Article discreditng the thesis that Mao "killed millions of people" in The Great Leap

[kandrathe]

I would interpret the word "currently" to be of vital importance there. Obviously, the productive forces of today are more advanced in producing nearly all commodities than they were 50 years ago, and therefore the socially necessary labor time to produce like commodities now almost certainly differs from back then. So comparing them from different times would be apples and oranges, really.

If comparisons across time and between goods are just "apples to oranges," then there is surely no point in having a theory of value at all, because the whole point is to provide a general theory of what gives products value. If the LTV is true, then it must provide a useful way to understand productivity growth across time. If innovation decreases the socially necessary labour time required to produce particular goods, what does that mean about those goods? Do they have less value? Or do they embody more labour?

-Jester

I think for very simple predictable cases, such as were around in the early industrial revolution, LTV would have seemed a natural reformation of classical economic theory. Such as, making bricks, cutting down trees. Or using those bricks, and milled lumber to form a walls, floors, and buildings. You can see the rudimentary desire to attribute labor value to the transmutation of a thing, like mud, or a felled tree into another thing, like a brick, or a board.

I believe Marx had an axe to grind on behalf of Workers, and so wanted to justify making all value relative to LTV, or worker contribution. Marx's interest was not scientific, but rather a moral proposition of right and wrong. In this case, any "science" here is extremely flawed by the muddled definitions he uses, the tautology you pointed to earlier, and I would add to this his confirmation bias. LTV works fine, except for all the cases where it falls flat on its face.

But, as Espy noted of water, things we find (air, water, coal, food) have Use value, and its value still relates to shortage. If you happen upon 1000 gallons of cold, clean drinking water in a desert, it has more value than the same 1000 gallons found next to a spring fed well in the city by the lake.

We can leave labor out of it. As the possessor of the 1000 more precious gallons in the desert, knowing its scarcity, and our future needs, we would alter our behavior in negotiating a "fair" trade with others.

Some other areas where I think LTV fails are where there is extreme chance, or speculation involved. If I have two parcels of land, and dig a mine on one. The 12 miners I've employed find 12 ounces of gold after an 8 hour session of mining, and on the other parcel I happen to spot a 12 ounce nugget just laying on the trail after a 5 minute walk. Are they of equal value?

Another, as I eluded to above is when wielding extreme intellect (such as in design, or acts of creativity). If I teach a computer, or a monkey to press keys, or even if we were to ensure they are done as words in order to make reasonable sentences, it in no way compares to well written literature. We can call this the Monkey Theory of Value -- which will never be on par with anyone who actually knows how to compose a well structured creation of intellect.

Finally, LTV is devastated in all cases where all transformations are done without human labor that subsequently result in profits. Or, even when equally done by equally skilled laborers, resulting in different outcomes. Like the difference (in 1000$/ Sq. Km) between growing soy beans ($30), wheat ($56), tomatoes ($1,415), or cannabis ($47,660).

I can use the book we wrote, (as opposed to the one done by MTV) where we have our digital book binder make 10,000 copies over night, which we sell as an Amazon partner over the next 4 weeks. For fun, lets say it took 18 x 40 hour weeks to write the book, or 720 hours. And, we seem to be able to sell them for $9.99. Our 10,000 books return $99,900 dollars, divided by our 720 hours of effort... viola... our labor was worth $138.75 per hour... unless I press the button on our digital book binder and it makes another 10,000 books over night. Now, my labor value has magically doubled. It gets even weirder if we just sell e-books. My labor value changes every time a book sells.

It wouldn't need to be a book either, it could be a 3D printer that takes internet orders, makes and ships widgets, all without human labor. Marx claims that things without labor, have only their original use value, but it is the transformation, performed by the 3D printer that makes the "ink" take form into the object widget we need.

Ultimately, how do you properly define the “comparative quantity of labor which is necessary” for production as a homogeneous unit that can function as a universal measure of the labor value of all commodities?

We know the answer.