Labor theory of value

When speaking in terms of a labor theory of value, "value", without any qualifying adjective should theoretically refer to the amount of labor necessary to produce a marketable commodity, including the labor necessary to develop any real capital used in the production. Both David Ricardo[8] and Karl Marx tried to quantify and embody all labor components in order to develop a theory of the real price, or natural price of a commodity.[9] The labor theory of value as presented by Adam Smith did not require the quantification of past labor, nor did it deal with the labor needed to create the tools (capital) that might be used in producing a commodity. Smith's theory of value was very similar to the later utility theories in that Smith proclaimed that a commodity was worth whatever labor it would command in others (value in trade) or whatever labor it would "save" the self (value in use), or both. However, this "value" is subject to supply and demand at a particular time:

The real price of every thing, what every thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. (Wealth of Nations Book 1, chapter V)

Smith's theory of price has nothing to do with the past labor spent in producing a commodity. It speaks only of the labor that can be "commanded" or "saved" at present. If there is no use for a buggy whip, then the item is economically worthless in trade or in use, regardless of all the labor spent in creating it.

Since the term "value" is understood in the LTV as denoting something created by labor, and its "magnitude" as something proportional to the quantity of labor performed, it is important to explain how the labor process both preserves value and adds new value in the commodities it creates.[note 1]

The value of a commodity increases in proportion to the duration and intensity of labor performed on average for its production. Part of what the LTV means by "socially necessary" is that the value only increases in proportion to this labor as it is performed with average skill and average productivity. So though workers may labor with greater skill or more productivity than others, these more skillful and more productive workers thus produce more value through the production of greater quantities of the finished commodity. Each unit still bears the same value as all the others of the same class of commodity. By working sloppily, unskilled workers may drag down the average skill of labor, thus increasing the average labor time necessary for the production of each unit commodity. But these unskillful workers cannot hope to sell the result of their labor process at a higher price (as opposed to value) simply because they have spent more time than other workers producing the same kind of commodities.

However, production not only involves labor, but also certain means of labor: tools, materials, power plants and so on. These means of labor—also known as means of production—are often the product of another labor process as well. So the labor process inevitably involves these means of production that already enter the process with a certain amount of value. Labor also requires other means of production that are not produced with labor and therefore bear no value: such as sunlight, air, uncultivated land, unextracted minerals, etc. While useful, even crucial to the production process, these bring no value to that process. In terms of means of production resulting from another labor process, LTV treats the magnitude of value of these produced means of production as constant throughout the labor process. Due to the constancy of their value, these means of production are referred to, in this light, as constant capital.

Consider for example workers who take coffee beans, use a roaster to roast them, and then use a brewer to brew and dispense a fresh cup of coffee. In performing this labor, these workers add value to the coffee beans and water that comprise the material ingredients of a cup of coffee. The worker also transfers the value of constant capital—the value of the beans; some specific depreciated value of the roaster and the brewer; and the value of the cup—to the value of the final cup of coffee. Again, on average, the worker can transfer no more than the value of these means of labor previously possessed to the finished cup of coffee.[note 2] So the value of coffee produced in a day equals the sum of both the value of the means of labor—this constant capital—and the value newly added by the worker in proportion to the duration and intensity of their work.

Often this is expressed mathematically as:

${\displaystyle c+L=W}$,

where

• ${\displaystyle c}$ is the constant capital of materials used in a period plus the depreciated portion of tools and plant used in the process. (A period is typically a day, week, year, or a single turnover: meaning the time required to complete one batch of coffee, for example.)
• ${\displaystyle L}$ is the quantity of labor time (average skill and productivity) performed in producing the finished commodities during the period
• ${\displaystyle W}$ is the value (or think "worth") of the product of the period (${\displaystyle w}$ comes from the German word for value: wert)

Note: if the product resulting from the labor process is homogeneous (all similar in quality and traits, for example, all cups of coffee) then the value of the period's product can be divided by the total number of items (use-values or ${\displaystyle v_{u}}$) produced to derive the unit value of each item. ${\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}w_{i}={\frac {W}{\sum v_{u}}}\,\end{matrix}}}$ where ${\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}\sum v_{u}\end{matrix}}}$ is the total items produced.

The LTV further divides the value added during the period of production, ${\displaystyle L}$, into two parts. The first part is the portion of the process when the workers add value equivalent to the wages they are paid. For example, if the period in question is one week and these workers collectively are paid $1,000, then the time necessary to add $1,000 to—while preserving the value of—constant capital is considered the necessary labor portion of the period (or week): denoted ${\displaystyle NL}$. The remaining period is considered the surplus labor portion of the week: or ${\displaystyle SL}$. The value used to purchase labor-power, for example, the $1,000 paid in wages to these workers for the week, is called variable capital (${\displaystyle v}$). This is because in contrast to the constant capital expended on means of production, variable capital can add value in the labor process. The amount it adds depends on the duration, intensity, productivity and skill of the labor-power purchased: in this sense, the buyer of labor-power has purchased a commodity of variable use. Finally, the value added during the portion of the period when surplus labor is performed is called surplus value (${\displaystyle s}$). From the variables defined above, we find two other common expressions for the value produced during a given period:

${\displaystyle c+v+s=W}$

and

${\displaystyle c+NL+SL=W}$

The first form of the equation expresses the value resulting from production, focusing on the costs ${\displaystyle c+v}$ and the surplus value appropriated in the process of production, ${\displaystyle s}$. The second form of the equation focuses on the value of production in terms of the values added by the labor performed during the process ${\displaystyle NL+SL}$.

One issue facing the LTV is the relationship between value quantities on one hand and prices on the other. If a commodity's value is not the same as its price, and therefore the magnitudes of each likely differ, then what is the relation between the two, if any? Various LTV schools of thought provide different answers to this question. For example, some argue that value in the sense of the amount of labor embodied in a good acts as a center of gravity for price.

However, most economists would say that cases where pricing is given as approximately equal to the value of the labour embodied, are in fact only special cases. In General Theory pricing most usually fluctuates. The standard formulation is that prices normally include a level of income for "capital" and "land". These incomes are known as "profit" and "rent" respectively. Yet Marx made the point that value cannot be placed upon labour as a commodity, because capital is a constant, whereas profit is a variable, not an income; thus explaining the importance of profit in relation to pricing variables.[12]

In Book 1, chapter VI, Adam Smith writes:

The real value of all the different component parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labour which they can, each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value not only of that part of price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and of that which resolves itself into profit.

The final sentence explains how Smith sees value of a product as relative to labor of buyer or consumer, as opposite to Marx who sees the value of a product being proportional to labor of laborer or producer. And we value things, price them, based on how much labor we can avoid or command, and we can command labor not only in a simple way but also by trading things for a profit.

The demonstration of the relation between commodities' unit values and their respective prices is known in Marxian terminology as the transformation problem or the transformation of values into prices of production. The transformation problem has probably generated the greatest bulk of debate about the LTV. The problem with transformation is to find an algorithm where the magnitude of value added by labor, in proportion to its duration and intensity, is sufficiently accounted for after this value is distributed through prices that reflect an equal rate of return on capital advanced. If there is an additional magnitude of value or a loss of value after transformation, then the relation between values (proportional to labor) and prices (proportional to total capital advanced) is incomplete. Various solutions and impossibility theorems have been offered for the transformation, but the debate has not reached any clear resolution.

LTV does not deny the role of supply and demand influencing price, since the price of a commodity is something other than its value. In Value, Price and Profit (1865), Karl Marx quotes Adam Smith and sums up:

It suffices to say that if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities of labor required for their production.[13]

The LTV seeks to explain the level of this equilibrium. This could be explained by a cost of production argument—pointing out that all costs are ultimately labor costs, but this does not account for profit, and it is vulnerable to the charge of tautology in that it explains prices by prices.[14] Marx later called this "Smith's adding up theory of value".

Smith argues that labor values are the natural measure of exchange for direct producers like hunters and fishermen.[15] Marx, on the other hand, uses a measurement analogy, arguing that for commodities to be comparable they must have a common element or substance by which to measure them,[13] and that labor is a common substance of what Marx eventually calls commodity-values.[12]

The Marxist labor theory of value has been criticised on several counts. Some argue that it predicts that profits will be higher in labor-intensive industries than in capital-intensive industries, which would be contradicted by measured empirical data inherent in quantitative analysis. This is sometimes referred to as the "Great Contradiction".[50] In volume 3 of Capital, Marx explains why profits are not distributed according to which industries are the most labor-intensive and why this is consistent with his theory. Whether or not this is consistent with the labor theory of value as presented in volume 1 has been a topic of debate.[50] According to Marx, surplus value is extracted by the capitalist class as a whole and then distributed according to the amount of total capital, not just the variable component. In the example given earlier, of making a cup of coffee, the constant capital involved in production is the coffee beans themselves, and the variable capital is the value added by the coffee maker. The value added by the coffee maker is dependent on its technological capabilities, and the coffee maker can only add so much total value to cups of coffee over its lifespan. The amount of value added to the product is thus the amortization of the value of the coffeemaker. We can also note that not all products have equal proportions of value added by amortized capital. Capital intensive industries such as finance may have a large contribution of capital, while labor-intensive industries like traditional agriculture would have a relatively small one.[51] Critics argue that this turns the LTV into a macroeconomic theory, when it was supposed to explain the exchange ratios of individual commodities in terms of their relation to their labour ratios (making it a microeconomic theory), yet Marx was now maintaining that these ratios must diverge from their labour ratios. Critics thus held that Marx's proposed solution to the "great contradiction" was not so much a solution as it was sidestepping the issue.[52][53]

Steve Keen argues that Marx's idea that only labor can produce value rests on the idea that as capital depreciates over its use, then this is transferring its exchange-value to the product. Keen argues that it is not clear why the value of the machine should depreciate at the same rate it is lost. Keen uses an analogy with labor: If workers receive a subsistence wage and the working day exhausts the capacity to labor, it could be argued that the worker has "depreciated" by the amount equivalent to the subsistence wage. However this depreciation is not the limit of value a worker can add in a day (indeed this is critical to Marx's idea that labor is fundamentally exploited). If it were, then the production of a surplus would be impossible. According to Keen, a machine could have a use-value greater than its exchange-value, meaning it could, along with labor, be a source of surplus. Keen claims that Marx almost reached such a conclusion in the Grundrisse but never developed it any further. Keen further observes that while Marx insisted that the contribution of machines to production is solely their use-value and not their exchange-value, he routinely treated the use-value and exchange-value of a machine as identical, despite the fact that this would contradict his claim that the two were unrelated.[54] Marxists respond by arguing that use-value and exchange-value are incommensurable magnitudes; to claim that a machine can add "more use-value" than it is worth in value-terms is a category error. According to Marx, a machine by definition cannot be a source of human labor.[55][56] Keen responds by arguing that the labor theory of value only works if the use-value and exchange-value of a machine are identical, as Marx argued that machines cannot create surplus value since as their use-value depreciates along with their exchange-value; they simply transfer it to the new product but create no new value in the process.[57] Keen's machinery argument can also be applied to slavery based modes of production, which also profit from extracting more use value from the laborers than they return to laborers.[58][59]

In their work Capital as Power, Shimshon Bichler and Jonathan Nitzan argue that while Marxists have claimed to produce empirical evidence of the labor theory of value via numerous studies which show consistent correlations between values and prices, these studies[note 4] do not actually provide evidence for it and are inadequate. According to the authors, these studies attempt to prove the LTV by showing that there is a positive correlation between market prices and labor values. However, the authors argue that these studies measure prices by looking at the price of total output (the unit price of a commodity multiplied by its total quantity) and do these for several sectors of the economy, estimate their total price and value from official statistics and measured for several years. However, Bichler and Nitzan argue that this method has statistical implications as correlations measured this way also reflect the co-variations of the associated quantities of unit values and prices. This means that the unit price and unit value of each sector are multiplied by the same value, which means that the greater the variability of output across different sectors, the tighter the correlation. This means that the overall correlation is substantially larger than the underlying correlation between unit values and unit prices; when sectors are controlled for their size, the correlations often drop to insignificant levels.[60][61] Furthermore, the authors argue that the studies do not seem to actually attempt to measure the correlation between value and price. The authors argue that, according to Marx, the value of a commodity indicates the abstract labor time required for its production; however Marxists have been unable to identify a way to measure a unit (elementary particle) of abstract labor (indeed the authors argue that most have given up and little progress has been made beyond Marx's original work) due to numerous difficulties. This means assumptions must be made and according to the authors, these involve circular reasoning:[60][61]

The most important of these assumptions are that the value of labour power is proportionate to the actual wage rate, that the ratio of variable capital to surplus value is given by the price ratio of wages to profit, and occasionally also that the value of the depreciated constant capital is equal to a fraction of the capital’s money price. In other words, the researcher assumes precisely what the labour theory of value is supposed to demonstrate.[62]

Bichler and Nitzan argue that this amounts to converting prices into values and then determining if they correlate, which the authors argue proves nothing since the studies are simply correlating prices with themselves.[60][61] Paul Cockshott disagreed with Bichler and Nitzan's arguments, arguing that it was possible to measure abstract labour time using wage bills and data on working hours, while also arguing Bichler and Nitzan's claims that the true value-price correlations should be much lower actually relied on poor statistical analysis itself.[63] Most Marxists, however, reject Bichler and Nitzan's interpretation of Marx, arguing that their assertion that individual commodities can have values, rather than prices of production, misunderstands Marx's work.[64] For example, Fred Moseley argues Marx understood "value" to be a "macro-monetary" variable (the total amount of labor added in a given year plus the depreciation of fixed capital in that year), which is then concretized at the level of individual prices of production, meaning that "individual values" of commodities do not exist.[65]

The theory can also be sometimes found in non-Marxist traditions.[note 5] For instance, mutualist theorist Kevin Carson's Studies in Mutualist Political Economy opens with an attempt to integrate marginalist critiques into the labor theory of value.[66]

Some post-Keynesian economists have been highly critical of the labor theory of value. Joan Robinson, who herself was considered an expert on the writings of Karl Marx,[67] wrote that the labor theory of value was largely a tautology and "a typical example of the way metaphysical ideas operate".[68] The well-known Marxian economist Roman Rosdolsky replied to Robinson's claims at length,[69] arguing that Robinson failed to understand key components of Marx's theory; for instance, Robinson argued that "Marx's theory, as we have seen, rests on the assumption of a constant rate of exploitation",[70] but as Rosdolsky points out, there is a great deal of contrary evidence.[71]

In ecological economics, the labor theory of value has been criticized, where it is argued that labor is in fact energy over time.[72] Such arguments generally fail to recognize that Marx is inquiring into social relations among human beings, which cannot be reduced to the expenditure of energy, just as democracy cannot be reduced to the expenditure of energy that a voter makes in getting to the polling place.[73] However, echoing Joan Robinson, Alf Hornborg, an environmental historian, argues that both the reliance on "energy theory of value" and "labor theory of value" are problematic as they propose that use-values (or material wealth) are more "real" than exchange-values (or cultural wealth)--yet, use-values are culturally determined.[74] For Hornborg, any Marxist argument that claims uneven wealth is due to the "exploitation" or "underpayment" of use-values is actually a tautological contradiction, since it must necessarily quantify "underpayment" in terms of exchange-value. The alternative would be to conceptualize unequal exchange as "an asymmetric net transfer of material inputs in production (e.g., embodied labor, energy, land, and water), rather than in terms of an underpayment of material inputs or an asymmetric transfer of 'value'".[75] In other words, uneven exchange is characterised by incommensurability, namely: the unequal transfer of material inputs; competing value-judgements of the worth of labor, fuel, and raw materials; differing availability of industrial technologies; and the off-loading of environmental burdens on those with less resources.[75][76]

Competing theories

• Anarcho-communism
• Entitlement theory
• Marginalism
• Neo-Ricardianism
• Subjective theory of value

• Bhaduri, Amit. 1969. "On the Significance of Recent Controversies on Capital Theory: A Marxian View." Economic Journal. 79(315) September: 532–539.
• von Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen Karl Marx and the Close of His System (Classic criticism of Marxist economic theory).
• G.A. Cohen 'The Labour Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation', in his History Labour and Freedom.
• Duncan, Colin A.M. 1996. The Centrality of Agriculture: Between Humankind and The Rest of Nature. McGill–Queen's University Press, Montreal.
• ——2000. The Centrality of Agriculture: History, Ecology and Feasible Socialism. Socialist Register, pp. 187–205.
• ——2004. Adam Smith's green vision and the future of global socialism. In Albritton, R; Shannon Bell; John R. Bell; and R. Westra [Eds.] New Socialisms: Futures Beyond Globalization. New York/London, Routledge. pp. 90–104.
• Dussel, Enique (2002), "The four drafts of '"Capital"" (PDF), Rethinking Marxism, 13 (1): 10, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.201.4415, doi:10.1080/089356901101241569, S2CID 145603007, retrieved August 3, 2006
• Eldred, Michael (1984). Critique of Competitive Freedom and the Bourgeois-Democratic State: Outline of a Form-analytic Extension of Marx's Uncompleted System. With an Appendix 'Value-form Analytic Reconstruction of the Capital-Analysis' by Michael Eldred, Marnie Hanlon, Lucia Kleiber and Mike Roth, Kurasje, Copenhagen. Emended, digitized edition 2010 with a new Preface, lxxiii + 466 pp. ISBN 87-87437-40-6, 978-87-87437-40-0.
• Ellerman, David P. (1992) Property & Contract in Economics: The Case for Economic Democracy. Blackwell. Chapters 4,5, and 13 critiques of LTV in favor of the labor theory of property.
• Engels, F. (1880). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
• Freeman, Alan: Price, value and profit – a continuous, general treatment. In: Alan Freeman, Guglielmo Carchedi (editors): Marx and Non-equilibrium Economics. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK, Brookfield, US 1996. ISBN 978-1-85898-268-7.
• Hagendorf, Klaus: The Labour Theory of Value. A Historical-Logical Analysis. Paris: EURODOS; 2008.
• Hagendorf, Klaus: Labour Values and the Theory of the Firm. Part I: The Competitive Firm. Paris: EURODOS; 2009.
• Hansen, Bue Rübner. (2011). "Review of Capital as Power by Jonathan Nitzan and Shimson Bichler". Historical Materialism 19, no. 2: 144–159.
• Henderson, James M.; Quandt, Richard E. 1971: Microeconomic Theory – A Mathematical Approach. Second Edition/International Student Edition. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd.
• Keen, Steven Use, Value, and Exchange: The Misinterpretation of Marx.
• Mason, Paul (2015). PostCapitalism: A Guide to our Future. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-1-84614-738-8.
• Marx, Karl (1867), Frederick Engels (ed.), Capital: Volume 1, Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling, Marxist.org, ISBN 978-0-394-72657-1, retrieved July 5, 2006 ([Internet edition: 1999] [1887 English edition]).
• Marx, Karl (1976) [1867], Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1, Ben Fowkes, Penguin
• Moseley, Fred. (2016). Money and Totality Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
• Murray, Patrick. (2016). The Mismeasure of Wealth : Essays on Marx and Social Form Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.
• Ormazabal, Kepa M. (2004). Smith On Labour Value Bilbo, Biscay, Spain: University of the Basque Country Working Paper.
• Parrington, Vernon Louis. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin.
• Pokrovskii, Vladimir (2011). Econodynamics. The Theory of Social Production. Springer, Dordrecht-Heidelberg-London-New York.
• Rubin, Isaak Illich (1928). Essays on Marx's Theory of Value
• Shaikh, Anwar (1998). "The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value" in Conference Proceedings of Marxian Economics: A Centenary Appraisal, Riccardo Bellofiore (ed.), Macmillan, London.
• Smith, Adam (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, AdamSmith.org, ISBN 978-1-4043-0998-2, archived from the original on September 27, 2007, retrieved August 3, 2006
• Vianello, F. (1987). "Labour theory of value", in: Eatwell, J. and Milgate, M. and Newman, P. (eds.): The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Macmillan e Stockton, London e New York, ISBN 978-0-935859-10-2.
• Wolff, Jonathan (2003). " Karl Marx in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Wolff, Richard D., Bruce B. Roberts and Antonio Callari (1982), "Marx's (not Ricardo's) 'Transformation Problem': A Radical Reconceptualization", History of Political Economy, 14 (4): 564–582, doi:10.1215/00182702-14-4-564.{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)