Hacker News Reader

Comment by ihm | Hacker News Reader

I don't think your comment is a good faith engagement with leftist understandings of value. This is the starting point of Marx's whole theory of capitalism (it's in the first few chapters of Capital) which is the labor theory of value.

Namely, his starting point is that labor is identified with value. Wealth is created when raw materials and the means of production are combined with labor. In the capitalist theory of value in contrast, one's legal right (inherited or otherwise) is one of the things which is identified with value.

It's not a claim that this value is something metaphysical, just a political assertion that this is what we ought to think of as "value". It's all about what you want to consider as the primary "cost" in production.

This has been refined over the years. I'm not an expert so I may not be able to respond to any and all criticisms but I will try my best.

View on HN

A funny thing happened on the way to the worker's paradise. It turns out that technology allows for capital to be substituted directly for labor. Its starting to look like so much so that labor may become altogether unnecessary (and so without any value at all). That leaves us in a pretty tight spot under the current orthodoxy.

in such cases, labor is being leveraged, not obviated. the labor shifts to those who build, monitor, and maintain the machines doing the work that used to be done directly by laborers. capital is the accumulation of the fruits of our (leveraged) labor. that we privilege capital is why we’re in a tight spot, rather than labor not being the basis of value.

the miracle is that we can build more while doing less, but nothing gets built if we do nothing at all (e.g., wealth concentration).

Who created the technology, though?

If people really think Marxism can be dismissed with a simplistic argument like this, I'd encourage them to actually read the first few chapters of Capital. Agree with his world view or not, Marx was not an idiot.

> It turns out that technology allows for capital to be substituted directly for labor.

And which Capitalist Paradise Cruise ship do you picture yourself manning for this critique? Elsevier?

> his starting point is that labor is identified with value

This is a large mistake. For example, spending an hour on an exercise bike is certainly a lot of labor input, but nothing of value, since nobody will pay you to cycle on an exercise bike.

You're making a large mistake too. For example, that nobody will pay you to cycle on an exercise bike does not mean your labor has no value -- after all, if you're in better health, you will be more productive in the hours you're not on that bike.

(to make my point more explicit: in Marx' definition of labor he implies labor of enterprise, not just spending calories. Just like your definition of value implies financial value, not just any positive outcome. I'm purposefully misrepresenting your definition of value just like you're purposefully misrepresenting Marx' definition of labor.)

> Just like your definition of value implies financial value

When the discussion is about economics, that's what matters. There is no intrinsic value to labor.

> Marx' definition of labor he implies labor of enterprise

The economic value of labor has no necessary relationship at all to the effort or time supplied by the laborer. If Bob works inefficiently, his labor is worth less than Bill who works efficiently, even if they both work exactly the same length and effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com