by Summary:
Machinery Fails to Boost Productivity!
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Machinery Fails to Boost Productivity!
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes What kind of ‘rigour’ do RCTs provide?
NewDealdemocrat writes Weekly jobless claims: good news and ‘meh’ news
Angry Bear writes Just Some Business Stats
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Nationalekonomiska Föreningens Årsmöte
| Machinery Fails to Boost Productivity! |
It looks like you misinterpreted Marx and the labor theory of value here. The good explaination is, that in the marxist theory of value, which is the Labor theory of value representend by economists like Smith, Mill and Ricardo before, machinery is simply reificated Labor („Verdinglichte Arbeit“ in German) and thus regarded as labor itself.
To physiocrats in contrast, the value of machinery would probably be reduced to just the ressources used to produce the machine.
If all value derives from labor though as according to the labor theory of value, the labor value of a machine (like a crane) or any other product / commodity would be the units of labor socially necessary at that time, to produce the machine (commodity / product).
Surplus value is the part of labor value, workers don’t create for themselves but for the owners of the machinery/ reificated labor as a return on their property claim.
Reificated labor in form of machinery (capital), in a capitalist system is acquired by the owner (capitalist) to cut down labor units necessary to create value, so the capitalist can claim labor units saved by using the machinery as surplus value to himself.
So, surplus value claimed by a capitalist results from labor value which is reificated labor like a crane you talk about. Therefore, the labor theory of value can derive exchange value exclusively from labor and doesn’t have to distinguish capital within the analysis. Exchange value is the exchange ratio of commodities / machinery (reificated labor) among each other according to the units of labor necessary to produce them, which would define any market exchange, if we lived in a barter economy without money and economic rent. In finance capitalism, money and credit are essential for the extraction of economic rent.
The profit of the capitalist results from acquiring reificated labor in form of machinery at lower cost (at least in the Long run), than the additional exchange value the Capital owner (capitalist) receives from providing labor with reificated labor or machinery (Capital) to benefit from an increase in efficiency of labor. Marx asks for the profit to be distributed among the workers of the respective output stage, as he doesn‘t regard a capital owner employing labor as necessary to acquire and run the reificated labor / machinery, labor uses to create value. Instead workers could do this themselves, thus also receiving the profit themselves on top of what they get as wage. The fact, that the owner of the (industrial) capital claims a part of value to himself solely for providing workers with machinery or capital qualifies as exploitation in the eyes of Marx, as the worker has to create exchange value in excess of what he gets for his labor.
In contrast to profit or surplus value, the Part of price (market price) over and above value and at least as I get it, thus the price over and above exchange value, is qualified as economic rent paid to the rentier class as land rent or interest, for example and unearned income according to classical economists including Marx. This definition of rent just like the Marxian Definition of surplus value and profit is derived from applying the labor theory of value. As one of your friends is the clasical economist Michael Hudson (my favorite economist) I‘m surprised you don‘t seem to be too familiar with concepts like reificated labor and surplus value and thus the marxist definitions of surplus value, profit and exploitation. According to Marx the cranes would be the reificated labor which enables the workers to create a surplus value and thus the capitalist (owner of the cranes in a capitalist society) to keep a profit as a part of the surplus value to himself.
Adam Smith also wrote that labor is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities because this is precisely what the labor theory of value (Smith, Mill, Ricardo, Marx etc.) is all about. Consequently, Marx rejected the believe, that you could regard machinery like cranes as an independent factor of production which is distinguished from labor and productive itself, fitting in the capitalist narrative, that the pure ownership of the means of production justifies a return on the capital property involved. However, to claim, that according to Marx machinery like cranes don‘t matter in production would be a complete misinterpretation of the labor theory of value and Karl Marx in particular. To Marx the labor theory of value proved, that only labor justifies return or income, but not property claims on machinery like cranes, because neither cranes nor machinery are productive by themselves nor can they be distinguished from the labor necessary to produce them (reificated labor). Though Marx wouldn’t agree that cranes or any machinery adds value by itself, he explains that reificated labor enables labor to create a surplus value kept by the capitalist as profit. So, this is why Marx rejected to consider capital as a own factor of production independent from labor. If Marx believed, that machinery doesn’t matter in production, he wouldn’t have been able to explain how surplus value and profit relate to cutting down labor costs by applying reificated labor in form of machinery in the capitalist system.
According to your friend Michael Hudson, Marx pushed classical economics to the logical conclusion, meaning that Marx derived the ultimate results from the labor theory of value (culmination of classical economics as Hudson puts it).
In fact I argue that Marx transcended the Labor Theory of Value when he integrated dialectical philosophy with classical economics in 1857 while writing the Grundrisse. I despair of getting Marxists to accept this, as much as I despair of Neoclassicals being persuaded that their utiltarian theory of value is false. See https://profstevekeen.substack.com/p/use-value-and-exchange-the-misinterpretation for my full argument.
Danke!