[PEN-L:27284] LTV and income disparity

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

LTV and income disparity
by Nancybrumback
25 June 2002 15:59 UTC


CB: I'm thinking the zero-sum effect is not inherently related to the labor theory of value or the law of value, but to the notion of a finite amount of wealth.  The labor theory of value speaks to the source of value ( exchange value, as Chris B. notes), not to the appropriation and consumption of value after it has been created. If the total amount of wealth is a constant and finite value, then if someone gets more of it, then someone else must have less of it. If the total amount of wealth increases, then it is possible that some rich and some poor could get richer, or if one or the other gets all the new wealth, then the one would get richer and the other stay the same, etc., etc.

Marx's theory and discussion of exploitation , which is a few logical steps beyond his law of value, touches upon the fact that the division of the appropriation of wealth between the working class and the capitalist class is dependent upon the state of the class struggle at a given time. Marx's theory of exploitation speaks to the appropriation and "consumption" of exchange value, and therefore the status of rich or poor. The labor theory of (exchange)value speaks only to the source of value, not who possesses the wealth after it is created.

Expropriate the expropriators of the wealth !

Hello , Nancy ! Good to "see" you again.

Charles B


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