', rather than just the worker? After all, the community creates the worker and his tools, which enable production to be possible, so surely the community produces 'value'?

Of course, labor is social. But the community produces value the same way the lone worker does, by laboring. The worker is not "created" as you put it without labor, labor to grow the crops and reign the livestock which feed him/her. The labor to teach him/her patiently in their profession(s). The labor to build the housing which shelters him/her. This is precisely why capital is so obviously indicative of exploitation.