[asu_thomas]

Capitalism is a system in which those who control capital wield the most power, but without cheap enough labor to work the capital for a profit, capitalism will by definition give way to something else.

Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it. This goes for real estate too, which workers require to rest themselves just in time to return to work to turn a profit for those that control capital.

[ch4s3]

This is a warmed over version of labor theory of value which is at its core wrong. Value is entirely subjective and contextual, and utility is not a function of labor inputs.

Moreover high wages simply encourage innovation in labor saving devices and techniques. Tight labor markets aren’t the capitalists enemy. It’s no different than other input costs in some sense.

[asu_thomas]

Labor theory of value is literally just an argument that labor is the historical source of wealth. The terminology here is specific and intentional.

Next, Marxists recognize 2 central forms of value:

Use value is abstract, but not subjective.

Exchange value is contextual.

That's it. That's what you need to argue with, instead of your ridiculous straw men above.

Additionally, it can hardly be stressed enough how unimportant labor theory of value is for Marxism as a whole.

[tptacek]

No, that doesn't sound right. The LTV says that commodities have an intrinsic value, and regardless of what their price is, the value of those commodities is determined entirely by the socially necessary labor time that went into producing them.

[astine]

Um, no that's not correct. It's true that the origin of the labor theory of value is philosophers like Locke arguing that labor is the source of all value, but in the context that Marx was writing, Smith and Riccardo had popularized the notion that the market value of a good was proportional to the amount of aggregate labor that went into it. To his credit, Marx demonstrated that the market value of a good was not actually proportional to the amount of labor that went into it but he didn't abandon the idea that value of a good was somehow proportional to the labor used to make it.

Marx: "Let us now take two commodities, for example corn and iron. Whatever their echange relation may be, it can always be represented by an equation in which a given quantity of corn is equated to some quantity of iron, for instance 1 quarter of corn == x cwt of iron. What does this equation signifify? It signifies that a common element of identical magnitide exists in two different things, in 1 quarter of corn and similarly in x cwt of iron. Both are therefore equal to a third thing, which in itself is niether the one nor the other. Each of them, so far as it is exchange-value, must therefore be reducible to this third thing. [...] As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality, while as exchange-values they can only differ in quantity, and therefore do not contain an atom of use-value. If then we disregard the use-value of commodities, only one property remains, that of being products of labour."

In other words, Marx excludes use-value (what normal economists call "utility") as being a factor in the price of a commodity, apart from needing to exist at all (he reduces its relationship to a boolean relationship,) and makes it a function of labor quantity. This is so central to his argument that it comes up in the first few pages of Capital.

[thiagoharry]

Marx always begins describing things in Das Kapital simplifying, and then, in later chapters, expanding the model, concluding that in fact it was more complex than was previously presented. The market value of some item would be proportional to the labor only if you consider an isolated industry as an almost closed system, like Marx did in the first book. At the third book, Marx shows that competition and search for profit would produce a force that equalizes the profits for several industries. In the end, prices cannot anymore be explained by the "value" of the product expressed in labor: several goods will be sold above or below their "value". Even if this value is still the origin of the surplus value that creates profit and growth in the capitalist economy.

Marx theory of value is much more elaborated than the one from Smith and Ricardo, and most arguments against it, are in fact arguments against naive and simplified versions of the theory.

[astine]

I'm not certain of your point? Marx admits that LTV doesn't explain prices much earlier than the third volume; it's cental to his whole point, that the difference between the 'value' of a good and what a capitalist is able to sell it for represents exploitation. That's not a straw-man and asu_thomas was wrong to suggest it was.

[thiagoharry]

No, this difference is the surplus value, which is part of the value of the good for Marx. If you remove the surplus value, you get the production cost. Marx does not argue that the "value" is just the production cost, it is certain that in a capitalist economy, which was what he was analyzing, the surplus value is part of the value, otherwise profit and growth would be impossible. Marx repeats in several parts that he considers in the model that all goods are sold exactly by their value, which for all goods, the surplus value is included. But later, Marx acknowledges that in fact, prices for each good cannot be explained solely by value (production cost + that surplus value) and that this simplified model needs to disappear when you take into account a model with several different industries competing.

But I do no not agree exactly with asu_thomas that the labor theory of value is so unimportant for marxism and I think you are right in questioning the affirmation. But I think you mixed a little the value theories from Smith and Ricardo and from Marx in your interpretation (the first two are the ones that do not consider this "surplus value" in the value and try to explain the capitalist profit as coming somehow from the labor of the capitalist or from other effects in the market and environment). And I also do not agree that the marxist theory of value is debunked and so easily dismissed. Certainly it is not a mainstream theory, but there are still marxist economists nowadays between the heterodox ones.

[jdksmdbtbdnmsm]

> and makes it a function of labor quantity

Actually he makes it a function of socially necessary labor time. Although I don't buy into labor theory of value, I think the "socially necessary" part is a pretty important part.

By the way, what is "his argument?"

Parent didn't say it isn't central to one of Karl Marx's many arguments, but rather that it's not central to Marxism, which is far greater than Karl Marx. Marxism is an intellectual tradition largely concerned with critiquing Marx's work just like we're doing here.

[hhjinks]

>but without cheap enough labor to work the capital for a profit, capitalism will by definition give way to something else

Demonstrate why this is true. What _exactly_ about the definition "private ownership of capital" necessitates that capitalism must give way if capital cannot be worked for profit by cheap labor?

[randomdata]

> Capitalism is a system in which those who control capital wield the most power

Capitalism has no concern about power. It only speaks to ownership rights.

And, as an aside, what you are envisioning clearly puts the power in the hands of labour. As you said: "Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it."

[dragonwriter]

> Capitalism has no concern about power.

Capitalism is entirely about power.

> It only speaks to ownership rights.

“Ownership rights” are power. Capitalism evolved through the mercantile class under pre-capitalist systems leveraging their then-current power to force changes in the system which durably transferred power from the land-tied aristocracy to themselves.

[randomdata]

> Capitalism is entirely about power.

Surely it is people that are entirely about power?

> “Ownership rights” are power.

Perhaps, but capitalism only describes one of many different ways of organizing ownership. It is not about ownership in and of itself. It turns out that we already have a word for ownership: Ownership. We came up with another word, capitalism, because it means something else.

[dragonwriter]

> > Capitalism is entirely about power.

> Surely it is people that are entirely about power?

Most people are in part interested in power and some people are entirely interested in power, but capitalism is entirely a system engineered for distributing power for the benefit of a particular class.

> Perhaps, but capitalism only describes one of many different ways of organizing ownership.

Capitalism implements (not describes) one particular way of organizing ownership, chosen for the effect it has on the distribution of power in society.

[randomdata]

> but capitalism is entirely a system engineered for distributing power for the benefit of a particular class.

A previous commenter postulated a hypothetical world where capital only has value when labour is utilizing it. It in no way violated capitalism, but clearly labour holds the power in that world. After all, labour could just not use the capital and then take it from the dumpster after it gets thrown away for being worthless.

It is possible other worlds could see capital that is not dependent on labour and use that to take power, perhaps, but that's beyond the topic of capitalism. Nothing in capitalism says that there must be capital that is utilizable without labour.

> Capitalism implements (not describes) one particular way of organizing ownership

Huh? Words can't implement anything. Only people can implement something.

[dragonwriter]

> Huh? Words can’t implement anything.

If we were talking about the word “capitalism”, it would be in quotes; that’s how you make use/mention distinctions in English. “Capitalism” is a word, the thing it describes is capitalism, which is a system, which implements a design that people have made.

[Turskarama]

In what world do you think the people who own everything don't also have all the power?

You cannot decouple ownership from politics. If you own the productivity of the nation, you own the nation.

[randomdata]

> In what world do you think the people who own everything don't also have all the power?

A world where "Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it" is true cannot see power reset in the hands of those with capital as it asserts that capital has no value without labour, which means that labour holds all the power.

I don't know what world that was meant to refer to. It did not specify, nor was it it written by me in order to specify now. You may have accidentally pressed the wrong reply button?

> You cannot decouple ownership from politics.

That may be true, but the concept of ownership doesn't come from capitalism. Socialism, for example, also describes ownership. You cannot couple ownership with capitalism.

[Turskarama]

> A world where "Realize capital has no market value without labor to work it" is true cannot see power reset in the hands of those with capital as it asserts that capital has no value without labour, which means that labour holds all the power.

Yes and no, the capitalist needs the labour for their capital to be worth anything, but likewise the Labor needs the tools the capitalist owns to multiply the value of their labour. Since capital gives control of the state (indirectly) the state tends to also support capital which then has a monopoly on violence and can coerce labor through means that the labour itself doesn't have. Historically this has come about in the police engaging in union busting (an example of how capital is power).

[randomdata]

> but likewise the Labor needs the tools the capitalist owns to multiply the value of their labour

Labour doesn't need to multiply its labour, though. Labour remains valuable no matter what.

> Since capital gives control of the state (indirectly)

The state is just people. In a world where capital is worthless without labour, I assume that labour makes up the majority of the population – why would a small group of people sitting on capital that does nothing and is worthless have more power than the majority of the populace who actually bring value to the table?

> which then has a monopoly on violence

In a world where capital is worthless without labour, who, exactly, is going to enact that violence? You need labour to bring the violence...

[Turskarama]

> Labour remains valuable no matter what.

Maybe, but for a somewhat tortured example: if you're a programmer with domain knowledge of a specific application then your value there might be worth $150k a year. If that's taken away from you and you have to learn a new domain then your value might be only $80k per year. If even a computer to work on is taken away from you then your labor is only worth minimum wage.

[Mechanical9]

Capitalism doesn't have to be concerned with power for it to result in those with capital holding the most power. 'Rights' that are only available to those with capital aren't really rights at all.

[randomdata]

Likewise, math doesn't have to be concerned with resulting in CSAM material being distributed electronically. But it has resulted in that.

What is the takeaway here? Are you suggesting that we should rid the world of math because it might accompany something not liked? Indeed, no more math, no more electronic distribution of CSAM material. Problem solved?