Talk:Labor theory of value/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Factual accuracy tag, because "value" does not typically refer to number 3

The intro is wrong when it says "value" in the labor theory does not typically refer to price or value in exchange. That's exactly what it refers to. It should say number 2 is what it typically refers to. I have plent of sources to prove this, and there are many more where they came from. Some sources follow:

  • "Marx and Engles subscrived to an economic theory known as the "labor theory of value." When they first began their economic studies, that was the state-of-the-art theory in economics. Not only had the two great economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo developed it, but all other writers on economic matters, among them Benjamin Franklin, had held it. Marx quotes Franklin extensively. In outline, the labor theory of value asserts the following: All commodigies are useful to someone (otherwise they will not sell). They have, in the classical terminology, "use value." But they also exchange with other commodities, The ration in which they exchange with other commodities in called their "exchange value."...The theory further assumes that in most exchanges, equals exchange for equals. In some way a quarter of wheat is equal to x blackling or y silk or z gold..But that raises a further question immediately, namely, in respect to what are a quarter of wheat and the specific quantities of other commodities equal to one another? The classical economic theory answered: with respect to the emobodies labor. The value of a commodity was the labor time embodied in it. Hence the labor time embodied in any given commodity determined the proportion in which this commodity exchanged with others. (Schmitt, Richard. Introduction to Marx and Engels: A Critical Reconstruction. Westview Press (1997), p. 104-105)
  • "Adam Smith theorized that the labor theory of value holds true only in the "early and rude state of society" but not in a modern economy where owners of capital are compensated by profit. As a result, "Smith ends up making liteel use of a labor theory of value." (Canterbery, E. Ray, A Brief History of Economics: Artful Approaches to the Dismal Science, World Scientific (2001), pp. 52-53)
  • "The classical economists adopted the simplifying assumption of the labor theory of value. This theory asserts that labor is the only factor of production and that in a closed economy the prices of all commodities are determined by their labor content. In particular, since our interest lies mainly in relative as opposed to absolute prices with regard to the pure theory of trade, according to the labor theory of value, goods are exchanged against one another according to the relative amounts of labor they represent." (Chacholiades, Miltiades. The Pure Theory of International Trade, Aldine Transaction (2006), p. 14)
  • "Like most of the classical economists, Marx tried to explain price formation by a labor theory of value. The rates at which goods exchange against each other are explained by the amount of labor that has gone into their production." (Elster, Joe. An Introduction to Karl Marx, Cambridge University Press (1986), p. 64)
  • "The labor theory of value, for Marx, played a double role - as a theory of exchange and a theory of exploitation. Marx's approach was to use the theory of exchange as a conduit to generate the theory of exploitation. (Roemer, John E. Analytic Foundations of Marxian Economic Theory, Cambridge University Press (1989), p. 52)
  • "Marx believed the exchange value of a commodity was determined by the amount of labor time necessary for its production. His theory is therefore usually called the labor theory of value." (Hunt, E. K. Property and Prophets: The Evolution of Economic Institutions and Ideologies, M. E. Sharpe (2002), p. 109)
  • "The labor theory of value states that the value or price of a commodity is equal to or can be inferred from the amount of labor time going into the production of the commodity." (Salvatore, Dominick. Schaum's Outline of International Economics (1995), p. 15)

Economizer 02:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the assertion the criticism of the third definition of value, when Marx speaks of value he means exchange value meaning price. He does not mean the amount of labour contained in a commodity, as that labour may not be useful. A commodity "...has use-value for others; but for himself (the seller) its only direct use-value is that of being a depository of exchange-value, and, consequently, a means of exchange....Hence commodities must be realised as values before they can be realised as use-values....For the labour spent upon them counts effectively, only in so far as it is spent in a form that is useful for others. Whether that labour is useful for others, and its product consequently capable of satisfying the wants of others, can be proved only by the act of exchange." Capital Volume 1 chapter 2 exchange [1]

Therefore I am going to delete the third definition of value, Marx deals with only two definitions in Capital use value and exchange value.(Bill j 20:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

Without reading them all I'll just work from the first two - these citations don't seem to disagree with the text as it was, the three versions of value are still working from a basis that prices are in some way proportional to labour input, likewise in the use value/exchange value/ value set this is what happens, with exchange value being a real world mediation and specification of overall value. Anyway, I've qualifed it to make it accurate - hope my change suffices, but I really think you're misreading it and splitting unnecessary hairs here. I'll refer you to Junankar in the references.--Red Deathy 08:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The reality of the value of commodities differs in this respect from Dame Quickly, that we don’t know “where to have it.” The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity. In fact we started from exchange value, or the exchange relation of commodities, in order to get at the value that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this form under which value first appeared to us

The elementary form of value of a commodity is contained in the equation, expressing its value relation to another commodity of a different kind, or in its exchange relation to the same. The value of commodity A, is qualitatively expressed, by the fact that commodity B is directly exchangeable with it. Its value is quantitatively expressed by the fact, that a definite quantity of B is exchangeable with a definite quantity of A. In other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent and definite expression, by taking the form of exchange value. When, at the beginning of this chapter, we said, in common parlance, that a commodity is both a use value and an exchange value, we were, accurately speaking, wrong. A commodity is a use value or object of utility, and a value. It manifests itself as this twofold thing, that it is, as soon as its value assumes an independent form – viz., the form of exchange value. It never assumes this form when isolated, but only when placed in a value or exchange relation with another commodity of a different kind. When once we know this, such a mode of expression does no harm; it simply serves as an abbreviation.

[2]--Red Deathy 08:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Economizer is not conducting a discussion. He has repetitively been answered. See, for example, archived discussions around 22 August 2006. 151.190.254.108 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)RLV, 16 November 2006
Economizer is correct. It refers to price. So, why with all these sources was it not mentioned? Even if it referred to price just sometimes, that should still be mentioned.Anarcho-capitalism 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Not mentioned? The relationship between value and price is discussed in the article in Section 3, "The Relation Between Values and Prices". (Not that I like the article.) In both Marx and Ricardo, value often refers, not to price, but to something underlying price. The quotes from Red Deathy above document that perspective in Marx. For Ricardo, see http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/08/value-in-ricardo.html. Smith, Ricardo, J. S. Mill, and Marx, for example, all said that prices do not tend towards proportionality with prices. 151.190.254.108 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)RLV, 4 December 2006
Anarcho-capitalism the problem with Economizer's cites is they don't say what he wants them to say, they are all perfectly consistent with the text as provided, they don't say that value exclusively refers to price or that value cannot refer to something other than price - theya re all perfectly consistent with the text as it is and teh 3 level account. In many accounts of LTV price=value is assumed for convenience and clarity, but usually not understood to be the end of the matter. I disagree, btw, with deleting the footnote, footnotes aren't just for references but for explanations that don't belong in the flow fo the text.--Red Deathy 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
It's not a matter of the cites saying what they want them to say. I don't want them to say anything in particular. The matter is what they say. They say that "value" refers to price. For example, "The labor theory of value states that the value or price of a commodity is equal to or can be inferred from the amount of labor time going into the production of the commodity." (Salvatore, Dominick. Schaum's Outline of International Economics (1995), p. 15) I think everybody learns this in Economics 101 but whoever is writing this article doesn't seem to be aware of it. And the problem with the footnotes is that they are just footnotes. As Anarcho-capitalism says, they are editorial. That's ok for footnotes, but they're being used as citatations. We have to use external sources for citatations. We can't write our own editorial in a footnote and then use that as a source for what we say in the article. Economizer 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The first four of your quotes above do not say that, they merely say price is proportionate to value, not that value refers to price. Which supprots the contention of the text of the article. I've given two primary source quotes from unca Charlie Marx that illustrates that price was not, in his system at least, the ssame thing as value. Footnotes are footnotes, they *can* as a stylistic preference contain expansion of the text, as well as give citations (which the ones removed did, they cited external sources which they discussed).--Red Deathy 08:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, has it ever occured to you that price comes close to labor, because manufacturers stop improving the manufacturing process once they have achieved a decent return on investment? Usually a company will not improve the manufacturing process unless it has a competitor trying to put him out of business. LTV cannot explain why new products start out expensive. Look at CD players. They started out costing something like $1000.00, now you can have one for maybe $50. Do you think manufacturers where making $950.00 profit on each unit? hardly. Dullfig 17:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The above question, about the "price com[ing] close to labor" has nothing to do with the LTV. See, for example, http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/LTV-FAQ.html#ValueDef10 151.190.254.108 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC) RLV, 5 December 2006
The first sentence of that FAQ that you're referencing says "The LTV is the theory that market prices are attracted by prices proportional to the labor time embodied in commodities." (Never mind, that a FAQ isn't a credible source one way or the other).Anarcho-capitalism 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Right. The first sentence of that FAQ distinguishes between prices and labor values. That is, according to that FAQ, value (in the sense of the LTV) is not price, but something else. Namely, value is the amount of labor time embodied in a commodity. (I hope "Anarcho-capitalism" recognizes his comment is not a response to my explanation to Dullfig, just as Dullfig's comment is not a response to the conversation that preceded it. Nor is Dullfig's comment a comment on the Wikipedia article. As noted, Dullfig's comment is also not a comment on the LTV.) 216.171.187.46 RLV, 6 December 2006
I disagree. Look at the first quote for example. "The labor theor of value says that, in competitive markets, commodities that can be produced over and over against exchange in the marketplace according to the amount of average quality work time it takes to produce them." It's saying that the value at which they exchange accords with the amount of labor required to produce them. That's clearly saying that "value" refers to price. Here is another source: "The classical economists (by which I mean writers such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill, but also Fréderic Bastiat) adhered to some version of the cost theory of value, and in particular a labor theory of value. Although each writer differed in minor details and points of emphasis, at this level of generality we can take a cost theory of value to state the following: A good’s “natural” (or long-run) price is equal to its total cost3 of production. Similarly, a labor theory of value claims that a good’s natural price is proportional to the total quantity of labor required to produce it." [3] Anarcho-capitalism 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Learn to read. "The labory theory of value says that, in competitive markets, commodities that can be produced over and over again exchange in the marketplace according to the amount of average quality work time it takes to produce them." The above does not say that labor values are prices. It is perfectly consistent with labor values being the "amount of average quality work time it takes to produce" commodities. That, in fact, is how labor values are defined by, for example, Marx. In fact, the acronym SNALT is commonly used in the literature for "socially necessary abstract labor time". I don't even see why this matter should be a subject of dispute. 216.171.187.9 10:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) RLV, 6 December 2006
Quite - the concepts of bargain and rip-off illustrate the value/price difference nicely, if people think they are gtting a bargain it is because the price they are paying is below what they understand to be the value of the good, prices are proportionate to values but they do not equal values and are not the same thing, at least by the time we get to Charlie Marx. I've changed the tag because this isn't a question of neutrality but a dispute over the theory per se.--Red Deathy 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

BillJ - as you can see from quotes above, and cited sources, Marx did distinguish between Use value, exchange value and value proper (see the bolded quotes in the blockquotes above). I'll revert your changes...--Red Deathy 09:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro (again :-)

While I generaly like the intro, it seems it has grown a lot, and has become a little rambling and long winded. I fear it will bore the reader. I will atempt to condense it. Please feel free to join in (as if you guys needed my blessing :-). Dullfig 17:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro to be changed...

The fundamental point is the intro needs to be changed:

  • It totally confuses the issue of LTV (so why write the article???)
  • It argues the point whether Adam Smith accepted the LTV - this has no place in an intro

Why can't people accept a boiler plate introduction which is just that - i.e. introduces the topic to people who aren't aware of it, "needless" to say - and then argue away in the body of the article??? The result of the current structure is that bridges are burnt down before they're even constructed.--Jack Upland 07:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Too Technical

Personally, I think this article is too technical. This has come as a result of the 'dialectical' development of the article, which started as a critique of LTV and has now turned into a defence (somewhat). This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article which a person with no knowledge of the topic can be introduced to it.--Jack Upland 23:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it's slightly too long - personally, I favour losing the scary maths stuff, it's not necessary. I tried adding the conceptual model section, don't know how much that helps...--Red Deathy 08:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's beyond just the maths. The whole devotion to abstract theory is unnecessary at this level - including your pursuit of the various definitions of value. This is why I added the 'Justification' section which some object to (see above). It's not intended to prove the LTV just to summarise the reasons some have supported it before launching into endless series of theoretical diversions...--Jack Upland 06:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Value Revisited

I'm sorry to revisit this controversy, but I think the definitions of value included in the intro are likely to alienate and confuse the general reader. While Marx does use the bald term "value" in the "third sense",I am not convinced this is particularly relevant. It seems tautological, and certainly isn't very enlightening. After all, Marx states:

exchange value is the only form in which the value of commodities can manifest itself or be expressed (Capital, Vol. 1, ch. 1, section 1)

The only real entities here are the amounts of labour and the prices of products. To cloud this issue in a basic presentation of the topic is simply wrong. The whole controversy seems to be spurred by an overreaction to the Transformation Problem.

If these three definitions are included, I certainly don't think they should be in the intro as it gives the impression of being goobledegook.--Jack Upland 03:31, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree. Say you are shopping for hammers. you find a ball-peen, and a framing hammer for the same price (not surprising, since the labor involved is the same). But you need to do sheet metal work, so the ball-peen hammer is what you need. You have taken into consideration its use-value to make your decision.
I have a better one: you go buy a hammer for construction. There is a plain framing hammer, and then there is one with a groove on top, which allows you to hold a nail in the grove, so that you can start a nail in hard to reach places with one hand (such a hammer does exist). Other than the grove, the labor necessary to make both hammers is the same. The hammer with the groove costs twice than the regular, but you decide to buy it anyways because it has more use-value. You percieve the higher price to be fair, because you will get more use-value out of it.
Where did the extra use-value come from? Certainly not from labor. It must have come from the intelect of the person that thought of putting the grove on the head. But I thought that only human labor could create value. Isn't the person that thought of the grove entitled to compensation for creating more use-value? Shouldn't use-value be a factor in the exchange-value? -- Dullfig 04:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your hammers are missing the point. The point here is not to argue over LTV (which is what you are doing) but to improve the text.--Jack Upland 03:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I went a little off topic, but I still think that mentioning the use-value of things is necesary. Maybe we need a re-write to make it more readable? Dullfig 15:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I never said "use-value" shouldn't be mentioned. It's the prominent defintion of "value" per se that rankles with me. What's the point?--Jack Upland 06:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

seems the intro is quite disorganized. I think the first step would be to decide what it is that we want to explain in this article. Right now it's like a ship without rudder. People add and subtract from it (welcome to wikipedia) at their heart's content. Anyways. Open to ideas. Dullfig 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
A blog post, http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/11/no-influence-of-tastes-on-prices-part.html, illustrates a theorem in price theory. In that example, commodities have different use values to different communities. Yet exchange values are no different among these communities. Contrast this to Dullfig's hammer example. Clearly, Dullfig does not understand modern price theory. He should also recognize that he is uninterested in understanding the labor theory of value. (People who do understand the theory know that they need not be concerned with how Stella got her groove back, or if anybody is entitled to more or less compensation in some particular case. See http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2006/11/marx-and-commentators-on-marx-on_09.html). Given his lack of understanding, I suggest Dullfig should refrain from modifying the article. And Jack Upland will always say that any entry related to Marxism is too technical. RLV, 1 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.171.187.7 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC).
Clearly, you don't understand rules of modern civility. But I will overlook you crass attempt at intimidation (for now). As for the theorem you point to, if you where that smart, you would have noticed that the theorem contains a fallacy. The whole thing is based on the price of wheat and barley, two commodities! by definition, commodities will trade at a price proportional to their labor input, not their use-value. If the theorem is to hold valid, you would have to prove that it is true for goods with different use-value. Go back to your room and take another look at your theorem, and then come back when you are ready to discuss things in a mature, adult fashion. -- Dullfig 01:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Dullfig should recognize that he does not know what he is talking about. The theorem is not false, but valid. Commodities in the example (and in general) do not trade at a price proportional to their labor input. And, in the example, the commodities have different use values. RLV, 1 January 2007
Ok, let me see if I get this straight: I don't know what I'm talking about, because a blogger says that taste has no influence on prices. cute.
Assuming you are arguing in good faith (not sure about that) let me tell you what is wrong with that theorem. Have you noticed that the amount of rye and wheat consumed by workers is totally arbitrary and designed to arrive at the expected outcome? worker A gets 9/16 bushels of rye, B gets 3/8 bushels of wheat, and C gets 1/8 rye and 3/8 wheat. Why can B get by on 3/8 wheat, but C needs 1/8 + 3/8? It would be more likely that all three would want equal volume of food. When you do the math for equal volume of food, the prices of rye and wheat vary depending on individual taste. Dullfig 07:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Nope. Dullfig should realize that, when it comes to price theory, he doesn't know what he is talking about. RLV, 2 January 2007
Well done Dullfig, you hit the nail right on the head. Amateur propaganda like the above link has no place on Wikipedia.
To return to the point of Jack Upland's question - the reason why we need to distinguish all three, and why there's been such a fight over it, is that the theory can be quickly rendered ridiculous if price and value are assumed to be the same - hence why some editors, I'd suggest have been trying to write that into the intro.
This links in with an old example I used to use to explain LTV. How long is a piece of string? The obvious answer is, Some millimetres. This length value can only become known by comparison with lengths of other objects. How long is the piece of string? could be answered with Twice as long as this one. To render such comparisons meaningful and useful, we need to create an abstract measure, and a constant one (after all, pieces of string can be stretched). This is why we use the speed of light, perhaps we could refer to this as the string's metric value. Now, imagine a game where the person who guesses nearest the length of the piece of string wins it - no rulers allowed. The winning guess whilst based upon the competitor's estimate of the metric value of the string will be approximate and based not just on the string's real length but also on other competitor's guesses. Such guesses would equate to price of a piece of string.--Red Deathy 08:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
So do the changes made earlier today adequately address Jack's concern? 216.171.187.42 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC) RLV
No. Dullfig 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I love it when trolls take over. Can't even sign his posts. Dullfig 16:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
To insist that it is not natural for humans to pay more for a product that has more use-value as compared with another one, is to not know human nature. My hammer example is a valid, real life example. But of course it is ignored, as it would involve thinking. Instead, some people choose to argue over some fictional example of some fictional islanders eating totaly made up quantities of cereal set at arbitrary prices, in order to prove LTV. nice. Dullfig 16:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Dullfig should also realize that he doesn't understand what points are at issue and is incapable of summarizing them. RLV, 3 January 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.171.187.15 (talk) 08:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Go away. And learn to spell summarizing. Dullfig 17:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hammers, string - I think you're all nuts. And I don't know why I'm accused of arguing any article about Marxism is too technical. The issue in economics is how we explain the phenomenon of price. I don't believe that "supply and demand" or " marginal utility" can explain it. I believe LTV does. That does not mean price is always proportionate to labour value, rather that it fluctuates around this norm. I don't see how an article on LTV can usefully or sensibly disappear or obfuscate the issue of price.--Jack Upland 06:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

PS "Since the term value is understood in the LTV as denoting something created by labor and its magnitude as something proportional to the quantity of labor performed" - this is equivalent to saying the "Labor Theory of Value" should be defined as the "Labor Theory of Labor"!!!! Sorry, just a little bit circular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jack Upland (talk • contribs) 06:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC).
"It [i.e., price] fluctuates around this norm [i.e., labor value]." No. The distinction between 'market price' and 'natural price' (also known as 'price of production') is not the same as the distinction between price of production and 'labor value'. The 'realization problem' is not the 'transformation problem'. All sorts of explanations are available, e.g., http://www.dreamscape.com/rvien/Economics/Essays/sraffa.html. (I do think the intro is better set off from the definition of value.) ~~ RLV —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.217.195.11 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Point taken on realization v transformation problem. However, in both cases the price/value difference is caused by market-based fluctuations. Moreover, the equalisation of profit posited by the transformation problem never occurs (and if it did it would negate itself), so I question the weight given to this issue. From reading the article, you'd think that equating prices and values was wide from the mark when it's only a minor inaccuracy. Though economists like to assume a 'normal profit' phenomenon, empirical evidence shows otherwise. If you think I'm wrong, provide real world data.--Jack Upland 07:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

positioning

This article currently seems to present the labor theory of value and the marginal utility theory as really the only options, and even says in the Criticisms section that "virtually all" critics of the labor theory of value subscribe to marginal utility. But Piero Sraffa's critiques of both neoclassical economics and Marxian economics don't really fit neatly into this Marxians-vs-neoclassicists narrative, and they've been influential, with a number of present-day economists following in that vein. To say "virtually all" critics are marginalists ignores that school, and a good subset of other post-Keynesian economists, especially those subscribing to the cost-of-production theory of value. And historically, some socialists (like Christiaan Cornelissen) have objected to the labor theory as well. Somewhat separately, there has on occasion been some debate about whether Ricardo himself subscribed to a labor theory of value; George Stigler, for example, opined otherwise in 1958 [4]. --Delirium 02:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, many, if not all, labor theories of value are also cost-of-production theories of value. Jacob Haller 02:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least they're allied schools of thought...--Jack Upland 09:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

importance of labor

"It is not possible to view corn, iron etc. as common to all commodities." Neo-Recardians object, that, as, for instance, in an input-output analysis, corn, iron etc., what Sraffa called "basic commodities", go directly or indirectly into the production of all commodities and are in this sense common to all commodities. That's why the whole discussion about a "corn theory of value" comes up. --Alex1011 18:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the example of "corn" shows what a fallacy this is. A few centuries ago - in Europe - wheat (or "corn") was fundamental to the economy. It's much less so now. If wheat died out from some genetic disease, we can all envisage the economy surviving. If coal was eliminated for "climate change" reasons, then again we can all envisage the economy surviving. But imagine the economy without any human labour of any kind... It's impossible. And we know that economies have existed through history without wheat, without iron, without coal, etc. But name one economy that's existed without labour...Over to you.--Jack Upland 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the example of "labor" shows what a fallacy this is. A few centuries ago - in Europe - the concrete labor to produce wheat (or "corn") was fundamental to the economy. It's much less so now. If the concrete labor to produce wheat died out from some reason, we can all envisage the economy surviving. If the concrete labor to produce coal was eliminated for "climate change" reasons, then again we can all envisage the economy surviving. But imagine the economy without any kind of corn of some kind... It's impossible. And we know that economies have existed through history without concrete labors to produce wheat, or iron, or coal, etc. But name one economy that's existed without some kind of corn...Over to you.--Alex1011 15:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry??? "Corn"??? What do you mean? There has been no economy without the existence of any kind of "grain"? (Or did you narrowly mean "wheat"???) The Aboriginal economy in Australia existed for millenia without grain production. The same thing can probably be said for the Eskimos/Inuit. Most of us can imagine an economy of the future without grain production. Many people already survive without grain intake due to allergies or the Atkins Diet fad!!! Are you serious??? Your entire argument is based on a simplistic and knee-jerk wordplay, not on any meaningful consideration of the issue. If we transitted to an economy based on solar power and plankton-derived food, this would still depended on human labour. Think about it. Actually think about it. For once.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The clash of discourses (Marx and the economists)

"The labor theory of value," as the term is used today (i.e., in association with Marx rather than Smith) is the intersection of two unrelated and irreconcilable discourses. The first we can call rather obviously "economics"; this represents the theory which grounds the practices undertaken by governments in order to manage production, currency, etc.. This discourse is quite well represented here, and has little to do with Marx. The second we might call (although the term was not used in Marx's time) "critical theory." This is the theory which grounds the practices undertaken by revolutionaries to interrupt the reproduction of society, to change the course of history. In this case the aims of the two discourses are directly opposed: the one seeks stability, the orderly reproduction of society as it is, the continuation of history as progress; the other seeks to impose a new design upon society, the replacement of one form of order with another, a discontinuity in history. (The fact that they are directly opposed, rather than orthogonal, does not mean they concern the same object or that they can be reconciled, any more than the rationality of crowd control can be reconciled with the rationality of organizing protests.)

The connection between these two discourses through Marx is his use of Adam Smith, but the use of Smith by him is radically different from that by the economists. Marx was concerned to explain the origins of the status of the proletariat; he was concerned to answer the question, Why is the proletariat powerless over his condition?, or How do the powerful maintain their power? and found part of his answer in economics. Obviously this is only a precursor to the next question, How can the proletariat obtain power? and Marx's answer here, though sociological, was also intimately connected with economics--his answer was to displace through violent revolution the newly-formed, economic "bourgeois" class; i.e., those who owned the industrial cities (a point on which today's critical theorists are in stark disagreement, having today taken account of, and shifted primary focus to, non-economic mechanisms of social reproduction).* Smith was only a resource to Marx, a work of reference with which he could better reason about the state of society; Marx made use of economics without being an economist. Smith, however, participated in the economic discourse directly; he was concerned to answer the question, How is wealth produced? with the instrumental question being, How can the government encourage the production of wealth? so that his work was, in its instrumental capacity, advice to governments.

It is the difference in their ends which results in the schism between economic theory and the economic aspects of critical theory--in the existence of two competing bodies of theory. However, while critical theory can tolerate (and, in fact, is totally impervious to) economic theory, economic theory cannot tolerate the competing body of (apparently) economic theory which critical theory presents: in order to be a science, and in particular the science of economics, it must discount any claim to being proper science that any competition might have--not, of course, by levying false accusations against it, but by incorporating into itself whatever is compatible with its rationality, and refuting what does not by demonstrating that it does not. Ultimately, the economists say to Marx: What you say cannot help us to run the financial institutions. True--but it wasn't supposed to.

This clash of discourses creates a situation which is well-reflected on this talk page itself. As has been stated, one side puts up a straw man which the other sees no reason to defend. It does nothing to help the situation that the economists--and, I would imagine, particularly the "Austrian school"--probably have very little familiarity with Marx, and have encountered him only through secondary sources on economics which merely extracted from Marx what economics his work contained. However, Marx was no economist, and did not produce original economic theories; he attempted to produce a theory of society and history which incorporated the established economics of the time. I quote from the introduction to the Regnery abridged edition of Das Kapital:

Exploitation is not a scientific phenomenon but one of the moral order. The old-fashioned law of supply and demand (assuming that labor is in greater supply than demand for it) suffices to explain Marx's theory of the "increasing misery" of the workers without bringing into it the theory of value at all . . . [Marx's economic] analyses were often correct, although they did not reveal anything that was not general knowledge . . . His great error was to ascribe to his observations a static, permanent, as well as general, character . . . all of the concepts which he claimed as the "scientific" basis of his theories were formulated before him by Condorcet, Saint-Simon, Auguste Comte, and others . . . He was right when he predicted that capitalism as he knew it would not survive; but he did not foresee the significant evolution of capitalist society which took place after Das Kapital was published.

— Serge L. Levitsky

Marx is properly the subject of criticisms--serious ones. Aside from the above, Marx was unable to conceive of genuinely mutual interdependence between the exploited and exploiting classes. He insisted that society followed a deterministic path not subject to the conscious direction of its members, which he thought could only begin with communism; he could not imagine that, for example, the bourgeois class might simply decide to support a welfare state rather than drive the proletariat to destitution and revolution. In spite of his claims to scientific materialism, his writings are full of Hegelian rubbish which can only be classified as theology, and which alone formed the basis of his position that communism would solve every imaginable social problem.

Yet if you accept Levitsky's characterization--which as far as I have read is accurate--then a criticism of Marx's use of the "labor theory of value" on the basis of marginalist economics is as absurd as a criticism of engineers' use of Newtonian physics on the basis of Relativity. It is easy to see why this criticism must exist, but it is ultimately advanced against straw man. It should certainly be documented here, but (per NPOV) not as genuine criticism of Marx's position. The same, by the way, applies to other anti-capitalists (e.g., Pierre Proudhon, Josiah Warren; see also the Benjamin Tucker quote in Cost the limit of price). You will see in their writings that their supposed subscription to a "labor theory of value" was nothing more than a prescription that labor receive just remuneration, combined with a defense of the position that at present it did not--a defense which made use of (a most popular and respected economic treatise in their times) The Wealth of Nations. —Jemmytc 01:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I apologise for being "uncivil". However, I do question how much of Marx, Smith etc you have read given that you don't cite them to support your argument. I don't think it is particularly "civil" to dump an unsubstantiated tirade onto an discussion page.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

^* Today the focus in critical theory is on the means by which society structures experience in such a way as to regularly reproduce modes of subjectivity, modes which might be called "well-adjusted," but are just as often--in a contradiction of Marx's usage which well-illustrates the point--called "bourgeois." —Jemmytc

Misrepresentation of LTV

I've removed the suggestion that the LTV says what prices "ought to be" or determines goods "true" values. This is a common misrepresentation: that the LTV is about what ought to be, not what is. (As has been discussed here ad nauseum.) If someone can cite an instance of this "moral" LTV (i.e. a theory which says prices should be "corrected" to reflect labour expended), then we can include this in the article. Otherwise it's just confusion.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The LTV is both normative or moral and objective. The true measure of value ought to be labor. Marx says value "is to be measured as" labor; this is normative. But he further says that the economists have made the "great discovery" that price is determined by labor. Also, see Cost the limit of price. —Jemmytc 00:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But do you have citations for your interpretation? No, you don't. In the Critique of the Gotha Program (I.1.), Marx says, "Labour is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the source of use values... as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of nature... The bourgeois have very good grounds for falsely [my emphasis] ascribing supernatural creative power to labour...". Please provide evidence for your continual assertions, or stop making them.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Justification of theory

This section has now been swallowed by the rest of the text after an edit by User: Red Deathy. Not sure why there was an controversy about it in the first place. I suspect we will now be deluged by edits that claim the LTV denies supply and demand. But hopefully I'm wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What Happens Next

What happens to all of the above when all or most goods and services are produced without the significant intervention of "human labor" or human attention ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Then value of most goods and services goes to zero, profits go to zero, and a general crisis erupts. --Alex1011 (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Contrary to what people think, Marx is talking about mechanisation from the Communist Manifesto onwards. No one else is. He explains why goods become cheaper with mechanisation. No one else does...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What sort of crisis do you speak of ?
Value zero, yes; availability, whatever is carried off or requested by consumers. Crisis ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Crisis for the capitalist, because he can not charge a price anymore for things, which are of no value. So production on a capitalist basis must stop. --Alex1011 (talk) 15:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is no longer a general crisis, but rather one just for the capitalist. So what kind of crisis is this ? Does he lose his family, his home, his possessions, etc, etc ? We are listening, but hear nothing. Oh, he loses his power over others. So what ? (Poor fellow).
"So production on a capitialist basis must stop". Do you refer to ALL production or to just that "on a capitalist basis" ? If the latter, so what ?
I do not think that you have yet completely assimilated the issue.
Please return to the original question :
"What happens Next".

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 10:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you accept Marx's theory of value and exploitation (which your comments indicate you do, at least for the sake of the argument) then capitalist production in this scenario is presented with not just (a) inability to make a profit, but also (b) inability to cover costs. At this point all capitalist production is bankrupt. However, capitalists having established dominant positions the world over, the world is thrown into chaos. All existing businesses from Mitsubishi to Microsoft, from the corporate giant to the corner store have failed. All employees are out of work. And you think this is not a general crisis???!!! Of course, this scenario is impossible, as faced with a declining rate of profit the capitalists will necessarily attempt to increase exploitation, lowering wages and provoking a workers' backlash. Bankruptcy will not be a single event but a drawn-out domino effect, and hence the crisis will not present itself in such a theoretically pure form. The really existing captains of industry will be sacked and replaced by a rationally planned and stable system of production based on need rather than individual profit long before these forces play out.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You continue to fail to address the very first sentence of my inquiry --
"What happens to all of the above when all or most goods and services are produced without the significant intervention of "human labor" or human attention ?"
Hint : "Cost", hence "money" has disappeared.
You need to really fully clear your mind of all preconceived notions in order to address my question productively.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a discussion of how to improve the article? Or is this Usenet? Anyway, the Von Neumann growth model is a broadly classical approach to the theory of value in which all commodities can be made in an automated fashion with no inputs of labor. -- RLV 209.217.195.103 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The article on the "Labor theory of value" can be improved by considering "What happens next", as I have suggested above.
Presumably, the changes would occur gradually, as they have done in the past. So, gradually, "cost" declines to zero, whence no profit or wages are necessary to satisfy needs or wants. What, in your opinion, with or without reference to Mr von Neumenn's studies, might happen in this eventuality ?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Cost does not decline to zero. -- RLV 209.217.195.72 (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Why not ? What does it decline to ? That is, how far from zero does it remain ? Why ?

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.230 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barring further comment, I will assume that it is taken for granted that costs will asymptotically decline to zero -- there being nothing to support them, and more importantly, anything of interest that the receiver of the charges that are the basis of costs could do with the charge "money" he receives.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.31.200 (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fraid you can't assume that - (1) Price and value - and therefore cost - are not the same thing. (2) the system would break down long before values reached zero.--Red Deathy (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a "system" alright -- but it is NOT an economic system as commonly understood. The factories run, the automata are busy delivering goods and services, but ECONOMICS, per se, are dead. Nothing in the "economic system" breaks down, since it is dead, there is no scarcity, no one (except a lucky few, so to speak), has a job, but everyone has whatever he declares are his needs, since he is not taking them away from someone else. The individual's problem is to determine and to order his needs and wants, to use his needs and to store his wants, since those would be the only practical limits to his consumption of manufactured goods. Well, obviously there are problems here, but they are NEW ones, I think.

.

Consider the price equations (Section 5) in this blog post: http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2008/02/profits-resulting-from-exploitation-of.html. They can still be solved for positive prices and a positive rate of profits when labor coefficients (a0) are zero. (I'm not sure about what institutions are compatible with this approach in this case.) -- RLV 209.217.195.109 (talk) 00:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Who makes the "profit" and why would he bother ? In terms of what would he receive them ? For what would he use those "profits" even if he made them ? -- He already has all his needs/wants. There can be no costs in the absence of scarcity, I think.

If - hypothetically - robot servants catered to every whim of their idle human masters, yes, then the economy as we know it would cease to exist. Costs would be zero. Wealth would be not be infinite but the robots would be constantly innovating and tinkering at the edges to produce yet more abundance for the human race... So what was your point???--Jack Upland (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That IS the point. That situation is just barely over the horizon, although you apparently are cozily unaware of it.

In order to maintain a degree of sanity -- hopefully more than today's average -- all or even most humans would NOT be idle at all. They simply would not be producing anything for livelihood or profit, none being remotely necessary.

Politicians would be pretty much in the "untouchable" class where they certainly belong -- No economics, no more power-plays !!

Open up your mind !! Please.

The word "Robot" is or should be a discredited term -- it no longer has a definite, useful or uniform meaning among most people : Try "Automated Autonomous Labor Device", or AALD, or come up with your own.

The catch is pretty well contained in that powerful German word, "Lebensraum", on all levels -- but there is a solution even to that out there, already with small examples. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.31.200 (talk) 11:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Humans wouldn't be idle, but they would be a leisure class... sadly that day is not imminent! (Happy to be proved wrong!) Don't understand your reference to politicians, your objection to the word "robot", or your reverence for Nazism... And I still don't see the relevance to the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Leisure Class -- While few or none would be economically GAINFULLY employed (Who needs the "gain"), it does not follow that everyone or even most would be idle. This writing, for exanple, is neither gainful nor leisure, in my opinion. There will still be such matters as reputation and acclaim for works well done, even if only in one's own mind.
Re : Nazism -- Oh, my !! Not very bright of me !! Sorry about the misunderstanding of my intentions with regard to the use of the German word "Lebensraum" ! The "powerful" attribute referred to the fact that so many German words say a paragraph in English -- but the rest was intended only to designate what one might call the ordinary "de-Nazified" meaning of the term : "living space" in the broadest physical and economic sense under ANY economic system at all. Where to put everyone and his activities.
Hang the Nazis !!! We did ?? GOOD, good !!!
People say, "No more real estate can be made", but that is not true : There are already several floating condominium developments in operation.
To be blunt : Politicians (as we know them) are parasites !
The term "Robot" is a word which has too many possible POPULAR meanings to be effectively used in a technical context directed to the lay public.
Thus, NASA's "robotic arm" is really just a mechanical arm, remotely controlled by a human in each and every fine detail in order to perform the intended task (as I understand it). Some surgeons assistive devices go steps further and have at least some "true robotic" attributes (See below).
Originally, the term "robot" was, I think, introduced to designate a device capable of carrying out a new (to it) multidimensional action without having to be instructed or controlled in each individual component or segment of the action. It thus exhibited a greater or lesser degree of "autonomy". Some may disgree, even strongly -- but that is the substance of my objection to the unqualified use of the term -- and so I avoid using it and try to discourage its use by others except where fully qualified.
Another reason is the irrelevant antropomorphism associated with it in the lay mind.
"And I still don't see the relevance to the article". Could you expand on this, please ?
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.178.54 (talk) 13:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


Well, I would say there's enough expansion on this idea. To me the obsolescence of human labour in the economy seems far-fetched. If it did come about this would have impact on the LTV but also on a lot of other issues, to the extent that arguing about the LTV would be trivial. If this is just around the corner, I couldn't be happier.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability of External Links

Consider the external links. I cannot see why Donald Ernsberger's "critique of the labor theory of value" should stay and Jim Devine's "alternative view of Marx's LTV" should go. Jim Devine is a professor of economics who has written a number of published papers on Marx. See http://myweb.lmu.edu/JDevine/.

As for my FAQ - I am not the one who originally inserted it into the article page. I think of it as tutorial. You can see E. Ahmet Tonak agrees - he mirrors it: http://minerva.simons-rock.edu/~eatonak/LTV-FAQ.html. (Tonak's expertise is demonstrated by his 1994 book, cowritten with the New School economics Anwar Shaikh.) I have seen class handouts linked to in other articles. I think the article misses a lot of current academic debate on the LTV that I tried to put into my FAQ long before the article was written. Where do you see in the article anything about Samuelson's 1971 JEL paper; Morishima's fundamental theorem of Marxism; Steedman's Sraffian perspective; the analytical Marxism of Cohen, Elster, and Roemer; Foley's and Dumenil's new interpretation; or the Temporal Single System Interpretation associated with, for example, Freeman and Kliman? My FAQ also contains quite a few off-cited passages on the LTV from Smith, Ricardo, and Marx. I think the article needs lots of improvement. But, until then, a link to my FAQ gives some guidance to the literature. In addition, I have published (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=783005) a journal article heavily stressing Roemer's work.

So do you want to do the work to bring the article up to par to address the perspectives above? -- RLV 209.217.195.101 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


I think that whatever links are here, more information should be given about them (as below), so people know what they're clicking on. In terms of the links there now, here's my view:

BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The link to Engels is this one: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch17.htm --Alex1011 (talk) 11:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Re Sraffa and Freeman: In "The importance of labor" there is some reference to Sraffa and Freeman. --Alex1011 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth my opinion of the Ernsberger article is that it's a mixture of misunderstanding and misrepresentation.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

dead link

I deleted:

--Alex1011 (talk) 15:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rename suggestion

Fully half this article is devoted to criticism. I suggest renaming it to "Criticisms of the Labor Theory of Value" or paring down the criticism, per WP:CSECTION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.206.81 (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistent Title

Why is the title in American spelling (labor), whilst the article's in British spelling (labour)? Kingal86 (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Book that incorporates LV concepts into financial statements

Louis Berenguer in his book Labor Theory of Value demonstrates how labor value can be incorporated into those financial statements and calculations used by any company.169.139.19.210 (talk) 21:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction of the marginal approach to the labour theory of value

There are many mistakes in the article, especially concerning the discussion of modern economics and the factors of production. Marginal analysis does not imply that labour is just another factor of production although this is a widespread belief. Here follows a proposal for a better encyclopedic article which improves Marx and criticises modern orthodoxy. So it is really a Marxian contribution:

The Labour Theory of Value

Labour is the source of wealth. This insight is probably as old as mankind. In its consequences it is however extraordinarily dangerous and therefore all sides of society incessantly fight against this truth, in particular political economists. Nevertheless the wealth of the dominant classes is nothing else but the result of the exploitation of the labour of the working people. Historically, the labour theory of value, LTV, plays a central role in classical political economy and in the emancipation of the labour movement. It is fundamental for the theory of Historical Materialism and Marxism. Incorrect interpretations contributed substantially to the ideological andeconomic decay of real existing socialism.

In modern economic theory the LTV is of great importance for value and price theory, its role is here however mostly disfigured and masked, so that even eminent economists deliver striking misstatements over its nature.

The LTV as the core of political economy forms the material basis for the peaceful integration of the individuals into a vital, i.e., reproducible society on the basis of social equality. It is one of the conditions for the possibility of the realization of the human rights. The right to work is a most important social human right. The tortures committed by the German national socialists in the KZs were an enormous perverseness of the right to work. The gate of the KZ Auschwitz carried the inscription “Work is liberating!”.

To the degree that the assurance of existence by the performance of labour is impaired by the aggravation of the exploitation conditions, in particular by monopolies, compensating measures must ensure the social integration and social equality of the citizens. Amongst these are free educational facilities, profit and capital sharing by employees, socialization of the means of production, land and natural resources, and in addition the nationalization of whole economic sectors, e.g. the banking sector.

Well, this is an individual opinion with no citations, and therefore has no place in Wikipedia. Moreover the relevance to the topic is not clear. It contains a number of statements about the role of labour in society but very little concern the LTV as an economic theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Where does Kevin Carson's argument in *Studies in Mutualist Political Economy* fit in?

I just finished this fairly recent book, and the first hundred or so pages is an attempted rehabilitation of the LTV from the marginalist critique by integrating it into a post-Austrian framework. I'm not an expert on this topic, so I'm not sure I should be the one writing an entry on the topic, but the LTV entry seems to be missing an important piece of the puzzle by not including this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.140.228 (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this and the previous comment, the article can't include every recent discussion of the issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Steve Keen and depreciation

I made the edit regarding Steve Keen and the depreciation problem of LTV, but it was recently suggested by Michael Hudson that Marx knew about the depreciation problem:

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/04/26/michael-hudson-the-financial-barbarians-at-the-gate/

From the 39:20 mark onwards, Hudson explains:

"Well, what Marx said was that the earlier economists... had left out an element of value that was very important, and that was the depreciation on the machinery. And Marx said if a capitalist, an industrialist, invests in machinery and plant and equipment, they have to recover the cost that they've spent on plant and equipment. Just as a bondholder would not only get interest, they'd get the principal, the capitalist not only makes a profit on his investment, but as the machinery wears out, he gets to recapture the capital that he actually put into the machinery, so that he can buy new machinery and upgrades. And Marx said that even if the machinery doesn't wear out, it becomes technologically obsolete as efficiency and productivity of new inventions rise."

Kjk2.1 (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This section just has to go. Marx does deal with depreciation, and Steve Keen is an obscure economist. The cited argument -
that machines can add more product-value over their operational lifetime than the total value of depreciation charged during those asset lives. For example, the total value of sausages produced by a sausage machine over its useful life might be greater than the value of the machine.
- is absurd in that it ignores labour inputs, the very basis of the theory. If there was no labour involved in the production process, the raw material (meat), and maintenance, then the LTV would indeed suggest that the price of sausages would tend towards zero. However, as machines age they usually require more maintenance and more labour in production than "state of the art" competitors.
In summary: we don't need an absurd and obscure rebuttal.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

PS I have just read the relevant chapter in Keen's Debunking Economics. He does not actually argue that Marx ignores depreciation, but tries to debunk Marx using the Tranformation Problem and argue for a Marxoid economics without the LTV. While this is less absurd, it still is a very idiosyncratic critique from someone who's not known outside Australia. We can't have everyone's opinion here.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate criticism

This article inappropriately refutes criticism in the criticism section. Criticism should be stated succinctly. The criticism section (with refutation intact) has a non-neutral voice, and needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meansbeing (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

some of this reads rather non-neutrally

While large parts of this article are perfectly fine, some of it reads as a persuasive essay, and sounds like it was written by someone defending the labor theory of value. Now of course it shouldn't read like a critique of it either—the reader should not be able to tell just by reading the article what the primary authors of this encyclopedia article think of the labor theory of value. In particular:

  • We keep saying "contrary to popular belief", which is odd, because: 1) nowhere is it cited that this is popular belief; and 2) Wikipedia's job is to describe what people think, not to argue novel points ourselves. I think in many cases this sort of construction should simply be removed, but in others, it may be more appropriate to say something like, "many nonspecialists think that foo [CITE], but economists such as Authoritative Source [CITE] generally think bar".
  • The "Criticisms" section sounds very defensive. It reads like a cursory introduction of criticisms summarized by someone who disagrees with them, immediately followed by rebuttals.

Thoughts? --Delirium 04:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely agree with your assessment: particularly those examples you gave. As for the criticisms section, the sad state of that that has been much discussed above. I’d take a stab at it, but I think someone else could do much better than I. I could try to change the tone of those other sections you cite however. There had been some discussion of eliminating the “jusification of the theory” section that I think was added back when the article had the opposite problem: of being simply an uninformed attack. --Cplot 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's nothing pro-LTV about having a 'Justification' section. We would expect an article on the Flat Earth Theory to have a 'justification' featured pretty prominently! I can't see how you can say that 'Wikipedia's job is to describe what people think'! (I know that's what its critics think!!!) The passage you refer to is clearing up a common misconception, which is accomplished by a relevant quotation from Marx, not the advancement of a 'novel' theory. If you want me to cite examples ad nauseum of this misconception I can certainly do so! The 'Criticism' section is difficult because it inevitably degenerates into point and counterpoint. And, yes, the earlier version of the article was an uninformed attack. At least now the article cites primary sources so the readers can make up their own minds!--Jack Upland 06:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


            THE QUESTION OF BINARY ECONOMICS?

Binary Economics,or BE believes in the fairer distribution of money through capital ownership (ie.shares in a company). This concept believes that the Theory of Labour is largely wrong as most of the creation of financial wealth is done not by human work but with money creating more money, and the ever growing use of newer, and newer technologies (largely, or wholly replacing labour ofcourse) leading to more productivity.

In BE it is claimed that those who are capitaless can become capitalised if money is loaned to them (ideally interest free)to pay for shares in a well-performing company, or companies. This acts as collateral, and out of this capital estate the benefactor over a period of time receives a passive income. As can be seen BE is basically very simple, but insists that mainstream economics still holds onto the misguided notions to do with the Theory of Labour.

Comments welcomed.

R.Searle originator of a research & development project of Transfinancial Economics, or TFE Email dharao4@yahoo.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.22.16.194 (talk) 19:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't really part of a discussion of the article. It also doesn't deal with the LTV very well. Money makes more money by employing labour.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The criticism section of this article provides inappropriate refutation. It is written in a non-neutral style, and needs significant work.Meansbeing (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Labor_theory_of_value/Archive_3&oldid=675833056"