I can think of several theories that explain prices, business cycles, or organizational forms of production, but ltov is not one of them. I do not even see what it is exactly that the ltov can possibly explain, if it cannot explain prices or the process through which things of value to humans are being procured. From that pov, ltov is pretty useles in social sciences (whatever they are worth.)
I can see, however, that the ltov was politically useful at a certain point in time, because it provided intellectual ammunition in the struggle for the betterment of the working class condition - a worthwhile goal to be sure. For that reason, it has historical significance even though its value in modern social sciences is nil.
Wojtek
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Lakshmi Rhone <lakshmirhone at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As I see, the main function of the labor theory of value was polemical -
> > to
> > support the claim that capitalists do not contribute any economic value,
> > only the labor does, which in turn provided logical grounds for calling
> for
> > 'expropriation of expropriators."
> >
>
> THis can't be true of the early economists who found the labor theory of
> value
> plausible. As I said, it's plausible as an account of how we make value
> judgments which are inherently comparative
> and based on an estimate of relative costs. But there are technical
> difficulties, so there is no actually theory of price.
>
>
> >
> > Outside that polemical framework, the ltov seems quite useless as it does
> > not explain anything - from prices to the organization of the economy.
>
>
> I don't think there is any explanatory theory for all that. There is no
> science of society.
> We must apply our ideals derived from speculative reason to it and reform
> it
> according to the demands
> of social justice. There is no social science; there is good institutional
> description, history and journalism.
> And we should draw on that to propose the best reforms.
>
> LR
>
>
> > It
> > is quite possible to have a production process carried out mostly by
> > machines i.e. capital investment with minimal involvement of "living
> labor"
> > and the product still being priced at the value that the "market can
> bear."
> > Furthermore, the involvement - or lack of it - in that production process
> > has no bearing on the form of ownership of the process or its product
> > 9which
> > is determined by instituional arrangements.)
> >
> > Wojtek
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Lakshmi Rhone <lakshmirhone at gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Hi
> > > I don't get this talk of revolution and the relation to the labor
> theory
> > of
> > > value. Sure, I get it that it is a theory of how I value goods, i.e. I
> on
> > > my
> > > own or I, following the herd, tend to give goods relative value in
> terms
> > of
> > > how much labor I guess went into producing them. I agree that's
> something
> > I
> > > do consider. For example, I haggled with my plumber the other day
> because
> > I
> > > thought he was charging me for too many hours. But I also know that
> > because
> > > Chinese labor is so cheap I don't have to pay for how much labor
> actually
> > > went into producing those goods, and I don't offer to pay a price that
> > > would
> > > reflect full labor value! But even on the assumption that there is some
> > > truth to a labor theory of valuation, I don't see what this has to do
> > with
> > > transforming the economy, peacefully or not.
> > > First time poster, and I don't understand the leftist economic point of
> > > view, though I am very concerned about social justice.
> > > LR
> > > ___________________________________
> > > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>