Results 1 to 5 of 5
Labor Theory of Value
Recently I've heard several right-libertarians talk about how the "labor theory of value" has been repeatedly refuted, and how Marxism in its entirety has therefore been proven wrong. I have a pretty basic understanding of Marxist economics, but not really enough to argue with them about it. So is there anyone who can help me with these questions: (1) What, exactly, is the LTV? (2) In what ways has it been "refuted"? (3) What are some Marxist responses to this supposed falsification of Marx's work? Any help is appreciated.
Sorry I can't give you a proper response (my wife is wanting me to go smoke with her) so this'll have to make do for now. This site http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2...-introduction/ has most of the information you're looking for in nice condensed videos with some added info in the transcripts. Be sure to check out the whole series.
Read Value, Price & Profit for a brief overview.
The down and dirty:
The worker sells her laboring power (labour-power) with a capitalist in exchange for her means of subsistence. The capitalist then has use of her productive capacity for a set period of time. In that period of time, she produces more than what is required for her subsistence. She gives the accumulated labor in the capitalist's possession a greater value than it had before. She has created surplus value (profit).
"Getting a job, finding a mate, having a place to live, finding a creative outlet. Life is a war of attrition. You have to stay active on all fronts. It's one thing after another. I've tried to control a chaotic universe. And it's a losing battle. But I can't let go. I've tried, but I can't." - Harvey Pekar
If people are attacking the LTV as a way to attack the concept of exploitation there is an alternative way to understand the latter. Private property allows, and defends, the monopolisation of the earth and its resources. Those who own thus alienate the remainder from any direct control over their own productive needs and who are thus limited to the forced labour for the owning class (or starvation). The labour of the non-owning class for the owning class is thus exploitation because, through the monopolisation for private gain of the earth, there is no reasonable alternative than to accept the terms of the owning class - other than to starve. I know I'm not actually defending the LTV here, but if you happen to be looking for a more direct way to defend the concept of exploitation I think this is it.
It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. Karl Marx.
