This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.134.107.137 (talk) at 17:28, 16 May 2020 (→Incorrect statement in section History / Karl Marx: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:28, 16 May 2020 by 68.134.107.137 (talk) (→Incorrect statement in section History / Karl Marx: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Labor theory of value article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Analytical Presentation
Please refer to http://eurodos.free.fr/mime for the whole presentation.
LTV - seen in a new and different way
the value is a social relationship
A main problem with the common interpretation of the labour theory of value is, that the value is viewed as objectified in commodities. But value is a social relationship. Social relationships are formed among people. Exchange partners enter a value ratio/relation when they exchange scarce commodities, also called goods, against substitute commodities (money) or other commodities. The value is developed as a value ratio/relation and appeals only on the social level between the exchange partners. After the exchange of the commodities the value ratio/relation is finalized.
the value of workforce is the base the value but not the value cannot be calculated 1:1 from it
Items, as well as for example concerts, can only be reference points in value ratios/relations. Value is primarily based on the value of workforce who were involved in provision of these commodities (development, planning, production, logistics, advertisement, sale, menial work, and so on). But the value of the workforce does not necessarily go direct 1:1 into the value quantity of these commodities. Rather they are linked as claims for compensation with the commodities.
certain natural resources can be provided with an economical value
Also, the values of certain natural resources incorporated into these claims based on consideration for the sale of goods. This is because certain natural resources are property of persons or institutions, and not freely accessible. The owner of the natural resources are able to demand service in return for the release of the natural resources, so that the natural resources are included in the value ratios/relations. The extraction costs of natural resources, for supplier components and further value-forming assets must be added to the value ratio / relation to the claim of the return service.
the surplus value is a part of the value attribute of a commodity
Also an surplus value is added. This additional value only represents a claim prior to the sale of the commodities. All those claims together can be viewed as value attributes. The value attribute of a commodity describes the expected value of reward when selling the commodity by the vendor. Every member of the community (company a. s. f.) that prestage a commodity should usually generate a surplus value. The problem is to recognize the right income of the CEOs a. s. f. because in the most of the cases they order an income is much to high so that Exploitation is the right word for such a behavior.
the value will be instantiated between the exchange partners at the market
Before the exchange of the commodity against the relating substitute commodity the commodity is only a potential commodity and it's value is only a potential value, a claim for compensation. At a market, a buyer and seller agree (unilateral or in dialog) in a value ratio/relation on a mutual value quantity, the value. That value is an objective component in a value ratio/relation, because it evolved between the exchange partners or was taken over by one side, and therefore exceeds the idealistic expectations of one side, can’t be changed by one side, and is comprehensible for a third party, especially the society.
the value quantity
The value quantity of that value is based on the value of workforce, but also on the value of used natural resources, and the additional value - all of them directly and indirectly (esp. from the past). Also the brand name and other features are incorporated into the value quantity of the additional value.
Remarks
- The content of this contribution based on an book: Rainer Lippert "Mit Marx zur Marktwirtschaft?" ("With Marx to a market economy?", Tectum Science Publishing, Germany 2017, ISBN 978-3-8288-3917-5
- Commodity is not a good expression in this context, because it's very closely coupled with the traditionally interpretation of the LTV. Better would be the term "value object". A "value object" can be an object, an idea (book, patent, ...), a concert, in a lot of cases a natural resource, providing security, ... .
- I hope it's ok to place this note in front of "External links modified"
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Labor theory of value. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315000327/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315000327/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1 to http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG1
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Rainer Lippert, 10.03.2018; 19.06.2018
The usual interpretation of labor theory of value is wrong.
The alleged value for a commodity is calculated with W = c + v + s, W = constant capital + variable capital + surplus value.
This calculation is applied to the production side of the goods economic society. But there is no real surplus value on the production side. On the production side costs are initially incurred. The customer later pays the surplus value on the market, but only if he assesses the work results formed the commodity as sufficiently good. This means that only an 'expected surplus value' can be included in the calculation. As a result, there cannot be a real labor value on the production side, only an 'expected value' including the expectation that the customer will replace c + v can be there: W | expected = c|replacement expected + v|replacement expected + s|expected.
The real labor value w = c + v + s is only formed on the market - as a social relationship between the customer and the provider, because only there the real surplus value is paid, only there the customer replaces the values for c and v, also parts of the value W. The realized surplus value the customer pays may deviates from the expected surplus value and consequently the real labor value would deviates with it.
The reason why the value calculation is misplaced is based on the fact that the work is considered to be directly labor value forming. But the work does not directly create value. Work can only create conditions for possible value relationships between people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RainerLiBln (talk • contribs) 11:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
LTV Not Normative
It is silly to say in the first sentence of the article that the LTV is normative. You could make an argument that it is in Locke and some of the Ricardian socialists. But it is certainly not normative in Ricardo, the best theoretician of the classical economists. 128.132.1.133 (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree. Also, most of the article does not deal with a normative/moral concept, so this is highly misleading. I've changed the lead back to what it was in January.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This page needs some serious work
There are a lot of confusing non-idiomatic phrases ("Distinctions of economically pertinent labor", e.g.) that need cleaning up. I also have no idea what the last section is trying to say; it contains no citations from anyone who matters in Marxian economics. This page and the criticisms page both need attention from a qualified expert (I will work on this slowly over time if no one else can). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusammenbruch (talk • contribs) 19:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I have removed citation claims on the Keen-Bichler/Nitzan sources, since this is what the source claims, so asking for a citation is a bit weird since the source is what is being cited for the claim - Nitzan and Bichler cite the studies in the source. To avoid confusion, I have edited the paragraph to make clear that these are the claims of the sources, not absolute, indisputable facts on Marx (I have thus also mentioned Moseley's claims on Marx as well, for the same reason). I have also removed Zusammenbruch's own edits involving Capital - with all due respect to Zusammenbruch, this looks more like an original argument composed by Zusammenbruch using Marx as a source to criticise Keen-Bichler/Nitzan, rather than an actual sourced response to Keen-Bichler/Nitzan that uses Marx as its own separate source. Zusaamenbruch has stated that they have done professional work on Marx, so if they want to cite some of their own material on this that would be excellent. Alternatively, find sources which do (I did once read a criticism of Keen that claimed Keen's argument is really about providing a proof but that doesn't matter since the LTV, and the rest of economic theory for the record, are dependent upon their relation to reality for evidence, rather than mathematical proofs like you get in maths. Asking for a proof was, in that author's view, irrelevant) but it was a blog so it can't be cited. I have left the criticism of Keen but requested a citation, if anyone has it.Sdio7 (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it is useful to say "some studies" without saying who, though. Otherwise, the reader cannot easily--without tracking down the Nitzan and Bichler and finding their citations--get to know the original argument, not that I think these kinds of studies understand Marx's point adequately. I don't know what the Wikipédia rules for this are, but I don't think it is fair to include Nitzan and Bichler and not let someone cite Marx himself *anticipating and rebutting this kind of argument in advance*. I don't have the time to track down all rebuttals to them, and it surely must be worth noting that Marx anticipates and rejects this kind of criticism in advance?? Marx was criticizing precisely this kind of Ricardian understanding in the first place--do I have to actually find an article that cites Nitzan and Bichler in order to make this point? It's not original research of mine. I could add a source from, say, Michael Heinrich making this point *generally* Zusammenbruch (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2019
- I see what you mean now and I think you have a point. The Bichler-Nitzan source does claim sources but I get your concerns and now think it should mentioned - perhaps have source or note that says something like "Bichler and Nitzan cite Paper X Paper Y Paper Z etc as examples of such studies" and citations of the studies. I'll do this myself in a bit unless you want to go ahead and just mention the studies they cite yourself of course.
- On the subject of citing Marx - the issue is, as I understand it, Misplaced Pages doesn't like people to construct arguments using sources, even if well argued, but prefers people to summarise sources. So even if you're argument is completely valid (and to be clear I'm not saying it isn't) it may possibly fall afoul of this. I've seen this happen in the past. I suppose, to be fair, if it seems Bichler and Nitzan have misunderstood Marx then allowing a source to his claims isn't a bad idea (a big issue with Marx is understanding him, hence why his ideas are often so contentious) but my concern is that it would be you summarising Marx's arguments to argue against Bichler-Nitzan rather than a source, which would fall afoul of the "Do not interpret primary source material" rule. I also sympathise with your point that trying to find a different rebuttal to every single point is way too tedious. That said, plenty of pages trying to describe Marx do often just go ahead and cite Capital. In fact I would argue Misplaced Pages needs more of that (a lot of stuff from Capital isn't cited as such) and the only way around this would be to find some book that discusses every single bit of Capital. Now that I think about, I have just cited Capital in the past because I saw claims on Marx which I knew were true but they weren't referenced. In addition, the rules on primary sources are more forgiving, as far as I can tell, if you're just summarising what it says and avoiding trying to interpret it. This is difficult because summaries will contain your own understanding but I think you should be ok, especially if Marx was predicting criticisms (and it would be up to the reader to decide if he was right or not anyway). Maybe always provide a hyperlink to Marx's online works if possible so people can very easily check, that should help avoid running afoul of rules and just make really clear it's what Marx says, not what you're saying. So just include "Marx says" a lot I guess.
- Tell you what - I think you've convinced me of your PoV, so I'll say that if you want to cite Marx because you think he has preempted the criticism, I won't remove them. It at least gives the reader knowledge of what Marx said and they can decide for themselves if the criticism is misplaced or not, whereas not referencing Marx could be misleading. If a moderator comes along and tells says it's breaching Wiki rules, then that'll be that, but until said so, I think I'll be ok with it. That said, if a secondary source is found that basically repeats Marx's point, it would be wise to go and swap a reference for Marx to a reference for that one just to make sure.
- Cheers for the correction on Moseley by the way. Sdio7 (talk) 23:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your patient reply. I'm sorry that I was fairly sharp in replying. I actually did find a fairly good critique of Keen in, of all places, Dave Beech's book on the critique of political economy and the fine art world. I also found a text on Marx's accounting that will allow for a cited/sourced reply to Keen (Robert Bryer's recent book has some material on this controversy. I appreciate your reply; I am an expert on several things, but Misplaced Pages rules are not one of them. I take it for granted that you know the rules and are simply transmitting them to me, but I'm surprised that Misplaced Pages works that way. Maybe it's the least of all evils, but it seems like it opens itself up to a certain amount of bad behavior that way: there are zillions of academic journals and publishing houses out there--it's not hard to find (or even yourself publish) some very sloppy critique of someone who has a big corpus and to then say "well nobody's responded to it". I know that the criticism you're putting in is much more than simply some rando finding outlandish stuff, just saying that the rules would seem to allow for that sort of thing.
Thanks for your reply and your helpful information about how to best follow Misplaced Pages rules. I think I have a better understanding and will be able to contribute more effectively in the future. I'll put in the two sources that I've just mentioned. Zusammenbruch (talk) 29 July 2019
- No problem, the response was fine. As for the Misplaced Pages rules, they seem to be like this because the site is supposed to be an encyclopedia that just reports what sources say (someone put it to me "if all the sources said the sky was red, not blue, well Misplaced Pages would have to say the sky was red). This can lead to daft articles at times but that's how it is, otherwise you run the risk people will turn Misplaced Pages pages into their own personal arguments, which could very easily lead to the articles being biased. So as you say it's the lesser of two evils. However, this has to be weighed against the fact that one needs to cite primary sources in cases like a story where you have to provide a synopsis, so the compromise is to limit your own interpretation. As I said, provided you're just citing Marx and making clear it's what he says, you should probably be fine. I mean loads of articles reporting what Marx said don't even have citations (for some reason, I think standards were laxer years ago) or didn't for several years but they don't get taken down, so I fail to see why citing Marx should be a problem except in certain circumstances.
- Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad to be of help and I hope you your time as an editor on Misplaced Pages goes well.Sdio7 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect statement in section History / Karl Marx
“Finally, it is not labor per se that creates value, but labor power sold by free wage workers to capitalists. Another distinction is between productive and unproductive labor. Only wage workers of productive sectors of the economy produce value.”
This is incorrect, Marx does not specify that wage labor is necessary for the production of value, but simply labor having as its result is a commodity to be exchanged. This labor doesn’t have to be performed as wage labor: the laborer could, alternatively, own the product of their own labor and sell it themselves. This would still count as production of value. The snippet shouldn’t be removed entirely but simply modified to reflect this, as the fact that the product exchanged must be exchanged in order to be realized as “value” is still an important component of Marx’s definitions.
In Capital Volume 1, Chapter 1, Section 1:
“Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere congelation of homogeneous human labour, of labour power expended without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these things now tell us is, that human labour power has been expended in their production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked at as crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they are – Values.
We have seen that when commodities are exchanged, their exchange value manifests itself as something totally independent of their use value. But if we abstract from their use value, there remains their Value as defined above. Therefore, the common substance that manifests itself in the exchange value of commodities, whenever they are exchanged, is their value. The progress of our investigation will show that exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed.”
And later in the same section:
“A thing can be a use value, without having value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not due to labour. Such are air, virgin soil, natural meadows, &c. A thing can be useful, and the product of human labour, without being a commodity. Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.) Lastly nothing can have value, without being an object of utility. If the thing is useless, so is the labour contained in it; the labour does not count as labour, and therefore creates no value.”
And from Chapter 2:
“On the other hand, they must show that they are use-values before they can be realised as values. For the labour spent upon them counts effectively, only in so far as it is spent in a form that is useful for others. Whether that labour is useful for others, and its product consequently capable of satisfying the wants of others, can be proved only by the act of exchange.”
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class WikiProject Business articles
- Mid-importance WikiProject Business articles
- WikiProject Business articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- High-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class socialism articles
- High-importance socialism articles
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- C-Class sociology articles
- Mid-importance sociology articles