Re: Marx's Value Theory--a potential critique

[boddhisatva <kbevans@xxxxxxxxx>]

                Hugh,



        The problem here is implicit in Marx's "labour value =
reproduction + new creation" scheme.  All work for the market is, in fact,
new creation of uncertain value.  The wage worker does nothing to
"reproduce" himself.  He enters into a social bond with the owner of goods
and capital, and that capitalist owner pays him what he must in order to
keep the peace (most of the wage) and attract people into the relationship
that possess certain relatively rare abilities (the less important
"market" portion of the labor market).


        We know that now but Marx had to help the philosophical framework
to evolve so that people (including himself) could understand what
alienated labor was under capitalism.  This evolution was necessary
because, as I said, there was a predominant mode of production in that
economy where people "paid" for their needs with work on the land.  When
one threshed the wheat to bake the bread (or identified with that mode of
production), one's work had a tangible result - satisfying one's own need.
Work for markets is entirely different, because of the separation between
needs and production.  Work under capitalism is even more rarefied because
one has no recognized legal relationship with the goods one produces.



        If you have ever worked for someone who simply did not pay you,
you would see that one exchanges nothing with a capitalist.  One simply
does his bidding in the hopes that he will part with some cash willingly,
and you won't have to break his face open.  The capitalist exchanges
nothing with the worker, only with the customer.  The worker exchanges
nothing with anyone but promises to cooperate (and not break anyone's
face).  Even that is no exchange, since the worker has little choice.
Under rare circumstances the worker does exchange a promise to part with
some skill or knowledge as a sort of "good", and this is the chimerical
"market" side of labor.



        Once labor is done, it is gone.  It cannot be reconstituted, or
demonstrated to exist (in the present).  However, a labor-value standard
can be used, as I said to judge the the ACTUAL performance of the economy.
If we use the old "proof is in the pudding" metaphor, we see that there
are actually four parts and three relationships.  There are the baking,
the pudding, the eating, and the paying.  Labor value is the relationship
between the baking and the pudding.  Use value is the relationship between
the pudding and the eating.  Exchange value is the relationship between
the eating and the paying.  The proof is indeed in the pudding, thus the
baker's assurance of a noble effort, and the cashier's assurance of a good
value are moot.  The baker and the cashier are
guessing.  The diner is certain.



        The baker does not get paid for making a good pudding, and the
cashier does not get paid for setting the right price.  They get paid because
the owner feels like paying them.  I can assure you of this.



        Whether you want to call it the market or no, successful economies
serve the needs as expressed by the populace.  It seems useless to call an
interface between a populace armed with money and free to chose, and
producers bound and keen to guess their choices, anything but a market.
The first order of business is to remove the barrier between producer and
consumer - the capitalist (without installing something just as onerous).





        peace





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---