Question on workers and the "full value of their labor."

[Jacob Cliff]

Reading Marxistpedia's FAQ section, I came across the following:

"[V]ia wage labor, the proletariat is paid less than the true value of his labor to the capitalist in order for the capitalist to profit. Finally, the proletariat must also buy products from the capitalist, as despite having labored to make them, he does not determine their fate."

From my understanding, the proletariat is exploited by the bourgeoisie because the surplus value they produce is taken by the capitalist, while they are only left with morsels of what they produce. I also understand that production is a social labor process; that not one worker, but millions upon millions of workers have some take in the productive process. Therein lies my confusion:

What is the "true" value a worker creates when labor is specifically social? How would we quantify what the "true" value created by an individual worker – one of many in the factory – is, and moreover, why should it belong to *him*? My initial understanding was that socialism aims to put the products created socially into society's hands, but at the same time, how is it exploitive for an individual worker if they don't get the "full value" of their labor when, firstly, that's impossible to determine and, secondly, when we socialists don't even seek to give workers back the "full product of their labor"?

Sorry for beginner questions but this has been on my mind.

[Rudolf]

I don't think it's useful to talk of "full value of labour"

We don't sell the products of our labour we sell labour-power. Its value, like all other commodities, is determined by the SNLT required for its production but in this case its reproduction... so it's at the value of the means of subsistence + any social modifiers that are a result of particular historic development (e.g. past class struggle).

What you suspect is correct though, we cannot calculate an individual's share in the production of the world's wealth. It's impossible precisely because production is so social and interconnected. I don't think we should advocate for the worker to receive the full value of their labour because it's just not possible. But even if it were we still shouldn't as it's not a call for the abolition of the law of value it's a call for co-ops and independent craftsmen and so a self-managed exploitation.

Our goal has to be destroying the law of value.

[blake 3:17]

OMG I've been a Marxist for 20 years & I don't know. The main thing I get is that even under under socialism there needs to be surplus production, I mean you're not just making rubber bands or math textbooks for yourself are you? And the productive work force needs to be able to cover for those who aren't working.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Marxist notion of "exploitation" is not a moral one - it doesn't follow that workers "should" (what does that mean?) be paid the money-equivalent of the "full" value they produce. In fact Marx argued against the Lassalle-inspired call for the workers to receive the "undiminished proceeds of labour". Exploitation is part of the explanation of how capitalism works. It wasn't always regressive as it is now.


OMG I've been a Marxist for 20 years & I don't know. The main thing I get is that even under under socialism there needs to be surplus production, I mean you're not just making rubber bands or math textbooks for yourself are you? And the productive work force needs to be able to cover for those who aren't working.

Well obviously there is no surplus value being produced in socialism because there is no value being produced in socialism. Value is what an object or service has as a commodity to be sold on the market. Whereas in socialism objects and services are produced for human need, not for a market sale.

[Jacob Cliff]

The Marxist notion of "exploitation" is not a moral one - it doesn't follow that workers "should" (what does that mean?) be paid the money-equivalent of the "full" value they produce. In fact Marx argued against the Lassalle-inspired call for the workers to receive the "undiminished proceeds of labour". Exploitation is part of the explanation of how capitalism works. It wasn't always regressive as it is now.



Well obviously there is no surplus value being produced in socialism because there is no value being produced in socialism. Value is what an object or service has as a commodity to be sold on the market. Whereas in socialism objects and services are produced for human need, not for a market sale.
Right. I understand that exploitation is a material phenomenon, not idealistic dream of workers getting all the money they put forth into production (although, using the term "exploitation" does imply that workers are treated unfairly/is a bit of a moralistic term; a point someone a long time ago made to me).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Workers, generally speaking, don't put money into production, they expend their labour-power to produce certain commodities. The point is that we can describe this, and describe where surplus value (that enables the capitalist to make a profit and continue the M-C-M' cycle) comes from as the difference between value produced and the value of the reproduction of labour power, without implying that the workers "should" be paid the "full value" of the commodities produced, divided up according to some scheme.

I don't really think exploitation is necessarily a moral term, even in colloquial speech. I don't think people who exploit oil resources are evil, for example.

[Luís Henrique]

Reading Marxistpedia's FAQ section, I came across the following:

"[V]ia wage labor, the proletariat is paid less than the true value of his labor to the capitalist in order for the capitalist to profit.

This is, I suppose, a source of confusion. "Labour" has no value. Proletarians are paid for their labour power. The consumption of their labour power generates more value than the value of their labour power. Ideas suchs as "true value" seem moralising, and consequently wrong.


What is the "true" value a worker creates when labor is specifically social? How would we quantify what the "true" value created by an individual worker

I don't think this has to be thought of as a relation between individual labourers and individual capitalists. People might make use of individual examples for simplicity - "the baker bakes more loafs of bread than he and his family need to survive" - but surplus value is a collective thing. The whole of the work force produces more wealth than it needs to survive and reproduce within the social standards of a given time and place; since value is the specifically capitalist form of wealth, in a capitalist society this surplus wealth takes the form of surplus value.


My initial understanding was that socialism aims to put the products created socially into society's hands, but at the same time, how is it exploitive for an individual worker if they don't get the "full value" of their labor when, firstly, that's impossible to determine and, secondly, when we socialists don't even seek to give workers back the "full product of their labor"?

We should seek to give society as a whole full democratic control of the process of production. It is not the matter of giving Joe the exact part of the automobile he created (this would mean give him a useless part of a thing that only works as a whole), which would need perpetuating the notion of value (since we cannot give Joe the part(s) of the automobile he built without destroying the automobile, we have to give him a fraction of the value of the automobile, which is only possible if the automobile has a value, ie, if it is a commodity)). It is the matter of giving Joe, as well as each other worker (and non-worker, too) a say on what is produced, how much is produced, how is it distributed and to whom, etc., etc., etc. This contrasts with capitalist exploitation not in that the labourer now gets back the "full value of his or her labour", while in capitalism she would have to share it, unwillingly, with a capitalist, but in that whatever way the social product is divided (so much for personal consumption, so much as a reserve for difficult times, so much to increase future production, so much to sustain so much more idle time, so much to ameliorate the production processes, so much to sustain those who cannot work, etc.) is the result of conscious, democratic decisions of society as a whole, in which she has an equal say, not the result of blind social forces or caprices of individual capitalists.

Hope the rant helps.

Luís Henrique

[Dave B]

There is the saying about not being able to see the wood for the trees and the related subject of a micro versus macro analysis.

I think the orthodox Marxist analysis is pretty much mostly a micro analytical approach but you can I think do a macro Marxist analysis which Karl sort of attempted in volume II and returned to in volume III with his departments of capital thing.

Aliens from outer space looking down on us might well see things with a slightly different perspective.

They might see like us two classes in our society; the workers and the ruling class.

Lets say Group A); 80% of the workers produce all the stuff that is consumed by all the, 100% , of workers.

Group B); 10% of the workers, produce stuff for the ruling class eg Gucci handbags, caviar and yachts etc.

Group C); the remaining 10% of the workers, produces more and accumulating means of production ie machines, fixed capital, roads, power stations etc etc. which are all to become owned and controlled by the ruling class and in fact are necessary for the products of A), B) and indeed C) itself.

[You could introduce a group D) or subdivide C) into a section of workers that replaced used up machines; or as Karl had it producing constant capital either as raw materials or used up fixed capital as constant capital- which I think befuddles the issue]

Or in other words everything.

Perhaps as a member of group A) myself I have a biased perspective on it ?

But I could say that myself and my fellow group A) workers; are producing at a rate of 20% products that are surplus to our own narrowly defined requirements.

10% of that goes to sustain workers who make bling for the ruling class.

And the other 10% goes towards making more factories both making B) and C) as well as my immediate concern A) etc over which I have no control.

Of course when you do that kind of ‘wood’ like analysis of non state planned capitalism you loose sight of the fact that the workers in B) and C) are being exploited and are producing surplus value themselves.

However in the Bolshevik state capitalist model and in particular the approach towards the extraction of surplus agricultural products of the peasantry to fund capital accumulation and ‘electrification’ it was pretty much the economic model they followed.

[RedMaterialist]

What is the "true" value a worker creates when labor is specifically social? How would we quantify what the "true" value created by an individual worker – one of many in the factory – is, and moreover, why should it belong to *him*? My initial understanding was that socialism aims to put the products created socially into society's hands, but at the same time, how is it exploitive for an individual worker if they don't get the "full value" of their labor when, firstly, that's impossible to determine and, secondly, when we socialists don't even seek to give workers back the "full product of their labor"?

Sorry for beginner questions but this has been on my mind.

I've always thought Marx explained it pretty well in Capital, Vol I, Chapter Seven, Section Two (but the part about the workday is, at least for me, indecipherable.)

The capitalist pays, say, $10 for labor and $2 for raw materials. He has paid out $12. He receives from the worker a product. He gets what he paid for, a product worth, it appears, $12. But how does the capitalist make a profit?

He, the capitalist, sells the product for $15 in the open market. The law of commodity production says that all commodities are sold at, on average, their real value. The real value of the product is $15, but the capitalist only paid $12 for it. How is this possible?

It is possible because human labor (and human labor alone) is capable of producing a value in excess of the value the human labor cost. The workers, as a social group, add $3 to the raw materials; they produce a product valued at $15, but receive in wages only $10. The workers create value, they are the source of the value-added to the raw materials, they create surplus value. Don't be fooled by the argument that the "market" produces the profit, or that "risk" produces the profit, or that "opportunity cost" is the source of the profit.

The gross domestic product, that produced by labor, is always more than the amount paid in wages to the working class. The productivity of labor is always more than the rate of wages. Which is why the capitalists like Jeb Bush always want workers to work longer hours and retire at 70. The increased work results in more profit.

Under the first stage of socialism (see, The Critique of the Gotha Programme) the working class will take control of this surplus value. The surplus will go to society for things like roads, bridges, old age care, national medical care, schools, etc. etc. Part of the surplus will go to re-investment. Wages will still function as they do in capitalist society today.

However, once socialism is fully developed, production for exchange-value will cease and will be replaced by production for use-value only. There won't be "prices" for things.

You're right. Under socialism society (acting through, for instance, the dictatorship of the proletariat, but other modes are possible, imo,) gets the surplus value. Under capitalism the capitalist gets it. Personally, I prefer the former situation.