: A workable model would have to include managers, designers at every step in a goods production - one could use this theory then, to argue for large CEO salaries - by demonstrating the value added to perceived *use-value*. Marx discusses that in Grundrisse- productive labour is that which makes money in and of itself, which creates value- management salaries are not valorizing- certainly, you could pay CEO's arcording to their market rate for their labour, but it would be no-where near its value it has now with added share bonuses and added on bits of surplus value
.
:The two (labor and use) being apart but the use dictating the labor value. That would be fun to try out in a libertarian forum -just for the yes/no confustion.
Certainly, management do add to labour value, by making teh workers work hard, by organizing the process to make it efficient as possible (though this is mostly at a shop floor level), just as scientists add to value through research.
: The difference was in how that labor was perceived as a factor of production.
Hmmm, no, I think the difference was the theory of Surplus Value, which was Marx's own.
: The fact that the organisation exists (physically and mentally) must therefore also be a factor of production - must also be in receipt of its 'labor' value to keep it 'alive'. Crumbs, an even more bizarre version of labor value crept into my head, where the organisational profits are the 'wage' of the fact of the organisation.
Well, indeed, in effect corps are 'immortal persons', they take the place in the productive economy of an old Artisan producing class, wherein techinically, the capitalist is using the workers like tools in their personal production process... Thats the fiction at least.
: Thats division of labor, the end goal of putting nuts on car wheels is to eat food and live in a house - just because one activity does not physically produce the other only alienated those who dont see it.
No, thats not the point I was making- Marx sums it up nicely, neither the worker nor the capitalist care about 'the crappy shit he is making'. there is no personal involvement in production, no connection between self and activity, our labour becomes a *seperate* part of our life, something we consider outside our living being, rather than something central and fundamental to it, one that becomes a domineering force over us- my Labour power becomes more important than I am. I am a Thing in the production prcess, not a subject.
: Only when its sold cant he 'known' become actual. The product would also not exist without the necessary organisation of activity, and the investment part of the 'labor'
No, if I make cricket balls, and lets assume the old fashioned fiction that the workers are selling their produce to the capitalist, and I know that down teh high street, they are selling for £12, should I sell it to my capitalist for £12? Lets not forget, management are workers, they should take a share of that £12, but the capitalist should only get the value extracted from his machinery (remember, many capitalists have *no* part in the production process, except moving piles of cash from one company to another...)
: I am now seeing 'labor' as an all inclusive (investment, organisation too) - then it begins to eek out specks of sense!
No, investment isn't labour (except in the organisational sense that someone has to assign parts to the right place)- merely putting money into a company is not labour.
: This is the same argument that should be used in support of privately held land - that it requires the motivated labor of man to make it valuable.
Why should teh land be held privately- why can't we have a dedicated community to exploit the land?
BTW- I think you were confusing exchange Value with wealth- a diamond in the ground is wealth, when it has been dug up, it gains exchange value.
: According to Marx worker one should get $3 today, worker 2 should get $10 in ten years time and worker 3 should get nothing. In a contractual labor market the risk of failure is held by organisational and investment elements of production - and ther gets the service element of stable current pay.
No, risk acrues to labour in that when the shit hits the fan, they get sacked.
Labour must be paid according to its produce- and it is a commodity exchange (labour power for money) that occurs before the marketting of the commodity produced itself. Anyhow, above, what we'd have is one set of workers producing the wine, and then bottling it- then it is stored by anotehr set of workers, who are then meant to pass it on to sale- all those workers involved should gain the full total value, because they are the ones giving it value.
: The market for nuts and bolts is driven by use value for, say a car maker, the car is driven by end user. How is the nust and bolt maker to be 'justly' given labor value equal to use value when demand and use value for nuts and bolts is removed from end user value. ie nuts and bolts on their own $1 (loose), when part of a car $5 (as parts), which does he claim, does not the car maker exploit the nut maker by adding value to his nuts (oo-er) in the using of them?
No, the nut maker should demand the full value of a nut on the open market, the nuts in the car have had another worker's labour added to them.
: I described above why they are not
But they are- if the firm loses out, they get sacked and lose their homes, and this happenes to many long before the entrepreneur goes bankrupt (and he often has insurance against that).
: Thats another matter
:)
: What we have today is amazing compared to just 10 years ago, cast your mind back and look (nay marvel!) at how reliable yet complex modern products are, and ho many skilled people are constantly in demand. Shoddy work is becoming harder to find
Hmmm, I was thinking of the food industry, standard fare to throw (almost literally) mass produced cakes together, compare with the skill of a local baker producing in his own store (ee, 'e were a great baker our grandad- and he was too...).
: Cant find it on the net, Ive seen it attributed to Engels before, but Ive no idea which text.
1:I wouldn't call Engels Marx's disciple- he was his friend and theoretical collaborator, as well as his executor.
2:I doubt Marx or Engels ever referred to 'Marx's socialism', they didn't invent socialism, and they knew what it meant exterior to their own theories.
Sorry, it just doesn't sound like their usual thing to say...'ll keep my eyes out- might come from one of them damn letters.
: With the proviso that coercion be considered in a negative rights basis, so as to negate abuse of 'right' and that people associate with (and produce for) eachotehr by mutual agreement in a manner that allows them to express individual choice (which means discrimination) in who, what and where.
I agree, my conception of democracy is merely a means of consulting others before engaging in free activity, not the model of the coercive state we have now- them as vote to do, should do it.
: I didnt, are they still around?
Nah, they're dead I'm afraid.
