- Capitalism and Alternatives -

Golly, Gee, you're wrong

Posted by: vox on May 24, 1999 at 16:44:47:

In Reply to: Labor theory of value - lay it to rest posted by Gee on May 24, 1999 at 15:31:32:

First off, Marx didn't just talk about one type of value. You're assertion that somethings have value without labor being applied to them is true, he called it use-value. For example, an orange has obvious use-value--it can be eaten. However, does an orange hanging on a tree have exchange-value? In certain circumstances it might, but by and large we have no use for it. However, an orange in a supermarket certainly has exchange-value. Now, unless that orange walked there by itself and hopped up onto a table to be bought, labor was certainly applied to it.

As for the supply and demand argument, I suggest a reading of Wage-Labour and Capital and, especially, Value, Price and Profit, which should clear up the misconceptions in the piece you posted.

Most interesting, though, is how determinedly you ignore the changes in the social relations of production that are required by Marxism. It's like using Newtonian physics to explain quantum mechanics, yes, they are in the same discipline, but it's a pointless task. By assuming the same social relations of production, you invalidate your own argument. Marx used capitalism's own contradictions in his analysis, but you use capitalist theory in an attempt to contradict non-capitalist theory.

It's a pretty superficial analysis you laid out, ignoring, as it does, so much of Marx's theory.


My exercise in self-aggrandizement

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup