LTV Argument Continues

["Donal" <donaloc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At first, duncan, I thought that you hadn't read Marx. Now I believe that
you have but you haven't fully grasped what he meant by the LTV. I am only
relatively new to LTV (the last few weeks to be honest) although I would
feel confident of my understanding. You are expressing a number of the
questions I raised whilst reading the first chapter - however, I believe
that you have to re-read this chapter in order to clarify exactly what Marx
is referring to when he talks of a commodities value (not use-value) - I
think Phil has also noted your lack of understanding of Marx's concept.

dl: The above is exactly the notion that inspires Marxists to do handsprings
and cartwheels to try and make the LTV make sense.  I'll ask you to respond
to one point.

donal: To be honest, I had initially felt that Marx formulated the LTV in
order to create a form of economical model which had the capacity to
simulate the expropriation of surplus-value - as such I have time for your
argument here. However, as I read further, I realised that the theory of
value was actually the fundamental here, that price was merely an outworking
of this - I guess that we should abstract one step back in our argument and
view human society as a natural development - the creation of the market
socialised the forms of production. As such objects began to be traded,
their exchange value was roughly that of a comparison between socially
equivalent forms of human labour (measured according to the social necessity
of the number of hours put in). That these exchange-values become
generalised against a rare metal (gold or silver) was not unusual. This is
the origins of value - one which is generated during the pre-capitalist
forms of society. This concept becomes centre-stage when we enter the period
of the industrial revolution and the construct of whole economic systems and
structures on the back of the extraction of surplus-value from workers.

As I have indicated before, the LTV is essential if we are to understand
expropriation in the workplace - supply-demand explanations deal with this
only in terms of cheap labour sources. I repeat, I would have to state that
supply-demand models (which are what you are returning to) are inadequate in
providing an adequate analysis of commodity-production. Your form of
economic model cannot allow for any form of detailed description of the
'core' of economic activity: the site of commodity production. The best you
can get to is a structural approach (very simplistic and purely appearance
only in terms of a scientific approach to labour).

dl: You know that when you engage in the main business of the Irish economy
and
lay a couple on the fillies you are putting money in the bookmaker's pocket,
win or lose.  But what can you do?  The bookies own the means by which your
wager gets to the other punters and vice versa.  They won't carry your bet
or anybody else's if they can't make a profit.  So, you never get the true
odds on your horse (and bookies are sweethearts compared to the typical
industrial capitalist).

Your approach to capital here is not incompatible with adopting the
principles of social partnership. What you have really done is taken away
the fundamental antagonism between the interests of the capitalist and the
worker (you have rejected any attempt to utilise an economic form which can
explain expropriation of surplus value). The only antagonism you accept is
that the Capitalist (by means of his priveleged position in society - the
ownership of the means of production) can exploit labour-force excess to
gain a good deal in terms of trading money for labour. However, if this was
the case, then good social partnership practices would ensure that the
capitalist treated the workforce in a decent manner. Indeed, modern forms of
Management (if adopted) would ensure that the Manager would value his human
resources and treat them accordingly. Such an analysis misses the
fundamental nature of workplace exploitation and also fails to analyse where
capital comes from in the first place. This is not a trivial question, if
all profit comes from trade as you maintain, if one person gains from trade
and the other losses, the overall amount of profit remains constant. You may
point towards productivity as a form of wealth-creation but you can't
analyse how this productivity is distributed (other than supply-demand
within the labour market).

dl: The rationale for the workers' struggle isn't envy.  It's the common
sense
of wanting to get what you pay for without some bastard taking a slice he's
not entitled to.  If you, I and a few fellas were in a poker game and one
guy demanded a chip from every pot, we would tell him to piss off.  If you
were in a round of drinks at the local and somebody always demanded an extra
pint except when it was his turn to buy, he'd never drink in Ireland again.

donal: What you are describing here is expropriation of labour (with LTV in
the background). If someone demanded a chip from every pot and let us
suppose that the average number of chips per pot per round was 4, then the
expropriation would be 25%. The value of the labour would be the equivalent
of 5 chips and the price of labour 4. Your argument (if I understand it) is
that the players have been exploited by structural concerns alone. In
effect, you draw out a purely appearance only argument - no dialectic at
play here. Yet, I have put forward an equivalent using the deeper value
based argument which complements and explains the appearance only one.

You will find that the LTV is entirely capable of dealing with all
situations that supply-demand can deal with (due to the depth of the snlt
definition), yet, it can be expanded out to deal with a range of issues that
supply-demand cannot, such as historical development of capitalism, the
accumulation of capital, the relative costs of commodities over the
long-term, etc. We have clearly demonstrated its capacity to deal with even
your complicated and contrived situations, yet, you persist in rejecting it
as a tool with which to analyse the current society.

Is mise,

Domhnall



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.