[WS:] Good question. As I understand, ltv was a theoretical device to justify labor's claim to ownership of the means of production. For Marx, ownership of the means of production was the main mechanism through which labor was exploited by capital (i.e. paid by its exchange value rather than the total value of the output it produced. By asserting that output is produced by labor rather than capital, the ltv provided moral justification for the claim to expropriate the expropriators. Beyond that it had no value, and certainly not explanatory or predictive value one typically seeks in scientific theories.
While I am very sympathetic to the proposition that capitalists should be expropriated, I also recognize that this proposition can be argued in different ways, and the ltv is not necessarily the best way. It is so, because the central claim of the ltv, that all value is produced by labor is of questionable validity, if not demonstrably false. It had some semblance of validity in the times when all labor was invariably manual human labor, even that involved the most sophisticated tools of the time. However, this proposition is laughable today, when entire production lines are automated and output their generate by far exceed the input that was needed to set them up, even if it was done by human labor.
The fundamental conceptual problem that the ltv encounters is the definition of labor and attribution of output to a particular labor unit. Today's production process involves a wide range of individuals working in various capacities, from assembly line operators, to designers, to IT support, to administration, and to management. All of them not only contribute something to the production process, but do so in the same relation to the ownership of the means of production - as employees rather than owners. In fact, the majority of 'owners" i.e. stockholders often gets bupkes comparing to what some of the employees (CEOs) earn.
This illustrates that (1) the ltv fails to explain why different labor input are remunerated at vastly different rates i.e. it fails to explain exploitation; (2) the ltv fails to accomplish what it was its main original goal - namely that exploitation results from ownership of the means of production and (3) its central claim that all value is produced by human labor is either demonstrably false or it requires significant stretching of the concept of labor to entail virtually any human activity, which turns it to a rather uninteresting tautology that all value is produced by human activity of one sort or another.
Wojtek
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:15 AM, <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eubulides" <paraconsistent at comcast.net>
>
>
> What are the criteria for determining that capitalism is a completed
> system?
>
> Neither you or Joanna have produced a shard of evidence over the years
> that the so-called ltv does any explanatory work whatsoever.
>
> To paraphrase Hume:
>
> Does the ltv explain the inability of human beings to deal with global
> warming?
>
> Does it explain how/why one faction of the capitalists in the US want a
> strong dollar while there are PhD. economists who think the dollar
> should fall?
>
> Does it explain why union density is falling in Germany and the US?
>
> Does it explain the current commodities bubble? Does it explain *any*
> bubble?
>
> Does it explain why the USG decided to destroy Iraq?
>
> Does it explain why the working class in China and India are unable to
> get better wastewater treatment plants?
>
> If can't even help explain *any* of the above issues perhaps it should
> be consigned to the flames?
>
> -----------
> I'm so confused. Why should LTV explain any of the above?
>
> Joanna
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>