Bourgeois Reliance on the Labor Theory of Value

["Charlotte S. Wellen" <cwellen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Greetings from Wei En Lin to List members !

Re:  The potential critique of Marx's Theory of Value


The contemporary proof of the validity of the concepts of LABOR
VALUE and SURPLUS VALUE lies in the fact that modern BOURGEOIS
economists themselves use these categories.  They employ them
in a disguised fashion, however.

Examine the case, for instance, of John Maynard Keynes'
Employment Theory, the Capitalist Theory par excellence.  His
economic equations, which are still used to calculate national
income and entrepreneur's profit, definitely employ Adam
Smith's, Richard's and Karl Marx's concept of labor value,
albeit covertly.

Again, I recommend to interested readers V. C. Afanasyev's
BOURGEOIS ECONOMIC THOUGHT.  He demonstrates with mathematical
precision that Keynes definition of "factor cost" is equivalent
to Marx's "p/(v+(s-p)."  "Factor cost" is simply a fancy term
used to compute the rate of worker exploiation.  Afanasyev
explains:

"Keyenes writes of the desire by capitalists to maximixe their
profits in regard to factor costs.  This surrogate of the rate
of SURPLUS VALUE reflects the aspiration of funtioning capital
to do all it can to step up exploitation of the proletariat and
reduce that part of surplus value which is appropritated by
non-functioning capitalists."

(BOURGEOIS ECONOMIC THOUGHT, "Keynes Employment Theory,"
"Methodological Basis of Keynesian Theory,"  141)

To put this even more simply, the capitalists THEMSELVES, are
extremely interested in how best to exploit the worker; and
economists who explain how this is done MUST describe the
process by reference to LABOR VALUE AND SURPLUS VALUE.  If a
capitalist does not know how much the laborer contributes to
the value of his product he cannot make any meaningful
calculation concerning his profit or his costs.

The example "If all the workers were fired the cars they
produced would not disappear," does not demonstrate the desired
conclusion.  Does it suggest that workers do not add value to
the product?

Certainly if your parents die, you do not disappear.  But that
does not mean your parents did not produce you.

Similarly, the workers produce the products, and without them
the product is impossible.  Why else would the capitalist
oppose strikes?

I should also point out there is such a thing as non-productive
labor.  Marx (and Adam Smith) were very careful to distinguish
the particular exceptions from the general rule.  Marx spoke of
the social average of labor value added to the product.
Capitalists themselves use such categories when it suits their
needs.


Sincere regards,

Wei En Lin



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---