====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
On Jul 8,2014 7:01 PM,"Clay Claiborne via Marxism" < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: >This is the real beauty of the labor theory of value. It reveals labor as the >source of all creation. The math on this doesn't care whether it is a slave >system or socialism. I don't understand this, based on my experience with Marxian analysis. Isn't a major part of Marx's economic work tied into his theory of history; namely that a particular theory of value corresponds to a particular set of productive forces at a particular time in history? I am currently working my way through "Towards a new socialism" by Cockshott and Cottrell (recommended by Louis via his blog post being discussed here) which reccomends using the LTV under socialism, but I don't see how the same theory is applicable under a slave labour system. On Jul 8, 2014 7:01 PM, "Clay Claiborne via Marxism" < marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu> wrote: > ====================================================================== > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > ====================================================================== > > > On 07/08/2014 01:45 PM, Louis Proyect via Marxism wrote: > > Q: “How would a socialist system account for jobs that don’t occur on > > property? Or small businesses that adhere to the service industry > > where minuscule amounts of profit comes from labor time as opposed to > > capital investment? i.e., I get paid $22 per hour / 89.50 labor rate. > > 60 otherwise goes overhead. And I sell the parts my boss invests in > > with his capital.” > I find Marx's labor theory of value to be a very sound economic > principle that is system agnostic - it applies equally well to socialism > and capitalism. Briefly, I understand it as follow 1) All exchange or > use value is the product of human labor. 2) Exchange value is determined > by the socially necessary labor required for its production. > > In the example above, the worker is paid $22/hr. What determines the > value of his labor? It is the socially necessary labor required to > product (or reproduce) the worker. This includes his up bringing and > education to get him to the point were he can do the job. It also > includes what is required to sustain him on the job and raise a family > (reproduce the laborer). Is he paid at the value of his labor? Depends, > could be more or less. And depends on many factors but as with all > prices will tend to center on value. Say $22.00/hr covers all those > costs of labor, but if the value the product of his labor isn't worth > $90/hr his employer will soon run out of work for him. The difference > between the value needed to produce the worker and the value in turn > produced by the worker is the source of all surplus value and profit. > The $68 dollar difference in this example divides between the owners > overhead and his profit. When he sells parts, he is adding value [by > making them locally available, incorporating in a repair. etc.] to items > which are the product of other worker's labor and so it value. > > This is the real beauty of the labor theory of value. It reveals labor > as the source of all creation. The math on this doesn't care whether it > is a slave system or socialism. > > > /Q: Hello, I'm getting ready for a debate on Marxism and my opponent > > has in the past pointed out that value is in fact subjective. I may > > value a pot at $100 yet he may value it at $50. If it is true that > > Labor determines the value of this pot, how do I argue against the > > Subjective Theory of Value?/ > Subjective "value" is neither exchange value or use value, which the > owner of a pot he "values" at $100 will quickly find out if the market > thinks it is only worth $50.00. [ the socially necessary labor to > produce the pot] > > Since I'm running out of time here, i will make this last point brief, > but it is extremely important - the value I'm speaking of here is what > is socially necessary given a certain level of technology and other > concrete condition of production. i.e., you can't increase the value of > your work product by working slower. > "socially necessary" should prefix every reference to exchange value > above even when I short-cut it. > > In the case of a high price command by " a well-established abstract > artist," we should consider not only all that has gone into creating > this artist, but all the "socially necessary" labor that went into > producing all the artists that are still starving. Same in other areas - > a lucky prospector find a huge nugget his first day on the job - but how > many man-hours were spent panning by the unlucky ones - all their labor > may at first glance appear worthless but it was socially necessary so > that the occasion gem can be produced. > > > > > > > > -- > Clay Claiborne, Owner > Cosmos Engineering Co. <http://CosmosEng.com/> > 116 Rose Ave, Ste. 9 > Venice Beach, CA 90291 > (310)581-1536 > > (323) 219-6507 cell > ________________________________________________ > Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/micklane.jl%40gmail.com > ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.csbs.utah.edu Set your options at: http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
