Labor Theory Of Value

[Paradox]

OK, can anyone give me a simple explanation of the labor theory of value? I'm a little confused about the part concerning the proportion of surplus value to necessary labor. Lengthening the working day, I understand that. But the part about reducing the necessary labor is a little tricky to me. Worldsocialism.org says you can reduce necessary labor by increasing productivity so that the labor time necessary for the production of articles is reduced and their prices fall. And this will cause a reduction in the value of labor-power without reducing the worker's standard of living. ??? Could someone give me a real life example of this? For example, I work as a busser at a resturaunt. There were only three of us bussers there, but a couple of weeks ago, they hired two new bussers. Now, they cut back our hours at work. It use to be that I'd work four or five hours a day. Now, I'm working about three. On Sundays, I use to go in at 7:00am, and get off around 1:00 or 1:30pm. Now, I go in at 8:00am, and they've been letting me off at around 10:30am. Last Sunday, I only worked one and half hours. They didn't need the extra bussers that they hired, so this seemed strange to me. Would this be an example of the labor theory of value? I asked the supervisors why they were cutting our hours, and they said they need to save money. Are they really losing money, or are they just out to make a bigger profit? If they were losing money, then why would they hire more people when they weren't needed? Please, in layman's terms, explain this theory. Tlazohcamati ("Thank you" in Aztec).

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:38 AM
But the part about reducing the necessary labor is a little tricky to me. Worldsocialism.org says you can reduce necessary labor by increasing productivity so that the labor time necessary for the production of articles is reduced and their prices fall. And this will cause a reduction in the value of labor-power without reducing the worker's standard of living. ??? Could someone give me a real life example of this?
Look for example to yr computer. As microchips replaced clumsy vaccum tubes, etc. the price of computers fell to a degree that the common citizen could afford them.

What is being talked about is revolutions in production. For example, modern agricultural technology has made bread dirt-cheap!

Oh, wait, no - the government pays farmers to destroy crops, to artificially keep the prices high. Dammit.

[Essential Insignificance]

OK, can anyone give me a simple explanation of the labor theory of value? I'm a little confused about the part concerning the proportion of surplus value to necessary labor. Lengthening the working day, I understand that. But the part about reducing the necessary labor is a little tricky to me. Worldsocialism.org says you can reduce necessary labor by increasing productivity so that the labor time necessary for the production of articles is reduced and their prices fall. And this will cause a reduction in the value of labor-power without reducing the worker's standard of living. ??? Could someone give me a real life example of this?

To understand Marx's theories, although it may seem obvious, is to acknowledge that all class society's are based on "exploitation" -- the systematic appropriation of surplus-value, produced in either two forms, "relative" and "absolute" (philosophical terms, employed by Marx) -- produced by the laboring class (proletariat), by the non-laboring class (bourgeoisie). Now that's the basic "overview".

Each capitalist weather "petite" or "large scale monopolies" are driven by competition, in fear on their potential "destruction" -- if they are unable to increase the production of surplus-value, derived from the labor-power of those who do not own the means of production. And this is, like you said, done through two processes -- "relative" and "absolute".

The first is to lengthen the working day, since the amount of time to produce the workers wage -- which Marx called "necessary labor-time" -- which remains the same, however, the amount of extra time, know commonly as "surplus-time" that the worker is embodying his/her labor into the a object (chair), is the time when the worker produces the "surplus-value" for the capitalist class. This is what Marx called the production of "absolute surplus value". However for reasons apparent this way of acquiring surplus-vaule is redundant... but not totally.

The second way that the capitalist exploits the worker is through "relative" means. The capitalist in order to gain profits can and does speed up the process of production, through technological advances, such as, machinery and tools, to increase the productivity of the producing hours of the working day.

Marx thought that in the "neutral process" of capitalist production, there would be "a tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time"; this is because of a number of reasons, but mainly because of periodical crises of "over-production", until the final "over-production", where, eventually, capitalism "self-destructs".


For example, I work as a busser at a resturaunt. There were only three of us bussers there, but a couple of weeks ago, they hired two new bussers. Now, they cut back our hours at work. It use to be that I'd work four or five hours a day. Now, I'm working about three. On Sundays, I use to go in at 7:00am, and get off around 1:00 or 1:30pm. Now, I go in at 8:00am, and they've been letting me off at around 10:30am. Last Sunday, I only worked one and half hours. They didn't need the extra bussers that they hired, so this seemed strange to me. Would this be an example of the labor theory of value? I asked the supervisors why they were cutting our hours, and they said they need to save money. Are they really losing money, or are they just out to make a bigger profit? If they were losing money, then why would they hire more people when they weren't needed? Please, in layman's terms, explain this theory. Tlazohcamati ("Thank you" in Aztec).

Now, technically you're not a (part-time) proletariat in the strictest sense... because you are not producing a profit -- directly.

However, I'm not totally understanding your enquiry here; because all your boss(s) is doing is replacing one worker with another, and continuing with the same hours, that you used to work.

Their motive possibly is to "refresh" and "regulate" the workers constantly to keep up high stands of "productive-labor" -- in this sense, you and the others are therefore, exploited -- "relatively".

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Now, technically you're not a (part-time) proletariat in the strictest sense... because you are not producing a profit -- directly.

He is still a wage labourer, and an unbussed plate can't be washed, and an unwashed plate can't have food served on it. He adds value to the food served to the customers.

BAM!

[Paradox]

Their motive possibly is to "refresh" and "regulate" the workers constantly to keep up high stands of "productive-labor" -- in this sense, you and the others are therefore, exploited -- "relatively".

So, in other words, they hired these unneeded extra people to speed up productivity? And since the job gets done faster, the management can send us home early, thereby saving money for themselves that would otherwise go to us for the regular hours we use to work? And that crap about needing to save money is nothing more than lies? I think that's what you're saying. But, even if it's not, I agree that we are being exploited. Tlazohcamati.


He is still a wage labourer, and an unbussed plate can't be washed, and an unwashed plate can't have food served on it. He adds value to the food served to the customers.

Thank you. I am so underappreciated (Only joking of course).

[Essential Insignificance]

He is still a wage labourer, and an unbussed plate can't be washed, and an unwashed plate can't have food served on it. He adds value to the food served to the customers.

Sure, I "grant" that he's a "wage-labor" -- there's no doubting that.

But he's not embodying in any material object he's labor-power; he's just adding to the already existing material object -- not directly creating surplus-value for his boss.


So, in other words, they hired these unneeded extra people to speed up productivity?

Yes, I'd imagine so.


And since the job gets done faster, the management can send us home early, thereby saving money for themselves that would otherwise go to us for the regular hours we use to work?

Correct.


And that crap about needing to save money is nothing more than lies? I think that's what you're saying. But, even if it's not, I agree that we are being exploited. Tlazohcamati.

Sure... they're "saving money" in order to gain more profit.

There's no doubting that you are getting exploited -- you're a wage-labor -- however the magnitude of exploitation is going to differ.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

He is creating surplus value for his boss - because you can't sell food on a dirty place. He is enguaged in creating one of raw materials (That is, clean plates) necessary in the running of the resteraunt.

Let's offer another example: If "Ring Co." has expanded vertically, and now controls the gold-mines which are used to make the gold in "Ring Co." rings, the miners still add value to the gold, which is made into the rings - even though no hard cash is exchanged until the rings enter the market. The miners create surplus value, even though it isn't realized until after a later stage of production.

This also helps explain white collar workers, and the method by which a class of people whose hands don't get dirty are being fucked by their bosses too.

[Essential Insignificance]

He is creating surplus value for his boss - because you can't sell food on a dirty place. He is enguaged in creating one of raw materials (That is, clean plates) necessary in the running of the resteraunt.

He is just completing simple, monotonous, recurring necessary labor -- he is not thus -- creating any actualized wealth for his boss or society.

Do you think that a bankteller -- when he/she issues transactions is creating new founded wealth? No he/she is only performing a "necessary" activity in order for other means to create wealth.

[Snitza]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 19 2004, 09:28 AM

He is just completing simple, monotonous, recurring necessary labor -- he is not thus -- creating any actualized wealth for his boss or society.

One of the most fundamental properties of Marxism is that a 'commodity' ecompasses not only material goods and resources, but any kind of service performed by the labourer.
The commodity produced by Paradox and his fellow bussers is their action of cleaning off the tables, carrying leftovers and dirty dishes and washing them. In essence, the commodity they create is a clean table top and clean dishes. If the restaurants tabletops were cluttered with other peoples' dirty plates, and the restaurants plates were never washed, then fewer people were patronize the residence and the value of the restaurant would shrink.

The bussers, then, do not only directly create wealth and profit, but act as ensurers that there actually is a net profit for the boss to have at the end of the day.

[Snitza]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:38 AM
OK, can anyone give me a simple explanation of the labor theory of value? I'm a little confused about the part concerning the proportion of surplus value to necessary labor. Lengthening the working day, I understand that. But the part about reducing the necessary labor is a little tricky to me. Worldsocialism.org says you can reduce necessary labor by increasing productivity so that the labor time necessary for the production of articles is reduced and their prices fall. And this will cause a reduction in the value of labor-power without reducing the worker's standard of living. ??? Could someone give me a real life example of this? For example, I work as a busser at a resturaunt. There were only three of us bussers there, but a couple of weeks ago, they hired two new bussers. Now, they cut back our hours at work. It use to be that I'd work four or five hours a day. Now, I'm working about three. On Sundays, I use to go in at 7:00am, and get off around 1:00 or 1:30pm. Now, I go in at 8:00am, and they've been letting me off at around 10:30am. Last Sunday, I only worked one and half hours. They didn't need the extra bussers that they hired, so this seemed strange to me. Would this be an example of the labor theory of value? I asked the supervisors why they were cutting our hours, and they said they need to save money. Are they really losing money, or are they just out to make a bigger profit? If they were losing money, then why would they hire more people when they weren't needed? Please, in layman's terms, explain this theory. Tlazohcamati ("Thank you" in Aztec).
It's a pretty common, but discreetly done capitalist 'trick' to do, in the situation you described. The people your boss has hired are "temp"(temporary) workers. He or she is creating a 'test' environment in the restaurant, where his wage-costs are kept the same(through reduction of working hours) but he increases his work force.

It's a competition, really. The goal is to see in which divided and limited work hours do the bussers perform better. If the newly hired bussers outperform you in their given hours(which, I assume, are equal to your own newly revised hours, to keep costs balanced) then it's safe to assume you'll be canned. This 'temp' situation probably won't last too long, unless your employer can't pick out which of you all he "likes" the best.

It has nothing to do with speeding up productivity, because that mathematically and logically makes no sense.

See:

3 bussers originally, working 5 hours a day, earning 6.00 an hour, is a cumulative cost to the capitalist of $90 a day, assuming you all work at once(if not, it doesn't make a difference).

3 x 5h = 90 where h= 6

Now, he says, he works 3 hours a day. Let's re-do that equation with the new hourly work day

3 x 3h = 54 where h=6

At that rate, your owner saves $36. However, he loses those extra dollars with the labor-power he doesn't use up. This is why he hires the extra two workers to fill up the vacant labor-power. He has to pay these new workers the same as the others, of course, so let's take a look at the new and final equation for the "temp" situation that's been created:

5 total bussers, earning 6 dollars an hour, working 3 hours a day.

5 x 3h = 90 where h=6

The capitalist has broken completely even! And he also gets the opportunity to weed out the workers he doesn't want. Profits do not rise or fall during this period of time, and once the period of time is finished he can fire the less competent workers, and hire on full-time the workers who create more wealth. In the long-run, this situation will earn more profits for your boss.