Labor Theory of Value...again

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

If the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor which is needed to produce it, then how is the value of something determined when there has been no human labor involved.

Like, computer equipment, for example, that it built using machine lines and robots.

Also, should the value of a commodity go gown when there is less human labor involved.

How then is highly technological commodities that has little human labor involved more expensive than other commodities which have more human labor put into them.

Also, how do you value resources extracted from the earth?

Can this be explained using the LTV?

And, how do you explain the value of Madonna's or metallica's music?

And if human labor is a commodity, then how do you find out the value of human labor?

[More Fire for the People]

Labor-value is stored up in the labor-power expounded in the creation of a machine. Nature is a source of value in that it provides the equivalent of such-and-such quantities of labor-power. For instance, in a simple system, food restores labor-power [ in calories for energy, protein for muscles, etc. ] and it is this restoration that determines its price.

[I'd Rather Be Drinking]

A machine has a value based on how much labor goes into it. It transfers this value to the product as it wears out. Marx calls this "constant capital", as it doesn't make money for the boss. Its value still comes from human labor. In most modern production much more is invested in constant capital than in living labor ("variable capital"). This doesn't change anything.

The value of resources extracted from the earth are based on the amount of labor socially necessary to extract them.

If you buy a CD (no matter what's on it) you are paying mostly for the labor that goes into making the physical CD and making the machines that do this. The value Madonna adds is practically nothing.

[Dimentio]

Objective physical value is summed up by the emergy and resources it took to produce the product or service in question.

Subjective value is something completely different. Elk-shit is something highly valued by German tourists in Sweden, by some odd reason [they have a tendency to steal warning signs as well]. :D

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:33 am
If the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor which is needed to produce it, then how is the value of something determined when there has been no human labor involved.

Then, it has no value.

Value is necessarily an objectivated labor.


Also, how do you value resources extracted from the earth?

Only by labor time (+) invested to find and gather them.


Also, should the value of a commodity go gown when there is less human labor involved.

Do you mean for the exact same commodity (in quality)? If yes...

Value itself does not matter for the seller, but at what rate can this commodity be exchanged with other commodities (exchange value). If value goes down for the very same commodity, then exchange value of labor embodied is going up, if other commodity producers are not following the uprgade in the production process. In that way, for less amount of labor, the boss can produce the same exchange value.


And, how do you explain the value of Madonna's or metallica's music?

By labor time invested to create their whole sound and appearence for the market.


And if human labor is a commodity, then how do you find out the value of human labor?

Simple: from the costs of producing that commodity.

The cost of prodiction of the proletariat (the sum of labor power) is the sum of all wages - the price at which the labor power is bought.

Through wages the working class is reproduced: it is enough to pay for rent, food, beer, and costs of procreating (creating and upbringing the new generation of workers).

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

ah this has all helped clarify, thankyou all.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

actually,

with regard to the value of labor as a commodity,

How does the capitalist know the value of the labor prior to having sold the commodity that the workers make?

Is the value of labor determined by the value of the commodity? And is the value of the commodity determined by the value of the labor put into it? How can these both be true if thats the case?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:36 pm
How does the capitalist know the value of the labor prior to having sold the commodity that the workers make?

He doesn't know the value of it, he knows its price.

Price of labor power gravitates on the labor market.

Besides, it's not labor which is the commodity, because labor itself, as an actuality, a performance (if you will), cannot be sold by the worker, becuase, when labor actually commences, it doesn't belong to the worker any more.

That's why the workers sell their labor power, i.e, the potential time, skill and energy.


Is the value of labor determined by the value of the commodity? How can these both be true if thats the case?

No, the value of labor power is determined by the necessary labor time needed to reproduce labor power.


And is the value of the commodity determined by the value of the labor put into it?

Yes.

Surplus value stems from the fact that labor adds value to commodity bigger than its own.

It is exactly because of this fact, labor can reproduce means to reproduce itself and at the same time produce surplus value.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

How do commodities lose value, other than being damaged or destroyed?

Because, something might be worth less, to people, 12 months after it was produced?

Like, how do we explain the same commodity becoming cheaper, in money value, the longer it has been available?

Is the value of a commodity static, or does it decline? And why does it?

[ComradeRed]

The newer commodities made embodies more labor-power than older ones, and that is the source of the diminishing value of older, inferior commodities.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

How about the value of really old stuff, like vintage cars?

How does the labor theory of value make sense of somthing getting more valuable with age?

Also, what about houses, where the location of the house can dramatically affect the price of the house?

[ComradeRed]

How does the labor theory of value make sense of somthing getting more valuable with age?

Also, what about houses, where the location of the house can dramatically affect the price of the house? It's been covered (http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/labthvalue.pdf).

[Nusocialist]

I'm not sure about the marxist version,but the version I use(mutualist/anarchist) says that the LTV,or the exchange parts only counts in a free market with reproudcible goods with an elastic supply and it claims prices will tend towards their costs in the long run.

Therefore with such pro-capitalist intervention in the market as we have today it's no wonder most things don't meet their costs.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 08:31 pm
Because, something might be worth less, to people, 12 months after it was produced?

[...]

How does the labor theory of value make sense of somthing getting more valuable with age?

It is the price which changes.

Price gravitates between value (labor embodied) and use-value (utility of thing/service) of certain commodity.

That's why if something has more use (use-value) to people as it's getting older, it's price will gravitate in that direction.

The same with negative aging. If the commodity is not used up in specific amount of time it loses its use-value to people, and labor used up goes to waste.


If use-value of certain product is non-existent, then labor embodied has no productive character, and therefore product has no value. In order to create value: labor must be productive.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Thanks to everyone who has responded so far.

I think I have been getting to know the basics so the replies all help me greatly.

How does the bourgeois economist determine the value commodities?

And why do they object to the LTV?

Is it purely that their ideology wont allow it, or is it their own theory of value is competitive?

[ComradeRed]

How does the bourgeois economist determine the value commodities? Well, they argue that there is no value.

Price is determined by supply and demand. Supply is self evidently determined by production, etc.

Demand is determined by the diminishing marginal utility curve of the good, then changes the y axis from utils (the bourgeois measurement unit of utility) to dollars.

Where the two curves intersect is where the price is.



And why do they object to the LTV? Because they think value doesn't exist.

[Luís Henrique]

If the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor which is needed to produce it, then how is the value of something determined when there has been no human labor involved.

If something is not produced through human labour, it has no value.


Like, computer equipment, for example, that it built using machine lines and robots.

Computer equipment is produced through human labour. It embodies the work of people who control the automatons. (It also embodies dead work, ie, the work put into the machines and raw material it uses for production. Dead work cannot generate value, but its value is transferred into its products.)


Also, should the value of a commodity go gown when there is less human labor involved.

No, the word isn't "should". Value goes down when less human labour is involved. What "should" go down along with value is price. This is, generally, what happens, but prices are determinated by value only in an indirect way. They mostly vary according to "demand" and "supply", which are, in final instance, determined by human labour (the ration between demand in supply for a given commodity being dictated by the difficulty to produce such commodity, ie, human labour).


How then is highly technological commodities that has little human labor involved more expensive than other commodities which have more human labor put into them.

Highly technological commodities have loads of human labour involved in their production - much more, in fact, than low-tech commodities. First, they involve a lot of dead work; second, the work they involve is usually expensive work - labour force that cannot be reproduced just with bread, water and shelter, but requires schools, training, books, etc, to its reproduction. Which means, labour force that takes more work than the average to be reproduced.


Also, how do you value resources extracted from the earth?

They are extracted from earth through human labour - how else?

Resources that are available through no work are free - oxygen in the air would be the prime example.


And, how do you explain the value of Madonna's or metallica's music?

Its economical value (not to be confused with its aesthetical value, which is probably much lower) tends to infinite. Since Madonna is irreproducible, there is no way to calculate the labour needed to create Madonna - we only know that the amount is incredibly high. Thence its prices fluctuate regardless of its value, being determined, essentially, by demand.

This is not to be confused with the value of practical devices for making Madonna's music audible - LPs, CDs, DVDs, recorder tapes, which is determined by the value of its components plus the labour spent in the recording process.


And if human labor is a commodity, then how do you find out the value of human labor?

The value of human labour force is determined by the labour needed to its reproduction, just like the value of any other commodity. The main difference is that human labour force, contrary to any other commodity, generates new value in its use. Which means, in short, that any worker is able to produce more than they need to reproduce their own labour force.

Human labour force, like all other commodities, isn't marketed for its value, but for its price. In the long term, they tend to coincide, but no one calculates its value in order to stipulate wages. The closest that it comes to that is that workers know how much money they need in order to fullfill their natural and social needs, and demand that as the price (wage) of their labour force.

Luís Henrique

[Dewolfemann]

Looks like a good discussion so far, I just wanted to add to this question



How does the capitalist know the value of the labor prior to having sold the commodity that the workers make?

I think your question was asking if the capitalists know the price they will get on the market prior to having sold the commodity that workers make.

They don't really know, they have to guess. Its part of a contradiction in capitalism known as the realization problem.


From Activist's Guide to Political Economy (http://www.activistsguide.com)
Each capitalist decides what to produce and how much to produce based on a guess of which commodities can be produced at a profitable price. To realize a profit the commodity must be sold. If a producer overestimates how many hockey pucks can be produced at a profitable price, over production occurs and profits fall.