Travis
Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
>>Point of information:
>>
>>>From Theories of Surplus Value Volume 1 Progress 1969 Moscow:
>>
>>"...the use value of labour-power to the capitalist as a
>>capitalist does not consist in its actual use-value, in the
>>usefulness of this particular concrete labour - that it is
>>spinning labour, weaving labour, and so on. He is as little
>>concerned with this as with the use-value of the product of
>>this labour as such, since for the capitalist the product is
>>a commodity( even before its first metamorphisis), not an
>>article of consumption. What interests him in the commodity
>>is that it has more exchange-value than he paid for it, and
>>therefore the use-value of the labour is, for him, that he
>>gets back a greater quantity of labour-time than he has paid
>>out in the form of wages. Included among these productive
>>workers, of course, are all those who contribute in one way
>>or another to the production of the commodity, from the
>>actual operative to the manager or engineer (as distinct from
>>the capitalist)." (pp 156)
>>
>>
>
>
>Let's be honest, the LTV is a bunch of crock. It was a good rhetorical
>device to rally for a greater power of labor at the turn of the century -
>the common sense wisdom "he who pays the piper, calls the tune" dressed up
>in econo-babble to make it look scientific and important - but as science it
>is a bunch of crock that has zero explanatory power (as most economic
>theories do anyway.) A scientific theory has a value only if it can predict
>novel or unknown fact - hindsight rationalizations won't do, since religion
>does that too (i.e. it is a matter of faith and semantics rather than
>empirical verification.) The LTV fails to explain the behavior of business
>firms - from geographic distribution, to structural forms businesses take,
>to business decision making, to the role of the state in the economy
>(Keynesianism), to product diversification, to the rise of service economy
>at the expense of production.
>
>If the use value does not matter, then why do we have such a diversity of
>products? If the only thing that matters for the capitalist, why does
>he/she take a considerable risk of developing new products i.e. why is
>he/she risking the 'exchange value' for creating new "use value?" And how
>about joint stock companies that separate ownership and business decision
>making. Do "capitalists" (stock holders) also care only about exchange
>value? And if so, how do they make the management who are de facto
>*employees* but who are also the decision makers to care only about exchange
>value which they fork over to the capitalists? And how about employee-owned
>stock corporations, are their owners capitalists who care only about
>exchange value and exploit themselves as workers? And then, there is pesky
>automation. Today, great value is produced by automated production line
>with minimal human involvement and with future technological advances it is
>likely that most material production will be carried by robots controlled by
>a handful of software engineers. That clearly contradicts the basic premise
>of the LTV that only human labor produces value. Moreover, with such
>automated production the profits are made not in manufacturing but
>distribution - a fundamental fact of life in modern economy on which the LTV
>has nothing to say.
>
>Methinks that the LTV should be put to rest in the museum of human thought.
>It was a clever rhetorical device to mobilize support for labor struggle for
>power in labor-intensive industry era where labor had virtually no decision
>making power. It spoke to the common sense that those who make it should
>also have something to say about it, but it had much more gravitas than folk
>wisdom by adopting economic jargon (which is, btw, what economists do all
>the time). It is, in a way, like those charismatic revolutionary leaders
>who do a great job by mobilizing people and making the revolution happen,
>but after the revolution they should retire because they are likely to run
>the economy aground.
>
>Wojtek
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
>