Page 1 of 1
Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:45 pm
by Gary Childress
Was watching this video on Marx and the labor theory of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEvnq6y5sIQ
At about 7:30 into the lecture, the professor says that every human society in history that has produced a surplus of goods (more than what is needed for the simple maintenance of the economy) has been divided between the producers and the "surplus getters". The "surplus getters" have always been a relatively small number of people, whether they be kings, priests or capitalists. And in every society where there have been "surplus getters" they create a complex society inlcluding soldiers to defend their wealth (the surplus), priests, philosophers, etc. (the whole range of social stations). So we have the producers which create the surplus, the people who get the surplus and the people who serve the societal functions which are non-productive (in terms of producing the surplus) but essential for the "surplus getters" in order to maintain the status quo.
Assuming all this is true, I've been thinking about it a little. It seems ot me that dividing every society into those three fundamental groups; producers, the people who get the surplus produced and then all the non-productive jobs required to maintain that society, creates a very depressing view of human society (unless one is one of the "good guys" who produces). It would seem to me that the noblest or most pious or whatever are the producers. Everyone else, it seems, must be like some kind of parasite, either stealing the wealth that the producers produce or else living off that stolen wealth given to them by the theives. What a depressing thought it is. It makes me want to go out and take up farming or factory labor or something--anything but to be a party to this rape and pillage of the producers.
Re: Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:02 am
by FlashDangerpants
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:45 pm
Was watching this video on Marx and the labor theory of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEvnq6y5sIQ
At about 7:30 into the lecture, the professor says that every human society in history that has produced a surplus of goods (more than what is needed for the simple maintenance of the economy) has been divided between the producers and the "surplus getters". The "surplus getters" have always been a relatively small number of people, whether they be kings, priests or capitalists. And in every society where there have been "surplus getters" they create a complex society inlcluding soldiers to defend their wealth (the surplus), priests, philosophers, etc. (the whole range of social stations). So we have the producers which create the surplus, the people who get the surplus and the people who serve the societal functions which are non-productive (in terms of producing the surplus) but essential for the "surplus getters" in order to maintain the status quo.
Assuming all this is true, I've been thinking about it a little. It seems ot me that dividing every society into those three fundamental groups; producers, the people who get the surplus produced and then all the non-productive jobs required to maintain that society, creates a very depressing view of human society (unless one is one of the "good guys" who produces). It would seem to me that the noblest or most pious or whatever are the producers. Everyone else, it seems, must be like some kind of parasite, either stealing the wealth that the producers produce or else living off that stolen wealth given to them by the theives. What a depressing thought it is. It makes me want to go out and take up farming or factory labor or something--anything but to be a party to this rape and pillage of the producers.
Did you forget to write whatever you were planning to do with the labor theory of value there?
Marx isn't wrong as such in his analysis, it's just that he's right only in as far as he goes. Trade over long distances predates agriculture, and conflict for resources predates it too. As soon as humans settled down to live in permanent settlements they therefore had two pressing reasons to work out how to deal with neighboring settlements and wandering nomads, with diplomacy trade and war being the avialable options. For those and other reasons, analysing the origins of kings priests and warriors in terms only of internal power relationships and wealth sequestration can most charitably be described as half the story, but in my view it counts for much less than that.
Re: Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 12:17 pm
by Sculptor
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed Jul 22, 2020 9:45 pm
Was watching this video on Marx and the labor theory of value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEvnq6y5sIQ
At about 7:30 into the lecture, the professor says that every human society in history that has produced a surplus of goods (more than what is needed for the simple maintenance of the economy) has been divided between the producers and the "surplus getters". The "surplus getters" have always been a relatively small number of people, whether they be kings, priests or capitalists. And in every society where there have been "surplus getters" they create a complex society inlcluding soldiers to defend their wealth (the surplus), priests, philosophers, etc. (the whole range of social stations). So we have the producers which create the surplus, the people who get the surplus and the people who serve the societal functions which are non-productive (in terms of producing the surplus) but essential for the "surplus getters" in order to maintain the status quo.
Assuming all this is true, I've been thinking about it a little. It seems ot me that dividing every society into those three fundamental groups; producers, the people who get the surplus produced and then all the non-productive jobs required to maintain that society, creates a very depressing view of human society (unless one is one of the "good guys" who produces). It would seem to me that the noblest or most pious or whatever are the producers. Everyone else, it seems, must be like some kind of parasite, either stealing the wealth that the producers produce or else living off that stolen wealth given to them by the theives. What a depressing thought it is. It makes me want to go out and take up farming or factory labor or something--anything but to be a party to this rape and pillage of the producers.
Marx was writing about his experience of Victorian Europe, particularly England, where the class system provided more clear cut divisions to build this sort of picture.
Then as now some individuals were capable of having a foot in all three camps. I would hope that some of the efforts by Marx and others on the left have assisted in braking down some of those hard and fast boundaries. Thus a child born of a road sweeper is now more able to fulfil a greater potential due to universal education, and welfare, whereas in Victorian Enlgand was pretty much doomed by lack of opportunity and social pressure to shut-up, mind your ps&qs, and do not speak until you are spoken to-- and do not forget to doff your cap.
Nonetheless the ideas still hold true, but it is worth thinking about the situation in a more complex way. In some ways we all occupy the three bands in different ways. Even the lowliest producer in the West exploits the surpluses of the third world, and to some degree enjoys some idle pleasures, and middle-man activities. These are the rewwards for their continuing compliance with what is still a shockingly unfair and corrupt system. There are still many who are nothing more than surlus takers, and rent seekers.
Re: Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:34 pm
by Gary Childress
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:02 am
Did you forget to write whatever you were planning to do with the labor theory of value there?
No. I wrote everything I wanted to. Why do you ask?
Re: Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:00 pm
by FlashDangerpants
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:34 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:02 am
Did you forget to write whatever you were planning to do with the labor theory of value there?
No. I wrote everything I wanted to. Why do you ask?
Becuase there is no labor theory of value in there?
Re: Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Tue Aug 04, 2020 8:07 pm
by Gary Childress
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:00 pm
Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 2:34 pm
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Aug 04, 2020 11:02 am
Did you forget to write whatever you were planning to do with the labor theory of value there?
No. I wrote everything I wanted to. Why do you ask?
Becuase there is no labor theory of value in there?
I see. The topic of the lecture in the video was introduced as being about the "labor theory of value", so I was just using that in the title of my post. But I suppose you are right.
Re: Marx and the Labor Theory of Value
Posted: Wed Aug 05, 2020 1:45 am
by Gary Childress
On the topic of the labor theory of value...
Unless I'm mistaken, I believe Marx makes the claim that the value of an object is (at least in part) determined by the labor put into it. I don't see how that can be true. People can slave for hours making something that no one wants or they can conversely spend 10 seconds creating something of immense practical value. It seems to me that value is determined by needs or wants not how much labor is put into the thing. Of course in his time there were still such things as artisans who crafted unique products, putting a lot of toil and effort into a polished final product. These days, almost everything is stamped out in a factory in a matter of seconds, whether it be a critical circuit board or an utterly unimportant chia pet. Many things are so effortless now that most value seems to lay in more pragmatic concerns.