Re: do we have problem with the labour theory of value

Its miles better than that Byron. Durhing was a real clown, but 
beware the wisdom of fools.

Poor old Fred how could he know about Einstein's theory of 
relativity and the big bang theory. 


Fred hoisted by his own petard. What is the truth? Nothing but a 
product of history. 





--- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "bddanel" <bddanel@...> wrote:
>
> Dave B:
> 
> Don't be too hard on Fred.  I think he was trying to emphasize 
that production occurred only after a request for it; thus 
production wasn't carried on with a sense of selling.  
> 
> Byron
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: balmer_dave 
>   To: WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
>   Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:35 PM
>   Subject: [WSM_Forum] Re: do we have problem with the labour 
theory of value
> 
> 
> 
>   From;
> 
>   Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877
>   Part III: Socialism
> 
>   Theoretical
> 
>   For a bit of dialectical magic, now you see it now you don't, a 
bit 
>   like the fairground shell game.
> 
>   "In mediaeval society, especially in the earlier centuries, 
>   production was essentially directed towards satisfying the wants 
of 
>   the individual. It satisfied, in the main, only the wants of the 
>   producer and his family. Where relations of personal dependence 
>   existed, as in the country, it also helped to satisfy the wants 
of 
>   the feudal lord."
> 
>   Ahh, I see Fred, so the Lord of the Manor was a "personal" 
>   dependent, like a young child or one of your own kids with a big 
>   appetite. Like a cuckoo in the nest. Because the workers are 
stupid 
>   enough, like now, to feed it of their own free will, it is not 
>   exploitation. 
> 
>   "In all this there was, therefore, no exchange; the products, 
>   consequently, did not assume the character of commodities."
> 
>   No! just a straightforward case of robbing the stupid, again, a 
bit 
>   like now.
> 
>   "The family of the peasant produced almost everything they 
wanted: 
>   clothes and furniture, as well as means of subsistence. Only 
when it 
>   began to produce more than was sufficient to supply its" the 
>   peasants "own wants"
> 
>   As before.
> 
>   That " payments in kind to the feudal lord "became "commodities"
> 
>   BOLLOCKS !!!
> 
>   --- In WSM_Forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "balmer_dave" <balmer_dave@> 
>   wrote:
>   >
>   > Just to introduce myself as I am new to the forum, I am Dave 
of 
>   > Manchester, active member 20 years and, in case it seems 
otherwise 
>   > still committed.
>   > 
>   > The party position is that (feudal) peasants do not produce 
>   surplus 
>   > value. In itself this is an extremely trivial issue. However I 
>   > believe it has highlighted a deep misunderstanding of the 
labour 
>   > theory of value that others in the party use to underpin the 
party 
>   > case.
>   > 
>   > This same misunderstanding appears to have been debated 
amongst 
>   the 
>   > Leninists. I have become aware of the Leninist position on 
this 
>   > subsequently, after discussing the issue with some Trot 
friends I 
>   > have. 
>   > 
>   > It looks like they may have all overlooked an absolutely 
crucial 
>   > passage right at the beginning of Vol I as it is so difficult 
to 
>   > read.
>   > 
>   > I am not nor do I wish to become a Marxist geek but if we 
insist 
>   on 
>   > claiming to be true Marxists, not my position, we need to make 
>   sure 
>   > we understand it correctly. 
>   > 
>   > The answer to the question do peasants produce surplus value 
>   > according to the "New Speakers Handbook" produced by the 
Education 
>   > Committee in 1982, is: "Strictly speaking no. They certainly 
>   > performed surplus labour upon the fields of the lord or 
rendered 
>   him 
>   > a portion of their own produce and these were both unpaid 
labour. 
>   > But the products of this surplus labour did not uniformly come 
>   onto 
>   > a market, they were for consumption in the manor or for 
exchange 
>   in 
>   > the village locally.
>   > 
>   > And much more importantly-:
>   > 
>   > "Surplus value is a peculiarity of the wage relationship under 
>   > capitalism".
>   > 
>   > Now for some of the foot soldiers and village idiots in the 
party 
>   > like myself this has always proved a bit of a difficulty. 
While 
>   our 
>   > intellectuals were reading clever stuff we were watching Robin 
>   Hood 
>   > films, "Gone With the Wind" and reading feudal love stories 
like 
>   > Tolstoy's Anna Karenina.
>   > 
>   > I couldn't help asking myself where did the feudal aristocracy 
in 
>   > Anna Karenina get all their money from to buy all the nice 
stuff 
>   > that they seemed to have in abundance. Surely all the gold, 
>   diamonds 
>   > and silk dresses were not produced in the local village. 
Similarly 
>   > with the Sheriff of Nottingham who always appeared to be 
loaded, 
>   > although he did have a proper job. I think Robin had similar 
>   ideas 
>   > to my own and suspected that this wealth was the surplus value 
>   > expropriated from the peasants and was attempting to redress 
the 
>   > situation. 
>   > 
>   > Also whilst keeping the cotton picking slaves in the 
background, 
>   > Scarlet O'Hara and family were demonstrably equally well 
endowed 
>   > with silk dresses and nice things without doing an ounce of 
work.
>   > 
>   > I have been told that our American comrades, to their credit, 
>   after 
>   > much head scratching and wrangling decided that their slaves 
did 
>   > indeed produce surplus value.
>   > 
>   > They might have saved themselves a bit of bother if they had 
>   looked 
>   > up "Slavery" in the index of Vol III and found-:
>   > 
>   > "Take for instance, the slave economy. The price paid for a 
slave 
>   is 
>   > nothing but the anticipated and capitalised surplus-value or 
>   profit 
>   > to be wrung out of the slave."
>   > 
>   > Vol III pg 809 L&W 1974
>   > 
>   > And on page 804
>   > 
>   > " The entire surplus-labour of the labourers, which is 
manifested" 
>   > easily noticed "here in the surplus product, is extracted from 
>   them 
>   > directly by the owner of all instruments of production, to 
which 
>   > belong the land and, under the original form of slavery, the 
>   > immediate producers themselves. Where the capitalist outlook 
>   > prevails, as on American plantations, this entire surplus 
value is 
>   > regarded as profit;"
>   > 
>   > The later form of slavery is the condition we are all in I 
think 
>   ie 
>   > wage slavery.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Maybe they did know about this quote, I don't know. I am going 
to 
>   > find it hard I think to reconcile American plantation slavery 
>   > to "peculiarity of the wage relationship under capitalism". 
>   However 
>   > it takes a load of my mind as "Gone With the Wind" now makes a 
lot 
>   > more sense. 
>   > 
>   > Now I will return to the thorny problem of Robin Hood and his 
>   > slightly confused merry men and the rich bastards in Anna 
>   Karenina. 
>   > 
>   > Vol. III, chapter XLVII, Genesis of Capitalist Ground Rent, 
>   section 
>   > II,pg 790 we have-:
>   > 
>   > " during part of the week and works during the remaining days 
upon 
>   > the estate of the feudal lord without any compensation from 
the 
>   > feudal lord, the situation here is still quite clear, for in 
this 
>   > case rent and surplus value are identical. Rent, not profit, 
is 
>   the 
>   > form here through which unpaid-surplus labour expresses 
itself." 
>   > 
>   > To avoid any possible doubt about what this rent is later we 
have-:
>   > 
>   > "rent i.e. the enforced surplus labour to be surrendered to 
the 
>   > landowners."
>   > 
>   > The serf is in effect renting the land that the serf works for 
>   > himself from the Lord, paying that rent in the form of unpaid 
>   > labour, labour rent. 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > So it looks like the feudal peasants produce surplus value 
too, 
>   > another load off my simple mind. It looks like something funny 
is 
>   > going on here though. How can rent, "enforced surplus labour" 
>   > be "identical" to surplus value, this would imply surplus 
labour 
>   is 
>   > surplus value and surplus value is surplus labour. Has Karl 
made a 
>   > slip? I will come back to this later, but no he hasn't, he 
rarely 
>   > does, clever bastard.
>   > 
>   > To avoid any doubt on page 792 we have-:
>   > 
>   > "But this identity of surplus value with unpaid labour" 
surplus 
>   > labour "of others need not be analysed here, because it still 
>   exists 
>   > in its visible, palpable form, since the labour of the direct 
>   > producer for himself is still separated in space and time from 
his 
>   > labour for the landlord"
>   > 
>   > Yet another identity.
>   > 
>   > Palpable means obvious to the mind and senses, it is probably 
the 
>   > strongest word in the English language for obvious.
>   > 
>   > What I think he is saying here is that in wage labour it is 
not 
>   easy 
>   > to see surplus labour. There is no clear division between 
>   necessary 
>   > labour and surplus labour, a bell doesn't ring at 2pm to tell 
you 
>   > that you are no longer working for yourself and you should go 
>   home. 
>   > Also both types of labour are done in the same place. For the 
>   feudal 
>   > peasant it is obvious when and where he is working for himself 
and 
>   > for his Lord.
>   > 
>   > It has been put to me something like, that Vol III is not a 
proper 
>   > book and just a compilation of notes put together by Fred and 
>   > therefore it is not be relied upon. An allegation that I 
reject as 
>   > did Fred in his supplement to Vol III. We should be careful 
not to 
>   > adopt a pick and mix attitude to Capital like the Leninists 
do. 
>   > 
>   > However I can accept it for arguments sake. 
>   > 
>   > Corvee labour is defined in my dictionary as a days unpaid 
labour 
>   > owed by a feudal vassal to his lord.
>   > 
>   > Section 2, chapter X, Vol I, pg 238 
>   > 
>   > "The ratio of the corvee.....to the necessary 
labour........Gives 
>   a 
>   > much smaller rate of surplus value"
>   > 
>   > ie it seems feudal vassals produce surplus value too.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > There are other cases elsewhere in Capital of Slaves in 
antiquity, 
>   > ancient slaves, small Roman peasants (under five feet six) etc 
>   > producing surplus value.
>   > 
>   > I would like now to return to this "identity" of labour to 
value. 
>   > Identical is, being the same, exactly alike, equal. Only since 
>   > reading Vol.I, I have picked up a difficult and completely 
>   different 
>   > understanding of the labour theory of value to the one held by 
>   > members of the party. I have carried this understanding with 
me 
>   > through Vol II and III and with it everything he has said has 
been 
>   > consistent and made sense. 
>   > 
>   > (What follows applies to Karl's time when everything was on 
the 
>   gold 
>   > standard, money was effectively gold, the universal money 
>   commodity. 
>   > It is more complicated now.)
>   > 
>   > My mad Idea.
>   > 
>   > It is that Labour is Value and Value is Labour, an identity in 
>   fact. 
>   > Value is just a measure of the labour embodied in an article 
>   > measured by the equivalent amount of labour in another article 
eg 
>   > gold. So a table contains 5 hours labour and is thus 
equivalent to 
>   a 
>   > quarter of an ounce of gold because a quarter of an ounce of 
gold, 
>   > £57, contains 5 hours of labour.
>   > 
>   > This is the substance of a table is worth £57.
>   > 
>   > This is Karl's idea of "The General Form of Value" pg 65 
and "The 
>   > Money Form" pg 69
>   > 
>   > I came up with what I thought was a clever analogy for this 
and 
>   > subsequently found out that a Trot Marxist theoretician had 
beaten 
>   > me to it, Mick Brooks.
>   > 
>   > You have to think of labour as weight and lbs as value. A bag 
of 
>   > potatoes has weight (expended labour) and the quantity of 
weight 
>   is 
>   > 5lbs (its value). But what is this 5lbs? One lb (value) is 
nothing 
>   > but another weight, a standard weight(expended labour in an 
ounce 
>   of 
>   > gold) of a block of brass in some institution.
>   > 
>   > Brooks says lbs and value are phenomenal abstractions, they 
don't 
>   > really exist except in relation to something real ie a block 
of 
>   > brass and a piece of gold, and gold is nothing but expended 
>   labour, 
>   > I agree.
>   > 
>   > You can touch, feel and see 5 lbs of something, but 5 lbs 
doesn't 
>   > exist in the real world.
>   > 
>   > To pursue this, another Leninist expert has apparently, if 
only 
>   > briefly, come to the same conclusion namely none other than 
the 
>   > famous Ernest Mandel.
>   > Theory : Ernest Mandel Archive : Karl Marx 
>   > Marx's Labour Theory of Value
>   > Karl Marx - Part 4 The Basic Theories of Karl Marx
>   > 
>   > "Marx inherited the labour theory of value from the classical 
>   > school. Here the continuity is even more pronounced; but there 
is 
>   > also a radical break, For Ricardo, labour is essentially a 
>   > numeraire, which enables a common computation of labour and 
>   capital 
>   > as basic elements of production costs. For Marx, labour is 
value."
>   > 
>   > In some text "labour is value" is in italics for emphasis.
>   > 
>   > 
>   > I would rather spend a week with the Moonies that read too 
much 
>   > Mandel. Interestingly from this you might expect surplus 
labour is 
>   > surplus value which is my understanding. However in chapter 7 
he 
>   > says something like surplus value is the money value of the 
>   surplus 
>   > product. 
>   > 
>   > This is a contradiction to Karl's own definition of surplus 
value
>   > 
>   > Chapter IX, pg217, L&W 
>   > 
>   > "It is every bit as important, for a correct understanding of 
>   > surplus value, to conceive it....... as nothing but 
materialised 
>   > surplus labour.....as it is, for a proper comprehension of 
value , 
>   > to conceive of it as....nothing but materialised labour."
>   > 
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Just to test this mad idea if we go back to the Vol III and 
the 
>   > feudal peasants quote, if labour is value then we have no 
problem 
>   > with "enforced surplus labour" being "identical" to surplus 
value. 
>   > We have no problem with corvee peasants producing surplus 
value 
>   and 
>   > for that matter our American slaves. Robin Hood and Anna 
Karenina 
>   > were all true after all.
>   > 
>   > If we go back again to Vol I pg 38, 4 pages in, Karl has been 
>   > talking about a table, a house and yarn and has put aside the 
>   > useful, use value, and "concrete" aspects of these things.
>   > 
>   > "Let us now consider the residue of each of these products; it 
>   > consists of the same unsubstantial reality in each, a mere 
>   > congelation of homogenous human labour of labour power 
expended 
>   > without regard to the mode of its expenditure. All that these 
>   things 
>   > now tell us, is that human labour power has been expended in 
their 
>   > production, that human labour is embodied in them. When looked 
at 
>   as 
>   > crystals of this social substance, common to them all, they 
are-
>   > Values."
>   > 
>   > This is just typical of Karl, when he has something really 
>   important 
>   > to say he goes all poetical on you and you have to spend 10 
>   minutes 
>   > figuring out what he has just said.
>   > 
>   > He is thinking of a table but is ignoring the fact that it is 
>   > something you eat your dinner off, use value, and the fact 
that it 
>   > has four legs and a flat top, the "concrete". He is thinking 
of it 
>   > in his mind's eye, in his imagination as a carpenter working 
away 
>   > with his saw and chisel, the "unsubstantial reality". 
>   > 
>   > This is the "congelation of homogenous human labour" 
the "labour 
>   > power expended", the "human labour" that is "embodied in them" 
and 
>   > the crystal of social substance. Labour is value.
>   > 
>   > Lose sight of this idea, which is very easily done and you are 
>   lost 
>   > to confusion and misunderstanding. 
>   > 
>   > Concerning the labour and its "mode of its expenditure" this 
is 
>   > almost certainly a reference to his normal "mode of 
production" by 
>   > which he means wage labour, slave labour, peasant labour, 
>   > independent handicraft labour etc. In other words they all 
produce 
>   > value.
>   > 
>   > Regarding peasants Karl does have a special case where surplus 
>   > products that are not commodities(things produced for 
exchange, 
>   but 
>   > not necessarily for sale) "appear" to be voluntarily handed 
over 
>   and 
>   > this does not constitute exploiters consuming or accumulating 
>   > surplus value. This is the case, according to Karl, for 
peasants 
>   in 
>   > the "European Middle Ages", 450 to 1450 AD pg 77 and mediaeval 
>   > peasants pg 41, same thing. 
>   > 
>   > I personally disagree, I think he might have benefited from 
>   watching 
>   > Robin Hood films like me, he seems to have changed his mind on 
>   this 
>   > late in Vol III.
>   > 
>   > Answer 59 should be something like-:
>   > 
>   > According to Karl peasants in the "European middle ages" and 
>   > mediaeval peasants do not produce surplus value. They 
certainly 
>   > voluntarily laboured upon the fields of the lord or rendered 
him a 
>   > portion of their own produce and these were both unpaid 
labour. 
>   But 
>   > the product did not come onto a market, they were for 
consumption 
>   in 
>   > the manor or for exchange in the village locally. Surplus 
value is 
>   a 
>   > peculiarity of some forms of commodity production. 
>   > 
>   > As an addendum strictly speaking, saying that labour is value 
>   would 
>   > imply that in a money-less socialism we would still have value 
as 
>   we 
>   > would still have labour. I agree and so does Karl. 
>   > 
>   > Vol III Pg 851
>   > 
>   > " Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of 
>   > production, but still retaining social production, the 
>   determination 
>   > of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation 
of 
>   > labour time and the distribution of social labour among the 
>   various 
>   > production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing 
all 
>   > this, becomes more essential than ever." 
>   > 
>   > Consistent to the end, labour is value.
>   > 
>   > "it creates surplus labour or, what amounts to the same thing, 
>   > surplus value;"
>   > 
>   > Karl, The Grundrisse NOTEBOOK III 29 November - c. mid-
>   > December 1857, continued 3rd paragraph
>   >
> 
> 
> 
>    
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>