








The Numbers


[The following examples refer to the illustration above]
















Join the conversation! 17 Comments

  1. All well and good but this depends on the LTV which is highly controversial. Namely, in Marx’s model value is determined by the market (price of a good, in your model) and so presupposes them, and therefore capitalism is intrinsic to and in fact defines the value of labor. This is problematic from the moral side in that you cannot decry capitalism as theft of labor when the market itself (i.e. the heart of capitalism) is necessary to quantify exploitation. Labor becomes nothing special – nothing more than another market commodity to be bought and sold. Secondly, this is problematic because you have no actual standard to value labor upon, it becomes arbitrary…

    And there are many many other problems.

    see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_the_labour_theory_of_value

    • LTV is not controversial but foundational within Marxism. Part of the intention of this essay is to apply LTV to modern conditions and show how it can be used to explain dynamics between different groups today.

      In this case, there isn’t much of a moral argument being made. Capitalism, from a Marxist viewpoint, is ‘immoral’ not because labor is exploited under it but because a host of other problems are inherent to its continued existence (wars, ecological destruction and metabolic disruptions, population displacement and genocides, the inherent limiting of freedom and civil liberities, the depoliticization of society, militarism, genetic manipulation, patriarchy, etc.).

      Under capitalism, labor becomes a commodity which is bought. Yet it is the sole commodity which has transformative power, i.e., it adds surplus value above its cost.

      The only standard to really use is labor itself. The prices make things tricky in this regard, the most basic qualities of an object are its use value, which is unquantifiable in many cases, and exchange value, which flucuates around its labor value.

      • I will refer to each of your four paragraphs 1-4 with responses labeled a,b,c,d accordingly.

        a. The LTV is a flawed aspect of Marxism. There are other ways than orthodox Marxism to be anti/post capitalists. Did you even read the critques of the LTV that I linked to?

        b. On your reading of Capitalism, it is not inherently flawed, just produces bad results. So if a friendly form of capitalism (read reform-liberal wet dream) were implemented then you have no critique. Fuck that.

        c. Cost of labor is dependent upon the labor market, dependent on capitalism. You can’t even think in non-capitalist terms with your reading of the LTV.

        d. You are getting closer here. I agree with objective (however complicated) valuation of labor in itself and objects as use-value (not to be exclusionary to other measures of value as well) but again not exchange value, which cannot exist without a market – capitalism… and which you use to define the value of labor.

      • I read it some time ago. Pardon me for not instantly rereading a wikipeadia article.

        a) That’s a great assertion and all (and certainly may be true in so respects), but you don’t provide another method of accounting for the exploitation of labor under capitalism.

        b) That’s a pretty shallow reading of my view. I suggest you go through some of my other writings (or my last comment in this thread) before you attempt to summarize my view.

        c) The LTV is a part of a critique of capitalism. It’s not meant to applied to non-capitalist situations.

        d) labor is defined through the particular mode of production in which it exists. I’m not sure what you are looking for here, but it sounds like you want to see how labor might be accounted for in non-capitalist ways. That’s great, and I’m the first to admit you should probably look outside of LTV for such. But under capitalist modes of production, value can ultimately be equated to labor more than anything else.

  2. Fuck capitalism! Fuck capitalism fuck capitalism capitalism is stupid capitalism is NONSENSE

  3. The first assumption to reach the conclusion that each worker’s labor value is $18/hour means every laborer’s contribution is identical. Do you feel this is really a viable thing that could be implemented in the real world? Also, the capitalist’s role is just as the name describes, to provide capital (ie machinery, land, equipment etc).. but he gets nothing in this model, something must go to the capitalist for capital to be accumulated in the first place, how does that work?

    • Are different workers’ contribution identical? Obviously not. There’s a pretty big difference between working 15 hour shifts in a Nike-contracted sweatshop and cleaning floors at Niketown. But any attempt to assign quantifiably different values to different types of such labor is either subjective or part of historic constructions created through different power dynamics. Different productivity levels between ‘developed’ and ‘developing’ countries (besides being overblown) is something that are imposed under, not something that dropped from the sky and intrinsic to economics.

      In the essay’s model, except example 4, the capitalist is making a hefting profit of .71 on the dollar. I think you are misreading it.

      • But are you saying that all people if raised in the same situation would result in the same productivity, in other words all people are identical. Because if the only differentiators in productivity come from someone’s environment, then all people must be equally talented. Do you think its a fair argument to say that everyone must be inherently equal for this model to apply? Or, if everything is subjective.. how do we decide who deserves what to calculate the surplus?

      • No, what I’m saying is that for the purposes of determining one’s material contribution under capitalism, inherent differences (and here I have in mind something like the natural ability to work faster, more efficiently, lift more, etc) are largely irrelavent in the face of inqualities which have been imposed through the process of accumulation.

      • Ah ok, so natural talent is irrelevant in the bigger picture so to speak. Speaking of capital accumulation and disparity our conversation inspired me to post about it. Thanks for replys.

  4. Your point is made! Value transfer from worker to worker occurs, internationally and inside nations.

    Is the $0.71 profit that capitalist A gets proportional to the capitalist B’s profit of $14.29? Shouldn’t they be, according to the law of equalization of the rate of profit (at least in an abstract model)? If not, what are the reasons? Isn’t the first capitalist’s profit (paying TW wages) bigger (more profitable) than the second’s (“exploiting” FW “workers”)? Doesn’t constant capital relate to this gap I presume in the rate of profit?

    Unequal exchange through international imperialist trade is proved, in my humble opinion. However, there is controversy among its proponents. Amin criticizes Emmanuel for not taking into account the difference in productivity of labour among nations. But I think that criticism was made in the seventies of the past century. I think that, as things have evolved since some decades ago, Emmanuel rings truer than ever. I mean with the absolute integration of every country in the world system of capitalist imperialism of generalized monopoly (which is a term and a concept used by Amin).

    Free ride for capitals acumulated in the FW and borders and walls (of very kind) preserve the privilege of FW labour aristocracy and makes possible the perpetuation of underdevelopment or dependent maldevelopment in the TW.

    I don’t agree with you on the question of why capitalism is bad. I mean, it’s true that it’s bad for its consequences, but the little dirty secret that Marx unveiled in the first volume of Das Kapital proves it is also inmoral, because capitalists steal value from workers, pretending they do not.

    I agree with your answer to objections raised in the commentaries.

    Food for thought.

    • Thanks for the questions.

      “Is the $0.71 profit that capitalist A gets proportional to the capitalist B’s profit of $14.29?…”

      In this case, they are nearly identical, but capitalist B’s profit rate is marginally lower (due to the fact that in this case, $1.71 had to be purchased as fixed and not variable capital (from his perspective). Frankly, I’m not entirely sure what to make of it. On its face, it seems to explain a long term trend of so-called ‘outsourcing’ to the third world. Additionally, in the real world, these sorts of things could be corrected in the real world through financial manipulations, etc.


      That’s one way to look at it. Marx however thought that at a specific historic juncture. If I had to describe capitalism in moral terms, I’d probably point to a lot more than simply the exploitation of labor. However, I tend mot to look at capitalism as a static state of things. If I had to summarize my view, it might be something like this: if people aren’ struggle for socialism, they should be preparing for something worse than capitalist-imperialism.

      • Modes of production ever occur in a context of class and national struggle. There’s no static model accounting for a mode of production that is not subject to the changes of class struggle. The history of class struggle and of national and colonial war explain the present state of affairs everywhere. If the proletariat don’t go forward in the global class struggle, they go backwards. But the proletariat advance the most through big explosions of accumulated energy, through Revolutions. Hidden and powerful currents move under the surface of a seemingly stagnant pond. When the bourgeioise realizes them, it’ll be too late. There’s nothing they can do about it, except resort to the most brutal killing campaigns. That discredits them absolutely.

  5. What do you mean by “precedent-setting” in the first line? A precedent of what?

    In the diagram (notebook leaf) of the model, you can read example 1: worker B $21/hr. Shouldn’t it read $20?

    In the 3rd paragraph, you write “profound and deep”. Isn’t the use of both terms somewhat redudant?

    Paragraph 17: you write “example 3, socialist revolution” instead of example 4.

    paragraph 16: you write: “… from worker A is (sic) goes towards…”

    • Thanks for the corrections. The article itself has been editted to reflect the points you raised.


      Yes. Writing by hand obviously isn’t my strong suit.


      Chalk it up to literary effect.

      Thanks again for looking at this so closely. I encourage folks to toy with this model, expand and refine it, etc.

  6. […] Source Share this:FacebookRedditStumbleUponTwitterDiggEmailPrintLinkedInLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. […]



Leave a Reply, Comment or Question


WordPress.com Logo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Google+ photo


Connecting to %s


Marxism, Political Economy, Theory


, , , ,