Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious
LC,

So that we can get more.

Marxists think that products have an objective value proportional to how much labour was needed to make it. Capitalists, IME, argue that products have a value that is some sort of aggregation (an average?) of the individual evaluations of the members of society of the desirability of the object. Either should make for a nice textbook definition.

But what's the point? Once we know that the value of a pound of lard is twelve Apolytonian drachmas, what are we supposed to do with this knowledge? Am I supposed to feel some karmic oneness with lard for knowing its value?

The capitalist response - IIUC - is gonna be that in a free market, the price will approximate the value (in their definition). This raises some questions wrt to discounts and the like, but let's say they're right. So what? What does this give me beyond reason to suppose they set up their definition of value to achieve precisely this? Why not simply forget about values, and concentrate on working out arses off to earn the many to pay the prices of the gadgets we covet?

The commie response - well, this, I suppose, is where you come in. What is the commie response?

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Labor creates goods and services. Whether those goods and services are valuable depends on how much value society gets from them.

But does society value all goods and services equally, even with optimal supply and perfect distribution?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
The commie response - well, this, I suppose, is where you come in. What is the commie response?

Wages are a price. If wages are below the value of work then workers are exploited.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


But does society value all goods and services equally, even with optimal supply and perfect distribution?

The value would be directly proportional to the labor input with education factored in, assuming that workers are all equally good.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The value would be directly proportional to the labor input with education factored in, assuming that workers are all equally good.

A) That's a rediculous assumption.
B) So you're saying that society values all goods and services that can be produced with a high school diploma exactly the same, and all the goods and services that can be produced with an undergrad degree exactly the same, etc.?

[Berzerker]

If wages are below the value of work then workers are exploited.

Does the worker's opinion matter?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kontiki


A) That's a rediculous assumption.
B) So you're saying that society values all goods and services that can be produced with a high school diploma exactly the same, and all the goods and services that can be produced with an undergrad degree exactly the same, etc.?

I'm saying that the value that it gets from goods and services produced with a high school diploma is the same. If if doesn't get as much value from one good as the other even though they took the same amount of labor then it is allocating labor inefficiently.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Does the worker's opinion matter?

Why should it? I may be under the opinion that the sky is yellow, but it's clearly blue.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Wages are a price. If wages are below the value of work then workers are exploited.

If I recall correctly, that's the definition of exploitation in the Marxist sense. As long as I'm not accepting your notion of value, I'm not gonna care for a definition of exploitation that depends on it.

Or do you have some argumentation to convince me that wages below the Marxian value of the labour necessarily implies exploitation in a, well, pre-theoretical sense?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Does the worker's opinion matter?

Apparently not-- I've been over this ground with kid before . . . a ditchdigger can make $10 an hour and not be exploited but he IS exploited if a capitalist provides a tractor that lets him work 10 times as fast but "only paid him $50 an hour-- ( since the tractor is irrelevant to kid)

You see -- a capitalist can pay much much more but still be exploiting the worker if it doesn't meet kids view of the "true value" of the work. Oh ya and of course this value may not be actually ascertainable

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I may be under the opinion that the sky is yellow, but it's clearly blue.

Your opinion that the sky is yellow would be closer to reality that most of your statements

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

If I recall correctly, that's the definition of exploitation in the Marxist sense. As long as I'm not accepting your notion of value, I'm not gonna care for a definition of exploitation that depends on it.

Or do you have some argumentation to convince me that wages below the Marxian value of the labour necessarily implies exploitation in a, well, pre-theoretical sense?

If you don't think that it's exploitation then I have no argument with you, but you should really use the definition the way most people do. It's hardly just Marxian.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Flubber
Apparently not-- I've been over this ground with kid before . . . a ditchdigger can make $10 an hour and not be exploited but he IS exploited if a capitalist provides a tractor that lets him work 10 times as fast but "only paid him $50 an hour-- ( since the tractor is irrelevant to kid)

Since that's not a real situation I don't see how it matters really if we disagree. In the real world the worker gets paid the same whether he has the tractor or not.

[Berzerker]

Why should it? I may be under the opinion that the sky is yellow, but it's clearly blue.

So the worker's opinion doesn't matter. Kid knows better than me if I'm being exploited and freedom means Kid gets to make my decisions.

[Last Conformist]

Defining exploitation with reference with reference to the labour theory of value is "hardly just Marxian"? I challenge you to find one non-Marxist who would agree with it.

(People being idiots, you'll probably find one if you look a bit, but the challenge sounds good. )

Anyway, the point isn't about exploitation, but about the utility of the concept of "value" in the Marxist sense. Saying that the Marxist definition of exploitation rests on it won't cut it unless you can give some independent motivation for that.