What is Labour?

And so another LTV discussion begins, another great monument to its lack of clarity.

Jura - tbh I don't know the Mattick thing you're referring to. But in general, I'd note that many Marxists who describe changes in the world economy explicitly don't do so on the basis of the LTV - Robert Brenner, etc, or dress up standard economics in Marxist verbiage. Mosley's work that you mentioned earlier - or anyone's work - on a specific national economy such as the USA is totally irrelevant, because the theory isn't meant to predict anything on the level of any national economy (any more than on the level of a firm or industry), but rather on the level of the total, i.e. international, economy.

As far as Mattick is concerned, I mean his last work, Marx and Keynes.

Moseley goes at great pains to explain how the statistical data has to be adjusted to approximate Marxian categories and overcome this. You can disagree with the way he does that or with the whole idea of it (and explain why you disagree, ideally by engaging directly with his arguments), but I don't think it's correct to dismiss him out of hand.

That Marx's theory of value can be difficult to grasp says nothing about its empirical relevance. Nor do its conceptual difficulties (value & price etc.), which I admit it has, at least on some interpretations. A serious argument against the empirical validity of Marx's critique would be e. g. the problem of the money-commodity, which is central to his whole analysis of money, but post-1971 it seems nowhere to be found.

But isn't this the simplest thing for workers to understand, that they are being 'robbed' by the capitalists? Isn't the obscure stuff about 'value' and 'labour-power' just unnecessary complexity? Why is it necessary for workers to be able to understand this? Is it required for the overthrow of capitalism? Especially given what you say next...

So, for workers, after all the hard work of learning the complexities of the first three chapters of Capital, it's not actually going to be required afterwards.

In fact, given what I've said earlier, I think the LTV will be useful in explaining post-revolutionary economic arrangements. But then I seem to have difficulty with the specialised use of 'value' used by those who see some merit in its use. Have you a term for whatever surplus will be produced in a Communist society? Why can't we call it 'value', a word everyone understands?

I'm inclined to think that, in a discussion with workers, my views will prevail, because they are simpler to understand. This is not because workers are 'simple-minded', but that they naturally use occam's razor.

These are serious questions, because if I'm wrong about 'value', but right about being able to influence workers more easily, they will be lead astray. Surely it's a worry to you that I'm not able to understand Marx's economic ideas more clearly? Even if you think I'm wrong, and even if you dislike me personally, surely you can see this is a serious question?

I suppose I'm begging to have someone explain in clear meaning, like I attempted to do above in my reply to the OP, to explain. If this can't be done, either I'm thick, or their are serious problems with the theory in relation to explaining it to the vast majority of workers. Although, this is not a problem if one thinks that the vast majority don't need to know, but I think we all know where that attitude will lead.

It's always possible that it's me with the blind spot, but given where I've got to, I don't think it is.

Assuming you mean the 'economic' part of his theory (I've no issue with the political part), how can it be a 'practical and political...weapon in the hands of the working class' if workers can't understand it? I'm sure I'm not the only person here who thinks like this.

Well, posi isn't the only one who seems to have problems. I'm a Marxist, but I think his economics is the most difficult part of his work. In fact, so difficult that I doubt its usefulness to workers in struggle.

Can you tell us why we need to understand it? And if the majority don't need to, and you have confidence that workers can still make a revolution without this understanding, what's all the fuss?

If you answer 'the majority of workers do need to understand', I think we have serious problems.

I think Marx's critique is an excellent tool for understanding capital – its development, the little and the big strategies and fixes it uses against us, and the conditions of its own abolition that it creates. It also persuasively destroys any hopes of a "better", "purer" or "more just" capitalism, and locates the possibility of overcoming capital within our very own capacities. Moreover, while I think the theory of value is useless as far as what a communist society should look like, it is extremely useful in determining what it should not look like and shows where some very innocent-looking and well-meaning proposals will inevitably lead (like in the critique of Proudhon).

I don't think it's necessary that a great majority of workers be communists in the sense of adhering to some wider system of political beliefs or ideology to overcome capitalism (to be honest, if it was, we could as well give up right away), so logically, I don't think it's necessary for every worker to be a specialist in the theory of value. However, I think it is important that the most militant workers and sections of the working class have a clear understanding of what capitalism is, where it is taking us, what are our chances and which way not to go. One of the tasks of communists – in the sense of political militants of the working class – is to further a process of clarification, based on experience of struggles as well as a more general theory, that leads to that. Knowledge of Marx's critique is an important, though certainly not a sufficient part of that (I think that a wider critique is needed, targeting gender, nation, state and other oppressive social relations).

I take it you see your own task as trying to "win" people over to the communist cause by discussing with them, explaning them stuff etc. I think that telling them that you have a certain theory of capitalism and of the workers role in it, but that this theory unfortunately has no or little empirical relevance (i. e. it has little or nothing to do with our lives), BUT there is this other wonderful "political" theory by the same author that they may like is probably not the best idea.

I agree, jura, but to me it's his political theories which do this; anyone could come to the same conclusion without having understood Capital, 1-3. If you agree with me, and you seem to agree with me with what you've said later in your post, the question remains - why spend time and effort to understand it? It can safely be left to those who do see some merit in it, like opera or ballet. I'm not knocking high art, and indeed I think it will get more attention post-rev, but it isn't a requirement for overthrowing capitalism.

Now, as I've said before, I don't agree. Again, I'm aware that the meaning of 'value' I'm using is different to yours, but at least earlier I provided a clear English explanantion of what I thought would be the use of it in Workers' Councils. Now, again as I've already admitted, I might be wrong - but it is incumbent on you and others who hold this view of 'value' to explain, in clear terms, why you hold the belief in the quote above. And it's no good referring to some obscure 19th century economist, or providing links to some unreadable text - you all have to give a modern explanation so that workers, like me, can judge fairly. In the absence of this, I believe most workers will reject what you are saying as mumbo-jumbo, especially as Communists like me will be advising them of this conclusion.

Now, I think this is the most dangerous statement you've made. I do think it's necessary that most workers adhere to a Communist ideology, because otherwise they'll be adhering to another theory [I take it as read that you agree that some ideology/theory/belief is inescapable for humans]; again, this isn't a problem if an elite are going to provide the answers to the economic problems of Workers' Councils, but if these are based upon democratic decision-making, clearly it is a problem.

So, logically, workers don't have to understand 'value' (in your sense), but they must 'have a clear understanding of what capitalism is [etc.]'; so, to me, you seem to be saying the same as me: that a political understanding of Marx is sufficient. Although you rather spoil it by saying 'the most militant workers and sections of the working class have...'; this to me smacks of Lenin's 'professional revolutionaries'. I'm sure you don't mean this, given that you post on this board, but I would clarify and simplify it to say 'most workers have...'.

I couldn't agree more, mate. This series of posts is what 'further a process of clarification' looks like. I'm a Communist, a political militant of the working class. But don't forget, it's a two-way process - working class political militants like me might clarify things for the 'theorists'. As I've said before, I've a lot of experience of people who say these things, while they believe they are the ones doing the teaching, but they're not so keen when the boot's on the other foot. Remember Marx's Theses on Feuerbach:

"The materialist doctrine concerning the changing of circumstances and upbringing forgets that circumstances are changed by men and that it is essential to educate the educator himself. This doctrine must, therefore, divide society into two parts, one of which is superior to society.
The coincidence of the changing of circumstances and of human activity or self-changing can be conceived and rationally understood only as revolutionary practice."

I must be catching the disease of posting the master's words - it's not pretty, is it?

You must be looking in the mirror, mate. I've stood on a picket line, and after having had a discussion with several police offices (mainly about police strikes), one of them stood in front of the line and waved away the queue of scabs' cars which were lined up trying to enter the site, and thus causing traffic problems and delays throughout the area. To me, that combines activity (union senior shop steward, striking, manning picket lines, arguing with fellow workers) with theory (better historical knowledge of the police's background than that they have) - revolutionary practice.

And the cop didn't ask me about the meaning of 'surplus-value' before he stepped forward to enforce the picket line.

Do you actually know any workers? Plenty of people can cope with the complexity of listening to half-arsed ideas, part of which is useful, and part of which isn't. Funnily enough, ordinary workers can form opinions about, say, The Smiths and Morrissey - great music and lyrics, dickhead of a lead singer with dodgy political views. So I do think they can cope with the stunning revelation that Marx is useful in places, but he had an arsehole like the rest of us and made mistakes.

Once again, I'm asking serious political questions, not scoring personal points. If you think I am, I apologise up front.

I agree with you that it is not necessary for workers to have read or understood Marx's Capital before they are in a position to usher out capitalism and bring in communism. All that is required is an understanding that (1) they are exploited under capitalism and (2) that capitalism cannot be made to work in their interests and so (3) needs to be replaced by a society where productive resources are owned in common so that they can be used to produce what people need. That's all the economic understanding they need before organising to get rid of capitalism.

You can't have your cake and eat it. You can't say that "value" is too complicated a term to understand under capitalism, but will be simple and self-evident in a communist society.

What you seem to be arguing for is that in a communist society labour-time counting and accounting will replace the money accounting of capitalist society. There is a current of anti-capitalists who have advocated this (even Marx gave it a slight nod on a temporary basis), but others have pointed out that this would not be as simple as that. There would be problems of calculating this unit of account -- presumably it won't be actual labour but some notional average labour. So then you'd have to create a mechanism to take into account inefficient and below par workers either to cut their pay or oblige them to work harder. Then there's how to fix prices in labour-time units and how to match demand (what's paid to workers in total) and supply (the total prices of what's on sale).

If this went on for long enough it would eventually recreate buying and selling, wages, money, exchange value, inflation, crises and the rest of it, and we'd be back where we started.

The only "value" needed in a communist society is use-value, how a particular product satisfies a particular need. There is no need to duplicate this by giving the product some other value for which it can be exchanged for other products. Communism is not an exchange economy but a society in which use-values are producted and distributed directly without the intervention of either money or credits or labour-time vouchers. The only calculations necessary will be those done in natural units of use-values, such as tons of steel, killowatt-hours of electricity, number of tins of baked beans and the like.

Much simpler to understand than the complexities and difficulties of labour-time accounting.

Thanks, capricorn, for your considered reply. It's very helpful.

Yes, I agree with you entirely.

I think you've misunderstood me here. I don't think 'value' is too complicated to understand, I think Marx's and, by extension, all those who agree with Capital 1-3, definition of 'value' is too complicated to understand. My response to what you say below might clarify.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. I'm not sure if this is what I'm arguing for - that's why I'm here, to try to clarify my views, with the help of other, more knowledgeable workers. But I have to decide what counts as 'knowledge' and what counts as 'mumbo-jumbo'. It's only because of my ability to discern between the two that has allowed me to rejection capitalism (and all its evil works!).

But without 'some notional average', how will we define 'socially necessary labour time'? Surely, if, for example, one area of production in output is widely behind another similar area, how will we know? Surely, in some form, we will be aiming to reduce the working day for all workers to a necessary minimum? Now, I would think that democratic methods would be needed (in other words, the workers in both areas would need to meet and discuss), and it might be decided to leave the 'backward' area alone for all sorts of social reasons, and just live with it, be how would we inform our decisions?

I don't want to get into a detailed discussion of post-rev society, as we all know no-one has the answers, but a general pointer to where I'm going wrong, if I am, would be helpful.

No, as I've said, if 'value' is a socially determined category, we may define a narrowly 'economically inefficient' area as 'socially efficient'. Am I making sense? You have to take this in the light of my earlier posts.

I think I agree with this. Perhaps it's because my definition of 'value' is your 'use-value'. Perhaps this is where I disagree about Capital. It's much simpler to say to workers, the only value is its democratically-determined use-value. They define value collectively, not the market or individual consumers.

I agree with all this, I think.

My only question is, 'how do we define 'use-value'?' - if not as individuals, then it must be democratically in Workers' Councils.

Or I am going wrong somewhere, in my understanding of this?

Thanks for your time.

LBird,

I'll take a stab at giving my explanation of Marx's value theory, if you can cut the crap authenticity pose about what workers can and can't understanding. Coming from a trade union family myself, and having had no formal higher education, I get really irritated when that sort of populist condescension gets thrown about.

Now then:

The notion of exploitation does not originate with Marx. It is implicit in the work of Ricardo and more explicit in the work of the so-called left-Ricardians. Basically, those guys accept the existence of something called "value" and attempt to explain its substance as being "labour".

Marx basically mounts a critique of political economy by saying, "these guys discovered that labour is the substance of value, but they never bother to ask the question as to *why* labour takes the form of value in capitalist society."

For Marx, the activity of reproducing society takes different forms depending upon the society.

In capitalist society, socially necessary labour time (the labour necessary to reproduce society materially) takes the form of "value".

But it is emphatically not the case that "labour" is the "substance" of value in the sense of a quantity of physical expenditure. Contrary to what free market critics of Marx assert, he is not saying that the price of a commodity is determined by the level of physical effort that goes into making it. Rather, abstract labour is the substance of value.

So what is abstract labour? In the act of commodity exchange, various products of privately expended labour achieve social validity, i.e. they become part of the total labour of society. This is possible because a third commodity, money, abstracts from their concrete qualities and reduces them to the status of both being products of human labour.

For an expansion on this, See this article here.

Great! Someone else has turned up to help me! This is just what I've been waiting for!

Oh, No! Not another poster without the requisite political skills of actually attracting workers who are desperate for clear expalanations.

Now that's, from the start, put a downer on my willingness to read and digest what he's going to say. Humans, eh? With feelings - even when I put on my best puppy dog eyes, I get kicked.

I'm a worker, but I don't understand; I know lots of other workers who don't understand; lots of other workers, who know I'm a really keen Commie, ask me to explain, and I can't.

But apparently I can't say that, because it's 'populist condescension', according to someone who's insulted me from the start.

As for your 'explanation', I don't agree. I think Marx is wrong, and I think you're just repeating nonsense. It's hocus-pocus. Have me shot. Using abstract or concrete labour.

One point. If you're trying to get people on your side, try being nice: It's good politics, if not economics.

What's this 'proletarian credential time'?

Well, I come from a family that thought being in a union was middle class, so there!

Care to present an actual argument, e. g. why you "don't agree"? Or is argumentation viewed as middle-class where you come from?

Well, since I've already presented a very, very long post in reply to one of your earlier posts, and you haven't even bothered to consider any of my points, the answer is 'no'.

Can't leave it alone, can you, mate? Why can't you just answer, in clear English, some of the critical points I've made of Marx's work, and leave the abuse alone.

I'll refrain from saying anything more cutting, in deference to Steven's earlier request.

Marx himself actually gave a summary of his theory in a talk to a meeting of English trade unionists in September 1865. This was later published by his daughter under the title Value, Price and Profit. Perhaps this will help as an introduction to what he was talking about. It can be found here.

what did you say to him?

i'd have to disagree that this is simpler, as consumption considerations are no simpler than production considerations. also,

no, you could just deal with it it the way it's dealt with now: ignore it or live with it. (or let the justice of the workplace (a form of solidarity after all) solve the problem).

the matter of LTV is a big topic and important (to me anyway) but i'll have to come back.

Thanks for that link, capricorn. I've had a brief look at it, and it seems to be in reasonable language. I've ordered a copy (ISBN 0717804704), because I find it easier to read and take notes from a book.

Let's hope I get somewhere with it, eh? Although, I've got other things underway at the moment, not least a personal study of Tokugawa Japan, so it won't be top of the list.

Overnight, this issue has been playing on my mind, and a thought came to me about 'value' and the way that it is defended by its adherents.

It seems to me, and hopefully this will turn out to be a mistake after I've read the text you've recommended, that 'value' plays much the same role as 'grace' does for the Catholic church. I even looked it up in my dictionary:

grace (theol) supernatural power given by god to the soul to enable it to attain virtue and salvation.

If, when I was a kid, I'd've say to a priest, 'Father, what's 'grace'?', I'm sure the explanation would have followed much the same route as my question, 'Comrades, what's 'value'? has on here. I'd've been given an explanation that depends on terms which are as equally questionable (as definition above, 'god', 'soul') and, if I'd've persisted, pointed in the direction of the 'correct' text (Bible, John, verses 123-156; Capital, Marx, Chapters 1-3). There would even be mystification in foreign languages, just to impress/intimidate: Latin or German.

Of course, really persistent questioning, or even telling the priest that neither I nor any of the other kids could make any sense of the concepts of 'grace', 'god' or 'soul', would've led to me being 'condemned' for 'populist condescencion' (as the trainee priest Angelus Novus has it) for saying what we all thought.

The difference now though, mate, is that I'm not a kid, and I'm a godless Communist.

Well, nice talking to you, capricorn, see you 'downstairs' sometime; luckily for them, An Nov and jura will be on the 'up escalator' - I'm green with envy - well, I would be if I wasn't red from my politics and the reflection of the furnace which I'm now facing.

Ahh, it's not just what you say, mate, it's how you say it!

And looking like a copper helps! I was a civil servant at that time (1990s), and I'm ex-Army, over six foot, 15 stone (then, alas). So, for them, it must have been like looking in the mirror! And I always find an introductory mention of service in Northern Ireland helps, y'know, 'I've been on your side of the fence, mate'.

But, clearly, a knowledge of police history helps. Talking about the police strikes in London and Liverpool at the end of the First World War usually also helps (now, they can also imagine being in your position). The police are like everyone else, one paycheck away from poverty, and their pension is a really soft spot. Not all coppers are bastards - well, not until they are on riot duty, anyway. Many of them are interested in discussion, often because, initially at least, they have had confidence bred into them when dealing with the public, and so think that they are going to dominate the debate, but they change their tune when it becomes obvious that you know more than them - and talk in a reasonable way.

The first two who turned up, on foot, just had a brief chat on the above, satisfied themselves no laws were being broken, and went on their way.

Later, a guy on a motorbike turned up, having ridden between the massive traffic queues of cars, and once again we had a chat, and I suppose he'd been tasked with moving the traffic, so, rather than him breaking the picket line, we were treated to the surreal image of a police motorbike rider, in full leathers in front of a picket line waving people past. No doubt, the potential scabs thought that the lunatics, and Commies, had taken over the asylum.

You won't see that often, petey!

The police defence of the picket line, I mean: hopefully we will see the lunatics in charge of the asylum, eh?

This seems like, at first glance, similar to my earlier point that 'value' (for those who care, 'use-value') will be determined socially and democratically.

"Efficiency" will be a socio-economic category, not a neo-classical 'economic' one.

Am I miles away from what you're trying to say? Believe me, I'm confused about all this; but then, so is everyone else I know who tries to get to grips with this shit.

I agree that'd be a sensible solution in the circumstances. My point was that it would create problems in any system which used labour-time as a general unit of accounting and for pricing goods. If you ignored it and just fixed prices as the average of the time to produce it in all the factories producing it, the price would be higher than it need be (and in some cases higher than under capitalism) and there'd be no incentive to bring it down. Which is why I suggested that if you use some measure of "socially necessary" labour (rather a straight average but which would below it), pressures would be exerted on the slower and less efficient workers similar to those under capitalism

I must add straightaway that it's because of problems like this that I don't think labour-time accounting is a viable proposition and favour the traditional communist view of breaking the link altogether between individual work effort and individual consumption. If goods were made available for people to freely take and use (as there could be if the profit barrier and the waste of capitalism were removed) there the problem of how to price them just wouldn't arise or even make sense.