Labour Value

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'm still new to most of this so please bare with me whilst I ask questions which have unbearably obvious answers to.

I am trying to get my head around Ludwig von Mises' economic calculation argument at the moment which basically criticises (for the most part, moneyless) socialism on the premisise that there is no objective 'socially-accepted' means of calculating the value of produce. I can see the irony here so much its hilarious because the use-value of a product can be completely different to different consumers and products are usually priced in such a way as to benefit the capitalist the most.

However there are still a few problems it made me think about (actually I had been thinking of these before I actually read into some of his arguments). My understanding that under moneyless, social anarchism, anarchistic communes would judge the labour value of the workers and reward them with a fair share of the products in return for their voluntary exchange of goods/services. However how exactly would they measure one's labour value? I can see that it is a lot easier to say, for instance that the skills required to build say a bungalow for a fellow civilian deserve the services from another worker to install central heating in their house or to provide them with a wireless internet connection but how does one put a value to 'non-productive labour' so to speak?

For instance, I am a musician (this is a real case scenario, in fact). Under modern day capitalist society, if I want to become a professional musician (which I do) then I have to give performances of very high standards. In other words, I am going to have to please the consumers. If the consumers are pleased, I will get publicity, people will pay to watch me perform, I will be able to make a contract with a record label and I will earn money. If I am not good enough, the consumer will not be interested and I will not be successful and I will have to pursue work which I am actually talented in.

Under anarchism how would this work exactly? What is to stop someone who is say a poor plumber being hired by anarchistic communes to do a bad job on someone's plumbing system when they have actually done a really good job harvesting crops or building a highly sophisticated machine. What would be the means of calculating whether one party has done a good job or a poor job? Won't people lose faith in this system if they receive poor goods and services for highly skilled labour and this disencourage them to work harder? If they lose faith will they be bothered to work hard when they know they won't necessarily get the same provisions back?

If I am a musician under anarchistic society would this line of work not be rewarded? Would I have to do some form of productive labour? (I don't necessarily have a problem with this by the way. I'm just wondering.)

Again, my apologies if I am missing something here.

Cheers.

[StoneFrog]

If the community views your contributions as such to benefit the community, and that you are doing what you can based on your abilities. Then no matter what the job is or how much it contributes to the community, you will be equally rewarded. So someone who is only able to clean windows, will still receive the same amount as a factory worker.
Plus more than likely there wont be set careers as such, like there is in capitalism. You will do based on the need, and not based on a singular role.

At least thats how i look at it, i don't like the whole thing of X labour = Y amount of resources. I look all put input based on their ability, and all get equal amount from it.

[PoliticalNightmare]

If the community views your contributions as such to benefit the community, and that you are doing what you can based on your abilities. Then no matter what the job is or how much it contributes to the community, you will be equally rewarded. So someone who is only able to clean windows, will still receive the same amount as a factory worker.
Plus more than likely there wont be set careers as such, like there is in capitalism. You will do based on the need, and not based on a singular role.

At least thats how i look at it, i don't like the whole thing of X labour = Y amount of resources. I look all put input based on their ability, and all get equal amount from it.

Ok, but why would someone work harder if they are not getting more reward for harder labour? For instance if I am a shoddy builder who takes tea breaks every 5 minutes and does a bad job but still gets an equal share to everyone else, what is to motivate me to work as hard as the hard working builder down the road who always does a really good job?

EDIT - I know that the socialists prefer a system where good quality labour is rewarded with equal quality of produce. I'd like to hear what they think.

[ZeroNowhere]

For instance if I am a shoddy builder who takes tea breaks every 5 minutes and does a bad job but still gets an equal share to everyone else, what is to motivate me to work as hard as the hard working builder down the road who always does a really good job?That's what management's for. In jobs which don't involve management (although building does), presumably the work done is mostly individual, in which case complaints may be made about the person in question.

As regards 'skilled labour', it'd probably be possible to also grant compensation for the time spent training, and, if necessary, rates of compensation could also be increased somewhat for jobs which require more people than have volunteered to take part, as well as jobs which are dangerous or perhaps those viewed as especially vital.

Regarding musicians, I think that there are probably several ways in which this could be dealt with, and different societies may vote to do it differently. While I'm not sure that it would necessarily be best to reward first-time artists, those releasing their debuts and so on, and as such it would be necessary for them to perform other labour inasmuch as they wish for things not classified as 'basic necessities' (a certain amount of food, water, electricity, shelter, appliances, etc), or these basic necessities beyond a given amount. On the other hand, they could survive without doing so, and either way the work required will probably not be that long, especially as socialist society develops and we get closer to eliminating poverty, which would also serve to expand the workforce due to previously starving people now being capable of work (although this is, of course, not the main motivation for eliminating poverty). Perhaps a clause could be put in place which allows artists who become well-known to be 'hired' by society based on democratic decision, allowing them a certain degree of compensation for their work in labour credits. An alternative system is one of donations; while this could encourage music being made for the sake of being popular and hence resulting in an income, some societies may adopt it, if only as a temporary measure.

Also, just to clarify, socialists call for the abolition of value.

[WeAreReborn]

In terms of Anarchist-Communist beliefs, you don't put value on a job. A farmer isn't any greater or lesser then say a doctor because both are necessary for a sustainable and healthy commune. In terms of a musician, unless agreed upon by your specific commune, you would probably pursue a different line of work. After all, it is shown you would have to work a lot less so you would have plenty of time to make music. However, it is on an individual basis in most situations and shouldn't be overgeneralized. In terms of what you are good at, it would just take some consideration and planning. If you are absolutely horrible at plumbing and don't show any progress of improving, then chances are the commune will look for a new plumber and the aforementioned plumber should pursue something else. Like I mentioned above though, it is all based on the commune due to situational basis and to give more freedom. And just to clarify, the labor credits mentioned by ZeroNowhere isn't very Anarchist-Communist and it is more Collectivist due to the elimination of value and currency. It is just a middle man standing between what the goods that the people need.

[ZeroNowhere]

Perhaps, but 'anarcho-communism' is hardly the only form of anarchist communism, and labour credits nonetheless involve the abolition of commodity production and hence value.

[∞]

Also, just to clarify, socialists call for the abolition of value.

How do you abolish value?

[ZeroNowhere]

By abolishing generalized commodity production, so that production is production of use-values alone, rather than of commodities (that is, use-values with exchange-values, and hence values). This is accomplished by making labour directly social.

[WeAreReborn]

Perhaps, but 'anarcho-communism' is hardly the only form of anarchist communism, and labour credits nonetheless involve the abolition of commodity production and hence value.

They eliminate value but they still are based off of how many hours you work. So if it is only necessary to work say 4-5 hours and you work 8 hours to get ahead and get more items it starts looking more like capitalism.

[PoliticalNightmare]

That's what management's for. In jobs which don't involve management (although building does), presumably the work done is mostly individual, in which case complaints may be made about the person in question.

As regards 'skilled labour', it'd probably be possible to also grant compensation for the time spent training, and, if necessary, rates of compensation could also be increased somewhat for jobs which require more people than have volunteered to take part, as well as jobs which are dangerous or perhaps those viewed as especially vital.

Regarding musicians, I think that there are probably several ways in which this could be dealt with, and different societies may vote to do it differently. While I'm not sure that it would necessarily be best to reward first-time artists, those releasing their debuts and so on, and as such it would be necessary for them to perform other labour inasmuch as they wish for things not classified as 'basic necessities' (a certain amount of food, water, electricity, shelter, appliances, etc), or these basic necessities beyond a given amount. On the other hand, they could survive without doing so, and either way the work required will probably not be that long, especially as socialist society develops and we get closer to eliminating poverty, which would also serve to expand the workforce due to previously starving people now being capable of work (although this is, of course, not the main motivation for eliminating poverty). Perhaps a clause could be put in place which allows artists who become well-known to be 'hired' by society based on democratic decision, allowing them a certain degree of compensation for their work in labour credits. An alternative system is one of donations; while this could encourage music being made for the sake of being popular and hence resulting in an income, some societies may adopt it, if only as a temporary measure.

This is all good, but the problem is it essentially requires upon the masses to decide what is good labour and what is not. For instance I don't like the thought that uneducated non-musicians would get to decide that they don't like my music just because it's classical, for instance. A lot of youngsters now a day just listen to the same old repetitive non-stop dribble. Also, a commune may decide that a builder is doing a good job but they have no objective way of knowing what the exact value of his labour is therefore it is difficult to know what he is entitled to. People may begin to get fed up with the fact that they essentially get an equal ratio of goods as their neighbour when they do a better job than he does. If this happens they may begin to produce less as a result of equal shares and then this would mean less productivity happens and is therefore less easy to provide for the masses. This is just the logical loophole that keeps coming up in debates I have and it is difficult to get my head around this.

As for management how does that make the workers necessarily do a good job? Is it possible to fire someone under anarchism if they are bad at their job? Under a worker's co-operative would this entail the workers colluding to chuck someone out?

By no means take this to be in favour of money as I think this also entails people to get more value's worth than is fair in exchange for their work.

Cheers

[ZeroNowhere]

They eliminate value but they still are based off of how many hours you work. So if it is only necessary to work say 4-5 hours and you work 8 hours to get ahead and get more items it starts looking more like capitalism.
Not really, inasmuch as labour is directly social, and the capital-relation is non-existent; one may as well say that the production of food rendered something similar to capitalism. Certainly, it's not a particularly notable trait of capitalism that people who work more earn more; rather, it's generally the opposite. On the other hand, there wouldn't be crises, the falling rate of profit would have disappeared with the rate of profit in general, and past labour would no longer rule over living labour, so that production would be under human, democratic control. So quite different.

Also, I think that it would probably be beneficial to apply a labour-credit cap (ie. a cap in the amount of labour credits one may earn in a given amount of time) in order to prevent overwork; however, I don't have much of a problem with a person working more within a fairly healthy time-limit in order to consume more, or similarly somebody else not doing so because they don't have as many things to get, or indeed somebody not working at all and living on basic necessities, as a hermit and such may.


This is all good, but the problem is it essentially requires upon the masses to decide what is good labour and what is not. For instance I don't like the thought that uneducated non-musicians would get to decide that they don't like my music just because it's classical, for instance. A lot of youngsters now a day just listen to the same old repetitive non-stop dribble.I concur on the last sentiment; however, it would seem folly to reward everybody who sat down with an instrument for a while (for example, Zarach 'Baal' Tharagh). It's also possible, I suppose, that we don't compensate bands and such, but compensate people who play for major orchestras and the like. Ultimately it'd have to be decided democratically, but to be honest I don't have much a problem with most artists not receiving compensation, as I think that art in some form is something which everyone should take part in if human society is to thrive fully in both body and soul, and as such it would seem best if most people could, as well as art, put time into some labour, allowing others more free time. On the other hand, if they're especially busy at some time (eg. with recording an album), they're probably not going to need to consume much other than basic necessities (food, water, appliances, shelter, some degree of electricity, quite possibly a couple of books over a given time period, etc) for the time period, and therefore work would only have to be short if it were done at all.

However, when it comes to major orchestras and such, I suppose that a case may be made for them, being 'public' organs, receiving compensation for their duties.


As for management how does that make the workers necessarily do a good job? Is it possible to fire someone under anarchism if they are bad at their job? Under a worker's co-operative would this entail the workers colluding to chuck someone out?I think that it would be alright for worker-elected and recallable managers to make sure that people were working in line with requirements; this would be best for the workers as well as the rest of society, inasmuch as collective labour requires the smooth functioning of all of its various organs, and as such a directing authority to ensure this would prevent a worker from, say, slacking off a bit and thus punishing the other workers, as well as keeping work in line with what is necessary. I think that it would be acceptable for the to at least expel people from the workplace if they were persistently underworking without good reason, after which the final decision could perhaps be made through direct democracy by the workers involved. If a manager were judged to have made too many bad decisions, they could be recalled. If a workplace consistently underperformed, this would probably be taken up on a wider, social level.

[WeAreReborn]

Not really, inasmuch as labour is directly social, and the capital-relation is non-existent; one may as well say that the production of food rendered something similar to capitalism. Certainly, it's not a particularly notable trait of capitalism that people who work more earn more; rather, it's generally the opposite. On the other hand, there wouldn't be crises, the falling rate of profit would have disappeared with the rate of profit in general, and past labour would no longer rule over living labour, so that production would be under human, democratic control. So quite different.

Also, I think that it would probably be beneficial to apply a labour-credit cap (ie. a cap in the amount of labour credits one may earn in a given amount of time) in order to prevent overwork; however, I don't have much of a problem with a person working more within a fairly healthy time-limit in order to consume more, or similarly somebody else not doing so because they don't have as many things to get, or indeed somebody not working at all and living on basic necessities, as a hermit and such may.

Makes sense enough.. But I still don't understand the overall benefit or the superiority that labour credits have over take what you need. It just seems like a useless method. So I agree it is much better the capitalism etc. It just seems like it is unnecessary.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Makes sense enough.. But I still don't understand the overall benefit or the superiority that labour credits have over take what you need. It just seems like a useless method. So I agree it is much better the capitalism etc. It just seems like it is unnecessary.

What I don't get about 'From each to one's ability to each to one's need' is how many people are actually going to voluntarily provide their hard earned goods to a commune so that others may just take what they want regardless of whether they even actually work?

I envision something more along the lines of; you provide your goods and services to a worker's commune, which all workers have equal and open access to manage, in return for a fair share of goods and services organised by said commune. All communes would be linked only by a very simple basic social code (not to harm others) and could freely trade with each other. More labour would result in higher reward, but an accurate means of measuring this labour is necessary, hense why I started the thread. I don't think that a doctor, for instance, is necessarily entitled to more reward than a cleaner. What I do think is that effort should go rewarded most as opposed to skill. Worker's who work the hardest, not the most skilled receive more goods and services from society. I don't think this would result in capitalism because of the equal distribution of property and the fact that no worker would have control over means of production. In essence the hardest worker would just have more luxury items. Those who are disabled, mentally sick or genuinely unable to work would be guaranteed with provisions from communes. Is this an accurate portrayal of how communes would function under anarchism?


I concur on the last sentiment; however, it would seem folly to reward everybody who sat down with an instrument for a while (for example, Zarach 'Baal' Tharagh). It's also possible, I suppose, that we don't compensate bands and such, but compensate people who play for major orchestras and the like. Ultimately it'd have to be decided democratically, but to be honest I don't have much a problem with most artists not receiving compensation, as I think that art in some form is something which everyone should take part in if human society is to thrive fully in both body and soul, and as such it would seem best if most people could, as well as art, put time into some labour, allowing others more free time. On the other hand, if they're especially busy at some time (eg. with recording an album), they're probably not going to need to consume much other than basic necessities (food, water, appliances, shelter, some degree of electricity, quite possibly a couple of books over a given time period, etc) for the time period, and therefore work would only have to be short if it were done at all.

This is true and you are right of course that producing music does not provide the same quality of service to society that, say, building a bridge or saving a patient's life would. However if you associate my music example to all walks of life in that it can be fearful to provide the masses to decide what is good labour and what is not, particularly without some reliable form of measuring labour value.

[RedMaterialist]

I'm still new to most of this so please bare with me whilst I ask questions which have unbearably obvious answers to.

I am trying to get my head around Ludwig von Mises' economic calculation argument at the moment which basically criticises (for the most part, moneyless) socialism on the premisise that there is no objective 'socially-accepted' means of calculating the value of produce.

Actually, there is an objective, socially accepted means of calculating the value of 'produce' or commodities. As Marx said, it is the market. Every day the market place (except in the case of monopolies) determines the prices of commodities; these prices are their true "value." These commodities are sold at their true value. The cost of producing the commodities, however, is less than their true value.

Thus: Selling price (which is the true value, calculated by the market) = Cost of labor + cost of materials (plus any other cost such as utilities, rent, etc.) + the value added to the product by labor.

The capitalist pays for everything except the value added by labor. He pockets the difference when he sells the product at its true value, determined or calculated by the market.

Socialism says that workers should control the total value which they produce, i.e. workers should sell their own product at its true value and pocket the profit for themselves. Advanced socialism says the entire society of producing individuals owns this profit. And they do with it what they want. If some people are sick or too old, too young then they get part of the profit. If you don't work, like Sarkozy, then you don't eat.

[WeAreReborn]

What I don't get about 'From each to one's ability to each to one's need' is how many people are actually going to voluntarily provide their hard earned goods to a commune so that others may just take what they want regardless of whether they even actually work?

I envision something more along the lines of; you provide your goods and services to a worker's commune, which all workers have equal and open access to manage, in return for a fair share of goods and services organised by said commune. All communes would be linked only by a very simple basic social code (not to harm others) and could freely trade with each other. More labour would result in higher reward, but an accurate means of measuring this labour is necessary, hense why I started the thread. I don't think that a doctor, for instance, is necessarily entitled to more reward than a cleaner. What I do think is that effort should go rewarded most as opposed to skill. Worker's who work the hardest, not the most skilled receive more goods and services from society. I don't think this would result in capitalism because of the equal distribution of property and the fact that no worker would have control over means of production. In essence the hardest worker would just have more luxury items. Those who are disabled, mentally sick or genuinely unable to work would be guaranteed with provisions from communes. Is this an accurate portrayal of how communes would function under anarchism?

Well "From each to one's ability, to each one's needs." Is a more Marxist view then an Anarcho-Communist one. As said by Peter Kropotkin, "The Right to Well-Being:Well-Being For All!" or "All if for all!" He rejects the Marxist quote and thinks that the amount or the degree of the labour shouldn't be judged. Anarcho-Communists just feel that as long as you contribute say 3-4 hours a day of work that benefits the community you shall have the right to take what you need regardless of the kind of work. In terms of trading, that isn't an Anarchist-Communist ideal in the strictest sense of the meaning of trading. Trading is placing a value on an object then exchanging it for another object of preferable equal value. What "trading" would look like is you give what you can afford, and if one feels like they wish to give something back they can, but aren't obligated to. Same could be said with Communes and their relationships with one another.

[ZeroNowhere]

Well "From each to one's ability, to each one's needs." Is a more Marxist view then an Anarcho-Communist one.Technically, it's a quote from Louis Blanc which Marx only brought up to point out the necessary conditions for its application, and that it could not be applied immediately under communist society.


He rejects the Marxist quote and thinks that the amount or the degree of the labour shouldn't be judged.But that's not even the point of that Blanc quote; Marx's point in quoting it is precisely that it can probably not be immediately applied, because we shall need a stage of labour credits immediately after the revolution, and lasting for some amount of time unless certain conditions (eg. labour becoming not just a means of life, but life's prime want) allow it to be replaced by 'from each... to each...'.


Socialism says that workers should control the total value which they produce, i.e. workers should sell their own product at its true value and pocket the profit for themselves.
No, that's just capitalist co-operatives. As long as you maintain commodities, so that most production is production of not only use-values, but also values, you're maintaining capitalism and all of the problems that come with it. Of course, if all of the profits enter the workers' personal consumption, as wages, then you also get a stagnant capitalism without accumulation (purely simple reproduction). This first means some degree of bother for producers of machines and other things which form fixed capital (their continued reproduction assumes accumulation as a necessary corrolary), and secondly that you then go on to get out-competed and look silly.


Every day the market place (except in the case of monopolies) determines the prices of commodities; these prices are their true "value."Actually, they're not, but rather generally fluctuate around their prices of production (ie. cost-price + average rate of profit).


However if you associate my music example to all walks of life in that it can be fearful to provide the masses to decide what is good labour and what is not, particularly without some reliable form of measuring labour value.To be honest, I think that in most cases it would be sufficient to give compensation for the labour-time involved, and perhaps also an initial compensation taking into account the training required to qualify for a job such as, say, being a doctor or endodontist. Generally, I think that higher compensation would probably be due more to undergoing dangerous work, for example, than due to the 'quality' of work. Incidentally, there's an interesting model offered here (http://deleonism.org/v1.htm) by a member whose username on this forum is 'mikelepore'.


Thus: Selling price (which is the true value, calculated by the market) = Cost of labor + cost of materials (plus any other cost such as utilities, rent, etc.) + the value added to the product by labor.Technically speaking, the cost of labour-power is also value added to the product by labour, whereas rent is paid out of surplus-value rather than constant capital.


If you don't work, like Sarkozy, then you don't eat.This sounds harsh. "You don't work? Well, then go and die."


Same could be said with Communes and their relationships with one another.Wouldn't the geographic limits of these communes mean that, if they are indeed autonomous, exchange must be carried out on a regular basis due to various needs which cannot be satisfied due to the limits of the communes' borders?

[Dean]

The calculation problem is worthless since Mises has no way to calculate the value - or potential lack thereof - of having the market versus socialist calculation:

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

[WeAreReborn]

Technically, it's a quote from Louis Blanc which Marx only brought up to point out the necessary conditions for its application, and that it could not be applied immediately under communist society.

But that's not even the point of that Blanc quote; Marx's point in quoting it is precisely that it can probably not be immediately applied, because we shall need a stage of labour credits immediately after the revolution, and lasting for some amount of time unless certain conditions (eg. labour becoming not just a means of life, but life's prime want) allow it to be replaced by 'from each... to each...'.

Well, no sarcasm intended, thanks for shedding light on that I always thought those were Marx's own words. Also I am aware of the transitions so that does make a bit of sense as an immediate and temporary measure after the revolution. But obviously abolishing them would be the desired end.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Actually, there is an objective, socially accepted means of calculating the value of 'produce' or commodities. As Marx said, it is the market. Every day the market place (except in the case of monopolies) determines the prices of commodities; these prices are their true "value." These commodities are sold at their true value. The cost of producing the commodities, however, is less than their true value.


Could I have more detail please? It's just 'the market' seems a little vague. For instance under modern day society, businesses sell products at the price they have calculated to maximise profit. This is not necessarily (as you correctly identify) the correct price. Businesses with large amount of capital can suffocate smaller businesses by selling their product at cheaper values, often exploiting the labour value of their employers to do so.

However it is the demand for profit that influences the price value. Under a socialist system, I presume that values would originate from the cost of material + cost of labour + cost added to labour as you explained to me. However, how does one calculate the labour value elements?

Cheers.

[Armchair War Criminal]

Actually, there is an objective, socially accepted means of calculating the value of 'produce' or commodities. As Marx said, it is the market. Every day the market place (except in the case of monopolies) determines the prices of commodities; these prices are their true "value." These commodities are sold at their true value. The cost of producing the commodities, however, is less than their true value.

Thus: Selling price (which is the true value, calculated by the market) = Cost of labor + cost of materials (plus any other cost such as utilities, rent, etc.) + the value added to the product by labor.

The capitalist pays for everything except the value added by labor. He pockets the difference when he sells the product at its true value, determined or calculated by the market.
This is almost right. Value is not price (exchange-value), although prices tend toward value in equilibrium. Value itself is determined technically, or nearly so.