The Labor Theory of Value 1 of 2



Uploaded by: brendanmcooney
Video Description:
The substance of bourgeois theory, supply and demand, is important for understanding some things about the economy: price fluctuations, inflation, etc. But if we want to understand deeper issues about the economy we need other tools that are able to pierce through this surface substance to the underlying meanings. That is what the labor theory of value is all about.
All societies coordinate human labor in order to produce things. The total social product is divided about society.
When societies began producing a surplus ... who controls the surplus?
Under feudalism the social surplus was extracted from peasants by landlords. In slavery- from slaves by slave owners.
In both of these examples the economic act in which the surplus is passed from worker to exploiter is easy to see.
In both types of society it is clear to all involved that human labor is producing these goods and that it is the products of labor that are being appropriated by the dominant class.
Under capitalism the process of exchange makes it harder to see the passing of the surplus from exploited to exploiter. But it's still there. Workers are still producing the entire social product and another class, this time the capitalist class, is taking the surplus from them, selling it back to them and getting rich off it.
But what we see is money. We work and we are paid money for it. The capitalist sells the commodities we made and he gets money for it.
In this way. money- or the process of exchanging goods and services in a "free" market- obscures the underlying reality that what is really going on at a basic, societal level is that a dominant class is extracting the social surplus from a subordinate class.
This is basically what the labor theory of value is saying.
Economists going all the way back to Ben Franklin realized that this theory helped answer a perplexing question in economic theory: why do heterogeneous commodities exchange?
Commodities are heterogeneous: They have different physical properties, different uses. Why is it that they can all be exchanged in the free market? What explains the ratios of their exchange?
The theory went on to postulate- all these commodities must be made up of a common substance, something that they all have to a greater or lesser degree, something that gives them value. This thing is their "embodied labor time".
The act of exchange obscures the underlying labor value of commodities.
Though the labor value of a commodity may be the underlying substance to an economic interaction, it is the way this value is expressed through a money price that really effects the economic decisions people make. When you go to a store to buy something you want to know how much money it costs, not how much labor went into it. But the act of buying something with money implies the existence of value, whether or not you are aware of it.
Specific money prices are determined by supply and demand. I'll assume that that concept is simple enough that I don't need to explain it here. Money prices fluctuate- clothes and entertainment commodities come in and out of style, supplies of food temporarily change due to droughts, etc. But underneath this day to day fluctuation lies a general equilibrium price- a price related to the amount of labor embodied in commodities.
Money prices are mathematical, quantifiable, observable things. We see dollar signs hanging off of price tags and they have a real effect on us. Not so with labor value: We don't see the people who make those commodities. Even if we could see them, quantifying the amount of labor time in a commodity is next to impossible: we'd have to figure out not just how much work went into a specific commodity in each stage of its making (and some commodities go through a lot of stages, through many firms, contain parts from all over the world, etc,) but also the labor behind each tool and machine used in the making of the commodity. (and divide the labor value of the machines by the amount of commodities produced over the life of the machine, etc.) It's virtually impossible.
Though there have been countless attempts to quantify this theory, labor value will never be as quantifiable as price is. This is because labor value only really find its expression in money. It would be impossible to have a capitalist economy where goods were traded according to exact measurements of labor time. Capitalist economies require flexibility, and they require liquidity. Money provides this. But in providing this flexibility money also deviates from being an exact measurement of labor time. It is, at best, an approximation.


Tags for this video: and bourgeois buy capitalism class commodities communism demand economics engels exchange heterogeneous homogenous labor labour ltr marginal marx of price problem sell simplification socialism supply theory transformation use utility value

Find more videos in the "Entertainment" category
See more videos uploaded by brendanmcooney

Related Videos
Karl Marx Explains the Labor Theory of ValueRobert Ashford & Dr. Edward Wolff Original air date: 5-15-00 The Interests of Capital and Wage-Labour by Karl Marx
karl-marx-explains-the-labor-theory-of-value.htmlkarl-marx-explains-the-labor-theory-of-value.htmlkarl-marx-explains-the-labor-theory-of-value.html
The beast from beneath the futon!Global ValuesRe: Re: Is There Common Ground?
karl-marx-explains-the-labor-theory-of-value.htmlkarl-marx-explains-the-labor-theory-of-value.htmlkarl-marx-explains-the-labor-theory-of-value.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
Ron. 1stly- nowhere ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
Ron. 1stly- nowhere in any of my videos will you hear me endorse and past/present/future authoritarian/repressive states. Please do not conflate any of my arguments with the USSR, China, etc. I even have a number of videos criticizing Lenin and Leninism.
2ndly. I don't quite understand your argument about the value of capitalists' labor. Are you saying that all profit is just a reflection of the value of the labor done by capitalists? If that is the case...
If that is the case ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
If that is the case, you would seem to be asserting that capitalists are somehow capable of creating a lot more labor value than that of workers- a baseless assertion. I do not think it is true that marxists fail to recognize the role in which capitalists play in the creation of commodities. Actually, the entire point is to analyze the social relations of production and thus to understand the nature of the different relationships of various classes to the production of value.
3rdly, in regards ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
3rdly, in regards to Picasso. Here you are giving one of many instances in which monopoly over skill creates an unequal exchange. The labor theory of value is meant explain the historical phenomenon of exchange value and seeks to tie exchange value to the social relations of production. The vast majority of production in society is reproducible. But occasionally there are instances where something is not reproducible and therefore its owner is able to command a greater exchange value for it.
But this doesn't ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
But this doesn't negate the existence of abstract labor value in society as a whole.
Lastly, the labor theory of value is definitely not "crap". It has been discussed, debated, expanded upon for over to 200 years. Plenty of non-marxists including Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Ben Franklin were all proponents of the Labor Theory of value. I hardly think your 2- 3 sentences of poorly thought out criticism is adequate enough to denounce this entire body of thought. Please think before commenting.
ronwandell is the ... ( 3 months ago by nbm34)
ronwandell is the typical Capitalist drone,that has his head up his own arse, without understanding that the issues of labour theory applies to Capitalist as well as Socialist states. As Russia was a backward nation in the Revolution,a poor peasant based economy. You can not seriously claim the means of production and labour could not be put to more efficient social and economic use in a more advanced economy.
With the 1st WW Capitalists attacking Russia,then the NAZI. These were not helpful.
IN SUCH CONDITIONS ... ( 3 months ago by nbm34)
IN SUCH CONDITIONS the fact that RUSSIA managed to compete and eventualy beat The Nazi, with a superiour economic system in warfare. These conditions and the historic aggression of Capitalist states, always threatened the cradle of SOCIALIST ENTERPRISE.
The COMMUNIST FAILURE was its backward fall
to the leader mentality being like KINGS chosen by GOD, replaced by people. Under continual threats form Capitalists dictators thrive,as we see in the BUSH ELITIST SCENARIO
of Capitalists.
Thanks for the ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
Thanks for the enthusiastic responses. I would like to try to maintain a civil dialog here and not degenerate into name calling or conflating peoples positions with strawman stereotypes of capitalists or stalinists. There are a lot of unnecessary assumptions that people make about the ideas I am presenting here and so I am very careful to keep the discussion from degenerating into the typical USSR vs. USA debate. I don't think that is a productive argument to have here.
Thanks for the ... ( 3 months ago by ronwandell)
Thanks for the defense.
My main point is that it seemed odd to come across your video supporting Labor Value Theory.
My point of view is that is is a step backwards.
Imagine coming across bright well spoken guy who says "there are flaws in the 118 elements you learned in Chemistry. Really there are 4 Elements; earth, air, fire, and water, and great mind of antiquity agree with me."
Hummm.
Austrian Subjective Value Theory is a better explanation of value than LVT.
Thanks for being open minded.
Well, a big goal of ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
Well, a big goal of mine in these videos is to show that indeed, LTR, class, exploitation, and crisis are all still essential concepts for a true understanding of capitalist social relations. If we are not interested in understanding social relations, but instead only interested in predicting money prices, then yes, subjective theories of value are simpler and more elegant. But an economy IS a vast site of social production and thus requires a theory that puts social relations in the center.
Lets Leave each ... ( 3 months ago by ronwandell)
Lets Leave each others body parts out of the discussion.
BTW I think you mean 2nd WW in our last sentence.
Famines in Russia before the war killed over 5 Million. Mao Zedong's great leap forward kill over 30 million. Central Planning does this even without a war. The Russian numbers would have been higher if Lenin didn't start allowing farmers to own some of their own land. Those Capitalist pigs saved lives.
Ok then. So your ... ( 3 months ago by ronwandell)
Ok then. So your definition of VALUE is an objectively measurable amount that is directly correlated to Labor but not necessarily correlated to the market price? Humm How would we measure that?(may have to see your vids again)
So if one group labors to grow corn and another group labors to grow Poison Ivy for the same amount of time, do the two crops have the same VALUE even though the market sees no value in the useless crop?
rondwandell My ... ( 3 months ago by nbm34)
rondwandell My profound apologies for my rude remarks. I hope you will forgive my lack of civility in this moment of uncontrolled enthusiasm for the debate. You do have important points that need to be responded to,from those of us in the unfortunate position having to defend socialism with a history behind it to date. As I think Brendon
has intentions to cover your concerns on these issues. He will I am sure present them in better erudition than I could. Again I beg you to accept my apology.
Sorry the 2nd WW ... ( 3 months ago by ronwandell)
Sorry the 2nd WW comment was for nbm34.
I replied in the wrong place.
Not a big fan of Central planning but let's stick to the subject of Labor Value Theory.
Well, the basic ... ( 3 months ago by brendanmcooney)
Well, the basic idea (and yes it's more complicated) is that supply and demand equilibriate price. Once equilibrated we still need a way of explaining relative prices between different commodities. This is one of the things LTV is useful for. The way that market prices deviate from labor value is part of the theory of "prices of production" which I have not made a video about yet.
As to your last question-no. Labor value has no meaning without use value and vice versa. It's a dialectic relation.
Amazing video. You ... ( 3 months ago by jgizzy)
Amazing video. You have a very special mind. I will keep following your videos.
the rise of 21st ... ( 2 months ago by SUPAMASTA)
the rise of 21st century mcooneysm....
...the end of capitalism
hey do something on trotsky
for a mcooneyst
Hey, Have you done ... ( 1 month ago by areyes999)
Hey, Have you done any comparisons of the labor theory of value with marginalism? My research on Soviet economics, albeit from "bourgeois economist" sources, has led me to believe that the Soviet economists were forced to adopt variants of marginal allocation as an interpretive lens. Promises to eliminate money were delayed and then forgotten in the USSR. The move from socialism to communism never occurred. Thoughts, ideas? I'm still working on expanding my comprehension of economics.
okay everyone know ... ( 3 weeks ago by faszika)
okay everyone know this but whats the alternative?? i grew up in communist romania. it was even worse.. human nature will corrupt every system... if you had a chance to be a greays capitalist would you turn it down? power corrupts. slavery wage slaver faudalism socialism communism doesnt matter
The point here is ... ( 2 weeks ago by brendanmcooney)
The point here is that not everyone knows this. The way in which value operates in a capitalist society is not immediately apparent on the surface. It must be illuminated.
In terms of alternatives to capital-I think there are such alternatives. I hope to make vids regarding this topic at some point, after I've finished my work on crisis theory.
I partly agree with your comment re human nature- we need to develop systems that do not allow for the development of asymetrical power relationships.
yeah asymmetrical ... ( 2 weeks ago by faszika)
yeah asymmetrical power distribution, exactly, Ceausescu had dozens if not hundreds of villas while millions were starving. communism was meant to be symmetrical, everyone gets the same right? but that wasn't the case. on paper it was good maybe but in practice... same in the Philippines, been there saw the corruption, same stuff everywhere - money talks, i wonder what your solution is... i am no expert on these things but the way i see it is that lets say 50 years from now there
continued: i am no ... ( 2 weeks ago by faszika)
continued: i am no expert on these things but the way i see it is that lets say 50 years from now there will be enough technology to free us from work- (aside from a handful of technocrats who'll maintain the infrastructure)... everything's a button away, everyone can have anything they desire, no need to compete. the end. this kind of thing is happening now with the entertainment industry. no one buys stuff coz its so cheap to make videos and distribute them - i dont watch Tv anymore just YTube
I'm not sure if ... ( 2 weeks ago by brendanmcooney)
I'm not sure if technology will ever replace all human labor, but I think it will open up new spaces for class struggle and create the conditions necessary for socialism. I don't think that the Soviet or Chinese experiments are very representative of the sort of socialism that I, or most Marxists, would advocate. The specifics of how a post-capitalist order would evolve still need a lot more theorizing. It is to this topic that I hope to turn after my set of Crisis videos.
your argument ... ( 2 weeks ago by 0neironaut)
your argument totally ignores that Marx considers a thing to be a commodity only if it embodies socially USEFUL labor. Obviously poison ivy is a terrible example, there is hardly a market for poison ivy because it isnt socially useful. Though you do have a point, much of the reason commodities have value these days is because of contingent/subjective desires, not so much functional objective needs. It seems like commodity fetish is the rule.
Value is ... ( 6 days ago by caprinecapers)
Value is progressively diguised,first by exchange value then by money- moving from the abstract to the increasingly concrete. You mention slavery and feudalism, Brendan. In these systems relations between bosses and workers were direct personal ones, but under capitalism they are impersonal,mediated by value.The relation of exploitation is thus rendered opaque.Faszika, in my view "Communist" Romania was a form of state capitalism where the law of value still operates,planning instead free market



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code