The theory of labor value and the particular industry

[cwellen <cwellen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

________________________________________________________


Greetings to all comrades from Wei En Lin.

I believe I see now what boddhisatva is driving at. Recently he wrote:

"We know that a new Edsel was
nearly worthless when it was
produced and is fantastically
expensive now.  We know that Coca-Cola
quite often sells for what orange
juice sells for, making Coca Cola Inc.
rich while growers pay sub-minimum
wage and go broke anyway."

The main point is that capitalists do take risks.  Also "real value" is
difficult to calculate, and is not in each case equivalent to price, or
to the amount of labor expended.

But when Marx says "We know that the value of each commodity is
determined by the quantity of labor ..... socially necessary to produce
it," we examine the full context.  The fact is, Marx is not maintaining
that EACH SINGLE  act of labor produces value, regardless of its social
usefulness or of its relation to the process of capitalist production.
He is speaking of the SOCIAL AVERAGE.

The Edsel example proves nothing.  What is true is that the amount of
labor expended in the automotive industry generally determines the value
of the product.

In the case of coca cola, the amount of labor expended in the soft drink
industry generally determines the value of the product.

In the case of fruit juice, the amount of labor expended in
agro-business, as a whole,  generally determines the value of the
product.

Profit, wages, and prices are accordingly determined.

Marx's theory of value helps us to understand how workers add value (in
the vast majority of cases) to the raw materials they work on; and how
to comprehend the degree to which surplus value is extracted from their
labor by the capitalist.

Is someone has a better theory, I would be interested in hearing it.

Sincere regards,

Wei En Lin





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---