[PEN-L:27183] Re: LTV and income disparity

[Gil Skillman <gskillman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi, Nancy.  To get right to the point, the labor theory of value
does not of itself imply a zero-sum conflict in the distribution of
social income.  The reason for this is that, even if the total
potential labor expenditure in an economy is fixed, the total product of
that labor--and thus the total social income--need not be fixed, so that
there's potentially more for all.  A fixed labor expenditure can
translate into progressively higher levels of total output due to, for
example, technical progress. This growth in labor productivity would be
reflected in a lower average quantity of labor embodied in each
commodity.  A corollary of this is that richer rich does not of
itself imply poorer poor.  Of course the latter outcome may happen
in any case, but not for reasons that have specifically to do with the
operation of Marx's theory of value.  

That said, the responses to your comment, based on the supposed
implications of  "supply and demand," aren't particularly
on the mark, and to the extent they are, they beg the question.  Off
the mark, because an increase in demand, understood in either a
"micro" or a "macro" sense, need not translate into
an increase in total income.  For example, an increased demand for
vintage coins won't increase social income as standardly measured; and an
increase in *aggregate* demand may only increase the price level without
increasing *real* income.  Question-begging, because the answer
doesn't explain what led to an increase in demand in the first
place.  

For what it's worth,

Gil



> I am on
> another listserve, ANTHRO-L, which sometimes turns political -- there are
> a few good marxist anthropologists on it. a few months ago, i was
> discussing the gap between the rich and the poor in terms of the labor
> theory of value. to me, it seems self-evident that the richer the rich
> get, the poorer the poor will get. Since value is based on labor-power,
> there can be only a finite amount of it in the world, whether it is
> stored up as capital or circulating as money. 
>
> There were many and great objections to my statement -- too involved to
> summarize here, but mainly centered around the idea that value is created
> by the market dynamic of supply and demand -- the more demand, the more
> value; the less demand, the less value. Suffice it to say that I didn't
> know enough about the labor theory of value to be able to meet all their
> arguments. In the meantime, I have brushed up on the idea of the
> fetishism of commodities, and do understand a little bit more. 
>
> but i wondered if anyone of the many who know more about marxism would be
> willing to comment: does the LTV show that the rich and the poor are
> directly connected in that the more the rich get, the less the poor get?
> If so, why? If not, why not? 
>
> thanking you all in advance for any enlightenment you might bring to the
> question, 
>
> nancy brumback 
> new college of california 
> 766 valencia st. 
> san francisco, CA 94110 
> 415-437-3405 
> nancybrumback@xxxxxx