Labour Theory of Value

[ALB]

There is a good defence of the Labour Theory of Value in the video in the blog item here:

The solution to Marx’s transformation problem

Unfortunately Ian Wright who knows about us is an advocate of a workers cooperative buying and selling economy.

[alanjjohnstone]

Phew….i always say soon as algebraic formulae are introduced my mind goes to a blur. This is no exception

“…the article is theoretical, and it requires knowledge of linear algebra and production theory. However, the underlying ideas are easy to understand. I created a video that I hope delivers the main insights in a more visual form…”

Nope, it is just as mind-numbing

I wish i can have a translation in very simple terms.

[ALB]

You weren’t supposed to read the article. I didn’t tackle it either. That’s why I watched the video where he explains what he is trying to get at with a minimum of algebra. Basically, as Ricardo and Marx say that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour required to produce it, not just at the last stage of its production but from start to finish, Ian Wright is trying to find a formula to take this into account where there is production for profit.

This involves counting not just the labour that went to produce the materials used at the last stage but the labour that went into producing those materials and then the labour that went into producing the materials those materials used, and so on. As Ricardo put it:

If we look to a state of society in which greater improvements have been made, and in which arts and commerce flourish, we shall still find that commodities vary in value conformably with this principle: in estimating the exchangeable value of stockings, for example, we shall find that their value, comparatively with other things, depends on the total quantity of labour necessary to manufacture them, and bring them to market. First, there is the labour necessary to cultivate the land on which the raw cotton is grown; secondly, the labour of conveying the cotton to the country where the stockings are to be manufactured, which includes a portion of the labour bestowed in building the ship in which it is conveyed, and which is charged in the freight of the goods; thirdly, the labour of the spinner and weaver; fourthly, a portion of the labour of the engineer, smith, and carpenter, who erected the buildings and machinery, by the help of which they are made; fifthly, the labour of the retail dealer, and of many others, whom it is unnecessary further to particularize. The aggregate sum of these various kinds of labour, determines the quantity of other things for which these stockings will exchange, while the same consideration of the various quantities of labour which have been bestowed on those other things, will equally govern the portion of them which will be given for the stockings.

I’m not sure that this could be done in practice but Ian Wright was trying to show that it could be in theory be done even when there is capital investment for profit.

By the way, if you can’t do maths you might be denied access to this forum. I had to answer what is 1 x one.

[alanjjohnstone]

“…not just the labour that went to produce the materials used at the last stage but the labour that went into producing those materials and then the labour that went into producing the materials those materials used, and so on….”

Socially necessary labour time as Marx puts it.

And is it one of the reasons why labour time vouchers should be rejected? Far too complicated for an empirical calculation of value added such as suggested by Parecon, even with computers.

Why do some Marxist economists insist on making things hard to understand. Rather than talking to us simple souls of how the world works. They want to gain academic Brownie points tryng to convince bourgeois economist. Even the video’s diagrams were not easy to understand

1×1
That one is easy…my question entailed me not only using my fingers but also taking my shoes and socks off to do the sum.

[Author]

Posts