> There is no value without labor.
is this a serious statement?
is this a serious statement?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
As wikipedia says, "modern mainstream economics rejects the LTV" (for very good reasons). It leads to some pretty obvious absurdities if you take it seriously. For example, 10,000 people digging holes should be more "valuable" than one guy designing a microchip, because hey! The holes take more labor.
Nevermind Marx accounted for demand and markets when talking about cost of labor, but people love to strawman.
You may choose to disagree. Just as modern economists disagree with the LTV.
Modern economists haven't refuted this, and in fact many parrot it, and anyone saying they have rejected the idea is misinformed. See for instance https://bnarchives.yorku.ca/308/2/20101200_cockshott_nitzan_...
The LTV absolutely accounts for demand (what capitalists call "value") and in fact requires it for its description of how capitalism operates. It's really just saying there are two forms of value: aggregate demand and aggregate production costs, with competition driving prices down to production costs. If you don't agree with that, I don't really know how else to help because it's kind of a universal truth in a mass production market economy.
Economy is not a natural or exact science. There is a mainstream. But this does not mean that there is no valid inquiries and theories outside mainstream.
You are the one defending the LTV, not me. If value = labor, but not when that would be silly, it's a bit like saying F = ma, but not when that would be silly. No serious scientist would accept this formulation. You would be laughed out the room.
After millions of deaths, environment devastation, and political repression, Marxism deserves to be laughed out of the room as well. I hope it will be, some day.
I never said anything about "use the theory, except when its silly". What was silly was the example because of the lack of understanding of the parent comment: LTV does not work like described by that comment. You can not even properly criticize something if you do not understand it.
The moralist excuse to forbid or negate certain knowledge is also silly. Depending on where you live (USA, Europe), you probably post these comments in a society built (and perhaps even mantained) by an even larger kill count, but I never will use this as a way to refuse or negate discussion or knowledge.
I've already presented several scenarios where a different amount of labor did not produce a different amount of value. Your response has just been that "socially necessary labor" is different than "labor." But this is nonsense since we don't have any authority to tell us what is "socially necessary" and what is not. Indeed, we have many examples of socialist governments deciding that it's not "socially necessary" for certain groups of people to eat at all -- the Holodomor in Ukraine, or der Hungerplan in Nazi Germany.
Your examples are exactly as expected by LTV. LTV agrees that they do not produce different exchange values. The problem is that you are just ignoring what the LTV says, ignoring the theory definitions and is coming with your own ideas of what you think it says. And when I try to give you what the theory says, you just say that it is nonsense, saying more things that confirm that you have no idea about what you are talking:
> But this is nonsense since we don't have any authority to tell us what is "socially necessary" and what is not.
You do not need the authority. The theory describes the functioning of free markets, and capitalism running without hindrances. But taking into account the material reality that you need nature + labor to socially produce things and that in one side you have production, at the other side you have consumption and these things need to be balanced.
Pro tip: LTV was the mainstream of economical theories during the era when Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Marx, and all other classical economists published their contributions. All them agreed with LTV. Do you really think that you can refute it using so silly examples? In fact, there are several criticisms and known paradoxes that applies to older forms of LTV, but your attacks are missing even these older and more naive forms. Which is expected: you cannot formulate proper criticism for things that you do not fully understand and did not study.
That's not what Marxism says at all.
It would be more accurate to say "modern mainstream economists". To say "economics" here is a real failure on Wikipedia's moderation. Because what they're actually talking about, is the Austrian School of Economics [1]:
> The Austrian school is a heterodox[1][2][3] school of economic thought that advocates strict adherence to methodological individualism,
"Individualism" is the key part here because it betrays the intent, which is to disempower people from acting collectively, such as by forming unions. This is a key tenet of classical liberalism so an appeal to authority like "modern mainstream economics" we're really just saying "neoliberalism".
Neoliberalism isn't a neutral account or critique of capitalism. It wholly embraces capitalism as a solution to all problems. Neoliberalism can pretty much be summed up as weaker/smaller government (because it hurts profits) and indivudalism (because collective action hurts profits).
> 10,000 people digging holes should be more "valuable" than one guy designing a microchip
That's an asinine example. I mean what hole are they digging? If it's the Panama Canal, that's pretty valuable. Also, the example of one person designing a chip goes to the heart of the problem that LTV addressses. What does that design do? Well, nothing. It only has value if you make something with it you can sell (or you sell it to someone who does). You want to fab it? Well, TSMC involves a lot of labor. ASML involves a lot of labor. The materials required require a lot of labor.
Plus there's the issue that the chip design itself is intellectual property, which itself is an enclosure (in the capitalist sense).
Everything we as a society is so fundamentally interconnected that it's arbitrary and selective to attribute the value created to a tiny few. And it's done for the gain of the few at the expense of the many.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_school_of_economics
That's an asinine example. I mean what hole are they digging? If it's
the Panama Canal, that's pretty valuable.
“You don’t understand, Mr. Friedman, this canal is a jobs program to provide work for as many men as possible.”
“Oh, I see. I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you really want to create jobs, then by all means give these men spoons, not shovels.”
I am a capitalist and my money goes to pay labor to create a thing that I sell in a market. The workers create thing in the production process. I have captured a portion of the labor's true value based on the market, bringing me profit - what Marx called "surplus value."
I turn around and reinvest that profit into another business that brings me more profit. Rinse and repeat, forever.
But that profit is nothing but a portion of the labor's true value as reflected in the market price, and therefore the labor created the value. The market did not create the value. The market decided on a price to pay for the value created by the labor.
Much like "machines all the way down", value is labor all the way down.
Related: when Marxism was actually implemented, they had big problems with not building the right things, and building the things they did build poorly. For example a factory was assigned the task of building N pounds of nails a day, so they just built one giant nail that weighed N pounds (and was totally useless) rather than buliding what was needed. Because it turns out, management is actually needed and useful.
[And so are price signals, but let's take baby steps here!]
this is so wrong. management is labor, too.
In the Marxist view, the work just inherently "happens" (like water flowing down a stream) and capitalists can only be like a water wheel "capturing the value" that's flowing past. Of course, this is bullshit, but that is the mentality.