What is Labour?

For Marx's purposes in the labour theory of value, he is talking about productive average, socially necessary, labour.

Productive -

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm

Average, socially necessary - so it's not how hard, or how long, the individual worker works, but rather the average intensity/time, assuming the best socially available configuration of technology, tools, materials, etc. for the industry.

Maybe this quote from Engels which I gave in another discussion here (the one on Parecon) is relevant here.

Engels, in a footnote he added to the 4th German edition of Capital, noted that in English you can distinguish between "work" and "labour":

In other words, Work produces use-values, but "Labour" produces value which is expressed as price (exchange value).

Yes. And if you look at prices, for example - expressions of exchange value - in the real world, you will see how they are determined by industry/society in general (goods from less efficient firms are not in general more expensive because they have to reduce their price to make sales).

nope, that's just it - it's not. Or rather, for the purposes of Marx's theory it's not. For Marx, the part is defined, in general as well in this particular case, by its relations with the whole.

General caveat: I'm not convinced that the LTV is a particularly useful way to understand what is going on in the economy at the moment, or at all...

All systems of definition are tautological in that sense. The question is whether it picks an actual relationship in the real world.

To an extent you have a point. It is totally unclear, nearly a century and a half after it was conceived, how it relates, empirically to the real world.

while this may appear unfair, I want to point you to chapter 13 of I.I. Rubin's 'Essays on Marx's Theory of Value'; I think that this chapter should help to understand the concept of labor. if not, let me know, or if you want an explanation based upon the primary sources (i.e. Capital), or any other questions, but I am busy at this exact moment.

here's the link to Rubin: http://marxists.org/archive/rubin/value/ch13.htm

I hope that it aids in your understanding.

It was this that led Marx to abandon his original position (which was also that of Ricardo and others) and to distinguish between "labour" and "labour-power" (as the German word Marx used has been translated into English).

"Labour power" is the ability, the capacity, to work. Its exercise results in the production of something useful (through the transformation of materials that originally came from nature). In a society like capitalism where there is regular production for the market, it (insofar as it is "socially necessary) also creates "value" which underlies the proportions in which the product exchanges with other products.

Saying that the exchange-value of a product of labour(-power) reflects the amount of time it took to produce doesn't strike me as being either unreasonable or circular. In fact, before capitalism, this would have been obvious. Even Adam Smith noticed it.

I am not so sure about this. A lot of empirical analysis, including succesful predictions or retrodictions, has been built on Marx's theory of value. Mattick's early and unique prediction of the crisis of the welfare state comes to mind, as do Moseley's (and others) analyses of the rate of profit in the US. And they utilize some of Marx's fundamental concepts. The fact that there is no practical way (and never will be) to "compute" values from prices or prices from values has nothing to do with this.

Consumariat, I think that your difficulty is that you are looking at this issue from the perspective of bourgeois economics, ie. that the LTV is merely an economic category. This, I think, causes confusion for many, including Communists. For example:

Again, I think posi is making the same error.

To save wrestling with the first three chapters of Capital, and have the rest of the posters confuse you (and me!) with endless esoteric terms and formulae, there is a simpler way to look at the problem.

The LTV can only be understood by using Political Economy. This is the discipline that Marx was engaged with, as was Adam Smith, David Ricardo, et al. Since the 1870s, a new (I would argue meaningless) discipline called 'economics' has been invented, in part because of the implication of the LTV.

The key point of Political Economy, as the name suggests, is that Politics can't be taken out of Economics. This means that 'value' is a social category, not a simple 'economic' one.

And as a social category, it involves humans, not just things.

The upshot of this is that 'value', for workers under a Communist system of Workers' Councils, will be decided upon and assigned by democratic means. If a binman works for 8 hours, a brain surgeon works for 8 hours, and a factory worker producing metal brackets works for 8 hours, the workers themselves collectively will assign 'value' to each activity. 'Value' is not an individual psychological category, as for neo-classical economics. If sufficient binmen, brain surgeons and factory workers are available and willing, it seems probable that the same 'value' will be assigned to, for example, 300 bins emptied, 3 brains operated upon, and 3000 brackets produced.

Of course, there may be problems initially, due to a lack of one type of worker above, but, given time, that will be addressed by, for example, training more binmen.

The real problem here is if there is a natural shortage of one type or another.

The answer to this is an ideological answer.

For a conservative thinker, there is always a shortage of talent, brains or ability due to nature.

For a Communist thinker, any shortage is produced by a type of society, for example, capitalism. We believe that there is an inexhaustable potential supply for our social needs within the working class. We hold that capitalism, far from being a meritocracy, actual damages and destroys talent, especially amongst the proletariat.

Of course, you're free to hold either of the above ideological views.

But if you want to really understand the LTV, I'm afraid you have to be a Commie, with all the baggage that entails.

EDIT I forgot to mention that, of course, all three types of workers outlined above would receive the same wage for their 8 hour shift.

I think it is of use because of the following: in general, this is correct. However, the value of labour as a commodity is the same as all other commodities - i.e. is equal to the value of socially necessary labour time to create (or reproduce) it. The important thing is that a worker can create more value in a given period of time (say, a day) than it takes to sustain them as a working human being - i.e. their food, accommodation, care and entertainment to get to them to return to work the following day.

Labour power is therefore a unique commodity - the only one which can create surplus value.

Do you see the use of this now? Or would you like me to go into it in more detail?

don't worry, you don't come across as a troll.

The labour done by a CEO would count towards the value of products (when averaged across the whole of society to determine socially necessary labour time). However, CEOs do not just receive wages in general, but usually own a significant share they work for, and thus derive more income from the exploitation of the employees.

I would like to respond to this quickly in saying that Marx is pretty clear ( as are we on libcom) that communism entails the abolition of the wage system, rather than the introduction of a fairer wage system. But that is for another discussion

There's something wrong here.

First, Marx was not engaged in "political economy". In fact, the subtitle of Capital is "A Critique of Political Economy". He had also published an earlier work entitled "A Contribution to a Critique of Political economy". As far as he was concerned, "political economy" was an ideology that prersented capitalism as the only rational and natural way of organising the production and distribution of goods. Admittedly its exponents (Adam Smith, Ricardo, etc) weren't as bad as what was to come later under the name of "economics", those Marx called the "vulgar economists".

Second, both Marx and Engels said explicitly that the social relation of "value" would not exist in a communist society. That's because the social relation that value reflects is that between independent owners of means of production and products which they exchange with each other. As soon as the means of production and the products have become the common property of society as a whole, exchange, markets, money, exchange-value and value disappear. The question is then how to distribute, share out, what has been produced in a straightforward, direct way.

Yes, Steven, you're right about 'wages'. But in the context of, no doubt, blowing the mind of Consumeriat, and indeed it seems some of the other posters on this site, when we mention 'democratic' rather than 'individual' decision-making in the economy, isn't this far enough to go at first?

[edit] I thought that arguing that binmen and brain surgeons should be paid the same was radical enough, without mentioning the 'abolition of the wage system'. [end edit]

It seems to me, we should be trying to explain our ideas to people who are unfamiliar with them, rather than putting them off by confusing them at first glance by crossing all the 't's and dotting all the 'i's in our ideas.

Once again, I think you're right - I'm only trying to be helpful. Let's face it, we're not going to get anywhere as Commies by putting people off, when, especially at present, there needs to be an understandable alternative. Personally, I think asking workers to read Capital, as an introductory activity, is political suicide.

Better my (admittedly) simplification of the connection between economics and politics.

As you say, the discussion of 'wages' will come, in time, if we can carry workers with us.

[edit] Perhaps we need to wait and see if anyone found my original post useful or not. [end edit]

Well, I think you're wrong. Even if I engage in a critique of historiography, I am still doing it. Criticising can mean clarifying or improving, not necessarily destroying.

Some adherents of PE 'presented capitalism as the only rational and natural way of organising the production and distribution of goods', but not all. That's why the neo-classical revolution happened, because of the implications of the main finding of PE, the LTV.

Political Economy is the discipline that we'll need to organise the future Communist society.

If it isn't, what alternative do you suggest? I'm not being funny here, I'm genuinely willing to learn. As a Commie, I don't want to make mistakes that we can thrash out now, while we still have time.

Who exactly were these other political economists who did not either naturalize or "rationalize" capitalism? (Bar the Ricardian socialists and French utopian critics of PE, though none of those belong to the "classical" tradition.)

According to Marx, political economy is a discipline concerned with the "civil society" (in the sense of bürgerliche Gesellschaft) of capitalism. See, for example, the 1859 Preface (or the 1844 Manuscripts, where he says the same thing, though less clearly). Communism is the abolishing of the "civil society". What point would political economy, as a science about capitalism, have in a communist society?

jura, given that the purpose of this site (unless I'm under a fundamental misapprehension) is to help explain Communist ideas to workers, how do your points help that end?

I've just finished on a number of other threads, one of which I think you contributed to, and ended up pointlessly arguing about, in effect, how many angels, according to Marx, fit on a pinhead.

Now, I've no problem with you discussing the meaning of Political Economy to Marx, and indeed I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, but why not keep that for another thread?

This started off by someone, not a Communist from what I can tell, asking questions about the LTV. The real issue is, 'does my post help in that process or not?'. If you think my words have made the LTV less clear for the novice, then I'm keen to hear your criticisms. We can all improve our methods of explanation.

But I'm not on this site to be continually sidetracked by, it seems, people who want to prove they know more than I do about Marx, value, Lakatos, definitions in German, the 1959 Preface, non-sociological orgins of ethics, the meaning of 'luxury' and 'wage labour'. I'm sure they all do, and I'm happy for them. But, really, I couldn't give a sh*t.

But I'm concerned, as a Communist, to try to explain to, and attract, workers who know nothing about the above things, but are keen to hear, initially at least, simple explanations and solutions for the problems we face.

I apologise for the unwarrented tone of this, truly (and you're unfairly bearing the brunt of my frustration), but I'm not spending the rest of my life arguing about the true meaning of 'value', when there so many more important things to discuss. I've had enough of that on the other threads.

If it's a general agreement, I'll stop posting - please let me know.

Apologies again.

This topic is in the "Theory" forum. Many, if not most, discussions here tend to get much more sophisticated then my posts could ever be. People generally point out (perceived) mistakes in other people's posts on here – which is good in my view, because it leads to clarification and interesting debates. Perhaps you have different expectations of the forum.

Also, your approach to "explaining" communist ideas to people seems a bit condescending to me. Do you think people are too stupid to understand that political economy is, according to Marx (and most of the libertarian communist tradition, as opposed to the Lenino-Stalinist tradition of "Marxist political economy") an (inherently) bourgeois science (BTW, it was you who argued for the social and class-based origin of basically everything; don't you think the same of political economy? What sort of use could a bourgeois science par excellence have in a communist society?), a science about capitalism, and hence it would have no justification in a different social context?

Simple because you think the workers are simple-minded?

I thought this particular thread was precisely about Marx's understanding of labor as value-creating labor. Not discussing what the ("true" or otherwise) meaning of "value" is would be a mistake, I guess. Don't blame me, blame the original poster.

Yeah, me and my simple-minded expectations, eh?

I'll be frank. I must be a dumb worker, because I think Marx is inpenetrable when it comes to the 'economics', but not the 'politics'. So, yeah, I must be 'too stupid to understand'. Over the years, I'd have just loved someone to be a bit more 'condescending' to me; though I'd call it 'being articulate'. But, for a century now, 'Communists' have been more concerned to get the detailed theory right, than to expand the movement to the stupid workers like me. Hence, a small, nay tiny, presence in the working class. To me, this is just like the SWP all over again. You know the truth; 'cos Marx said so.

Has it ever entered your head that, whisper this quietly, that Marx might be wrong? About anything? I personally think Marx was a great thinker, but not infallible. His contradictory writings have been a source of confusion since before his death; his absences have caused massive problems. But it's not Marx I blame - its his loyal apostles.

Only a tory would ask that insulting question.

No, it's about the LTV. Marx's version, and anybody else's, including present day workers.

You stick to your bibles, quoting the masters.

I'll stick to the critical thinking that has taken me so far from my humble beginnings. And got me through the bullshit of being working class, Catholicism, schooling, nationalism, the Army, the SWP, and now it seems, this site.

I'll stick to Libertarian Communism - what you insultingly call 'Lenino-Stalinist-bourgeois' thinking. Ooops, sorry, only you, the widely read acolyte of the lord, are allowed to define things.

Try thinking critically, mate. I'll bet your face now looks just like the Trotskyists did when I argued with them, and told them they were talking bollocks.

Fuck, the 'teachers' always say they want you to think, but when you argue with them, its a different matter. Thank god for democracy, and more scum like me.

I'll stop interfering now with my betters in the "Theory" forum.

lbird and Jura - stop this off topic argument immediately. Any further off topic posts will be deleted.

ok. if the question is, does the theory elucidate various qualitative aspects of capitalist production in a politically useful way, the answer is yes. If the question is, can you use it to explain what is going on in a way which makes better predictions or whatever than competent modern economics which does not use Marx's categories, the answer is no.

Why do you think so?

Paul Mattick made a better prediction about the welfare state than most economists, bourgeois and Marxist alike. It was, at the time, a pretty surprising prediction as well (especially for Marxists who thought that Keynesianism was the final answer of capital to class struggle).

Many Marxian explanations of the current crisis, although not at all unequivocal and often contradicting each other, are (at least in my view) better than neoclassical or Austrian or some other explanations, as they go, both in the historical and in the "systematical" sense, beyond "There was too much regulation", "There was too little regulation", or "There was the dot com crash and then there was the subprime bubble, hence now there is a crisis".

I hope this is not viewed as off-topic, if it is, perhaps the discussion can be moved elsewhere and not simply deleted.

I don't think LTV is meant to be used as a predictor of world economic events exactly - you can argue endlessly either way, but the predictive value of any economic theory is always going to be fairly subjective given the complexity of the world economy and the practical impossibility of verifying such theories experimentally.

I see it as a way of explaining the position of workers as commodified labour, which is pretty crucial to understanding class struggle. Look at the chapters in capital which are entirely given over to discussing struggles in Britain surrounding the length of the legal working day in staggering detail - coming immediately after the section on surplus value, it strongly suggests that the focus of the book (and Marx's theoretical project in general) is on understanding class rather than predicting economic trends per se?

~J.

Yorkie, I think this is closer to my position, that the 'class', 'social' or 'historical' element of Marx's work is more important for our future than his 'economic' element. I think his economic analysis, in some ways, is closer to witchcraft. Perhaps I'm too dismissive of dialectics? Which I also don't pretend to understand.

Surely what the Labour Theory of Value mainly sets out to explain is how the working class (those forced by economic necessity to try to sell their labour-power for a wage or salary) are exploited under capitalism. It's more about this than making predictions about capitalism's workings (even if these can't be explained without it) and it's certainly not meant to be basis for how a non-capitalist system might work.

Well, of course "the economy" is not an isolated physical system and you can't make and test predictions in the same sense as in physics. But that does not mean that no predictions are possible. After all, if you have a scientific theory which, based on scientific laws (which Marx thought he discovered) explains something (and Marx clearly thought of his theory of value as scientific as well as having explanatory power), then it ought to be able to predict the kind of phenomena it explains (and Marx makes several such predictions even in Capital vol. 1, e. g. on the shortening of the 11-year industrial cycle which he identified). Otherwise, why would you choose that theory over some other? Surely not for purely political reasons?

I think that the chapter on the working day comes after the one on the rate of surplus-value as an illustration: i. e., looking at the history of class struggle in Britain, we clearly see that the capitalists are really, really interested in not having that working day shortened, they are looking for all sorts of ways to snatch some more time from the workers, even at the cost of endangering the very reproduction of labour-power. And Marx's theory of value explains exactly why individual capitalists do that even though it threatens the system as a whole.

Of course the intention of Marx's theory is practical and political; it was meant to be a weapon in the hands of the working class. But it's particular advantage over other theories (Proudhon, for example?) is, in my view, that it manages to explain things that even classical political economy and its early socialist critics couldn't grapple with plus a whole host of other things that economists and socialists didn't even notice, not that it provides a better and more colorful history of the struggles over the working day or of primitive accumulation (which it does as well). The fact that workers sell their "labor" (and thus their work is "commodified") was pretty clear long before Marx. The merits of his particular theory lie elsewhere, I think.

And Mattick's analysis, by the way, had political implications, of course. I don't think there's any radical separation between the "political" and the "scientific" in the Marxian critique.

edit: Anyway, what I'm trying to argue for is that Marx's theory either explains capitalism better than mainstream economics (which also entails, to a certain extent, limited by the general possibilities of social sciences, making better predictions or retrodictions), or it has to be abandoned. I don't understand why anyone would remain a marxist while knowing that Marx's theory of value is empirically useless, as posi seemed to imply above.

Yes, of course, but Marx's understanding of what 'labour' is and what a 'commodity' is go much further than any earlier thinker, and this depth of understanding helps us see the terrain on which class struggle is fought - such as why the length of the working day might become such a focal point of struggle at one period in the history of capitalist development. To give another example, LTV explains profits, not as some sleight of hand or act of overt theft, nor as a natural property of owning machinery and factories, nor as the rewards of prudence or 'waiting', but as something that fundamentally arises out of alienated labour - thus tying workers' struggles directly to bosses profits, and explaining a key antagonism in capitalist society. Its these sorts of insights that I find useful in Marx.

EDIT: Just to edit-reply to your edit-addendum, I think it's a mistake to judge Marx on the same terms as mainstream economics; I think his theoretical trajectory and his goals were thoroughly different to those of contemporary economics and it's not fair to hold them to the same standard. "Your theory of gravity cannot explain why there are no unicorns and so it is wrong."

Right, but such insights are mere assertions if there is not a way to justify them (like via the falling rate of profit due to rising organic composition). Marx does that, and that's why he does not stop at chapter 7 of the first volume (chapter 9 in your weird English translations ).

I think comparing mainstream economics and Marx's theory of value is perfectly valid as long as we are comparing their explanations of the same phenomena. Which was exactly what you did when you said Marx's explanation of profit is better, as it's not based on temperance as in vulgar economy. Marx's goals were different from classical political economy and very different from the economics of today, but there are intersections.

BTW, an interesting article on the explanatory power and empirical validity of Marx's critique of political economy is Fred Moseley's Marx's Theory: True or False? A Marxian Response to Blaug's Appraisal. It deals with the traditional myth of "unfalsfiability" etc.