You are on page 1of 44

Ali Rehman Khizar bin Nasir Umair Kiani Saquib iqbal Armaghan Khan

Define value by reference to exchange-value Exchange-value is a property of things which are desired In Marxian Language, then, it is a property of use-values Property, not of all use-values, but of those usevalues which are bought and sold

Exchange-value, then, is a property of commodities

Exchange-value of a commodity is its power of exchanging against quantities of other commodities.

Exchange-value is measured by the number of commodities of any other kind for which it will

The central claim of the labor theory of value is that magnitude of value is determined by socially necessary labor time

The exchange-value of a commodity varies directly and uniformly with the quantity of labor time required to produce it under standard conditions of productivity

Inversely and uniformly with the quantity of labor time standardly required to produce other commodities, and with no further circumstance.
The labor theory of value is not true by the very definition of value, as we defined it. Alternative presentations
Value is defined as socially necessary labor time

We have two propositions (1) Socially necessary labor time determines value. (2) Value determines equilibrium price.

We say that (2) is true by definition. Others say that ( 1 )

The conjunction of ( 1 ) and (2) entails


(3) Socially necessary labor time determines equilibrium price Author says that 3 is wrong by the definition.

The labor theory of surplus value is intended to explain the origin of non-wage income under capitalism.
Under capitalism labor power is a commodity

The value of labour power is the value of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of the labourer.

The origin of non-wage income is, then, the difference between the value of labor power and the value produced by him in whom it inheres

The capital paid out as wages is equal to the value of the producer's labor power. It is known as variable capital

The value produced by the worker over and above that represented by variable capital is called surplus value

The ratio of surplus value to variable capital is called the rate of exploitation

One reason for overthrowing capitalism is that it is a regime of exploitation (and exploitation is unjust). (4)

The labor theory of value is not a suitable basis for the charge of exploitation laid against capitalism by Marxists

Author begin with an argument which is based on the labor theory of value Which Conclusion is that the worker is exploited. Author call it the Traditional Marxian Argument.

It may be attributed to those believers in (4) who hold that the labor theory of value supports (4) (4) Stated that One reason for overthrowing capitalism is that it is a regime of exploitation (and exploitation is unjust).

1. Labor and labor alone creates value. 2. The labourer receives the value of his labor power. 3. The value of the product is greater than the value of his labor power. 4. The labourer receives less value than he creates. 5. The capitalist receives the remaining value. 6. The labourer is exploited by the capitalist

(1) comes from the labor theory of value, and the labor theory of surplus value supplies premises (2), (3), and (5).

This statement of the Traditional Marxian Argument is incomplete. The incompleteness is the argument's failure, as stated, to characterize pertinent features of the relationship between capital and labor

As the fact that the labourer is forced, by his propertylessness, to work for the capitalist. The Traditional Argument, speaks of "the labourer" and "the capitalist," thereby individualizing the class relationship, in imitation of Capital's practice This sidesteps the problem of identifying the working and capitalist classes

The Traditional Argument employs the labor theory of surplus value, which yields premises (2), (3), and (5).

Author modify these point that depend on the Labor theory of surplus. The result is this simpler Marxian argument

Labor and labor alone creates value. (Add.)The capitalist receives some of the value of the product. The labourer receives less value than he creates. The capitalist receives some of the value the labourer creates.

The labor theory of surplus value is, then, unnecessary to the moral claim Marxists make when they say that capitalism is exploitative

It does not matter what explains the difference between the value the worker produces and the value he receives, there will always be some difference.

Labor theory of value, states that the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce it.

Suppose a commodity has a certain value at a time t. Then that value, says the labor theory, is determined by the socially necessary labor time required to produce a commodity of that kind.

The amount of time required to produce it in the past, and, the amount of time actually spent producing it are magnitudes strictly irrelevant to its value, if the labor theory is true. The theory demands that past labor is irrelevant to how much value a commodity now has, But past labor would not be irrelevant if it created the value of the commodity. It follows that labor does not create value, if the labor theory of value is true.

Suppose the thesis that value is determined by socially necessary labor time-that is, the labor theory of value 1. the strict doctrine, and let us say that such sentences as , or ones which speak of value as embodied or congealed labor, belong to the 2. Popular doctrine

There are two reasons why the amount of labor which was actually spent on a particular product might differ from the amount now standard required to produce that kind of product. 1. The first is a non-standard level of efficiency in the actual labor process, which can be more or less efficient than the social norm. 2. The second is techno-logical change, which alters that norm.

Consider the case of inefficient labor. Marxists have always regarded it as a particularly inept criticism of the labor theory of value to object that it entails that an inefficiently produced lamp has more value than one produced efficiently and therefore in less time. If inefficient labor takes more time, should that lamp be considered to be of more value?

What was required in the past, and still more what happened in the past-these facts are in principle irrelevant to how much value a commodity has, if the labor theory of value is true.

Since technical conditions change relatively slowly, socially necessary labor time in the recent past is usually a good guide to socially necessary labor time now. Typical past actual labor time is, moreover, the best guide to how much labor time was necessary in the past. Thereby what did occur becomes a good index of what is now required. It does not follow that it creates the value of the commodity

Value determined by what??? Ownership or the labor?

But if value is something the explanation of which must literally create it, then since ownership of means of production literally creates nothing, it would follow that, despite appearances the pattern of that ownership cannot effect value formation

But this line of defense depends essentially on the idea that labor creates value. If we stay with the strict doctrine, which rightly does not require that anything creates value, it has no motivation what so-ever. To make this more clear, we return to the three propositions in our initial presentation of the labor theory of value: ( 1) Socially necessary labor time determines value. (2) Value determines equilibrium price. (3) Socially necessary labor time determines

Labor theory Is proven wrong by his own contradiction Differences of phrasing This does not answer the difficult question, Who is a producer?

The laborer is the only person who creates the product, that which has value. The capitalist receives some of the value of the product. . The laborer receives less value than the value of what he creates, and The capitalist receives some of the value of what the la-borer creates. The laborer is exploited by the capitalist.

It is labor's creation of what has value, not its (sup-posed) creation of value, which founds the charge that capitalism is a system of exploitation.

Even if labor did create its own value, still would have no bearing on the question of exploitation.

Value is created by desire and not by labor It remains true that labor creates all that has value, and that the capitalist appropriates some of the value, does the charge of exploitation lose force? Surely not.

Then the assertion that the workers create value cannot be necessary to that charge If labor's creation of value would give the laborer a claim to value because he had created it? Then the desirers could claim to Absurd notion

Absurd but does not seem like it Impossible to forget that labor creates what has value Naturally think that they could create value only by creating what has it In solidarity they state only that we are exploited with out mentioning about value

So in the end its not that labor creates value Its only the obvious truth that labor creates something that has value. The real paradigm of exploitation in Marxism, it is the exploitation of the feudal serf, who does not, according to Marx, produce value His exploitation is the most mani-fest. The proletarian's is more covert

Marx seeks to show that he too is exploited Part of what he produces redounds not to him but to his feudal superior This is not so in the same plain sense under capi-talism Now Marxists allege that the labor theory of value is required to un-cover the exploitation of the wage worker

Authors disagreement What we need is the concept of value, as defined, independently of the labor theory Marxists say that 1. The serf produces the whole product, but the feudal lord appropriates part of the product

2. The serf produces the whole product, but the feudal lord appropriates part of the product Author agrees with 1 however alter 2 to say The proletarian produces the whole product, but the capitalist appropriates part of the value of the product

Author continuously denies that labor creates its value Although it can be said that Since labor creates what has value, labor creates value But the objection is misguide It is not the relevant traditional sense, that intended by Marxists

How could it follow from the fact that labor creates what has value that the amount of value in what it creates varies directly and uniformly with the amount of labor expended? If an artist creates a beautiful object out of something which was less beautiful, then we find it natural to say that he creates beauty.

Similarly natural to say of a worker who creates a valuable object out of something less valuable that he creates value

But that would not support the popular version of the labor theory of value, If anything justifies the Marxian charge that the capitalist exploits the worker That workers alone create the product

THANK YOU AND MOST WELCOME FOR HEALTHY DISCUSSION