The Labour Theory of Value and Equality

[dksu]

I'd like to know how exactly Marx gets from the extraction of surplus value from the work of the labourer, to his conclusions pertaining equality.

I was thinking it might be something to do with the idea that, with the workers' seizure of the means of production, goods will be produced for the purpose of society's progression - i.e. the means of production, and science in general, will be put to work FOR the worker, instead of 'confronting the worker as something alien' (as Marx might say). This would lead to a situation where enough goods are being produced such that everyone's needs (needs that are constantly developing, with the constant development of the means of production) will be able to be met in a way that's both non-exploitative and more efficient, as wage slavery is overcome and the means of production are aimed at meeting human needs directly rather than the extraction of surplus value (as this is not necessary and has become a 'fetter').

However... This explanation strikes me as missing something - namely Marx's scientific rigour ;o. Is this at all correct? Are different types of labour considered equal in value? How does Marx work this?

Thanks!

[mikelepore]

As far as I can see, your second paragraph has nothing to do with how the extraction of surplus value is carried out.

Begin by realizing that two intimately related things are not pinned to each other economically. The exchange value of the labor power that makes production possible is one thing. The exchange value of the worker's product is another thing. There is nothing to make these two things track with each other. Automated machinery may cause the productivity of labor to rise a thousandfold over the years, and there is nothing to cause workers wages to rise correspondingly. That's because the two quantities are determined independently.

The exchange value of the commodity that is labor power is determined by the exchange values of the components that produce it, that is, the values of food, housing, education, etc. -- the costs of producing a worker whose body will be available to be auctioned off on the labor market. Because of this economic effect, workers' wages keep gravitating back to the subsistence level, the "living wage."

In Marx theory, the commodity that is labor power, which the capitalist has purchased from the worker and now has the use of, has a characteristic that no other commodity can have. It is called variable capital because it undergoes a kind of expansion in value. This expansion occurs between the time when it's the abilty to do work and the time when it becomes actual work being performed. It is the expanded value that the labor adds to the work in progress. The value that the labor adds to the work in progress is much greater than the worker's wages. The result is that the value of the products of labor is much greater than the value of the labor power that the capitalist paid for.

[mikelepore]

Are different types of labour considered equal in value?

quote Marx, from _Capital_, chapter 13:

"The labour realised in value, is labour of an average social quality; is consequently the expenditure of average labour-power. Any average magnitude, however, is merely the average of a number of separate magnitudes all of one kind, but differing as to quantity. In every industry, each individual labourer, be he Peter or Paul, differs from the average labourer. These individual differences, or 'errors' as they are called in mathematics, compensate one another, and vanish, whenever a certain minimum number of workmen are employed together. The celebrated sophist and sycophant, Edmund Burke, goes so far as to make the following assertion, based on his practical observations as a farmer; viz., that 'in so small a platoon' as that of five farm labourers, all individual differences in the labour vanish, and that consequently any given five adult farm labourers taken together, will in the same time do as much work as any other five. But, however that may be, it is clear, that the collective working-day of a large number of workmen simultaneously employed, divided by the number of these workmen, gives one day of average social labour."

====

edit post:

Never mind. That's a statement about labor expenditures "all of one kind, but differing as to quantity." But you asked about "different types."

[dksu]

You're correct - my second paragraph was directed more at the desired outcomes of expropriation. Thanks for the response though, that made some things more clear.

Hrm... I'm not exactly sure what I'm trying to ask here, I'll give it a try though ;p. What's the role that 'value' plays in a socialist economy? Are we purely dealing with use-values, since exchange is abolished? How exactly is the problem of the worker not receiving the full value for his produce solved (I know - abolishing the capitalist class ;p. But a little more detail, if possible =O)? I might also add, how then, is collective ownership justified?

And finally... Are all philosophy majors as terrible at economics as I? lol, I've tried to crack open some texts on Marxist economics (Mandel, mostly), and at times it just sounds like another language. Just takes a little getting used to the terminology I guess ;p.

[mikelepore]

I'm skeptical about the "exchange is abolished" part of it. As long as all occupations pool their efforts, e.g., the bread baker consumes some shoes and the shoe maker consumes some bread, that's exchange. I realize that Marx wrote: "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products...." [Critique of the Gotha Programme], but, in my humble opinion, he's playing with semantics.

Workers will receive the full proceeds of their labor when nothing gets deducted unnecessarily. What is genuinely necessary to deduct, gets deducted. Marx explained [same pamphlet as above, Critique of the Gotha Programme]:

"... the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product. From this must now be deducted: - cover for replacement of the means of production used up. - additional portion for expansion of production. - reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc. ... - the general costs of administration not belonging to production. ... - that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc. ... Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society -- after the deductions have been made -- exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labor. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labor time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labor (after deducting his labor for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labor cost. The same amount of labor which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another."

[dksu]

Interesting about the 'exchange' bit. I believe that Marx uses the word 'exchange', sometimes, as synonymous with 'the market'.

Your definition of exchange though, sounds kind of like barter (though I very well could have a completely fucked definition of 'barter'). My impression is that 'exchange' won't take place as we know it, but goods will be given to people based on 'need' (including 'wants') - and as the means and forces of production grow, peoples' needs will evolve along with it. Science becomes the ultimate provider for everyone, in this sense ;/. And so, technically, the 'act' of exchange is replaced by a kind of planning. Of course, we'll still need bread-bakers and shoe-makers, it's just that their produce will be distributed on a 'need' basis, rather than one of 'exchange'.

That Gotha Programme quote strikes me as odd, I think, because it implies a kind of 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his work' idea, rather than standard 'according to his need' ;/.

[mikelepore]

I'm in a minority around here. The way I interpret Marx's passage regarding "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," he's saying that it's _NOT_ an appropriate goal for the socialist movement. The expression comes from an 1840 book by Louis Blanc, and Marx's 1875 pamphlet is responding to it. Marx replies that the workers should move into a system in which workers are compensated according to their work hours, although the people of a future era may find that they can instead base it on "needs". How far into the future? When so much of the work will be automated that wealth will flow out like water from a spring [Marx's analogy], and then it will hardly matter whether any people will show up at work or not. So in my interpretation Marx cites Blanc's "according to his needs" goal, not to endorse it, but to endorse indefinitely postponing it.

[dksu]

Hrm... I see what you're saying. That would tend to fit more with the quotation from the CotGP, in terms of workers being able to hold onto the full value of their produce, rather than it being siphoned off into the surplus. 'Value' in a socialist economy makes sense in this context.

So, how do most explain it then?

[mikelepore]

So, how do most explain it then?

I would be unfair for me to attempt to paraphrase those with whom I disagree, so for the most part I will shut up about others and allow them to answer for themselves.

People whose theoretical legacy comes through Lenin are the most numerous. I'm associated with a school of thought that grew out of the First International and didn't take anything from Lenin.

Also note, the diametric opposite viewpoint from my own can be found at worldsocialism.org -- a movement that want to immediately (no transition period) abolish all money, make all work voluntary and unpaid, and make all goods free for the taking. I have been debating them comradely but heatedly for years.


Are all philosophy majors as terrible at economics as I?

Can't help ya -- my formal training is all in physics and engineering :o)

[dksu]

Interesting, they sound kind of libertarian =O.

Anyways, hopefully some Leninists will come busting up in here in a few seconds ;o. I'm currently taking a course in Marxism, and while the whole Hegelian/rationalist deal I'm getting (I've seen Rosa's anti-dialectics page, and plan to take a look at that when I have the time, i.e. in a few months ;p), the economic terminology in some of these books is pure madness for me right now, argh...

Thanks btw, this site is damn informative.

[dksu]

bump

I'm looking for a perspective that differs from mikelepore's here in answering some of my questions =O.

Any help is appreciated.

[gilhyle]

Im fascinated to know what Mikelpore's tradition is !

Maybe i'm naive here but the logic of this seems quite simple to me. Roughly, stage one, there is commodity exchange but it is not generalised, in which case demand and supply determine price. Stage two. commodity production is generalised which forces commodities to be exchanged in proportion to what is common to them, namely labour power. Stage three, workers take over the State and move to a situation where commodities still exchange in proportion to value, but the State tends to undermine that by undermining the separation of capital from labour that is characteristic. Finally, under communism, the exchange of products in proportion to value is finally overcome, the law of value is suppressed and society assigns to people in proportion to need, understood in terms of use value rather than exchange value.

Yes this is 'indefinitely postponed' at the time workers take power. But it still informs the planning process as something towards which planning constantly redesigns itself.

[Of course its also one of the most persistent and powerful criticisms of Marx to claim that Burke was wrong and that different types of labour are never equalised under capitalsim, indeed cant be (supposedly) because the are qualitatively different in a supposedly irreducible way and consequently that the determination of price by supply and demand remains the ultimate form of determination of price even commodity production is generalised.]

[Die Neue Zeit]

People whose theoretical legacy comes through Lenin are the most numerous. I'm associated with a school of thought that grew out of the First International and didn't take anything from Lenin.

...

Can't help ya -- my formal training is all in physics and engineering :o)

Hmmm... am I wrong to stereotype Marxist-leaning physicists as those who stick with "orthodox Marxism" (because ComradeRed, too, is a physicist)? :D

[mikelepore]

I'm not exactly orthodox. I could list what I consider incorrect in Marx. But when someone asks how Marx explained something [the first post in this topic] then I try to suppress my own views for a minute and answer what was requested.

Then, by my second post in the topic, I lose that self-control and I can't resist presenting my own case.

Now I'll tell you how Ptolemy demonstrated that the earth is the center of the universe ... only kidding.... !

[JimFar]

Gilhyle wrote"


Im fascinated to know what Mikelpore's tradition is !

From other discussion forums where I have seen Mike, I believe that he describes himself as being a Deleonist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Leonism).

[mikelepore]

I guess I'll have to call myself 95 percent Marxist and also 95 percent De Leonist, because I think most of the positions are right, and a few of them screwed up.

The wikipedia article on deleonism contains some errors. For example, it is not true that deleonism has a "decentralized" goal. But I give up trying to fix wikipedia's errors.

Anyway, the basic idea of De Leon is this: Marx left his theory unfinished because he didn't conceive of two important things, an industrial management system to replace capitalism with, and a reliable method to install a new system. The two things that Marx left out are actually the same thing; the goal and the program to enact that goal need to be the same entity. The goal is a management by a confederated assembly of the workers of all industries, and the kind of organization under capitalism needed to achieve the goal is to form a confederated assembly of the workers of all industries. That idea has been expressed in various ways:

"The army of production must be organized, not only for everyday struggles with the capitalists, but also to carry on production when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially, we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old." -- IWW Preamble

"Industrial unionism is the socialist republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the industrial union is the socialist republic in operation. Accordingly, the industrial union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself." -- Daniel De Leon

More info: the link in my signature.

[gilhyle]

Thanks for the clarification......its a small off-the-point point, but De Leon always seemed to me an intrinsically Second International Trend and when histories of the Second International are so Euro-centric as to leave to De Leon out, it distorts the range of views in the Second International

[mikelepore]

Yes, for the first half of the Second International's life span. At the International Socialist Congress of 1904 in Amsterdam, Holland, Morris Hillquit persuaded the convention to take away most of the votes from De Leon, delegate of the Socialist Labor Party of America, and give them to himself, delegate of the Socialist Party of America. Rosa Luxemburg argued in favor of De Leon but they lost the case. So the SLP abandoned the Second International and considered it captured by liberal reformists. (The SLP also sent someone to the Third International founding convention in Moscow in 1919 but they gave up on that almost immediately.)

[dksu]

De Leon definitely sounds like an interesting character, I'll be sure to check him out. I did briefly, but I have that site bookmarked waiting until I have some spare time ;p!

Anyways, a response to one of your comments, mikelepore;

"Marx replies that the workers should move into a system in which workers are compensated according to their work hours, although the people of a future era may find that they can instead base it on "needs". How far into the future? When so much of the work will be automated that wealth will flow out like water from a spring [Marx's analogy], and then it will hardly matter whether any people will show up at work or not."

I raised this with a professor today, and he raised the following point; If we come to a society where work is essentially automated, does this not nullify the labour theory of value (as value is created by labour - and technically, there's no labouring being done =S). How does one respond =o?

BTW, still waiting for some Leninists to enter the fray!

[mikelepore]

All students of Marx should note: What is often called the labor theory of value has nothing to do with the operation of a socialist system. It is entirely a model to describe how capitalism operates. If a socialist society does assign values to products, and if those values are based on requisite labor, then another kind of labor theory of value may be invented, but the economic theory that we have received from Marx is completely a description of how things turn out in a competitive marketplace of capitalism. In some recent discussions it has seemed that point this hasn't been clear to everyone.

[mikelepore]

How can work be essentially automated if it isn't entirely automated? The 19th century utopians didn't anticipate this conclusion, but human beings must operate the robots, and, probably for the next several centuries at least, to continue redesigning and programming and repairing the robots. Labor won't become unnecessary. Hopefully the hours will be reduced and the labor made less strenuous; for example, a coal miner may be a person who spends ten hours per week in a comfortable office and operates a control panel that manipulates the robots that are in the coal mines. I see only quantitative changes. I see no indication that labor is going to lose its most basic characteristics, i.e., it is generally done for the results that it provides and not for the fun of it, it has to be done, people have to be required to show up to do it, material incentives are one method to induce people to show up to do it.