tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post1799250224752228642..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: “Socially Necessary Labour Time is the only Source of Value”: What Does this even Mean?Lord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-82681783351324160652016-02-04T02:56:50.278-08:002016-02-04T02:56:50.278-08:00"The notion of "socially necessary labou...<i>"The notion of "socially necessary labour time" simply means that the exchange value of a commodity reflects the average labour taken to produce it."</i><br /><br />That is the view he took in vol. 1. By vol. 3 he rejected that for the view that prices are determined by prices of production. <br /><br />So can't you see that the vol. 1 law of value collapses on the theory of vol. 3?<br /><br />As for the very concept of labour value, I suggest you look at the devastating problems even with the very concept:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/the-labour-theory-of-value-as-presented.html<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-86630435813880569922016-02-04T02:03:26.051-08:002016-02-04T02:03:26.051-08:00I'm not sure what the problem here is. The not...I'm not sure what the problem here is. The notion of "socially necessary labour time" simply means that the exchange value of a commodity reflects the average labour taken to produce it.<br /><br />So if there are three producers and one takes 2 hours and two takes 1 hour to produce, then the exchange value would be 1 hour. The first producer would sell at a loss and would have to invest in machinery, etc. to be competitive. In that sense, the first producer would not generate a surplus and so his competitors production costs are the base line for surplus value production.<br /><br />It is best to remember that "exchange value" is the means by which the market price is regulated. Different commodity producers bring goods with different costs to the market and those with the least costs sell more, make more profit, etc.<br /><br />This is what the "socially necessary labour time" is getting at -- nothing too difficult about it. Marx may be faulted for the use of jargon and thick language but he is describing is hardly strange.<br /><br />Iain<br />An Anarchist FAQ<br />http://www.anarchistfaq.orgAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-75679446259922714702016-02-03T12:42:14.522-08:002016-02-03T12:42:14.522-08:00You're absolutely right; you had me fooled on ...You're absolutely right; you had me fooled on that idea, too.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-6786273366232682932016-02-03T11:22:33.479-08:002016-02-03T11:22:33.479-08:00What has you fooled Hedlund is that I read more th...What has you fooled Hedlund is that I read more than just Marx. Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-9093695260240624892016-02-03T08:33:45.482-08:002016-02-03T08:33:45.482-08:00You read Marx, Ken? Wow.
Sure had me fooled.You read Marx, Ken? Wow.<br /><br />Sure had me fooled.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-21936415239150861492016-02-03T07:44:27.462-08:002016-02-03T07:44:27.462-08:00If the person moved the rock, yes. If a slave move...If the person moved the rock, yes. If a slave moved the rock, no. Robot made cars have no value either. Nor does fruit that falls from trees without being picked. I never knew any of this until I read Marx!Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-24746038032307034572016-02-03T06:50:22.238-08:002016-02-03T06:50:22.238-08:00Correct. I understand all your whining points, obv...Correct. I understand all your whining points, obviously made in a spirit of frustrated inability to actually refute anything I said, and demonstrating your own insecurity about these issues, since you have been refuted time and again. <br /><br />Nice work, old chap.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-87155453198302868772016-02-03T06:50:19.749-08:002016-02-03T06:50:19.749-08:00Ironic that Anonymous should ask what the relevanc...Ironic that Anonymous should ask what the relevance of my snark was to this thread! Ludwig von Hedlund.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-71733116536358242082016-02-03T06:19:12.700-08:002016-02-03T06:19:12.700-08:00Good rote. But as you are so wont to illustrate, p...Good rote. But as you are so wont to illustrate, parroting words from a book does not mean you comprehend them. Case in point: the post itself.<br /><br />Socially necessary labor time is the "substance" of value. Just as, say, wood is the substance of a toothpick. But the concept of "toothpick" is not exhausted by "wood"; it serves a function, a relation to the social world, that gives it a distinctive character. <br /><br />As such, while value is "made of" embodied socially necessary labor time, its relation to the world is as <i>the abstract, quantitatively comparable property common to all commodities</i>. (This is distinguished from the qualitative, incomparable aspect of a commodity as a concrete use-value. That's its dual nature in a nutshell.)<br /><br />To head off a possible criticism: This is not to answer the question "what allows commodities to exchange?" Böhm-Bawerk makes this error (among others), and argues that exchange involves inequality between the wants of the two owners — which is ironic, because Marx makes the same point in chapter 2.<br /><br />Rather, the question he's answering is: "<i>As what</i> do commodities exchange?"<br /><br />For yet more detail: Value 'belongs to' a commodity, rather than one it exchanges for; it is possessed, as such, prior to and independent of the act of exchange. It is objective, but not absolute insofar as it is a relative expression of a minute portion of the total social labor time, which itself is ever changing.<br /><br />But I'm sure you knew all this, yes? Shall I read your Proposition 1b as "implying" everything I've said?Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-72159740907121517472016-02-03T06:16:53.184-08:002016-02-03T06:16:53.184-08:00If a person finds a rock and uses it as a door sto...If a person finds a rock and uses it as a door stop the rock has value but incorporates no labour.Dinerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14632385731642361211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34779106249156306042016-02-02T19:45:00.524-08:002016-02-02T19:45:00.524-08:00E.g., exactly as defined by Marx himself:
“Commod...E.g., exactly as defined by Marx himself:<br /><br /><i>“Commodities <b>as values are nothing but crystallized labour</b>. The unit of measurement of labour itself is the simple average-labour”</i><br />Chapter 1 of the first German edition of <i>Capital</i> (1867)<br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm<br /><br /><i>“A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has <b>value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it</b>. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article.”</i> (vol. 1; Marx 1906: 45, English trans. 1906).<br /><br /><i>“Human labour-power in motion, or human labour, creates value, but is not itself value. It <b>becomes value only in its congealed state, when embodied in the form of some object.”</b></i> (vol. 1; Marx 1906: 59, English trans. 1906).<br /><br /><i>“Value is independent of the particular use-value by which it is borne, <b>but it must be embodied in a use-value of some kind</b>. Secondly, the time occupied in the labor of production must not exceed the time really necessary under the given social conditions of the case.”</i> (vol. 1; Marx 1906: 209, English trans. 1906).<br /><br /><i>“The labour, however, <b>that forms the substance of value, is homogeneous human labour, expenditure of one uniform labour-power.”</b></i> (vol. 1; Marx 1906: 45–46, English trans. 1906).<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-66272320408013443352016-02-02T18:54:42.417-08:002016-02-02T18:54:42.417-08:00lol.. "Value" as used by Marx in vol. 1 ...lol.. "Value" as used by Marx in vol. 1 often means the socially necessary labour time embodied or materialised in a commodity (as I have said above)<br /><br />Of course you can also argue he sometimes uses the word "value" in a simple sense of socially necessary labour time. <br /><br />How is that incorrect?Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-89516421668104769502016-02-02T13:13:04.499-08:002016-02-02T13:13:04.499-08:00A year in and LK still doesn't know what "...A year in and LK still doesn't know what "value" is.<br /><br />Wrap it up.Hedlundnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-29483768967494113732016-02-02T12:12:29.197-08:002016-02-02T12:12:29.197-08:00Both Marx and Mises are engaging in the same thing...Both Marx and Mises are engaging in the same thing here. I am mocking them. Austrians take as an axiom that people respond to incentives, which sounds reasonable, but if you look closely you see what they mean is "people respond to what they respond to" rather than anything empirical, and the use of the term "incentive" is a prevarication. Their theory is nugatory.<br />But I prefer my first formulation.Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12976919713907046171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-25877519286630734052016-02-02T11:59:30.812-08:002016-02-02T11:59:30.812-08:00(3) "It's a bit like saying: "F=ma? ...(3) <i>"It's a bit like saying: "F=ma? Well if ma is equal to F then we can say F=F, and Newton is revealed a tautologous thinker."</i><br /><br />False. Your analogy is utterly invalid. <br /><br />Why? Because we have vast evidence that Newton's equations accurately model and empirically describe a real force and other phenomena in our universe. <br /><br />By contrast, Marx's SNLT is middle-headed concept that cannot be properly or meaningfully defined, since it involves a massive aggregation problem: the need to aggregate vastly different heterogeneous types of human labour with a meaningful homogenous unit of SNL:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/05/marxs-abstract-socially-necessary.html<br /><br />(4) <i>"No Marxist will find that convincing, and for good reason."</i><br /><br />Actually I not very interested in Marxists. This post is mainly for those with a critical interest in Marxism. <br /><br />As for actual Marxists, I find most of them to be indoctrinated cultists like religious fundamentalists. One is largely wasting one's time with them.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-90201310951664558402016-02-02T11:51:33.852-08:002016-02-02T11:51:33.852-08:00(1) "Moving from Proposition (P)1 to P2 sugge...(1) <i>"Moving from Proposition (P)1 to P2 suggests that "value" means the same thing as "exchange value." Moving next to P3 or P4 suggests value means the same thing as "commodities" or "money profits." You recognize that these are all wrong,"</i><br /><br />Correct. Do you also accept that Marx cannot defend any of those propositions?<br /><br />(2) <i>""well," you say, "if value isn't any of these three things, it can't be anything at all except itself." This appears to be a false trilemma.</i><br /><br />B.S. It is based on what Marx himself says:<br /><br /><i>“A use-value, or useful article, therefore, has value only because human labour in the abstract has been embodied or materialised in it. How, then, is the magnitude of this value to be measured? Plainly, by the quantity of the value-creating substance, the labour, contained in the article.”</i> (Marx 1906: 45).<br /><br /><i>“Since the magnitude of the value of a commodity represents only the quantity of labour embodied in it, it follows that all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value.”</i> (Marx 1906: 53).<br /><br /><i>“We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour-time socially necessary for its production. Each individual commodity, in this connexion, is to be considered as an average sample of its class. Commodities, therefore, in which equal quantities of labour are embodied, or which can be produced in the same time, have the same value.”</i> (Marx 1906: 46).<br /><br />So all Marx means is that: socially necessary labour time is the source of embodied socially necessary labour time (= value).<br /><br />That comes very close to being an empirically empty tautology.<br /><br />Also, as I note here:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2015/05/a-devastating-contradiction-in-marxs.html<br /><br />if defended as a serious empirical proposition, it quickly collapses because even in Marx's theory having a use value is a **necessary condition** for a product to have a real embodied labour value.<br /><br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-50267628210326498292016-02-02T11:30:15.882-08:002016-02-02T11:30:15.882-08:00Your first proposition is better stated "labo...Your first proposition is better stated "labour is the source of all value." <br /><br />Then after that there's some obvious confusion about definitions. Moving from Proposition (P)1 to P2 suggests that "value" means the same thing as "exchange value." Moving next to P3 or P4 suggests value means the same thing as "commodities" or "money profits." You recognize that these are all wrong, but then you make a leap: "well," you say, "if value isn't any of these three things, it can't be anything at all except itself." This appears to be a false trilemma. Or tetralemma, depending on how you view that final turn.<br /><br />You wind up with P1a, which is, one supposes, trivially true, but entirely aside from the theory. It's a bit like saying: "F=ma? Well if ma is equal to F then we can say F=F, and Newton is revealed a tautologous thinker."<br /><br />No Marxist will find that convincing, and for good reason.<br /><br />In other words, you're not going to make a real contribution to this subject without considering what these things represent and how they fit together.<br /><br />Ken B has the right of it. This whole presentation has a rather Misesian flavor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-88704013151422217832016-02-02T10:24:44.702-08:002016-02-02T10:24:44.702-08:00Could you explain how this is relevant to the post...Could you explain how this is relevant to the post? No attack intended, just curious. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-48478939536518521712016-02-02T09:08:20.256-08:002016-02-02T09:08:20.256-08:00Acting man responds to incentives. Incentives are ...Acting man responds to incentives. Incentives are what a man acting responded to. Why after all these years do you not see this LK?? Ken Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08207803092348071005noreply@blogger.com