Marx Quiz

Here's a brief true-false quiz about Marx's theory of value. This is to advertise my video series "The Law of Value" which will be appearing, one video at a time, over the next several months.

Full text at:
http://kapitalism101.wordpress.com/2010/04/28/law-of-value-introduction/

True False Quiz:

1. Marx's theory of value holds that any human labor creates value.

2.For Marx, value and price are the same thing.

3. Marx's theory of value is the same as his predecessor David Ricardo.

4. Marx didn't believe the forces of supply and demand were relevant to explaining value.

5. Marx's theory of value is a theory of what workers should get paid.

6. Marx's theory of value was a theory about how a communist society should be run.

7. Marx didn't think consumer demand played a role in prices, value or other economic phenomena.

8. Marx's theory of value doesn't work in free markets.

9. Marx's theory of value can't explain why useless things like mudpies don't have value.

10. Marx hated babies.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• marx
• value
• capitalism
• price
• economics
• labor
• exploitation
• crisis

[ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER]

All got them all right ;)

[seigneurvoland666]

haha very welll done brendan, the illustrations and all. The ending was my favourite part. And i did answer some questions to be true :$. Guess i need to keep on learning

[brendanmcooney]

@FletchforFreedom. I actually think that the fact that Marx never used the phrase is a useful starting point for understanding the radical differences between Marx and Ricardo. Rubin, for instance, argues that it would be better called a "value theory of labor".

It's also relevant to our discussion since you claim that Marx promised a positive proof of the labor theory of value. Have you found your source for this claim yet or were you just making this up?

[brendanmcooney]

@FletchforFreedom. "proletarian production in the absence of invested capital"? How do you have a proletariat w/out capital? I assume you mean simple commodity vs. capitalist production. This is a relevant distinction. Most of human history prior to capitalism has seen some form of trade. But this has always been of surplus product, which is very different than production for exchange. For one, in capitalism exchange value becomes the motivating factor in production, rather than use.

[brendanmcooney]

@FletchforFreedom. It is a very relevant point because it undermines the Austrian concept of a subjective profit in exchange as well as the many of the assumptions behind marginal utility. You dismiss it as irrelevant without reason and then try to change the topic by talking about SV. Yes SV requires a theory of intrinsic value but merely stating it is not obvious does not disprove it nor do I see what that has to do with production for exchange.

[FletchforFreedom]

One last for now: Now you are being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the assertion that he never used the phrase "labor theory of value" is a cheap dodge. Marx put forth a theory of value based upon labor inputs he described as "socially necessary labour values". No one - not even devout Marxists - argue that this is not a labor theory of value and there remains no support in the real world for its existence.

[FletchforFreedom]

Forgive any further delay in reponding as I devote my attention to Hilferding as suggested.

[FletchforFreedom]

Further, the final product of capitalist production virtually never has "no use" to the maker - there often being consumer products for which the worker has a use albeit not in the quantities produced. But here you make another needless (and useless) distinction between capitalist production (within the framework you provide) and proletarian production in the absence of invested capital (as performed by pre-IR domestic industry).

[FletchforFreedom]

I'll ultimately reply later but I AM reading Hilferding's text (and conceded at the outset that it was just the beginning). Yes, it's obvious that [most] capitalist production is not for personal use (an irrelevant point), but there is nothing obvious about the specious concept of "surplus value" that could only be valid if the underlying intrinsic valuation under the LTV were valid (which it is not).

cont.

[brendanmcooney]

@FletchforFreedom. Rubin never wrote about MU at all as far as I know- at least never in anything translated into english. He did respond to BB's critique of Marx and I think his response still stands the test of time, even better than Hilferding on a few points (like simple commodity production).

I have never heard of Marx promising a "positive proof" of the LTV or of him ever even using the phrase "labor theory of value". Please provide a citation for this claim or stop making it.