Subscribing to the Labour Theory of Value

[Jeremiah Dyke]

I have read that many Marxist scholars have abandoned the labour theory of value while still maintaining their Marxist roots, would you say there is an equal division among the leftist camps over this issue, or do the majority of leftist camps still subcribe?

[Broletariat]

I'm pretty sure the LTV is the basis of all Marxist economic analysis.

What Marxists scholars are you talking about specifically?

[Niccolò Rossi]

I have read that many Marxist scholars have abandoned the labour theory of value

My emphasis added...

Don't you think this is kind of the problem?

Nic.

[core_1]

Is there a middle ground that suggests that Labour is one of a few factors that influence value?

I also don't think the idea of surplus value and worker exploitation completely rests on the LTOV

[Zanthorus]

I have read that many Marxist scholars have abandoned the labour theory of value while still maintaining their Marxist roots, would you say there is an equal division among the leftist camps over this issue, or do the majority of leftist camps still subcribe?

I'm not sure about the numbers, but there basically seem to be three sorts of positions you'll find. The two which are the majority are either (1) that the LTV is bunkum and Marxism would do better by taking up some type of analysis taking from bourgeois economics such as Walrasian equilibrium analysis or (2) the LTV is correct but Marx's own theory as it stands is somehow logically defective and needs to be 'corrected'. The distinct minority unfortunately but obviously the best of the bunch are those who hold that the 'inconsistencies' and logical defincies are read into Marx, when Marx's theory of value is interpreted in the correct way all of Marx's propositions then follow logically from his premises and there is no need for any corrections or reversions to some other form of analysis. This group are those who hold to the 'Temporal Single-System Interpretation' of value theory and include people like Andrew Kliman (Who, for the record, agrees with Niccolo Rossi that the problem is the nature of the academy and Marxist scholars trying to use Marx's reputation to push forward their own research projects rather than undertaking an honest analysis of his work) and Alan Freeman.


I'm pretty sure the LTV is the basis of all Marxist economic analysis.

Not necessarily. You don't need LTV to follow up to the point where capitalism is a historically specific mode of production characterised by the different branches of the division of labour carrying out their work independently of each other for their own private account, and where the products of labour only become social through the mediation of the value-form. Also, Marx's analysis of the circuits which money goes through during the circulation process is pretty comprehensible without LTV, as well as the corresponding idea that money can be used for hoarding. The latter analysis has been used by Post-Keynesians (Thinking here of Steve Keen) to try and revive Keynes' theory on a more solid basis (Keynes critique of Says Law is fairly incoherent, whereas Marx's critique is clear, simple and practically irrefutable). However, when you've accepted the fact that value is the medium through which labour becomes social in capitalist society, you'd need to do a bit of jumping through hoops to get away from Marx's idea that social labour-time is the substance of value.


What Marxists scholars are you talking about specifically?

A lot of 'Analytical Marxism' comes to mind. The latter had a thing for using ideas like rational choice theory and general equilibrium as being superior to the 'obscure', 'hegelian' concepts used by Marx.


Is there a middle ground that suggests that Labour is one of a few factors that influence value?

Steve Keen's theory of value which he actually tries to half-attribute to Marx through some gross misinterpretation and logical loop the loops is a vague theory of value which suggests that the quantity known as 'value' described by classical political economy exists, but its constituents are both human labour and nature, and both labour and the means of production contribute to the generation of surplus-value.


I also don't think the idea of surplus value and worker exploitation completely rests on the LTOV

I don't see how this is the case. Certainly in terms of surplus-value, Marx's analysis rests on the LTV. Otherwise labour could not be the only source of surplus-value, and the analysis of absolute and relative surplus-value extraction, how capitalists are forced to either extend the working-day or make the cost of living cheaper in order to make workers spend more of the working-day producing value for them, would be redundant.

[Kotze]

This is not an issue that is resolved by staring at the wall thinking really hard, but by looking at data. Labour value ratios, despite all the complications from supply and demand and monopolies, correlate very well with price ratios. It was wrong of Marx to make such a big deal out of equalisation of profit rates.
The distinct minority unfortunately but obviously the best of the bunch [O RLY?] are those who hold that the 'inconsistencies' and logical defincies are read into Marx, when Marx's theory of value is interpreted in the correct way all of Marx's propositions then follow logically from his premises and there is no need for any corrections or reversions to some other form of analysis. This group are those who hold to the 'Temporal Single-System Interpretation' of value theory and include people like Andrew KlimanOh, that guy. It's been a couple of years since I encountered Andrew Kliman's "Temporal Single-System Interpretation" that "solves" the transformation problem; I hardly remember the details, but unless he has completely rewritten his TSSI, my verdict is this and all I shall say about the subject:

Imagine a Scooby-Doo spin-off with 2 new characters, Karl and Andy. At the end of each episode, right before the mask is pulled from the fake monster to reveal the villain underneath, both Karl and Andy make a prediction. Karl is right in the vast majority of cases. Andy is right even more often, and takes pride in the fact. Karl makes predictions like this: "I bet it is Mr Eriksson, the disagreeable fisherman." Whereas Andy makes predictions like this: "I bet it's the same person that chased us a minute ago!"

[Zanthorus]

This is not an issue that is resolved by staring at the wall thinking really hard, but by looking at data.

Except to begin with logically inconsistent theories cannot possibly be correct, and the data amassed on the subject only shows correlation not causation (If indeed it even shows that), so I think it is worth the time to show that the theory is not logically inconsistent.


despite all the complications from supply and demand and monopolies,

I'm not sure how any complications could arise with the LTV from supply and demand and monoplies. If a firm sells it's product at over it's price, then other firms will lose out and their prices will be pushed below values, meaning that the aggregate equality total price = total value is maintained. Supply and demand is just a mechanism for the apportionnment of societies labour-time to certain branches of production in order to satisfy social wants, so it's also difficult to see what 'complications' could arise here. Of course, if you take the Ricardian view that the LTV describes prices rather than social relations (As opposed to Marx who is quite clear on distuinguishing between value and price), then I suppose it could throw a spanner or two in the works. That would only be another good reason to abandon the Ricardian theory of value and embrace the Marxist one.

[ZeroNowhere]

The LTV isn't a matter of data, though. The data is largely irrelevant. There's a reason why Marx didn't base his adherence to the labour theory of value on statistical analysis.


I don't see how this is the case. Certainly in terms of surplus-value, Marx's analysis rests on the LTV. Otherwise labour could not be the only source of surplus-value, and the analysis of absolute and relative surplus-value extraction, how capitalists are forced to either extend the working-day or make the cost of living cheaper in order to make workers spend more of the working-day producing value for them, would be redundant.
As far as I know, such ideas of surplus-value minus value generally come down to, "Well, 'value' is a metaphysical category, but we can certainly agree that the workers produce more wealth than they consume." Of course, said wealth is expressed in money, despite the workers not, at least in their concrete labour, producing money. Through money, said wealth may also be expressed in all other commodities, hence becoming wealth as such, that is value. Wait a minute.

[S.Artesian]

I

Not necessarily. You don't need LTV to follow up to the point where capitalism is a historically specific mode of production characterised by the different branches of the division of labour carrying out their work independently of each other for their own private account, and where the products of labour only become social through the mediation of the value-form. Also, Marx's analysis of the circuits which money goes through during the circulation process is pretty comprehensible without LTV, as well as the corresponding idea that money can be used for hoarding. The latter analysis has been used by Post-Keynesians (Thinking here of Steve Keen) to try and revive Keynes' theory on a more solid basis (Keynes critique of Says Law is fairly incoherent, whereas Marx's critique is clear, simple and practically irrefutable). However, when you've accepted the fact that value is the medium through which labour becomes social in capitalist society, you'd need to do a bit of jumping through hoops to get away from Marx's idea that social labour-time is the substance of value.



I don't see how this is the case. Certainly in terms of surplus-value, Marx's analysis rests on the LTV. Otherwise labour could not be the only source of surplus-value, and the analysis of absolute and relative surplus-value extraction, how capitalists are forced to either extend the working-day or make the cost of living cheaper in order to make workers spend more of the working-day producing value for them, would be redundant.


First, the basis for all of Marx's "economic" analysis is the social relationship of production, which is the separation of the producers from the means of production, the opposition of labor to the conditions of labor.

This core historical process results in, and is compressed in, the organization of labor as a commodity, as wage-labor. Everything in Marx's critique of capital is derived from the existence of labor as a commodity; labor reproducing its own value in less time than the total working day.

If we regard the labor theory of value as somehow separate and apart from that, we wind up, eventually, discarding all aspects of the "immanent" critique of capital; and most importantly, the transformation of the immanent critique into class struggle, into the self-generated struggle for the abolition of capital.

Basing our analysis on this social relation of wage-labor to capital, of labor to property, we can't say OTOH "that the labor theory of value" is not essential to Marx's critique and then OTOH argue that surplus-value is essential to the reproduction of capital. For Marx, neither exists without the other, as he demonstrates in his economic manuscripts.

[Zanthorus]

S.Artesian, I don't disagree with you that the main points of Marx's analysis cannot be derived without the Labour Theory of Value. I was merely pointing out that some people can and have taken bits and pieces of Marx's analysis (Usually bits and pieces which aren't particularly crucial to Marx himself) without accepting the overall framework.

[S.Artesian]

OK, that's cool. I was just trying to elucidate how, if we separate the economic category, "labor theory of value," from the historical relations of production that generate the theory, thereby allowing us to jettison the theory by ignoring the relations, we essentially "gut" Marxism of its revolutionary content.

[Luís Henrique]

A Marxist that abandoned the LTV is like a Christian who no longer believes Jesus died to save us.

A Marxist that abandoned the LTV is also a person who never understood the LTV.

It is difficult to figure out how can someone not understand it, it is pretty straightforward.

The labour of an average human being is able to produce more than it takes for the survival (and reproduction) of the average human being. Thence, if historically labour power comes to be a commodity, its value is lesser than the value it produces when it is used. The difference is called "surplus value" (and such term has no meaning outside of LTV). What's so difficult to aprehend here, and why do so many people try to invent different theories to explain what is so obvious?

Luís Henrique

[syndicat]

The labour of an average human being is able to produce more than it takes for the survival (and reproduction) of the average human being. Thence, if historically labour power comes to be a commodity, its value is lesser than the value it produces when it is used. The difference is called "surplus value" (and such term has no meaning outside of LTV).

well, this is not correct. LTV is a cost of production theory of market prices. the distinction between "Value" and "exchange value" is based on the classical economics notion of a "natural" price around which the various fluctuations of prices are focused.

a difficulty with this theory is that it is not an integrated theory of all market prices. that's because, as Marx was well aware, minerals and terrain and fishes in the sea have market value but their value isn't produced by labor. Marx says that land rent is based on whatever the owner can get a willing buyer to pay. but this is true of all market prices.

let's put aside the LTV as a theory of prices for a moment. it is still possible, then, to note that the market value of the commodities produced by labor is less than the remuneration received by workers. you can then define "surplus value" as the difference. hence you do not need to presuppose LTV to make this observation. this observation is consistent with any theory of prices...such as the Sraffian view that prices are set as a cost-plus markup on the prices of all the factors of production.

moreover, the mere observation that there is "surplus value," in the sense just defined, does not show that any exploitation is involved. obviously the capitalist apologists will say that the capitalists make a "contribution" and their take from the surplus is pay back for this. this isn't refuted by the LTV.

[Zanthorus]

it is still possible, then, to note that the market value of the commodities produced by labor is less than the remuneration received by workers. you can then define "surplus value" as the difference.

This isn't what 'surplus-value' is in Marx's theory. Surplus-value is the revenue accrued by the capitalist over the initial capital advanced at the beggining of the production process. In terms of the circuit of capital M - C - M', where M represents money and C represents commodities, surplus value is the difference between M and M'. Hence your assertion that...


the mere observation that there is "surplus value," in the sense just defined, does not show that any exploitation is involved. obviously the capitalist apologists will say that the capitalists make a "contribution" and their take from the surplus is pay back for this. this isn't refuted by the LTV.

...is false. The means of production and raw materials (What I assume you mean by the 'contribution' hypothesised by the apologists) only transfer their value to the finished product, and no excess on top. The portion of the value recieved at the end of the process represented by the MoP and raw materials only pays for what was advanced at the beggining of the production period. The profit made by the capitalist during the process, the difference between M and M', is a value in excess of the capital advanced, value which can only come from labour (Since labour is the source of value).

And the LTV is not a theory of prices, it is a theory of the social relations of capitalist production.

[syndicat]

The means of production and raw materials (What I assume you mean by the 'contribution' hypothesised by the apologists) only transfer their value to the finished product, and no excess on top. The portion of the value recieved at the end of the process represented by the MoP and raw materials only pays for what was advanced at the beggining of the production period. The profit made by the capitalist during the process, the difference between M and M', is a value in excess of the capital advanced, value which can only come from labour (Since labour is the source of value).

you've not shown any exploitation is involved. "exploitation" is a term of ethical appraisal. it means that somone has gained an illegitimate benefit by taking advantage of someone else. the condition that allows this is the class subordination of workers, being forced to work for the capitalists. so you have a logical gap you need to fill.

also, the inference in your last sentence above is logically invalid. why can't the market value come from something other than labor? why can't one hold that machines create more value than is embodied in their cost?

so you have yet another logical gap in your argument.

[S.Artesian]

well, this is not correct. LTV is a cost of production theory of market prices. the distinction between "Value" and "exchange value" is based on the classical economics notion of a "natural" price around which the various fluctuations of prices are focused.

a difficulty with this theory is that it is not an integrated theory of all market prices. that's because, as Marx was well aware, minerals and terrain and fishes in the sea have market value but their value isn't produced by labor. Marx says that land rent is based on whatever the owner can get a willing buyer to pay. but this is true of all market prices.

let's put aside the LTV as a theory of prices for a moment. it is still possible, then, to note that the market value of the commodities produced by labor is less than the remuneration received by workers. you can then define "surplus value" as the difference. hence you do not need to presuppose LTV to make this observation. this observation is consistent with any theory of prices...such as the Sraffian view that prices are set as a cost-plus markup on the prices of all the factors of production.

moreover, the mere observation that there is "surplus value," in the sense just defined, does not show that any exploitation is involved. obviously the capitalist apologists will say that the capitalists make a "contribution" and their take from the surplus is pay back for this. this isn't refuted by the LTV.


Once again, once you excise the economic categories from the social relations of production, then it's a snap to conclude "the mere observation that there is surplus value does not show that any exploitation is involved....and this isn't refuted by the LTV" unless of course you show, as Marx does in his critique of Ricardo, that such a LTV can't account for surplus value and at the same time really be a labor theory of value.

And this:


a difficulty with this theory is that it is not an integrated theory of all market prices. that's because, as Marx was well aware, minerals and terrain and fishes in the sea have market value but their value isn't produced by labor. Marx says that land rent is based on whatever the owner can get a willing buyer to pay. but this is true of all market prices.

is just not accurate. At all. Minerals, fishes in the sea, wild animals don't have a market value until and unless they are brought to market. They have use values which can be taken and absorbed in direct consumption, but the process of establishing an exchange value, a market value, means transforming the useful article into a commodity. That it may be easier to execute that transformation due to "natural" conditions of fertility gets "accounted for" in the distribution of profit by the mechanism of price.

Marx's theory of ground-rent does not proclaim that there is a "bid-offer" process that determines prices of agricultural commodities. . Marx's theory of ground rent-- which certainly has some problems-- maintains that in agricultural production price is determined by the least efficient producer, that "excess profit" accrues to the dearer production not the cheaper, and that rent does not allow the agricultural products of the least efficient producer to exchange at prices above its value, but rather to exchange at a price equal to its value.

[syndicat]

whatever. you acknowledge that Marx did not have an integrated theory of prices, but had to invoke ad hoc separate hypotheses. this is like physics before Newtown, which invoked separate theses to explain a variety of phenonmena whose explanation was integrated in Newtonian mechanics.

also, terrain and mineral rights can be sold without being improved by human labor.

[ZeroNowhere]

it is still possible, then, to note that the market value of the commodities produced by labor is less than the remuneration received by workers.So, basically, the wealth as such (20 yards of linen = $20 = 1 coat = 50 hamburgers = etc) produced by the labourers is less than the wealth as such represented by their wages. If they produce 50 doors, which may be exchanged for 2 lamps, four pillows, $100, etc, and receive an amount of money, $50, worth 25 doors, 1 lamp, 2 pillows, etc, then they are exploited, according to this. Now, if they had worked for half the time, and produced 25 doors, hence produced $50 (the capitalist doesn't care about the doors except inasmuch as they may be exchanged for other commodities), then the capitalist, despite their contribution or lack of it, would have not made a profit. So, basically, we have escaped into the prison.


a difficulty with this theory is that it is not an integrated theory of all market prices. that's because, as Marx was well aware, minerals and terrain and fishes in the sea have market value but their value isn't produced by labor.Not at all. The labour theory theory of value deals with commodities produced by labour, and the laws which these tend to follow. If you wish to attack it, you're best off attacking it as regards these commodities, rather than other saleable use-values which do not follow these laws.

[syndicat]

there's also a further problem with the LTV. as pointed out by GA Cohen, it is logically inconsistent. this is clear if we draw out the implication of Z.'s sentence about the value of commodities over and above costs being created by labor. the idea is that the labor that created the commodity is embodied in its price. unfortunately, this is inconsistent with another feature of the LTV. for Marx, prices don't correlate with the actual hours to produce them. they correlate with the hours it would currently take to produce them given the now prevailing technical production conditions. so if an expensive commodity is produced at time T1 but shortly thereafter that industry adopts technical changes that lower the prices prevailing, then the sale of that commodity at time T2 will no longer correlate to the hours actually "embodied" in it.

[ZeroNowhere]

So, basically, "What determines value is not the amount of labour time incorporated in products, but rather the amount of labour time necessary at a given moment.”

Strange that Marx didn't notice that.

[Zanthorus]

you've not shown any exploitation is involved. "exploitation" is a term of ethical appraisal. it means that somone has gained an illegitimate benefit by taking advantage of someone else. the condition that allows this is the class subordination of workers, being forced to work for the capitalists. so you have a logical gap you need to fill.

Marx notes in chapter 6 of Capital, 'The Buying and Selling of Labour-Power', that the condition for the production of surplus-value is the existence of the 'free labourer', free in the double sense that they are not tied to the capitalist through any relation of personal dependence (Slavery, serfdom and other similar relations), and that they are 'free' of the possession of means of production, subsistence and raw materials necessary to carry out production by themselves. The dispossesion of the producing class from the means of production forces them to sell their labour-power as a commodity on the market and establishes a relation of material dependence between the capitalist and wage-labourer. Surplus-value cannot be the immediate cause of the subordination of the working to the employing class since it's production presupposes such a subordination.

On the other hand we can only make sense of the continuation of this subordination within capitalism in terms of surplus-value. Since within capitalist production the worker recieves the value of his labour-power which he then consumes, he is forced back on to the labour market. The capitalist, on the other hand, continually appropriates surplus-value and expands his enterprise. The products of the workers' labour become the means for their own domination and subordination to capital. Even if we assume the economic fiction that the initial sum of money advanced by the capitalist comes from the product of his own sweat and brow, we can see that after a certain period this initial capital advanced will consist entirely on the produce of the working-class. For example, if we take a situation of simple reproduction where the capital advanced each year is £10,000, of which £2,000 goes towards wages, with a rate of surplus-value of 100%, the surplus-value accrued each year will be £2,000. After five years the capitalist will have accumulated a surplus of £10,000, and the original sum advanced will have been completely replaced by value produced by the working-class.


also, the inference in your last sentence above is logically invalid. why can't the market value come from something other than labor? why can't one hold that machines create more value than is embodied in their cost?

From the nature of value as the common magnitude represented by exchangeable commodities, we can see that this magnitude must represent a common substance which each commodity is reducible to. What is common to all is their status as the products of labour. During this labour-process, it is true, a certain amount of means of production are used. But these means of production do not move magically by themselves, they function as extensions to the organism of the labourer, adaptations of his own individual and social powers, as instruments through which the labour of the workers is conducted onto the raw material.

The idea that labour is the substance of value comes out more clearly when we examine the historical preconditions for the existence of value relations. For individuals to produce exchange-values, the products they produce must be use-values not to themselves but to other individuals, that is, social use-values. Labour which creates social use-values is social labour, and presupposes a social division of labour which forces individuals to rely on the production of society to satisfy their needs. However, only in certain instances of the social division of labour to the products of society appear as exchangeable values. These instances are where the various branches of the social division of labour carry out production independently of one another and for private account. In such instances, the products of labour become social through the medium of the value-form. Value serves as the substance which undertakes the natural necessity common to every society of apportioning out the labour-time of society to different branches of production in order to serve social wants. As the medium through which labour becomes social labour, we can see clearly that the essence of value is labour. In fact, to say that the substance of value becomes a tautology, which is equivalent to saying that the substance of social labour is social labour.

[Kotze]

I'm not sure how any complications could arise with the LTV from supply and demand and monoplies.Reading the whole sentence you partially quoted might help you there.
if you take the Ricardian view that the LTV describes prices rather than social relationsI claim it describes both. Labour values are attractors for market prices, even though there are a few sectors where distortions even hold in the long-run (like the oil biz).

[turquino]

there's also a further problem with the LTV. as pointed out by GA Cohen, it is logically inconsistent. this is clear if we draw out the implication of Z.'s sentence about the value of commodities over and above costs being created by labor. the idea is that the labor that created the commodity is embodied in its price. unfortunately, this is inconsistent with another feature of the LTV. for Marx, prices don't correlate with the actual hours to produce them. they correlate with the hours it would currently take to produce them given the now prevailing technical production conditions. so if an expensive commodity is produced at time T1 but shortly thereafter that industry adopts technical changes that lower the prices prevailing, then the sale of that commodity at time T2 will no longer correlate to the hours actually "embodied" in it.
The word embodied creates confusion which is why I don't like using it. Value can't be materialized in a commodity because socially necessary labour is what it needed for reproduction, meaning the social labour required for producing commodities that don't exist yet. In Grundrisse Marx says, "Thanks to the exchange of equivalents, the condition for reproduction is obtained; in other words, the product itself provides, through this intermediary, the possibility of renewing productive activity."

It's better to think of value as relation of claims to the social product individually called wages, rent, profits etc. This relation of claims is the object fought over in class struggle, and constitutes the foundation of Marxist historical materialism.

[ZeroNowhere]

Value can't be materialized in a commodity because socially necessary labour is what it needed for reproduction, meaning the social labour required for producing commodities that don't exist yet.Value is determined by the socially necessary labour time required at a given time. Commodities are generally produced at a given time.

For example, let's say that the value of a given commodity were to decline. This would happen with, for example, an increase in productivity. Why would it happen? Precisely because somebody has produced with this increased productivity, and therefore is able to sell his commodities for less than their prevailing value, due to producing them under the average necessary labour-time. The value itself would alter as a result of other capitalists adopting his techniques due to competition. In that case, it's not entirely clear how the alteration in value was caused by 'commodities which don't exist yet'. Without the productivity gain actually being put into action, that is a capitalist actually producing commodities with lower necessary labour-time, it's not like the mere existence of technology that could allow this would cause a fall in value. Or, rather, it would, but only as a result of capitalists adopting it.


It's better to think of value as relation of claims to the social product individually called wages, rent, profits etc. This relation of claims is the object fought over in class struggle, and constitutes the foundation of Marxist historical materialism. Value hasn't existed through most of history, so it's not clear how it would constitute the foundation of historical materialism.

[syndicat]

There are other problems with LTV as a theory of exploitation. it assumes that the exploiter is only the capital owner, owner of the M which is invested in production. but there is also a bureaucratic class of managers and high-end professionals that preside over the planning and labor process in firms. Some of the work this class does would be needed even under a classless reorganization of production but these tasks would be organized differently (being controlled by the workers) and much of the work of this class is needed only as a kind of police or discipline function or in other ways peculiar to capitalism. This bureaucratic bloat is one of the inefficiencies of capitalism.

Because this class of managers and high-end professionals have authority over workers, participate in their control, and receive a premium for this in the form of higher wages and other perks, they are sucking down illegitimate benefits based on a system of class oppression, and are thus participating in exploitaton.

but this exploitation is not captured by LTV which assumes an over-simplified framework of only labor and capital.


From the nature of value as the common magnitude represented by exchangeable commodities, we can see that this magnitude must represent a common substance which each commodity is reducible to.

again, this is an invalid inference. why would market value "represent" a "substance"? this is metaphysical bullshit.

[syndicat]

So, basically, "What determines value is not the amount of labour time incorporated in products, but rather the amount of labour time necessary at a given moment.”

Strange that Marx didn't notice that.


Marx was aware that prices change. for example, when a capitalist firm invests in labor-saving equipment, it can lower its prices, in order to better compete. what happens is that what is that the labor time technically necessary to produce commodity X then is lowered. but prices are at that point still correlating with the old standard. so that firm can scarf up a temporary monopoly profit. once the other firms catch up. the lower labor time needed to produce X becomes generalized. but at that time there are still products in the market that may have been produced under the old technical standard. it doesn't matter that more hours of labor time are "embodied" in those products. they must sell at the lower price if they are to sell. so labor time and hours "embodied" in products do not always coincide. hence if you define "value" as "embodied labor hours" it won't account for the exchange ratios.

this brings out the inconsistency between two interpretations of LTV, as "value is the labor embodied in products" and "value is the time it would currently take to produce the products under existing techical conditions".

these two interpretations are logically inconsistent, as GA Cohen points out. of course, some people treat Marx's writing as something akin to Holy Writ so they will flay about trying to salvage 19th century notions.

[Kotze]

Value hasn't existed through most of historySocially necessary labour time hasn't existed through most of history?

[turquino]

Value is determined by the socially necessary labour time required at a given time. Commodities are generally produced at a given time.

For example, let's say that the value of a given commodity were to decline. This would happen with, for example, an increase in productivity. Why would it happen? Precisely because somebody has produced with this increased productivity, and therefore is able to sell his commodities for less than their prevailing value, due to producing them under the average necessary labour-time. The value itself would alter as a result of other capitalists adopting his techniques due to competition. In that case, it's not entirely clear how the alteration in value was caused by 'commodities which don't exist yet'. Without the productivity gain actually being put into action, that is a capitalist actually producing commodities with lower necessary labour-time, it's not like the mere existence of technology that could allow this would cause a fall in value. Or, rather, it would, but only as a result of capitalists adopting it.
Value determines what gets produced in the future. Abstract labour acts to coordinate the movement of capital. Let’s say a capitalist’s commodity is made at time T0 when the value of the commodity in the market was 5 (this is a big simplification). Then it is sold at T1, but instead of selling for 5 like commodities did in T0, an increase in a competitor’s productivity has caused the market value to fall to 4. The commodity has to be sold for 4 and the capitalist loses out by 1 relative to the market average. The abstract labour for reproducing that commodity has fallen to 4, and capital will either have to invest in technology to improve its productivity to compete, or else leave the industry for another.

Value hasn't existed through most of history, so it's not clear how it would constitute the foundation of historical materialism.
Engels suggested that commodities of craftsmen exchanged at their labour value for 7000 years, however there are a few reasons to doubt that. Nevertheless, what I meant was that value is a relation of claims to the social product in a society of independent producers, but of course historically there have been other kinds of claims on the social product like tribute to kings and the corvée. In societies where the productive forces have advanced to the point where the conditions of class society have been created, where a surplus is appropriated to support a class of nonproducers, there will be a struggle over the relations of appropriation (of the social product) between the various classes.

[S.Artesian]

whatever. you acknowledge that Marx did not have an integrated theory of prices, but had to invoke ad hoc separate hypotheses. this is like physics before Newtown, which invoked separate theses to explain a variety of phenonmena whose explanation was integrated in Newtonian mechanics.

also, terrain and mineral rights can be sold without being improved by human labor.

No, not "whatever." You're incorrect in your interpretation of LTV and Marx's theory of rent. I don't acknowledge any such thing-- that Marx did not have an integrated theory of prices. If you actually read his critique of Ricardo, you'll see that Marx has a very integrated theory of price-- of price as the distributive mechanism in capital-- apportioning the socially available surplus among the "hostile brothers" of capitalism.

And we've had this discussion about minerals and terrain before. As in that prior case, look at how you even phrase the issue-- "terrain and mineral rights can be sold..."

Rights are a function of private property, and the auction process, for example in rights, leases to oil properties, is driven by the estimated cost of production and the profit that can be realized through the marketing of the extracted oil.

In the recent [year old] auction of oil rights in Iran, most of the original bids were rejected based on their over-estimation of production costs, for which the bidders were demanding reimbursement.

The oil in those areas has no value in its "natural," latent state.

[syndicat]

the existence of commodity production itself presupposes private ownership of commodities.


Rights are a function of private property, and the auction process, for example in rights, leases to oil properties, is driven by the estimated cost of production and the profit that can be realized through the marketing of the extracted oil.

In the recent [year old] auction of oil rights in Iran, most of the original bids were rejected based on their over-estimation of production costs, for which the bidders were demanding reimbursement.

The oil in those areas has no value in its "natural," latent state.

you're contradicting yourself. i wasn't claiming that oil or terrain have a price independent of social organization, and, in particular, independent of the system of commodity production.

what your comment above shows is that the oil itself, prior to any labor exerted to remove it, does have a price. of course the price that firms will bid for it will be based on their estimates of costs of extraction, refining, transport etc. so, what? the point is it does have a price that is not a reflection of a labor cost of production since (1) the price paid for the oil is over and above any labor costs of extraction, refining, transport, and (2) is prior to that labor taking place.

[S.Artesian]

the existence of commodity production itself presupposes private ownership of commodities.



you're contradicting yourself. i wasn't claiming that oil or terrain have a price independent of social organization, and, in particular, independent of the system of commodity production.

what your comment above shows is that the oil itself, prior to any labor exerted to remove it, does have a price. of course the price that firms will bid for it will be based on their estimates of costs of extraction, refining, transport etc. so, what? the point is it does have a price that is not a reflection of a labor cost of production since (1) the price paid for the oil is over and above any labor costs of extraction, refining, transport, and (2) is prior to that labor taking place.

The rights to the oil have a price, because the oil exists in an area defined by private property. The price is derived from an expected cost, and an expected profit upon production.

All this is, is another form of a futures contract. The commodity itself has no value until is extracted. Then the price of the extracted commodity can deviate from its value, and from the price in the futures contract.

If there is no production, for whatever reason, then the person selling the contract has to take any offsetting position in another contract or pay, out of pocket, the amount stipulated in the contract. In either case no value is obtained from the oil, the corn, the gold, the silver, etc.

Part of Shell Oil's problem several years ago is that it valued the oil in areas it had leased at market prices, when in fact Shell had not complied with the terms of the leases and developed the fields, actually producing any oil. Shell's rights had expired. The "underlying value" of the oil no longer existed, because the underlying value of the oil was based on expected production by a certain date.

[syndicat]

The rights to the oil have a price, because the oil exists in an area defined by private property. The price is derived from an expected cost, and an expected profit upon production.


again, you're contradicting yourself. that's because with any commodity you can buy it only if the right to it is for sale. when we say that things have market value, we're assuming you have the ownership right. in the capitalist legal framework, this includes right to exclude others, right to control its use, right to rent it, and right to sell it. this is true for all commodities.

if someone simply inherits timber or land, they can gain money capital by selling it and then investing this in a business, hiring workers and the rest of Marx's M-C-M' process. so the terrain and the land are things that can be sold and money gained from it, and thus they have market value, even tho not produced by labor. of course the value they have is within the capitalist economic framework. but the point is it is value not produced by labor.

[S.Artesian]

again, you're contradicting yourself. that's because with any commodity you can buy it only if the right to it is for sale. when we say that things have market value, we're assuming you have the ownership right. in the capitalist legal framework, this includes right to exclude others, right to control its use, right to rent it, and right to sell it. this is true for all commodities.

if someone simply inherits timber or land, they can gain money capital by selling it and then investing this in a business, hiring workers and the rest of Marx's M-C-M' process. so the terrain and the land are things that can be sold and money gained from it, and thus they have market value, even tho not produced by labor. of course the value they have is within the capitalist economic framework. but the point is it is value not produced by labor.


"Inherits" is, again, a property relation. If one inherits private property, which by definition exists as alienable property under capitalism, yes one can obtain money from it. But a forest is not naturally property, it does not naturally have value. A coal seam is not innately value. You are ascribing value to something as a naturally occurring quantity, rather than a social quality.

According to your argument, the gold that may or may not exist somewhere as yet unknown has a value.

A value can be assigned to gold or oil in anticipation of their extraction, but without the extraction there is no value.

Rent is the means by which land is transformed from a natural to an economic, social category, but without that pre-existing relation there is no value in land, and thus no rent.

What is the value of land outside the relations of private property?

[ZeroNowhere]

but this exploitation is not captured by LTV which assumes an over-simplified framework of only labor and capital.Except that it's perfectly compatible with rent, etc; in other words, with capital distributing the product which accrues to it in various ways.


Socially necessary labour time hasn't existed through most of history?We weren't talking about socially necessary labour time. Unless one is going to argue that, as exchange-value is the "necessary mode of expression" of value, exchange-value is also necessarily present in all forms of society involving socially necessary labour-time.


this brings out the inconsistency between two interpretations of LTV, as "value is the labor embodied in products" and "value is the time it would currently take to produce the products under existing techical conditions".
In either case value is determined by abstract labour-time, and as values they remain "merely congealed quantities of homogenous human labour, i.e. of human labour-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure." That is, even if the value of a product falls due to a fall in the socially necessary labour-time, it nonetheless remains an expression of a certain amount of human labour-time, and hence of abstract human labour, in other words labour-power expended without regard to the form of its expenditure. Socially necessary labour-time is precisely the amount of labour which must be expended in order to produce a product, so that the value of a commodity being expressed in such essentially means treating it as a product of human labour in general, that is in the abstract. In that case, if the socially necessary labour-time for a commodity falls from 6 to 5 hours, and the value of the commodity with it, this means that it is now treated as a product of 5 hours of abstract human labour, and hence represents 5 hours of labour-time as such expended, rather than the 6 which were in fact expended. In either case, however, it expresses a given amount of abstract labour-time, and is indistinguishable in value from the newer products; all that it tells us is that it represents an expenditure of 5 hours of labour as such. As a value, it represents an expenditure of 5 hours of labour, and is as such indistinguishable from the new products produced in less time. Marx was quite clearly not arguing that, if a person happened to produce for 50 hours in order to produce something which only required 1, their product would then represent 50 hours of labour expended rather than simply 1, and the same principle applies here.


these two interpretations are logically inconsistent, as GA Cohen points out. of course, some people treat Marx's writing as something akin to Holy Writ so they will flay about trying to salvage 19th century notions.Of course; fortunately, since the 19th Century, we have discovered logic.

Really, though, these things are rather basic. Now, imagine that I were foraging around on a beach for food. If I found a rock, I would hardly stop to eat it. However, imagine that I lived in a society where I could exchange, say, 1 rock for 5 cakes. In that case, I would definitely pick up the rock, even though I want food. I would then exchange it for the cakes and thereby have a lot of cakes. However, this economy is not only based upon cakes and rocks, but, for example, 5 cakes may be exchanged for 2 sausages, which may be exchanged for 4 doors, which may be exchanged for 50 pebbles. In that case, 1 rock = 5 cakes = 2 sausages = 4 doors = 50 pebbles. In other words, they are all worth the same, in other words they represent equal amounts of wealth; if I had 2 rocks, I would have twice the wealth, in other words twice the amount of every other commodity. It is also clear here that, rather than a rock, I could just as well pick up 4 doors, 2 sausages, 50 pebbles, and so on; all that matters is that they are equivalent to 5 cakes. Picking up 4 doors is essentially the same to me as picking up 1 rock, as I don't really care about either the door or the rock, but rather only the amount of wealth which they represent. Now, it is also clear that the commodity which I pick up, and which represents my supply on the market, must also represent my demand; my demand is for 5 cakes, and hence I must pick up the equivalent to 5 cakes. 1 rock, 2 sausages, 4 doors or 50 pebbles all simply represent 5 cakes to me, and their individual form does not matter. All of these things are simply expressions of the 5 cakes. Indeed, one could say that I was effectively picking up 5 cakes, could one not?

[syndicat]

"Inherits" is, again, a property relation. If one inherits private property, which by definition exists as alienable property under capitalism, yes one can obtain money from it. But a forest is not naturally property, it does not naturally have value. A coal seam is not innately value. You are ascribing value to something as a naturally occurring quantity, rather than a social quality.

According to your argument, the gold that may or may not exist somewhere as yet unknown has a value.

A value can be assigned to gold or oil in anticipation of their extraction, but without the extraction there is no value.

Rent is the means by which land is transformed from a natural to an economic, social category, but without that pre-existing relation there is no value in land, and thus no rent.

What is the value of land outside the relations of private property?

you're not paying attention...or you're getting desperate. either way, it's obvious that nature has value in the capitalist economic framework, even tho not produced by labor. as Marx recognized.

[ZeroNowhere]

you're not paying attention...or you're getting desperate. either way, it's obvious that nature has value in the capitalist economic framework, even tho not produced by labor. as Marx recognized.
This is not true.

"In considering the forms of appearance of ground-rent, ie. the lease-price that is paid to the landowner under this heading for the use of the soil, whether for productive purposes or those of consumption, we must keep in mind, finally, that the prices of things that have no value in and of themselves - either not being the product of labour, like land, or which at least cannot be reproduced by labour, such as antiques, works of art by certain masters, etc. - may be determined by quite fortuitous combinations of circumstances. For a thing to be sold, it simply has to be capable of being monopolized and alienated."
Capital, Vol. III. (pg. 772 of Fernbach translation)

[Kiev Communard]

The key fact in labour theory of value is the recognition that for all other products and resources to be consumable they have to be either extracted (raw materials) or processed (manufactured goods), so without the resource that prepares them for consumption (i.e. labour force of people working with or upon them) they can't exist as use-values at all. You can't make use of oil well, if it lacks surrounding infrastructure created by co-ordinated human labour, for instance.

[Oswy]

I'm pretty sure the LTV is the basis of all Marxist economic analysis.

...

I don't think it has to be.

I think it can be reasonably argued that it is the fact of alienation from the land and its resources, through private property, and which leads to inevitable wage-labour exploitation (or starvation) of those so dispossessed, which lies at the root of Marxist economic analysis.

I'm not saying the LTV argument doesn't have legs, but making the link between private property, alienation and subsequent exploitation of those alienated, is, in my view, a pretty watertight starting point. Indeed the good thing about this orienation is that all wage-labour under the private-property/capitalist paradigm is inevitably exploitative because it is based on that fact of alienation, no matter how well paid someone might be for whatever work they're able to secure.

[S.Artesian]

you're not paying attention...or you're getting desperate. either way, it's obvious that nature has value in the capitalist economic framework, even tho not produced by labor. as Marx recognized.

Saying it's so doesn't make it so. You claim that minerals, natural resources, wild life, have value which is not a result of the labor process.

If that is the case, then such value is a quality separate and apart from the realization of that value in market exchange, as in fact, is the case with commodities produced by capitalism. So what is the source of that value? How does that value come to be embedded in seals, squid, and rare earth elements?

Yes, objects of nature can be assigned a price based on an anticipated value in a capitalist economic framework. Anything-- like antiques, archeological artifacts, fossils can be assigned a price-- which represents a claim against already existing socially available or surplus.

Your argument, which you are now trying to rescue by claiming "obviously nature has value in the capitalist economic framework" was that the fossils have value outside that framework, that framework being the organization of labor as wage-labor for the aggrandizement of surplus-value.

[ZeroNowhere]

I think it can be reasonably argued that it is the fact of alienation from the land and its resources, through private property, and which leads to inevitable wage-labour exploitation (or starvation) of those so dispossessed, which lies at the root of Marxist economic analysis.

I'm not saying the LTV argument doesn't have legs, but making the link between private property, alienation and subsequent exploitation of those alienated, is, in my view, a pretty watertight starting point. Indeed the good thing about this orienation is that all wage-labour under the private-property/capitalist paradigm is inevitably exploitative because it is based on that fact of alienation, no matter how well paid someone might be for whatever work they're able to secure.Except that then you basically have to state, in the last analysis, that the labourer alienates wealth unto capital, and profits originate from labour producing more wealth, in monetary terms for example (and hence in terms of all commodities; if $1 = 2 doors = 3 backpacks, then $2 = 4 doors = 6 backpacks), than it receives in wages. In which case we essentially have to come back to the labour theory of value anyhow. All labour under capitalism is alienation, yes, but what is it alienation of? Essentially, of wealth as such; it is the alienation of commodities to the capitalist to whom they do not represent use-values, and therefore rather simply represent a given amount of potential wealth in other commodities, potentially in any other commodity. Labour is abstract labour; that is, as far as the capitalist is concerned, it does not alienate specific use-values so much as abstract wealth, an amount which may be exchanged for a given amount of all other commodities, and indeed such is its purpose.



The key fact in labour theory of value is the recognition that for all other products and resources to be consumable they have to be either extracted (raw materials) or processed (manufactured goods), so without the resource that prepares them for consumption (i.e. labour force of people working with or upon them) they can't exist as use-values at all. You can't make use of oil well, if it lacks surrounding infrastructure created by co-ordinated human labour, for instance. Well, Marx does say that some things may have prices despite not having values. In that case, it's precisely the fact that they do not have value that causes their price to be determined as it is. Similarly, monopoly goods would not necessarily correspond to their value, as the law of value is enforced through competition, although I suppose that this would count as another supposed fatal flaw.

[Oswy]

Except that then you basically have to state, in the last analysis, that the labourer alienates wealth unto capital, and profits originate from labour producing more wealth...

But if I'm simply answering the question:



Why is capitalism exploitative of wage-labourers?

I think it is enough to show:



private property > alienation > exploitation.

The technicalities don't matter, in my view, if all we're looking to establish is the fact of capitalism being exploitative of wage-labourers. By any reasonable standard, if someone was to arbitrarily claim (and was capable of claiming) the air we breath and tell us we're allowed to breath only if we give them a blow-job every day, only the most self-deceiving of libertarians would deny that as an exploitative relationship. The advantage is that you don't have to get bogged down in technical discussion of the LTV, you just have to show that under any reasonable definition of 'exploitation', capitalism is so, because it removes from the many their own power to provide for their needs and renders them utterly reliant on the whims of private-property/capitalists to ask for, or refuse, their wage-labour as 'compensation' for their undeniable alienation.

[syndicat]

If that is the case, then such value is a quality separate and apart from the realization of that value in market exchange, as in fact, is the case with commodities produced by capitalism. So what is the source of that value? How does that value come to be embedded in seals, squid, and rare earth elements?



the basis of its value, and indeed of anything that can be sold, is its usefulness to humans, and thus the desires of potential buyers. but I didn't say its value was prior to the realization of that value in sale. if someone buys a piece of land, that is a realization of its market value, which was estimated or potential prior to sale.

[S.Artesian]

the basis of its value, and indeed of anything that can be sold, is its usefulness to humans, and thus the desires of potential buyers. but I didn't say its value was prior to the realization of that value in sale. if someone buys a piece of land, that is a realization of its market value, which was estimated or potential prior to sale.

No, you did say that value was prior to realization of that value in sale. You said minerals had value even though they weren't produced by human labor, and when we continued the discussion you changed it to mineral rights had value.

Value in a commodity, the embedded labor time, exists whether or not the value is realized; whether or not the product finds a buyer in the market who regards the commodity as useful enough to exchange an equivalent of exchange value for the use value of the commodity.

The usefulness of a product does not determine its value in exchange. Anything can have a use value. Those any things only have value under certain specific social relations.

Does undiscovered oil have a use value? Sure. So what? Does a turkey raised by a subsistence rural producer have use value? Certainly. Does the undiscovered oil, or the turkey raised and consumed for subsistence have an exchange value? Not unless and not until it's brought to market. Until it's no longer raised for direct consumption, or until it's discovered and can be, or is expected to be able to be, extracted.

Then we begin the process of calculating exactly how much exchange value is embodied in the usefulness of the commodity.

Minerals, like the turkey, have no such value when they are not produced for the purposes of exchange.

The price we assign to land, mineral rights, or turkeys, like a futures contract, appears as a claim on anticipated value, and becomes, in fact, a claim on existing value.

[syndicat]

Utility exists prior to sale of land or mineral rights and that is a form of value. Market price is not determined by utility alone. Market price is determined by utility to buyer together with relative market power of buyer and seller. Otherwise you can't explain how monpolization of markets effects market prices. Or how the power of the capitalists, through their class monopoly over the means of production, together with the relative level of militancy, consciousness and organizatonal strength of workers, determines price of labor power. the LTV is an obsolete 19th century construct.

[S.Artesian]

Utility exists prior to sale of land or mineral rights and that is a form of value. Market price is not determined by utility alone. Market price is determined by utility to buyer together with relative market power of buyer and seller. Otherwise you can't explain how monpolization of markets effects market prices. Or how the power of the capitalists, through their class monopoly over the means of production, together with the relative level of militancy, consciousness and organizatonal strength of workers, determines price of labor power. the LTV is an obsolete 19th century construct.


Re LTV: Again, saying it's so does not make it so.


Use-value exists. We agree. Use-value exists for objects that are not commodities, that are not produced as commodities. We agree.

But neither the land, nor the mineral rights are purchased for their use-value. They are purchased for the anticipated exchange value that can be extracted by capitalizing the land and the minerals-- by introducing them to the expanded reproduction of capital.

We disagree. Value is not determined by use-value. The price for the mineral rights is not established by its inherent qualities of hardness, malleability, luster, ductility, conductivity, etc.

The price is determined by the social conditions of production, and by the anticipated time of reproduction of the capital consumed in the production of the commodity plus a measure of profit. This is Marx's cost-price of the commodity.

We can anticipate this; we can assign a price to the cost of finding and extracting the mineral not yet discovered or extracted. The mineral itself does not have a value until it becomes the repository, so to speak, of the time spent on discovery and extraction.

Again, think of this as nothing other than a futures contract. It appears as a claim against future production. It becomes a claim on immediate production.

Zanthorus, Zero Nowhere-- do you see what I'm getting at? I feel a tinge of despair creeping in.

[syndicat]

Value is not determined by use-value. The price for the mineral rights is not established by its inherent qualities of hardness, malleability, luster, ductility, conductivity, etc.

The price is determined by the social conditions of production, and by the anticipated time of reproduction of the capital consumed in the production of the commodity plus a measure of profit.

Utility is a form of value. Market price is its market value. But I didn't say price is determined solely by utility. I said it is determined by the relative power of the buyer and seller and the amount they are willing to pay, which depebnds on perception of the profit they can make through its acquisition. A piece of fertile farm land will sell at a higher price than wasteland unless there is some other use that would enable that piece of land to generate profit. so the potential profit to be made does create an upper bound on price because a capitalist will not pay an amount to buy the land or mineral rights that can't be recovered, plus profit. but this doesn't require LTV to understand.

[S.Artesian]

Utility is a form of value. Market price is its market value. But I didn't say price is determined solely by utility. I said it is determined by the relative power of the buyer and seller and the amount they are willing to pay, which depebnds on perception of the profit they can make through its acquisition. A piece of fertile farm land will sell at a higher price than wasteland unless there is some other use that would enable that piece of land to generate profit. so the potential profit to be made does create an upper bound on price because a capitalist will not pay an amount to buy the land or mineral rights that can't be recovered, plus profit. but this doesn't require LTV to understand.

Emphasis added, obviously.

So what determines that "higher price"? Profit. Profit from what? Profit from putting the land into production. And how is land put into production? Through the application of labor, through, in fact, the aggrandizement of surplus-value.

The value you think you see in the land, belonging to the land in itself, is only a reflection, an image of the value derived from the capitalization of the land through labor.

So while in "common sense" terms you think LTV is not required, to actually apprehend the social relations that determine this expression of land and value, yeah you better understand LTV.

[syndicat]

The value you think you see in the land, belonging to the land in itself, is only a reflection, an image of the value derived from the capitalization of the land through labor.

you mean market value, as opposed to utility.



So while in "common sense" terms you think LTV is not required, to actually apprehend the social relations that determine this expression of land and value, yeah you better understand LTV.

we can say, however, with the Sraffians, that prices derive from cost-plus markups on the costs of all the inputs to production, within capitalism. no need to invoke 19th century LTV to understand prices (market value).

and, again, Marx's labor time accounting scheme is a gross over-simplification. it leaves out great differences in remuneration to different workers, and it leaves out an entire exploitative class, the bureaucratic class. their "work" is "required" only by the development of the capital accumulation process, to control labor and planning.

[S.Artesian]

you mean market value, as opposed to utility.



we can say, however, with the Sraffians, that prices derive from cost-plus markups on the costs of all the inputs to production, within capitalism. no need to invoke 19th century LTV to understand prices (market value).

and, again, Marx's labor time accounting scheme is a gross over-simplification. it leaves out great differences in remuneration to different workers, and it leaves out an entire exploitative class, the bureaucratic class. their "work" is "required" only by the development of the capital accumulation process, to control labor and planning.

Again, saying it's so doesn't make it so. You can say anything you want with Sraffians, but at the end you're right back at the spot where Marx begins his criticism of those who think value is created in the market, and profit is realized, by selling above the value of the commodity.

What I think I have shown is that your claim that minerals, resources, etc. have a value without labor-time being embedded in them is in fact based upon exactly the anticipation of labor-time being applied.

As for gross simplification, the iterations, or differential manifestations of the critical relationship, its mediations, are inherent in the relationship itself, just like the deviation of price from value is inherent in the production of commodities of, by, and for, the accumulation of capital.

It's not Marx's "job" to account for every variation on the theme.

[syndicat]

Again, saying it's so doesn't make it so. You can say anything you want with Sraffians, but at the end you're right back at the spot where Marx begins his criticism of those who think value is created in the market, and profit is realized, by selling above the value of the commodity.


you're begging the question, as usual. what is "the value of the commodity"? it is either its utility or its market price.

Profit is realized when revenue is greater than expenses in production.

[YouSSR]

Syndicat it's obvious you haven't actually read Capital. If you have any real interest in learning (or anyone out there reading this) rather than stubbornly throwing out bullshit I'd suggest doing so.

[S.Artesian]

you're begging the question, as usual. what is "the value of the commodity"? it is either its utility or its market price.

Profit is realized when revenue is greater than expenses in production.

Saying it's so, doesn't make it so. Haven't begged any question. This is the first time you've asked that question. We were dealing with your contention that minerals etc. have value without embodying labor as demonstrated by the buying and selling of mineral rights.

Value is not market-price. Value with capitalism is the labor-time expended in the production of the commodity. Your argument is that no such oganization of labor as labor-time is necessary for the manifestation of value.

No shit, profit means revenues are greater than expenses? Who would have thunk? Which of course begs the question as how can revenues exceed expenses, how can capitalism expand if we're simply shifting revenues around? What determines the increment of profit? The invisible hand of the market? How are commodities even exchange in your scheme? By whim and desire? How does the use value of one commodity gets expressed in the exchange value of another commodity? "Free" buyers an sellers "appraising" worth, need?

[syndicat]

Syndicat it's obvious you haven't actually read Capital. If you have any real interest in learning (or anyone out there reading this) rather than stubbornly throwing out bullshit I'd suggest doing so.


oh i've read capital. more than once. i just don't agree with LTV anymore. but it seems you regard Capital as Holy Writ.
for a good critique of LTV i'd suggest reading "Unorthodox Marxism" by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel.


Value with capitalism is the labor-time expended in the production of the commodity.

are you putting this forth as a stipulative definition? if so, it has nothing in common with what "value" means in English. in English "value" refers either to the usefulness (utility) of something for somone (it's value to them, which would be expressed in terms of relative preferences), or else it's market value, that is, what it fetches on the market. Of course, I'm talking about value in the context of the existing capitalist system. we don't need your metaphysical concept of "value" to explain exploitation.

[YouSSR]

oh i've read capital. more than once. i just don't agree with LTV anymore. but it seems you regard Capital as Holy Writ.
for a good critique of LTV i'd suggest reading "Unorthodox Marxism" by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel.
Obviously not, or it was too complex for you, because this:


are you putting this forth as a stipulative definition? if so, it has nothing in common with what "value" means in English. in English "value" refers either to the usefulness (utility) of something for somone (it's value to them, which would be expressed in terms of relative preferences), or else it's market value, that is, what it fetches on the market. Of course, I'm talking about value in the context of the existing capitalist system. we don't need your metaphysical concept of "value" to explain exploitation.
literally is the LTV. It doesn't matter what the definition is in "english" (which is a meaningless statement and a poor attempt at semantics squabbling), in the LTV value has a very specific definition which you have to acknowledge and refute. You have yet to do either and this, combined with your misunderstanding of "socially necessary", which is another absolutely basic feature of LTV, makes me think you aren't even serious.

Doesn't this forum have like 80 mods? Why do all my posts have to be approved while this drivel is allowed in a forum for learning?

[syndicat]

in the LTV value has a very specific definition which you have to acknowledge and refute.

a stipulative definition can't be "refuted" because it is neither true nor false. it is merely a statement of an intention to use a word to mean a certain thing, as stipulated. if "value" is defined by stipulation to refer to socially necessary labor time, then the statement "value is socially necessary labor time" becomes a mere tautology, like saying, "A is A".

people who subscribe to LTV also confuse the metaphysical statment "value of a commodity is the labor time embodied in it" with "value is the labor time that is necessary to produce it under currrently prevailing technical conditions." these two interpretations are logically inconsistent, as GA Cohen has shown. it's only the first, metaphysical, interpretation that allows one to say "labor creates all value."

[YouSSR]

a stipulative definition can't be "refuted" because it is neither true nor false. it is merely a statement of an intention to use a word to mean a certain thing, as stipulated. if "value" is defined by stipulation to refer to socially necessary labor time, then the statement "value is socially necessary labor time" becomes a mere tautology, like saying, "A is A".

people who subscribe to LTV also confuse the metaphysical statment "value of a commodity is the labor time embodied in it" with "value is the labor time that is necessary to produce it under currrently prevailing technical conditions." these two interpretations are logically inconsistent, as GA Cohen has shown. it's only the first, metaphysical, interpretation that allows one to say "labor creates all value."

This is semantic gibberish. This thread should be about people like Andrew Kliman and David Harvey reclaiming LTV and Marxist economics in explaining the fall of the Soviet Union and the current economic crisis, not your personal ignorance of Marx.

If you want to actually cite GA Cohen, it would be quite interesting to criticize (and ultimately discredit), but you yourself are way out of your depth and don't really understand the arguments you're using.

btw since this is a learning forum, anyone out there who actually wants to learn about LTV and Marx's falling rate of profit law read Andrew Kliman's Reclaiming Marx’s “Capital“: A refutation of the myth of inconsistency. It articulates the criticisms of Marx syndicat poorly attempts to and then throughly refutes them.

[S.Artesian]

a stipulative definition can't be "refuted" because it is neither true nor false. it is merely a statement of an intention to use a word to mean a certain thing, as stipulated. if "value" is defined by stipulation to refer to socially necessary labor time, then the statement "value is socially necessary labor time" becomes a mere tautology, like saying, "A is A".

people who subscribe to LTV also confuse the metaphysical statment "value of a commodity is the labor time embodied in it" with "value is the labor time that is necessary to produce it under currrently prevailing technical conditions." these two interpretations are logically inconsistent, as GA Cohen has shown. it's only the first, metaphysical, interpretation that allows one to say "labor creates all value."


GA Cohen has "proven" nothing. Except perhaps his own inability to comprehend Marx's first 3 chapters in volume 1.

Re: value as the labor time embedded in the commodity-- since the capitalist, and the capitalists, produce privately, each and all, has and have no way of knowing beforehand what the socially necessary average, and it is an average of all producers, time of reproduction is for/at any one moment prior to bringing the commodity to market.

The value, as such, of their individual productions, is based on the costs or the time of reproduction of that individual commodity for that private capitalist.

The realization of value in the markets is a distributive, apportioning process that metes out portions of the total socially available surplus in accordance with that social average necessary time.

This ain't metaphysics-- it's the conflict between private property and social realization of the product of such property.