JKJ: well said.

JKJ

To clarify - I believe that all goods are produced by labour; But also depend on the materials in nature; distribution and exchange is different but needs to be accounted for also.

But the remaining problems I have with capitalism are manyfold.

a) the alienating/in-egalitarian effects of the division of labour

b) surplus value does not depend on labour-theory of value -and remains a legitimate category - there remains 'unpaid labour time'; There remains exploitation; and surplus value can be measured.

c) Labour is still the most important aspect of the production process - yet its share grows smaller and smaller; Labour can hypothetically do without capital - but not vice versa.

d) I agree I erred when saying workers receive the FULL proceeds of their labour. (and in doing so effectively supported the Lassallean position) Specifically this was in the sense that the role of distribution and exchange needs to be accounted for. Also there's a need for credit in current society - but this should be democratised as much as is practicable via co-operative/mutualist and state credit...

e) Credit can be valid as recompense for deferred gratification. That's not SO bad in so far as it applied to ordinary worker/investors. Even though technically surplus value still occurs - facing socialists with a dilemma. (ie: we don't like it but we have to live in the real world) But re:wealthy investors - who have gained their wealth through an unfair advantage in the labour market; or worse still through massive inherited wealth - then the operations of credit become manifestly unjust..

f) But you are correct that not all workers are in solidarity with each other; It's differences between workers that helps to maintain capitalism through 'divide and conquer'. Hence the 'aristocracy of labour', 'the working poor' etc.

But JKJ you're good on the rhetoric - but your arguments still don't stack up.

Marxism doesn't stand or fall on 'labour theory of value'. Even then some of Marx's theories of value still stand too - eg: exchange value, use value etc.

nb: the point of all this is that Marx's labour theory of value is flawed; I believe he was in error by abstracting labour - seeing it as all of 'equal value' - based on labour time. Though Marx wrote at a time when labour was being simplified/de-skilled... But in the years since Marx's death there have been conflicting tendencies - both deskilling and reskilling...

But Marx's specific labour theory of value is not the same as surplus value. And the category of surplus value still stands. (even if there is some role for credit coming from average worker/investors (with some benefit for deferred gratification) - the fact remains that workers are not paid the full amount they are due for their labours; there is 'unpaid labour time') And even if we agree there is return on 'deferred gratification' for small investors the category 'surplus value' STILL stands - But then it becomes a question of ethics and justice.... And mainly workers are exploited not by other workers of the same economic standing - but by capitalists of ridiculous wealth.

"And mainly workers are exploited not by other workers of the same economic standing - but by capitalists of ridiculous wealth."

No Tristan, mainly workers are exploited by their union leaders.

cohenite
Thanks.

Tristan
All the points you make assume that Marx was right, whereas it's common ground that he was wrong, at least as concerns the labour theory of value.

I maintain that his theory of value being wrong, means the rest of his economic theory is wrong, and all the social theory that relies on it. (Plus his theory of class, materialism, consciousness, historical laws, the state - you name it - were wrong too. Marx never gave any reason for thinking that the workers alleged problems from capitalism would be solved by the public ownership of the means of production.)

If you are going to say that voluntary labour is still "exploited" by some concept of "surplus value" then of course you need to establish that without relying on the labour theory of value.

Go ahead please. What value is the alleged surplus value a surplus *over*? If value is subjective, not objective, then how do you determine something as "full value" over and above the market price for labour?

If your reply *assumes*
- exploitation
- labour theory of value
- Marx was right
- surplus value
- double standards
it means you have to buy me a semi-tanker full of beer for putting up with your nonsense.

Go ahead? Don't use jargon. Actually answer the specific questions and explain the critical concepts in issue.

The core of Marx's theory was disproved in the 1870s by the marginalist revolution, which is why - even though Marx thought of himself first and foremost as an economist - it was the economics departments that were first to reject Marx's theory.

(But the total demolition job came from the economic calculation argument. No socialist has got up off the floor from that, and you don't even understand what it is.)

By all means prove me wrong.

Of course even if you can make your case against capitalism, you still won't have begun to make your case in favour of socialism.

JKJ Labour theory of value (Marx) supposes the value of goods can be measured by the amount of socially necessary labour put into them - where the different kinds of labour are considered equal. SURPLUS VALUE is different. Surplus value is 'unpaid labour time' - and means a worker is not paid all they are due. Part of that is taken by the capitalist. They are related - but different - concepts.

We've established that labour theory of value is problematic because it doesn't not account for relative value of different forms of labour. (skill, difficulty etc) But we have not established that the same problems applies re 'Surplus Value'.