Do inventors and scientists create value?

[Comrade #138672]

What you're saying is no different from the "Businesses Create Jobs" mantra, an indirect capital theory of value, but it doesn't hold water, since without the labour supply or labour market the so-called “innovative entrepreneurs” who still need to hire for a profit cannot realize their innovations.

I can't see how what I say is no different from this mantra, because all I say here is that scientists in a lab do create new value with their brains just like assembly line workers do with their hands. The so called "entrepreneurial spirit" has obviously nothing to do with invention, and entrepreneurs may go to hell for all I care.Topic: http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-machines-produce-t177030/index.html

I believe this subject deserves its own topic. Both users raise a good point.

I wonder whether inventors and scientists produce value according to the labor theory of value, since they do not produce the actual commodities, but the laboratory can still be seen as some kind of factory.

[Lowtech]

This is worth discussing, however, make note that business does not create jobs, need creates jobs and entrepreneurs are not the same as scientists or engineers.

Also, it is undeniable the innovations scientists create are of great merit, however thier innovations have next to no economic value, as value is a physicality, not a social abstract. Thier innovations are of no use without materials and labor to realize thier utility.
The question then is: does the merit of innovation validate inflating production cost and paying inventors more than the economic value of thier inovations, creating artificial scarcity?

the answer is hell no it doesn't.

[Zulu]

does the merit of innovation validate inflating production cost and paying inventors more than the economic value of thier inovations, creating artificial scarcity?

It has not so much to do with the inventors themselves, as with the patent system (which violates the principles of the free market, by the way), and the patent holder is more often than not a completely different entity.

[Zulu]

(OK, I'll carry over some more of my comments from there and add a few new bits.)

Labor is conscious mental-muscular efforts aimed at creation of use-values.

New inventions and scientific discoveries create really huge amounts of value which under capitalism becomes part of the constant capital and is transfered onto countless items of means of production and items of consumption, practically ad infinitum, although with time and further technological progress the value of past inventions transferred onto new items becomes negligible.

The labor of scientists differs from that of manual workers and managers in that the latter are both socially necessary at any given technological level just to upkeep the society. And in fact, I think, without new inventions (and thus without the rise of the productivity of labor) accumulated capital is bound to reach the point when the manual and managerial labor would not create any new value at all, as it would all be spent on the upkeep (maintenance and replacement of the machinery and reproduction of the labor force). So in the long run the inventive labor is the only kind of labor that is responsible for the production of new value. On the other hand, science is not really necessary for the upkeep, and history shows many examples, when isolated societies reached a certain point of equilibrium and stagnated without major technological developments.

Of course, science is part of the general process of the social production, and cannot be regarded as some autonomous realm. It greatly depends on everyday practice as both the source of new ideas and the test field for their approbation. In fact, many improvements of technology were made by manual workers directly as a result of their practical creativity and desire to make their tasks easier and more labor-saving. This, however doesn't change the big picture, where significant amount of social wealth is created not by the proletariat but by the scientists, who largely belong to the petty bourgeoisie.

Nothing of this is relevant to the way the scientists "should be" remunerated in socialism, which is part of the general question of how all labor will need to be remunerated.

[helot]

Brains and hands have always been the first tools of the producer.

I don't understand how it can be claimed that inventors and scientists don't create value.

A lack of a physical object doesn't mean that value hasn't been created even if it needs other hands to realise it as a physical object. A commodity isn't necessarily a physical object nor is it necessarily its final form.

The geologist who, through extensive investigation, discovers the location of needed materials is as vital to production as those who extract those materials, those who transport them and those who work them into whatever form is needed. The geologist's investigation is a commodity. It possesses both a use and an exhange value.

[Zulu]

A lack of a physical object doesn't mean that value hasn't been created

If somebody needs a physical object to point to as "the goods", one can always point to a piece of paper with formulae and graphs drawn on it by a scientist, which is the way he'd communicate his discovery to the rest of the people anyway. The so called "services", including education and healthcare are in much deeper trouble proving that they create value, than science.

[helot]

If somebody needs a physical object to point to as "the goods", one can always point to a piece of paper with formulae and graphs drawn on it by a scientist, which is the way he'd communicate his discovery to the rest of the people anyway. The so called "services", including education and healthcare are in much deeper trouble proving that they create value, than science.

You are right. I'd say that education is harder than healthcare to prove value has been created. With healthcare you can easily draw the comparison to mechanics repairing machinery.

[Lowtech]

(OK, I'll carry over some more of my comments from there and add a few new bits.)

Labor is conscious mental-muscular efforts aimed at creation of use-values.the distinction between use-value and exchange-value is only relevant in the observation of a market based economy. economy striped to its bare process functions based on use-value alone. if you are given food, your contribution to the economy you participate in must also be in the form of food or in some other physical contribution that lends to the production of food in some indirect but still physical manner. if i handed you a recipe for pie, it is not magically the same value as an actual pie.
New inventions and scientific discoveries create really huge amounts of value which under capitalism becomes part of the constant capitalcapital does not exist in an economy without the burden of artificial scarcity. also value only enters the economy in the form of a usable commodity, and usable means directly filling a physical need: food, clothing, shelter, tools, anything with physicality, not a design on paper. if production cost is materials + labor + an abstracted value given to innovation, design, research etc, then you have created artificial scarcity, and therefore erroneously inflated production cost. this is only tolerable within a market based economy allowing the profit mechanism, and therefore artificial scarcity. a type of economy also known as capitalism.
... is bound to reach the point when the manual and managerial labor would not create any new value at allthe concept of "new value" as you've described is a capitalist contention and mathematically invalid. although innovation, design etc. is indispensable, it has no economic value, meaning even a design for a better home cannot itself shelter a human being, (unless you enjoy living in paper houses) it must be realized via labor and materials. you cannot mathematically validate artificial scarcity.
Nothing of this is relevant to the way the scientists "should be" remunerated in socialism, which is part of the general question of how all labor will need to be remunerated.under communism, all skill sets will be redesigned to best minimize waste. if a skill set consumes more value then it generates, it will be unified with another skill set or it will be eliminated all together via redesign of the production process.
Brains and hands have always been the first tools of the producer.

I don't understand how it can be claimed that inventors and scientists don't create value.

A lack of a physical object doesn't mean that value hasn't been created even if it needs other hands to realize it as a physical object. A commodity isn't necessarily a physical object nor is it necessarily its final form.a scientist's grand design for a new machine for example, is still just a design. if i handed him an apple and he handed me paper with his design described on it, he would have an apple and i would have paper. he can eat the apple. i can only utilize it in whatever way paper can be used, burning it for heat, making a paper plane, but nothing as useful as an apple. in fact, a blank piece of paper has more value that what he's given me. yes, i appreciate the new design, especially should it prove as innovative as the scientist promises, however it doesn't justify me being one apple less than i was before he gave me the used paper. i picked the apple, i should eat it or i should "trade" for something i can physically utilize, not utilize in an abstract sense. mathematically, this holds true even if we scale it up to encompass whole industries of production.
You are right. I'd say that education is harder than healthcare to prove value has been created. With healthcare you can easily draw the comparison to mechanics repairing machinery.value only exists as a physicality. just as fuel has value if the engine that can utilize it exists. if our engine only exists on paper, then the fuel cannot be utilized and therefore has no value. education can provide a means to better utilize value but it cannot itself produce value. education, design, innovation etc. have merit, however merit alone is not value.

[helot]

a scientist's grand design for a new machine for example, is still just a design. if i handed him an apple and he handed me paper with his design described on it, he would have an apple and i would have paper. he can eat the apple. i can only utilize it in whatever way paper can be used, burning it for heat, making a paper plane, but nothing as useful as an apple. in fact, a blank piece of paper has more value that what he's given me. yes, i appreciate the new design, especially should it prove as innovative as the scientist promises, however it doesn't justify me being one apple less than i was before he gave me the used paper. i picked the apple, i should eat it or i should "trade" for something i can physically utilize, not utilize in an abstract sense. mathematically, this holds true even if we scale it up to encompass whole industries of production. A scientist's investigation has a completely different use value to an apple, that is correct. Theres a potentially infinite amount of use values some you would regard as more important than others but that doesn't mean they lack utility.

A blank piece of paper has a specific utility and the designs for an invention have another.

I find it interesting how you've gone from claiming that scientists and inventors don't produce value to determining what use value you find more important.

A careful (re?)reading of Capital volume 1 chapter 1 would prove useful.

[Zulu]

although innovation, design etc. is indispensable, it has no economic value, meaning even a design for a better home cannot itself shelter a human being

By this argument only the end-user consumption items have economic value, which is obviously incorrect. Scientific theories and invention schematics are means of production, so they have value of their own, just like a crude chunk of ore, that has been just extracted by a miner has already acquired some value to it.





if production cost is materials + labor + an abstracted value given to innovation, design, research etc, then you have created artificial scarcity


I don't understand, where do you get this idea that artificial scarcity is created by attributing "abstracted value to innovation". Artificial scarcity is created by limiting access to innovation by passing and enforcing the patent and other "intellectual property rights" legislation, which is the sole cause for price inflation with regard to innovation. Just denouncing that the information protected by patents has economic value won't make those patent nazis disappear.

[Lowtech]

Thanks for the responses, this is a particularly fascinating topic and i feel strongly that the definition of value is directly deterministic of how well an economic system can be designed.


I find it interesting how you've gone from claiming that scientists and inventors don't produce value to determining what use value you find more important.

A careful (re?)reading of Capital volume 1 chapter 1 would prove useful.I don't claim it, it is mathematically certain. Artifical scarcity is a material problem. That is why it is so.excusable with social constructs of merit alone equating to value. However a material or physical problem can only have a physical solution. to resolve artificial scarcity means not to prduce it in the first place. Atributing abstract value to an idea or information producing artifical scarcity as the idea does not physically offset the abstract value. Materials and labor still realize the utility of information, and therefore the idea itself produced no value that didn't already exist as labor and materials.
By this argument only the end-user consumption items have economic value, which is obviously incorrect. Scientific theories and invention schematics are means of production, so they have value of their own, just like a crude chunk of ore, that has been just extracted by a miner has already acquired some value to it.




I don't understand, where do you get this idea that artificial scarcity is created by attributing "abstracted value to innovation". Artificial scarcity is created by limiting access to innovation by passing and enforcing the patent and other "intellectual property rights" legislation, which is the sole cause for price inflation with regard to innovation. Just denouncing that the information protected by patents has economic value won't make those patent nazis disappear. yes, however the profit mechanism also creates artificial scarcity. there is no profit unless the production cost is met and then excess is demanded as part of the "exchange" (market paradigm). This excess; surplus value, market value, whatever you chose to call it, is artificial scarcity.

abstract value creates artificial scarcity because the value atributed to information cannot be offset physically, as it has no physical value. If you attribute any abstract value to it, that value must be derived from real value, that which is only provided by the material and labor used to realize it, and this is erroneous, as information, however benificial is only the description of a physical commodity unrealized, it itself is of no more physical value than the paper it is written on. The same is true of an euntrepuneur that attibutes value to himself for the organizational process (out of elitism). He can only coordinate use of value that already exists, he creates none himself.

[Zulu]

information, however benificial is only the description of a physical commodity unrealized, it itself is of no more physical value than the paper it is written on.

I think you are to fixated on this "physical commodity" thing. What you really mean by "physical" is "tangible". With your train of thought in the 19th century you'd probably deny that electrical power had value.

And before you get completely mad at me, I tell you that some time ago I was pretty much in the same error, thinking Marx denied production of new value in circulation. But that's not the case. After carefully re-reading Capital, Vol. 2, ch. 1 & 6, it's clear that he did recognize that transportation is productive (creates new value), even though its consumption is inseparable from its production. That actually may be extended to the entire "service sector". And the division between productive and unproductive labor would be rooted not in the "physicality" or "tangibility" of its product, but in the character of the social necessity of the kind of labor in question: whether it's universally necessary (under any social formation) or only under the present mode of production. For example: lawyers', police officers' and waiters' labor is necessary only in a class society, but medics', scientists' and cooks' labor will be necessary even in communism.

And back to my point of "physicality" vs. "tangibility". The invention, even when it is only in the scientist's head yet, while not tangible is still quite physical, as it is some kind of electro-chemical process going on in his brain. So don't worry, it's not idealism to say that thoughts and ideas may have value of their own.

[Lowtech]

I think you are to fixated on this "physical commodity" thing.yes, i am fixated. my aim is a very materialist, physically practical economy that is designed to completely eliminate artificial scarcity.
What you really mean by "physical" is "tangible". With your train of thought in the 19th century you'd probably deny that electrical power had value.i agree, if the misconception were based on a ignorance of what electricity is. however, the understanding of value i propose would actually recognize electricity as having value even without understanding what electricity is, being that basic observation reveals that electricity is animated physically, allowing it to affect things around it, producing light from a light bulb, powering electronic motors, etc.

value has no principles distinguishing it from that of energy. social constructs however allow it to appear to do all sorts of things and to mask artificial scarcity. however social constructs are a fiction of our mind and mathematics reveals this to us, especially in the context of economics.


And before you get completely mad at mei'm not offended, and actually, i appreciate serious replies very much.
, I tell you that some time ago I was pretty much in the same error, thinking Marx denied production of new value in circulation. But that's not the case. After carefully re-reading Capital, Vol. 2, ch. 1 & 6, it's clear that he did recognize that transportation is productive (creates new value), even though its consumption is inseparable from its production. That actually may be extended to the entire "service sector".i agree that many skill sets are indispensable, even though they themselves aren't labor directed to producing a physical commodity, they still do not produce value. value in an economical sense must be something that is accountable. it must be able to be properly analyzed, organized within the scope of logistics. abstract value of morale or popular preference or other social constructs are vital and intrinsic to humans in a psychological sense, however they do not constitute economic value.
And the division between productive and unproductive labor would be rooted not in the "physicality" or "tangibility" of its product, but in the character of the social necessity of the kind of labor in question: whether it's universally necessary (under any social formation) or only under the present mode of production. For example: lawyers', police officers' and waiters' labor is necessary only in a class society, but medics', scientists' and cooks' labor will be necessary even in communism.right, i don't ignore necessity of social roles, however we must separate the physical utilization of resources from the psychological nature of society. or more simply put, abstract value cannot be mixed with the measurement and management of physical value as this creates an unstable pseudo economy vulnerable to abuse.


And back to my point of "physicality" vs. "tangibility". The invention, even when it is only in the scientist's head yet, while not tangible is still quite physical, as it is some kind of electro-chemical process going on in his brain. So don't worry, it's not idealism to say that thoughts and ideas may have value of their own. i think that's a fascinating point. i often look to natural systems, cells, multi-celled organisms for insights into economics, as the trillions of cells within our own bodies function under the same economic problems we face in sustaining a civilization of only billions of humans, however our cells have vastly more success than we have so far.

[Zulu]

value in an economical sense must be something that is accountable. it must be able to be properly analyzed, organized within the scope of logistics. abstract value of morale or popular preference or other social constructs are vital and intrinsic to humans in a psychological sense, however they do not constitute economic value.

I can see the reason of your thinking, but it seems kind of dangerous to me. Suppose a perfect system has been developed and implemented to facilitate the logistics of the entire social production. Under such a system putting resources (including labor time) into anything that has no value will be considered waste. Then how do you intend to innovate at all? In addition to the inherent reluctance of the central planning towards accommodation of innovation (I've argued about this with that Robbo once, take a look (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-nature-soviet-t169000/index.html?p=2399926#post2399926) if you're interested), you'll completely rule out innovation in your society, if you "strip" it off its economic value. Like I said elsewhere, the society will stagnate when the amount of accumulated wealth reaches the point where all available labor will be needed just for the upkeep - which you'll be happily and easily calculating, because all quantities will be known to you. But if you want to develop, go to the stars and whatnot, you'll have to accept the necessity of gambling with some of your resources about unknown quantities (which the value of an invention is when the light bulb has just gone on in that dude Einstein's head).

[Lowtech]

I can see the reason of your thinking, but it seems kind of dangerous to me. Suppose a perfect system has been developed and implemented to facilitate the logistics of the entire social production. Under such a system putting resources (including labor time) into anything that has no value will be considered waste. Then how do you intend to innovate at all?zero waste is impossible, and of course some waste is necessary in experimentation or putting new designs through trials. whats important is we recognize it as waste, and not allow it to undermine logistics

innovation does have great merit, it will always bring notoriety. however, nothing should be allowed to create artificial scarcity. how then do you distinguish between someone who is a great scientist and someone that is a great entrepreneur? this is semantics, because anything that produces artificial scarcity is mathematically the same, regardless of it's current social definition.

continued analysis and application of the scientific method will continue to produce innovation. this false idea that current market systems foster innovation is truly the last vestige capitalist ideology.

In addition to the inherent reluctance of the central planning towards accommodation of innovation (I've argued about this with that Robbo once, take a look (http://www.revleft.com/vb/economic-nature-soviet-t169000/index.html?p=2399926#post2399926) if you're interested), i don't care much about robo, once i rejected semantics and demand he address my arguments in mathematical terms, he hasn't responded to my posts since
you'll completely rule out innovation in your society, if you "strip" it off its economic value. Like I said elsewhere, the society will stagnate when the amount of accumulated wealth reaches the point where all available labor will be needed just for the upkeep - which you'll be happily and easily calculating, because all quantities will be known to you. But if you want to develop, go to the stars and whatnot, you'll have to accept the necessity of gambling with some of your resources about unknown quantities (which the value of an invention is when the light bulb has just gone on in that dude Einstein's head).
i see exactly what you're referring to. i'm surely not advocating a frozen production system, simplifying it all down to one giant machine. so afraid of waste that we will not deviate from an established system, again, zero waste is impossible. and some waste is necessary, however waste is waste, social constructs don't change this. anymore than the social construct of profit/capital does not change the fact all value concentrated at the top in the abstract form of money is waste that the rich squander on themselves.

[Zulu]

continued analysis and application of the scientific method will continue to produce innovation. this false idea that current market systems foster innovation is truly the last vestige capitalist ideology.

Yeah, I agree that market has nothing to do with innovation. But I can't think of a way how innovation will be adequately fostered in your system, if it's designated as valueless. Sure, waste in general is unavoidable, but one can strive to minimize it, that is eliminate deliberate waste, like that of the rich squandering resources on themselves. But allocating resources (labor time) to science will be indistinguishable from this in your system, and those occupied with innovative projects will be seen as doing just that - "squandering", or worse yet, exploiting the rest of the people. I can already imagine some "New Left" of the 23rd century demonstrating in protests with signs like "Science is Luxury!", "Innovation is Waste", "Down with the Eggheads!", "Ban Science FOREVER!!!"

[Lowtech]

Yeah, I agree that market has nothing to do with innovation. But I can't think of a way how innovation will be adequately fostered in your system, if it's designated as valueless. Sure, waste in general is unavoidable, but one can strive to minimize it, that is eliminate deliberate waste, like that of the rich squandering resources on themselves. But allocating resources (labor time) to science will be indistinguishable from this in your system, and those occupied with innovative projects will be seen as doing just that - "squandering", or worse yet, exploiting the rest of the people. I can already imagine some "New Left" of the 23rd century demonstrating in protests with signs like "Science is Luxury!", "Innovation is Waste", "Down with the Eggheads!", "Ban Science FOREVER!!!"

I like your imagination but don't exaggerate. I said it has no accountable economic value, but i didn't say I felt it was without merit and shouldn't be appreciated.

allowing the mix of accountable economic value with abstract value produces a pseudo economy incapable of sustaining of civilization. it only supports a fraction of the population in any humane fashion. If you're okay with poverty and Plutocratic society, then have your pseudo economy. But don't pretend it is sufficient in any sense.

If you see it from our current point of view, gaining wealth from innovation sounds great because we're subjected to vast artificial scarcity, remove artificial scarcity and we gain a very diferent outlook, what is important to us will change. Money will nolonger have our focus. money, market systems, abstract value has never driven innovation. Necessity and intrinsic curiosity has. Eliminating artificial scarcity will have the opposite effect than you expect.

[Zulu]

intrinsic curiosity

Intrinsic curiosity has surely guided humanity through and out of a number of tight evolutionary spots, but as of now, it is completely insufficient by itself. It needs to be backed by serious investment of organized labor and other resources to continue performing that function.

OK, what we have here is that we've hit some dialectical contradiction, it seems, and are defending the opposites of it. For the moment we'll have to agree to disagree. Maybe it's just a semantical problem though.