: Actually, its not one hundred percent necessary- at best its a means of showing how exploitation is structural, rather than simply a determined rip-off by capital. At the end of the day, no matter how value is derrived, profits come from the difference between the value on the market of the goods produced by the workers,a nd teh value paid to them for their commodified skills.
A workable model would have to include managers, designers at every step in a goods production - one could use this theory then, to argue for large CEO salaries - by demonstrating the value added to perceived *use-value*. The two (labor and use) being apart but the use dictating the labor value. That would be fun to try out in a libertarian forum -just for the yes/no confustion.
: Ricardo's, with ADAM SMITH before him.
The difference was in how that labor was perceived as a factor of production.
: Not quite- according to Marx the worker produced the $60 difference, but nothing is said about 'entitlement'. Its simply noted.
The fact that the organisation exists (physically and mentally) must therefore also be a factor of production - must also be in receipt of its 'labor' value to keep it 'alive'. Crumbs, an even more bizarre version of labor value crept into my head, where the organisational profits are the 'wage' of the fact of the organisation.
At least you can explain labor theory ina stimulating way, unlike the otehr respondant, it ogves one a new angle on reasons for organisational profits and investment returns.
: No, we are entering into a contract in which we are paid the full value of our labour power- i.e. we sell our capacity to work (or rent it rather), which then is used in production by the capitalist in exactly the same manner as would a spanner or screwdriver. This is what alienation means
Thats division of labor, the end goal of putting nuts on car wheels is to eat food and live in a house - just because one activity does not physically produce the other only alienated those who dont see it.
: But lets remember- when workers produce a good, it has a known market value
Only when its sold cant he 'known' become actual. The product would also not exist without the necessary organisation of activity, and the investment part of the 'labor'
: ANd how does that occur, upon what basis- remeber- any evaluation of an object must be based upon common comparable features- Labour is the *sole* comparable feature between commodities.
I am now seeing 'labor' as an all inclusive (investment, organisation too) - then it begins to eek out specks of sense!
: Erm, yes it can- Diamond's are very hard to come by, and take a highly significant degree of labour time to extract them
This is the same argument that should be used in support of privately held land - that it requires the motivated labor of man to make it valuable.
: To, because intriguingly, we are paid for our skills retroactively, we work for a week, and are paid for the week past. Plus, we are not paid the full value of the commodity at that time- if my cricket ball firm sells cricket balls, all year, for £10 and I recieve £3 per ball I make, surely I should get the £10 as it is worth then? And if the price doesn't change three months down the line- wherefrom is profit made?
: With the wine, I would demand its value at time of sale.
Consider these two eexamples. 3 bottles of wine made by worker 1, 2 and 3.
Bottle 1 sells immediately at $3
Bottle 2 sells ten years later for $10
Bottle 3 doesnt sell.
According to Marx worker one should get $3 today, worker 2 should get $10 in ten years time and worker 3 should get nothing. In a contractual labor market the risk of failure is held by organisational and investment elements of production - and ther gets the service element of stable current pay.
Also consider the nuts and bolt that go into a car.
The market for nuts and bolts is driven by use value for, say a car maker, the car is driven by end user. How is the nust and bolt maker to be 'justly' given labor value equal to use value when demand and use value for nuts and bolts is removed from end user value. ie nuts and bolts on their own $1 (loose), when part of a car $5 (as parts), which does he claim, does not the car maker exploit the nut maker by adding value to his nuts (oo-er) in the using of them?
: 1:Aren't workers risking everything they own when they get a job?
I described above why they are not
: 2:the point is to have *no money* and thus the incentive is social need rather than provate gain.
Thats another matter
: Thats what we have now- shoddy work thats knocked off quick- no one plans to run an economy accorfding to Labour time value (Marx rubbishes labour time vouchers in 'Grundrisse' spectactularly so). the point is to have an economy where skill can be appreciated.
What we have today is amazing compared to just 10 years ago, cast your mind back and look (nay marvel!) at how reliable yet complex modern products are, and ho many skilled people are constantly in demand. Shoddy work is becoming harder to find
: Can you source that one please?
Cant find it on the net, Ive seen it attributed to Engels before, but Ive no idea which text.
.... but humans are inevitably a social animal, something your notions of freedom cannot handle, I cannot be free to poison the community with lead fumes, nor to put my cabbage patch where the intended hospital must go. the only way to be free in society is through democracy.
With the proviso that coercion be considered in a negative rights basis, so as to negate abuse of 'right' and that people associate with (and produce for) eachotehr by mutual agreement in a manner that allows them to express individual choice (which means discrimination) in who, what and where.
: I went through *all* those points with Joel about half a year ago now...weren't you reading our uber posts?
I didnt, are they still around?