As to your claim that CEO is not an employee - I think it is sheer nonsense for anyone familiar with corporate organizational structure - but I also understand that you need to claim that to save your theory from empirical refutation. So if receiving stock as a part of compensation for one'e services makes someone not to be an employee, then all ESOP companies are run by owners, not employees, right? And how about CEOs or their equivalents in firms that have been nationalized, as it was the case in all x-Soviet economies.
But regardless what semantic device your employ, this the "retrograde movement" that your "geocentric" economic theory cannot explain. How come that certain categories of people who were hired to work for a company, and who can be sacked from their positions by owners, are remunerated at a very different rate than other categories of workers, and receive more in terms of compensation and control than those who hold the ownership rights.
So far your argument is that I did not read that you did, which is a philological argument, as Carrol aptly observed. This also is consistent with my earlier assertion that Marx's writings are mainly "philology" not empirical science - an exercise of refuting someone else's argument by poking holes in its logic or using it to draw opposite conclusions. As Ian said, philological can be political and I agree with it. But rhetorics is not empirical science.
But you believe otherwise and think that ltv is not merely a 19th century rhetorical device but has some empirical validity - show me. Show me what empirical phenomena the ltv is supposed to explain or predict, show me how it does it, and show me that its predictions are consistent with observable facts. Please do, I am anxious to know. I am not really interested in mere exegesis of the holy scriptures.
Wojtek
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Peter Fay <peterrfay at gmail.com> wrote:
> It appears much of what is being attributed here to Marx is inaccurate, and
> therefore the many deriving declamations invalid. I would suggest actually
> reading Marx. For example, Value, Price and Profit (if not Capital
> itself).
>
> Laughable accounting of impact of automation on value? On labor power's
> contribution to value? Hardly. I count somewhere around 300 pages in Vol
> 1
> of Capital examining precisely these issues in every possible circumstance
> and detail. If there is anything that explains exploitation to production
> workers oppressed by automation, it is the sections on automation in
> Capital. I have found nothing that explains the variations in wages
> better,
> and the impact of automation on value, profit and labor better than the
> labor theory of value. If you haven't done so, try reading it.
>
> On wages... the exchange value of a commodity is reflected by the "socially
> necessary" labor time required for its production. Labor power is a
> commodity like all other commodities and obeys the same laws. There is a
> social complement to the reproduction of labor which is reflected in its
> exchange value - whether workers are crushed like dirt, or have a somewhat
> higher level of living, which reflects itself in a higher exchange-value
> for
> labor power.
>
> And CEOs are not employees. Can't say I've ever heard of a CEO not
> receiving some amount of ownership in the company he/she runs, although I
> guess this is sometimes possible. White-collar workers generally
> contribute
> to the production of surplus value, and insofar as this is true, cannot be
> considered any different than any other wage laborer.
>
> -PF
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Joann: "Why should LTV explain any of the above?"
> >
> > [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
> > >
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Peter Fay
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>