A quote from Engels' The Housing Question

[HankMorgan]

I picked up a copy of "The Marxist Reader" at a used book store. You know, the big red book of Red writings. Something to read during those times when che-lives.com (long may it prosper) is down.

There is a piece in the book by Engels called "The Housing Question". In the piece Engels says "The worker is always cheated of a part of the product of his labor, whether that labor is paid for by the capitalist below, above or at its value". By value, I assume he means the market value or prevailing wage for the particular labor.

Any one want to take a run at explaining how the worker is being cheated? Or should I dismiss this statement as the kind of thing one Commie worker would say to recruit his not so bright co-worker?

If you say to me, the worker is entitled to his share of the profit, then I say to you what if the good or service is being sold at a loss? If there is no profit is the worker still being cheated?

Have fun.

[Severian]

Read the sentence. It says "part of the product of the labor" - obviously the product of labor must be greater than the wages paid for the labor, otherwise there would be no profit and no point in employing a worker.

[synthesis]

Learn the difference between price and value and get back to us.

[HankMorgan]

I completely understand the difference between price and value. Failure to understand the difference between price and value leads to dumb ideas like the minimum wage. Not a mistake I would make. DyerMaker, I've read many of your posts and know your abilities. You're not trying.

What I want to know is how the worker is being cheated.

Severian, are you saying the worker is only being cheated if there is a profit?

[Severian]

Cheated is a value judgement. What's indisputable is that workers are paid only part of the value of the products we make. Always, under capitalism.

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 01:46 AM
Cheated is a value judgement. What's indisputable is that workers are paid only part of the value of the products we make. Always, under capitalism.
"Cheating" implies deception and fraud, which in turn implies the initiation of force.

How have the workers had force initiated against them ? All they are doing is working for an pre-agreed price.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2004, 12:27 AM
I completely understand the difference between price and value.
Actually, you don't. You made a mistaken assumption on what Engels means by the value of labor-power. Reading a bit more basic Marxist economics should clear this up for you.

[Osman Ghazi]

"Cheating" implies deception and fraud, which in turn implies the initiation of force.


What?

Fraud = Force?

Explain.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 03:20 PM
Actually, you don't. You made a mistaken assumption on what Engels means by the value of labor-power. Reading a bit more basic Marxist economics should clear this up for you.
Ah, I see. The reason I don't understand is because the word value doesn't mean the same thing to me as it did to Engels.

To me, the value of something is the amount a willing seller will accept from a willing buyer in exchange for the good or service in question. Value has nothing to do with the amount of labor needed to create the good. Goods that take more labor tend to have a greater value but only because the amount of time needed tends to make them scarce but that's not always true. It took more labor to build my Intel 486 powered computer than it did to make my AMD Athlon powered computer but only a fool would say the 486 is more valuable.

At any rate, I can't conceive of a definition for value that makes Engel's statement anything other than what a Commie worker would say to recruit his dim co-worker.

[synthesis]

It took more labor to build my Intel 486 powered computer than it did to make my AMD Athlon powered computer but only a fool would say the 486 is more valuable.

You clearly don't understand the ideas at work here.

I don't think anyone's ever said that value is directly proportional to the labor put into the item.

The theory is that when you take all the parts, all the raw materials for your computer, and place it on a shelf for general consumption, all the value that has been created from the raw materials to the finished product was the result of a certain amount of labor.

The price, however, is a different story, and is practically arbitrary in today's society. My nephew plays these ridiculous little card games, where one flimsy little piece of paper can cost a little kid (-'s parents) upwards of $150. The price is a result of supply and demand (mostly the latter) but the real value is close to the amount of labor put into it - that is, almost nil.

[Osman Ghazi]

It took more labor to build my Intel 486 powered computer than it did to make my AMD Athlon powered computer but only a fool would say the 486 is more valuable.

Now, I'm no economist and I don't know that the LTV is 100% right.

However, you are forgetting a key ingredient. It probably took more man-hours of research to create the Athlon than it did to create the 486, because it is a far more complicated machine. When people consider the LTV, they tend to only consider the labour that went into the manufacture of a product, rather than the total amount of labour necessary to create it.

Also, Hank, I'd like to argue your 4th premise. It seems to me that wealth (natural wealth) does 'just exist'. For example, nutrient-rich soil or mineral-rich mountains, 'just exist'. Rather than wealth ever being 'created', I think that it is simply transformed from 'natural wealth' to 'human wealth', i.e. from soil to food, minerals to various products, etc.

Whaddya think?

[Professor Moneybags]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 16 2004, 08:16 PM
What?

Fraud = Force?

Explain.
If you buy a gold chain off me and you find out it is merely pained gold, then I have broken a contract, assuming as you bought it on the basis that it was all gold. In other words, I have indirectly initiated force against you.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 03:29 AM
You clearly don't understand the ideas at work here.

The price, however, is a different story, and is practically arbitrary in today's society. My nephew plays these ridiculous little card games, where one flimsy little piece of paper can cost a little kid (-'s parents) upwards of $150. The price is a result of supply and demand (mostly the latter) but the real value is close to the amount of labor put into it - that is, almost nil.
It's the definitions not the ideas that are the hang up.

From your description of the cards, what you call price, I call value.

Is it your claim then that when Engels writes value, he isn't talking about what your nephew paid for his gaming card (value - my word)? If not then what does he mean? Please let me have a definition that convinces me the worker is being cheated.

I picture you and I weeding parallel rows of crops in the hot sun. We're talking mostly to pass the time but you are trying to convince me that I'm being cheated by our employer. Make me believe.

Osman, I grant you your point on my 4th premise.