Karl Marx - "Capital" - Labour Theory of Value

In 1867 Marx published the first volume of "Capital" where he analyses the capitalist mode of production and exchange of commodities. He observes that there are two types of value, Use Value and Exchange Value. He observes that only human labour creates value. In order to be used as a measure for the exchange value of commodities, particular, concrete human labour has to be reduced to abstract labour time, expended in producing the commodity.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Karl Marx
• Capital
• labour
• commodity
• use value
• exchange value

[dewinthemorning]

@gergenheimer I think we have to agree to disagree... It's evident you and I don't understand the philosophy of Karl Marx in the same way. We can't make clear such a deep misunderstanding in short comments. And anyway, I didn't set out to convince anybody of anything. I only offered pieces of Marx's philosophy to people who haven't heard of him. That was my only purpose.

Watch my other Marx videos if you want. :)

[gergenheimer]

@SteveShaw008 Marxism seeks to overturn traditional individual rights and cultural morays in the name of societal efficiency - this is a utilitarian argument. I don't have a fetish for quantitative objectivity - because I know that empirical certainty is impossible in questions of economics. The reason I have focused so much on objective criteria in this discussion is because Marxism parrots objectivity in an arena that is shot-through with subjectivity. This is the fatal flaw of Marxism. Peace.

[SteveShaw008]

@gergenheimer No, that's not right either. Marxist communism is not utilitarianism. I'm beginning to think that even with all the proof in the world, you'd still not leave your libertarian individualism. Gergen, have you asked yourself what could be the source of your fetish for quantitative objectivity, your Quest for Certainty? Give David Harvey another listen. Things are happening all over now. These are exciting times. Solidarity.

[gergenheimer]

@SteveShaw008 The reason my art critic's assessment was utilitarian in the analogy, is because the Marxist critique of capitalism is entirely utilitarian as well. Marxism proposes a realignment of land, labor and resources for the benefit of society. The point of the analogy is this - nobody balks at the subjectivity of individual choice when it comes to art, and attempts to objectively assess art's value would be scoffed at. But art isn't unique, all economic behavior is just as subjective.

[SteveShaw008]

@gergenheimer Your analogy mistakenly ties value to utilitarian value. If economics is a science, it's not that kind of science. You're not going to find a neat 1+1 reality (except for theories politically bound to the status quo), given the range of socially necessary labor time. To suggest that value is a social relation is not to wish away objective reality. Perhaps the immaterial-objective nature of value might have a better analogue in quantum mechanics. This logic is not deductive.

[gergenheimer]

@dewinthemorning Imagine an art critic who fully admits that art is in the eye of the beholder - that it is subjective. This same critic then claims "even though art is subjective, we can use "objective" tools, (statistics, opinion polls, prices paid for different kinds of art, costs of materials) to scientifically-determine the kinds of art that will be most beneficial to society as a whole. This person would be ridiculed, and with good reason. Why is economic behavior different?

[gergenheimer]

@dewinthemorning "evening out" isn't the issue - logical-consistency is not being maintained by proponents of LTV. Even Marx admits that the outcomes and valuations of individual exchanges are subjective in nature. Carrying that forward, the sum of a thousand or a million subjective assessments does not suddenly become an objective number just by virtue of sheer quantity. (subjective number x 1 million = scientifically-meaningless aggregate/average)

[dewinthemorning]

@gergenheimer "Social behaviors are inherently subjective and contextual" Even so, in the totality of the exchange process, commodities are exchanged for equal value, even if there are cases when someone is swindled, it will even out.

[gergenheimer]

@dewinthemorning I think we've hit on the inherent problem with Marxist theory - in his own words, Marx recognizes that human exchange and valuation is a social phenomenon, but he ignores the implications of that truth. Social behaviors are inherently subjective and contextual - this holds for economic behavior, just as for any other human behavior. The value of these social behaviors cannot be objectively measured - neither in one-on-one interactions nor in aggregates of thousands of actors.