Valdyr
18th May 2012, 03:09
Hello all, I'm in a (visible) debate with a capitalist that has entered a territory I don't feel quite comfortable enough with the handle on my own, as it hinges on the labor theory of value and the Marxist concept of exploitation. We both seem to have figured out that going after each other's value theories gets to the core of the debate, as I've rebuffed the attacks on planning and I've savaged the classical liberal premises (in the form of their understandings of "freedom" and "coercion") with little in the way of response.
However, I think I'm a little too unclear on the LTV and its relationship to exploitation to respond to this, though I may just be tired. He appears to be arguing that since the capitalist can come up with an innovation that increases output with no change to labor time and yet gives them more profit, exploitation of labor can't be the source of profit.
Now, I can see how this isn't a knock-down against the LTV. After all, if there is a change in the method of production, then the socially necessary labor time for 1 unit of output decreases. So if people work on average 2 hours to produce 1 widget, the SNLT for a widget is 2 hours, but if there's an innovation in production that makes it so I can produce 2 widgets in 2 hours, then the SNLT for a widget is reduced to 1 hour. Where I'm murky, and I may just be having a braindead moment, is how the capitalist's increased profits in this case rely on exploitation. How does the extracted surplus increase even if the abstract value in terms of labor time of each unit has decreased?
Thanks in advance, sorry if it's a dumb question. Here's his post about this.
Suppose I own a business. I have several pushcarts and I use them to move bushels of wheat and other produce from village A to village B. My laborers move the carts by hand, so the farmers of village A can sell their produce to B. It’s a painfully slow journey, since the carts are rickety and the axels are grinding. I can only afford to make, say, one trip every week.
One day however, I get the amazing idea of lubricating the axels of my carts with a kind of superoil. Let’s call it WD40, just because. Doing this immensely facilitates the journey. The carts are now rolling so smooth that I can afford two trips every week in exactly the same amount of time!
So, my men are still working the exact same hours. The nature of their work remains exactly the same. Pushing carts. They make two trips instead of one, true. But because the carts run so much smoother now, their overall workload hasn’t increased.
Still, because I’m making two trips now, I make more money. I can give my workers a raise to keep them happy. I could give one keen and able fellow even more of a raise and make him a supervisor, so that I won’t have to do that job and can pursue other projects. The farmers of village A can sell more produce and make more money. The people of village B have access to more stuff.
Where does exploitation come into this picture? Only if labor somehow made the extra trip possible and generated the extra profits, then if I ran off with it, I would have been cheating my workers. Only, they didn’t make the extra trip and extra profits possible. I did. And in the real world, inventors, innovators and even halfway competent managers are the guys who make it possible.
To say then, that only labor can generate surplus wealth because greedy capitalists make workers produce more stuff than their labor is actually worth, is to say that surplus wealth can only be generated on the moon. For the whole idea is moonshine.
However, I think I'm a little too unclear on the LTV and its relationship to exploitation to respond to this, though I may just be tired. He appears to be arguing that since the capitalist can come up with an innovation that increases output with no change to labor time and yet gives them more profit, exploitation of labor can't be the source of profit.
Now, I can see how this isn't a knock-down against the LTV. After all, if there is a change in the method of production, then the socially necessary labor time for 1 unit of output decreases. So if people work on average 2 hours to produce 1 widget, the SNLT for a widget is 2 hours, but if there's an innovation in production that makes it so I can produce 2 widgets in 2 hours, then the SNLT for a widget is reduced to 1 hour. Where I'm murky, and I may just be having a braindead moment, is how the capitalist's increased profits in this case rely on exploitation. How does the extracted surplus increase even if the abstract value in terms of labor time of each unit has decreased?
Thanks in advance, sorry if it's a dumb question. Here's his post about this.
Suppose I own a business. I have several pushcarts and I use them to move bushels of wheat and other produce from village A to village B. My laborers move the carts by hand, so the farmers of village A can sell their produce to B. It’s a painfully slow journey, since the carts are rickety and the axels are grinding. I can only afford to make, say, one trip every week.
One day however, I get the amazing idea of lubricating the axels of my carts with a kind of superoil. Let’s call it WD40, just because. Doing this immensely facilitates the journey. The carts are now rolling so smooth that I can afford two trips every week in exactly the same amount of time!
So, my men are still working the exact same hours. The nature of their work remains exactly the same. Pushing carts. They make two trips instead of one, true. But because the carts run so much smoother now, their overall workload hasn’t increased.
Still, because I’m making two trips now, I make more money. I can give my workers a raise to keep them happy. I could give one keen and able fellow even more of a raise and make him a supervisor, so that I won’t have to do that job and can pursue other projects. The farmers of village A can sell more produce and make more money. The people of village B have access to more stuff.
Where does exploitation come into this picture? Only if labor somehow made the extra trip possible and generated the extra profits, then if I ran off with it, I would have been cheating my workers. Only, they didn’t make the extra trip and extra profits possible. I did. And in the real world, inventors, innovators and even halfway competent managers are the guys who make it possible.
To say then, that only labor can generate surplus wealth because greedy capitalists make workers produce more stuff than their labor is actually worth, is to say that surplus wealth can only be generated on the moon. For the whole idea is moonshine.