Question about LTV

[Redistribute the Rep]

Ok so I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to economics. Can someone explain to me the difference between Adam Smiths labor theory of value and Marx's? Is there a difference? And does Smith define the LTV in terms of socially necessary labor time like Marx?

[RedMaterialist]

Ok so I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to economics. Can someone explain to me the difference between Adam Smiths labor theory of value and Marx's? Is there a difference? And does Smith define the LTV in terms of socially necessary labor time like Marx?

I would say that Smith recognized that all labor (regardless of whether it was agriculture or industrial) was the source of value, but he never questioned how the capitalist comes to own the value. He simply accepted the ownership as a kind of natural phenomenon, just as Ricardo believed that rent was a natural product of land. Marx, on the other hand, took Smith and Ricardo's LTV as a starting point and showed how the product of labor is owned, in the legal sense, by the owner of the means of production.

Once the producers, the workers, are separated from the means of production, they then lose ownership and possession of anything they produce. Thus beginning the process of alienation.

I don't think Smith ever mentioned socially necessary labor time. He may have assumed that a factory owner would never allow his workers to engage in any unnecessary labor time.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ok so I'm a bit of a novice when it comes to economics. Can someone explain to me the difference between Adam Smiths labor theory of value and Marx's? Is there a difference? And does Smith define the LTV in terms of socially necessary labor time like Marx?

If I remember correctly, he did. The definition of value in terms of socially-necessary labour time goes back to Barbone. What Marx added was:

(1) the analysis of the commodity; specifically commodities as use-values and the exchange-values of commodities;

(2) the analysis of labour as a commodity (capitalist analyses based on the LTV crucially lacked this);

(3) the analysis of the organic composition of capital and its evolution;

(4) the analysis of the M-C-M' cycle and how it differs from simple commodity production;

and many other points - a new theory of rent, for example, an analysis of overproduction and so on.

[Sewer Socialist]

This reminds me; I've been thinking about "socially necessary labor time" lately.

I have a question about the implementation of "socially necessary labor time," and how it seems to be piece-rate compensation. I am imagining a factory in a socialist world, where "socially necessary labor time" determines compensation. If the workers there wish to be paid more, they will work harder. They might produce what needs 10 hours of socially necessary labor in only 8 hours. And if many factories began to do this, that would reduce the socially necessary labor time, as the average amount of time spent producing a commodity fell.

On construction sites, this happens all the time when people are paid per job, not per hour. The same happens with couriers (especially bicycle couriers), when they are paid per delivery. Safety concerns are tossed away as people chase more compensation.

How might a community fight this tendency to dangerously speed up work as well as cause inflation?

[BIXX]

This reminds me; I've been thinking about "socially necessary labor time" lately.

I have a question about the implementation of "socially necessary labor time," and how it seems to be piece-rate compensation. I am imagining a factory in a socialist world, where "socially necessary labor time" determines compensation. If the workers there wish to be paid more, they will work harder. They might produce what needs 10 hours of socially necessary labor in only 8 hours. And if many factories began to do this, that would reduce the socially necessary labor time, as the average amount of time spent producing a commodity fell.

On construction sites, this happens all the time when people are paid per job, not per hour. The same happens with couriers (especially bicycle couriers), when they are paid per delivery. Safety concerns are tossed away as people chase more compensation.

How might a community fight this tendency to dangerously speed up work as well as cause inflation?
It is my impression that many communists would say that you would not pay people for their work, but rather grant them free access to the things that they need in exchange for their work.

My answer is that I refuse to give myself to society.

[Sewer Socialist]

Yes, that's a good description of "full communism". The "socially necessary labor time" is a feature of Marx's "lower communism". None of that really answered my question.

[BIXX]

Yes, that's a good description of "full communism". The "socially necessary labor time" is a feature of Marx's "lower communism". None of that really answered my question.

I don't concern myself with lower communism, or communism itself really. But again, I fail to see why what I said couldn't happen in "lower communism".

[Sewer Socialist]

That's really not what I'm asking.

[BIXX]

Your question was based on the idea that folks would be remunerated more if they got more done, or they'd get remunerated faster if they work faster. My answer is that they would get remunerated the same as if they work slow and safe, so there'd be no motivation to work unsafely. You asked about piece rate compensation, and I am saying that it'd make most sense to skip any sort of piece rate compensation.

Also regarding inflation, we wouldn't have to worry about it in a post-capitalist world.

If you don't understand how that relates to your question, explain how it doesn't make sense, so I can explain.

[cyu]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-your-mind-t190418/index.html?p=2788108#post2788108

Alfie Kohn shows that while manipulating people with incentives seems to work in the short run, it is a strategy that ultimately fails and even does lasting harm.

the more we use artificial inducements to motivate people, the more they lose interest in what we're bribing them to do. Rewards turn play into work, and work into drudgery.

the more an organization relies on incentives, the worse things get.

If you say "If you don't do X, then you won't get paid" then it automatically implies that X is something negative. Do it enough times, and it becomes a form of conditioning - that is, even if they loved the work at first, eventually this "brainwashing" conditions them to hate it. In order to not have this effect, pay and work would have to be completely unconnected.

...in fact, if you reversed it, and actually charged people money or limited the amount of time for the right to do something, reactance / reverse psychology would actually tend to make people want to do that activity more.

Seems kind of silly for stuff like mining or other "unpleasant" work, but that is only viewing it from the current culture we live in. There are also psychological studies in "gamification" you might look into - that is, video game makers hire psychologists to research what makes some games more fun than others - and in turn, there are those that are investigating trying to apply the same research to other things - like blurring the distinction between "work" and "play".

[RedMaterialist]

How might a community fight this tendency to dangerously speed up work as well as cause inflation?

One way would be to make sure the workers own the companies, factories, construction sites, etc. that they work for. Or that the companies are managed by non-capitalists. But even then the work would still be paid by the training, education, skill, strength, etc. of each individual worker. (The Gotha Programme.) The working class would agree to withhold part of their social product for schools, health care, elderly care, highways, etc. Once there has been a complete transition away from commodity/exchange-value production, then you can get a society based on "from each according to one's..."

[Sewer Socialist]

Your question was based on the idea that folks would be remunerated more if they got more done, or they'd get remunerated faster if they work faster. My answer is that they would get remunerated the same as if they work slow and safe, so there'd be no motivation to work unsafely. You asked about piece rate compensation, and I am saying that it'd make most sense to skip any sort of piece rate compensation.

Yes, that is Proudhon's idea - that workers should be compensated for hours worked. But Marx disagrees - that the value of a product is the average amount of time required to produce it. This is the "socially necessary labor time". And I can see how identical products would have the same value; if one were made less efficiently, it isn't suddenly more valuable. But if people were compensated in such a matter as Karl Marx advocates, I can see problems (a couple of which I mentioned) with it, and I'm wondering if other Marxists agree.


One way would be to make sure the workers own the companies, factories, construction sites, etc. that they work for. Or that the companies are managed by non-capitalists. But even then the work would still be paid by the training, education, skill, strength, etc. of each individual worker. (The Gotha Programme.) The working class would agree to withhold part of their social product for schools, health care, elderly care, highways, etc. Once there has been a complete transition away from commodity/exchange-value production, then you can get a society based on "from each according to one's..."

Yes, I understand that socialism / lower communism involves common ownership of the means of production. And, doesn't Marx advocate, in "lower communism," compensating workers the value of their labor, determined by the principle of "to each according to contribution," and isn't the value of work measured by the "socially necessary labor time," which is the average amount of time needed to complete a task?

I guess my questions could be rephrased as:
1. Do I understand the concept of "socially necessary labor time" correctly, and how lower communist compensation is intended to function?
2. If so, do most modern Marxists agree with this?
3. If so, what is the Marxist solution to those aforementioned concerns, if not completely doing away with the concept?
4. To add one more thing, has any community implemented this sort of system - based on socially necessary labor time, or direct hours worked? 1930s Catalonia comes to mind, but I can't remember which. Did any problems or complications occur with the system?

[The Feral Underclass]

My answer is that I refuse to give myself to society.

How do you intend to survive?

[IWantToLearn]

If you say "If you don't do X, then you won't get paid" then it automatically implies that X is something negative. Do it enough times, and it becomes a form of conditioning - that is, even if they loved the work at first, eventually this "brainwashing" conditions them to hate it. In order to not have this effect, pay and work would have to be completely unconnected.


Does this effect has a name?, i usually feel like that.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Yes, that is Proudhon's idea - that workers should be compensated for hours worked. But Marx disagrees - that the value of a product is the average amount of time required to produce it. This is the "socially necessary labor time". And I can see how identical products would have the same value; if one were made less efficiently, it isn't suddenly more valuable. But if people were compensated in such a matter as Karl Marx advocates, I can see problems (a couple of which I mentioned) with it, and I'm wondering if other Marxists agree.



Yes, I understand that socialism / lower communism involves common ownership of the means of production. And, doesn't Marx advocate, in "lower communism," compensating workers the value of their labor, determined by the principle of "to each according to contribution," and isn't the value of work measured by the "socially necessary labor time," which is the average amount of time needed to complete a task?

I guess my questions could be rephrased as:
1. Do I understand the concept of "socially necessary labor time" correctly, and how lower communist compensation is intended to function?
2. If so, do most modern Marxists agree with this?
3. If so, what is the Marxist solution to those aforementioned concerns, if not completely doing away with the concept?
4. To add one more thing, has any community implemented this sort of system - based on socially necessary labor time, or direct hours worked? 1930s Catalonia comes to mind, but I can't remember which. Did any problems or complications occur with the system?

When Marx talks about value and how it's connected to socially-necessary labour time expended to produce a commodity, he is describing how capitalism works. He never advocated that workers be compensated the full exchange value of the commodities they produce - in fact he attacked the idea as "Ricardian socialism" and as unworkable (see his discussion of Lassalle in the Critique of the Gotha Programme).

He did say that, in the lower phase of the communist society free access would be impossible and that some sort of rationing would be necessary. But first of all, this was a prediction, not a hard-and-fast rule, and second the precise way in which the contribution of each member of society was to be assessed wasn't actually laid down by Marx (for good reasons, too).

[Redistribute the Rep]

From http://www.revleft.com/vb/whats-your-mind-t190418/index.html?p=2788108#post2788108

Alfie Kohn shows that while manipulating people with incentives seems to work in the short run, it is a strategy that ultimately fails and even does lasting harm.



It's called the overjustification effect. Edward Deci and Richard Ryan have done tons of studies on it. As I recall one involved blood donation

[cyu]

Does this effect has a name?, i usually feel like that. It's called the overjustification effect.
That's probably something I should look into. I tend to see it as a part of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactance_%28psychology%29 - I suspect they're related.

EDIT: By Jove, I think you've got it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overjustification_effect =D

The overjustification effect occurs when an expected external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. According to self-perception theory, people pay more attention to the external reward for an activity than to the inherent enjoyment and satisfaction received from the activity itself. The overall effect of offering a reward for a previously unrewarded activity is a shift to extrinsic motivation and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Once rewards are no longer offered, interest in the activity is lost; prior intrinsic motivation does not return, and extrinsic rewards must be continuously offered as motivation to sustain the activity.

[Sewer Socialist]

My memory of Critique of the Gotha Programme is apparently not so good as I thought. I really thought I remembered a passage specifically saying that. All that concern over nothing. :unsure:

[Collective Reasons]

Yes, that is Proudhon's idea - that workers should be compensated for hours worked.

What Proudhon says in What is Property? actually seems to be that workers should be equally compensated for their "share" of the necessary labor, and that those who work more quickly have no right to impinge on the ability of others to earn their keep (and, given the importance that Proudhon laid on labor as a source of education, reap its other rewards.) The question of compensation gets more complicated in any sort of organized workplace, since a good deal of the product of the hours worked under conditions of division and association of tasks will be attributable to what Proudhon called the collective force. The long discussion of value in The System of Economic Contradictions is primarily aimed at the fiction of the productivity of capital.