The Stack Overflow podcast is back! Listen to an interview with our new CEO.
5 grammar corrected
source | link

Philosophically speaking it seems that the only & sole determinant of value of goods can only be Labour - through labour of the spirit, mind and hands. This truth is true only when labour is seen historically as Locke affirms when he wrote that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

One can see art & religion as labouring of the spirit, or the spirit labouring; Science, law & politics as labour of the mind; manufacture, violence & war as labour of the hands - inwardly and legally it is policing, the protection of property & law giving higher value; inwardly and illegally it is gangsterism - thus the appropriation of property by theft or extortion; outwardly it is war as conquest or defence, conquest being appropriation and defence as protection. etc. These manifestations are schematic as I have put them.

Presumably the substitution of spirit by abstract labour in HegelsHegel's system is what makes the marxist theory of labour materialistic; but it does seems to me that substitution is not necessary but the abstraction still has its place.

Adam Smith applies this insight to commodities when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities

Implicit in this is distinction of use value which has both subjective & objective character - the objective use-value of water for example is to drink it or to water plants, the subjective use-value of a painting is ones own taste, or as marker of taste knowing no taste but knowing what taste-makers admire. This is contrasted with exchange value; in a barter-economy, one good is traded for another directly; in a money-economy a middle term is inserted and exchange value is expressed as price. All three terms here are objective.

Ricardo, deferring to Locke, historicises this argument in his Principles of Political Economy:

The exchangeable value of the commodities produced [is] in proportion to the labour bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only, but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labour to which they were applied.

In Capital, Marx identifies the source of profit, which he calls surplus value, essentially by tying use-Value to the idea of subsistence - that is to subsist in the world. A Darwinian notion.

A man must feed and shelter and bring up the next generation - that is to subsist in the world. He trades his labour that allows this subsistence. His surplus labour is the source of surplus value which in a money economy is expressed as profit. This is as true as for the owner of a factory as it is for those who works in a factory.

All this appears fairly reasonable & unobjectionable to me - but presumably itsit's not - why?

Philosophically speaking it seems that the only & sole determinant of value of goods can only be Labour - through labour of the spirit, mind and hands. This truth is true only when labour is seen historically as Locke affirms when he wrote that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

One can see art & religion as labouring of the spirit, or the spirit labouring; Science, law & politics as labour of the mind; manufacture, violence & war as labour of the hands - inwardly and legally it is policing, the protection of property & law giving higher value; inwardly and illegally it is gangsterism - thus the appropriation of property by theft or extortion; outwardly it is war as conquest or defence, conquest being appropriation and defence as protection. etc. These manifestations are schematic as I have put them.

Presumably the substitution of spirit by abstract labour in Hegels system is what makes the marxist theory of labour materialistic; but it does seems to me that substitution is not necessary but the abstraction still has its place.

Adam Smith applies this insight to commodities when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities

Implicit in this is distinction of use value which has both subjective & objective character - the objective use-value of water for example is to drink it or to water plants, the subjective use-value of a painting is ones own taste, or as marker of taste knowing no taste but knowing what taste-makers admire. This is contrasted with exchange value; in a barter-economy, one good is traded for another directly; in a money-economy a middle term is inserted and exchange value is expressed as price. All three terms here are objective.

Ricardo, deferring to Locke historicises this argument in his Principles of Political Economy:

The exchangeable value of the commodities produced [is] in proportion to the labour bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only, but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labour to which they were applied

In Capital, Marx identifies the source of profit, which he calls surplus value, essentially by tying use-Value to the idea of subsistence - that is to subsist in the world. A Darwinian notion.

A man must feed and shelter and bring up the next generation - that is to subsist in the world. He trades his labour that allows this subsistence. His surplus labour is the source of surplus value which in a money economy is expressed as profit. This is as true as for the owner of a factory as it is for those who works in a factory.

All this appears fairly reasonable & unobjectionable to me - but presumably its not - why?

Philosophically speaking it seems that the only & sole determinant of value of goods can only be Labour - through labour of the spirit, mind and hands. This truth is true only when labour is seen historically as Locke affirms when he wrote that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

One can see art & religion as labouring of the spirit, or the spirit labouring; Science, law & politics as labour of the mind; manufacture, violence & war as labour of the hands - inwardly and legally it is policing, the protection of property & law giving higher value; inwardly and illegally it is gangsterism - thus the appropriation of property by theft or extortion; outwardly it is war as conquest or defence, conquest being appropriation and defence as protection. etc. These manifestations are schematic as I have put them.

Presumably the substitution of spirit by abstract labour in Hegel's system is what makes the marxist theory of labour materialistic; but it does seems to me that substitution is not necessary but the abstraction still has its place.

Adam Smith applies this insight to commodities when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities

Implicit in this is distinction of use value which has both subjective & objective character - the objective use-value of water for example is to drink it or to water plants, the subjective use-value of a painting is ones own taste, or as marker of taste knowing no taste but knowing what taste-makers admire. This is contrasted with exchange value; in a barter-economy, one good is traded for another directly; in a money-economy a middle term is inserted and exchange value is expressed as price. All three terms here are objective.

Ricardo, deferring to Locke, historicises this argument in his Principles of Political Economy:

The exchangeable value of the commodities produced [is] in proportion to the labour bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only, but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labour to which they were applied.

In Capital, Marx identifies the source of profit, which he calls surplus value, essentially by tying use-Value to the idea of subsistence - that is to subsist in the world. A Darwinian notion.

A man must feed and shelter and bring up the next generation - that is to subsist in the world. He trades his labour that allows this subsistence. His surplus labour is the source of surplus value which in a money economy is expressed as profit. This is as true as for the owner of a factory as it is for those who works in a factory.

All this appears fairly reasonable & unobjectionable to me - but presumably it's not - why?

4 added 774 characters in body
source | link

Philosophically speaking it seems that the only & sole determinant of value of goods can only be Labour - through labour of the spirit, mind and hands. This truth is true only when labour is seen historically as Locke affirms when he wrote that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

One can see art & religion as labouring of the spirit, or the spirit labouring; Science, law & politics as labour of the mind; manufacture, violence & war as labour of the hands - inwardly and legally it is policing, the protection of property & law giving higher value; inwardly and illegally it is gangsterism - thus the appropriation of property by theft or extortion; outwardly it is war as conquest or defence, conquest being appropriation and defence as protection. etc. These manifestations are schematic as I have put them.

Presumably the substitution of spirit by abstract labour in Hegels system is what makes the marxist theory of labour materialistic; but it does seems to me that substitution is not necessary but the abstraction still has its place.

Adam Smith applies this insight to commodities when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities

Implicit in this is distinction of use value which has both subjective & objective character - the objective use-value of water for example is to drink it or to water plants, the subjective use-value of a painting is ones own taste, or as marker of taste knowing no taste but knowing what taste-makers admire. This is contrasted with exchange value; in a barter-economy, one good is traded for another directly; in a money-economy a middle term is inserted and exchange value is expressed as price. All three terms here are objective.

Ricardo, deferring to Locke historicises this argument in his Principles of Political Economy:

The exchangeable value of the commodities produced [is] in proportion to the labour bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only, but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labour to which they were applied

In Capital, Marx identifies the source of profit, which he calls surplus value, essentially by tying use-Value to the idea of subsistence - that is to subsist in the world. A Darwinian notion.

A man must feed and shelter and bring up the next generation - that is to subsist in the world. He trades his labour that allows this subsistence. His surplus labour is the source of surplus value which in a money economy is expressed as profit. This is as true as for the owner of a factory as it is for those who works in a factory.

All this appears fairly reasonable & unobjectionable to me - but presumably its not - why?

Philosophically speaking it seems that the only & sole determinant of value of goods can only be Labour - through labour of the spirit, mind and hands. This truth is true only when labour is seen historically as Locke affirms when he wrote that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

Adam Smith applies this insight to commodities when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities

Implicit in this is distinction of use value which has both subjective & objective character - the objective use-value of water for example is to drink it or to water plants, the subjective use-value of a painting is ones own taste, or as marker of taste knowing no taste but knowing what taste-makers admire. This is contrasted with exchange value; in a barter-economy, one good is traded for another directly; in a money-economy a middle term is inserted and exchange value is expressed as price. All three terms here are objective.

Ricardo, deferring to Locke historicises this argument in his Principles of Political Economy:

The exchangeable value of the commodities produced [is] in proportion to the labour bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only, but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labour to which they were applied

In Capital, Marx identifies the source of profit, which he calls surplus value, essentially by tying use-Value to the idea of subsistence - that is to subsist in the world. A Darwinian notion.

A man must feed and shelter and bring up the next generation - that is to subsist in the world. He trades his labour that allows this subsistence. His surplus labour is the source of surplus value which in a money economy is expressed as profit. This is as true as for the owner of a factory as it is for those who works in a factory.

All this appears fairly reasonable & unobjectionable to me - but presumably its not - why?

Philosophically speaking it seems that the only & sole determinant of value of goods can only be Labour - through labour of the spirit, mind and hands. This truth is true only when labour is seen historically as Locke affirms when he wrote that property originally comes about by the exertion of labor upon natural resources.

One can see art & religion as labouring of the spirit, or the spirit labouring; Science, law & politics as labour of the mind; manufacture, violence & war as labour of the hands - inwardly and legally it is policing, the protection of property & law giving higher value; inwardly and illegally it is gangsterism - thus the appropriation of property by theft or extortion; outwardly it is war as conquest or defence, conquest being appropriation and defence as protection. etc. These manifestations are schematic as I have put them.

Presumably the substitution of spirit by abstract labour in Hegels system is what makes the marxist theory of labour materialistic; but it does seems to me that substitution is not necessary but the abstraction still has its place.

Adam Smith applies this insight to commodities when he wrote in The Wealth of Nations:

The value of any commodity, therefore, to the person who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities

Implicit in this is distinction of use value which has both subjective & objective character - the objective use-value of water for example is to drink it or to water plants, the subjective use-value of a painting is ones own taste, or as marker of taste knowing no taste but knowing what taste-makers admire. This is contrasted with exchange value; in a barter-economy, one good is traded for another directly; in a money-economy a middle term is inserted and exchange value is expressed as price. All three terms here are objective.

Ricardo, deferring to Locke historicises this argument in his Principles of Political Economy:

The exchangeable value of the commodities produced [is] in proportion to the labour bestowed on their production; not on their immediate production only, but on all those implements or machines required to give effect to the particular labour to which they were applied

In Capital, Marx identifies the source of profit, which he calls surplus value, essentially by tying use-Value to the idea of subsistence - that is to subsist in the world. A Darwinian notion.

A man must feed and shelter and bring up the next generation - that is to subsist in the world. He trades his labour that allows this subsistence. His surplus labour is the source of surplus value which in a money economy is expressed as profit. This is as true as for the owner of a factory as it is for those who works in a factory.

All this appears fairly reasonable & unobjectionable to me - but presumably its not - why?

    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/414569333768351744
3 edited title
| link

What isare the major criticisms of the Labour Theory of Value?

2 deleted 5 characters in body
source | link
1
source | link