My Favorite Web Sites
Please come back and visit again!
value of a product = the labour-quantities contained in this product
= Labour for the production of this product x the time for the production of this product
= the 'labour time' necessary for the production of this product
or simplified:
value = labour-quantities = labour x time = labour time
or finally:
W = Q = K x t = Kt
Example:
If one has an article which has been produced by one worker alone, and if this production process lasts 16 hours, then the labour-quantity can, according to our formula, be calculated as follows:
Q = K x t
= 1 x 16 hours
= 16 labour hours
If now the same article is produced by several workers working simultaneously, then the production time changes according to the following rule:
if Q = K x t
then t = Q/K
If the given article can be produced by two workers working simultaneously, then they need the time calculated in the following formula:
t = Q/K
= 16 labour hours / 2 labour units
= 8 hours
If the same article is now produced by 4 workers working simultaneously, the production time changes as follows:
t = Q/K
= 16 labour hours / 4 labour units
= 4 hours
etc.
From this we see that more labour units for the production of an article lessens the time necessary for the production, and conversely, fewer labour units require more time for the production of a product. With the term 'time' used here, the simple unit of measurement 'time' is signified, which, as shown, is conversely proportional to the labour units required in the production of an article.
This 'time' is not to be confused with 'labour time' because 'labour time' represents the unit of measurement of 'labour-quantity', 'amount of labour' etc., or corresponds to the 'labour-quantities'. 'Labour time' and 'labour units' have a direct proportional relation to each other, which means: more labour units in the same unit of time creates more 'labour time' or greater 'labour- quantities'. Conversely, less labour units in the same unit of time means a smaller measure of 'labour time' or 'labour-quantities'.
In the production of articles the two concepts 'time' and 'labour time' should neither be confused nor otherwise mistakenly used. The relation of both these items in the production process is conversely proportional: the more 'labour time' that can be achieved in a certain unit of time in the production of an article the less time is required; conversely, the need for time increases if, in the same unit of time, less 'labour time' can be achieved.
Marx, in his labour theory of value, has recognized neither the limits nor the relations between the two concepts 'time' and 'labour time' correctly, and thus applied them falsely. For this reason the theoretical system of Marx rests on basic assumptions which are false. He says:"... the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versa, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the labour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value. The value of a commodity, therefore, varies directly as the quantity, and inversely as the productiveness, of the labour incorporated in it."(See footnote 13)
We can now judge for ourselves by means of the preceding considerations that Marx, in the above-stated quotations applied the term 'labour time' where, correctly-speaking, he should only have written 'time'.
Originally the value of an article is not and should not be altered with the fluctuation of the productiveness of labour which is needed for its manufacture. Through this misuse, however, the value of an article for Marx is so dependent on the vacillation of the productiveness of labour that the relations between value and the productiveness of labour are inversely proportional.
If we want to use the knowledge resulting from our investigations to corect the faults in Marx, then the last quotation above must read as follows: "The greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the time required for the production of an article, because the greater the productiveness of labour in a unit of time, the more labour time or labour-quantities can be created. Conversely, it holds that the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the time required for the production of an article, because the less productiveness of labour in a nuit of time can create less labour time or less labour-quantities."
If, instead of using Marx's terms, we apply his assertion, according to which labour time and labour-quantities are to be equivalent, then we can likewise convince ourselves that marx is illogical. If we exchange these terms in the above quotation, it reads as follows: "The greater the productiveness of labour, the less are the labour-quantities required for the production of an article; the less the productiveness of labour, the greater are the labour- quantities required for the production of an article."
That would mean that the same quantity and quality of articles could take on different values. Moreover, these values are to be variable according to the productiveness of labour. This means, finally, that, with an increase in the productiveness of labour, the manufactured article would have less value, and conversely, with a decrease in the productiveness of labour, the manufactured article would have more value. In conclusion, this would mean that an article which is produced by one worker requires more labour-quantities, and have more value, and that, on the other hand, an article of equal quality and quantity which is manufactured by two or more workers requires less labour- quantities and has less value as an article.
As the preceding example demonstrates, the same article, completely equal in quality and quantity, if manufactured by a single worker in 16 hours would be of more value than if it were manufactured by two workers simultaneously in 8 hours. This example also proves that Marx's theory must be false.
After Marx had committed these mistakes through his confusing terminology, he did not improve them but, on the contrary, he made them worse when he maintained that the productiveness of labour is variable. As we all know, in the natural sciences a unit of measurement may not be altered after it has been definitively fixed. A gram must, under all circumstances, remain a gram, and may not all of a sudden become a 'large gram' or a 'small gram', otherwise all weighing would become meaningless.(15)
In the economic sciences, according to Marx, the unchangeable, basic unit of measurement of labour is the so-called 'average labour power of society'. The 'individual labour power' he sees as being equal. Now the 'average labour power of society' in the economic sciences is just as much a normative unit of measurement as the 'gram' is in the natural sciences, and a meaningful use of such terms is only possible when these units of measurement are adopted as unchangeable.
If, however, we employ an irregular 'productiveness of labour' as a unit of measurement which is changeable at will, then the measurement and comparison of prductivity will, in practice, be meaningless. Marx, however, failed to recognize the meaninglessnesss of this vacillating unit of measurement, for, on account of his trying to overcome the inner contractions in his defective labour theory of value, he was thus constantly obliged to emphasize that the productiveness of labour is changeable according to the prevailing conditions.
Now in which way are circumstances really able to effect a change in the 'productiveness of labour'? First we will examine the assertions of Marx himself in order to ascertain whether he was correct in maitaining that the productiveness of labour is depend on the circumstances.
According to Marx it must be admissible that, if we speak at one time of 'K' and at another time of 'k', whereby both 'K' and 'k' stand for the unit of measurement of the Productiveness of labour at different times, it is possible that 'K' = '2k'!
Now, how does an increase, that is about a doubling, of the productiveness of labour come about according to Marx? In accordance with the passage from 'Capital' already quoted once it was expressed thus: "This productiveness is determined by various circumstances, amongst others by the average amount of skill of the workmen, the state of science, and the degree of its practical application, the social organization of production, the extent and capabilities of the means of production, and by physical conditions." (See footnote 12) If now we think this over a little, it quickly becomes clear that all these causes of the increase of the productiveness of labour must be due to an increase in 'labour time' or 'labour-quantities' in different parts and domains of the human race, for these 'circumstances' neither fell from heaven, nor did they arise exclusively out of themselves.
Thus the level of skill of the worker is a circumstance, which, for its part, had to be invested in only through the expenditure of labour time or labour- quantities in training and practice of the worker. The fundamental 'labour time' of teaching and guidance is therefore even more important than the direct labour of the worker himself, because the latter can only work skillfully owing to the knowledge and guidance of others. The stage of development of science and its technological feasibility are not only the results of the 'labour time' expended by scientists and researchers in their places of research and in their laboratories. The social combination of the production process is also a circumstance, which is only made possible by the expenditure of 'labour time' by managers and production experts, who first investigate and reseach the technical and other relevant conditions of the production process before they can be practically applied and combined in society. The physical conditions are only of use in production when first technologists and researchers have invested their 'labour time' in the investigation, testing and finally in the creation of the means of production, and in the exploitation of nature.
The labour of teachers, researchers, managers, technologists, etc. has as much right to be regarded as labour as that of those who are employed in the places of production and in the last stages of the completeion of articles. The products of the above-mentioned indirect labourers are often invisible and intangible, but these products are the knowledge which leads to production and are therefore the most important factor in the development of human society and its economy. The results of such labour are, according to their nature, mostly an invisible, intangible form of product. The 'labour time' expended by such people is in reality a form of 'labour-quantities', which are expended for the benefit of the production of articles and human prosperity.
Marx did not recognize the existence of such labour time as labour-quantities; instead he maintained that this labour time is merely expended in the interests of capitalists in order to drag the relative surplus value exploitatively from the working-class.(16)
Let us assume once again that a certain artice can be produced by a single worker without any means of production in 16 hours, then this article has the following 'labour-quantities':
Q = K x t
= 1 x 16 hours
= 16 labour hours
If now this worker can manufacture the same article with the aid of some means of production in 8 hours, then it cannot be true to maintain that this means of production has no part in the production. Such examples can easily be added to. They clearly show that the amounts of labour time which have to be expended by workers in the direct production of goods, that is in the last stages of the production process, are determined by the means and methods of production, and indeed, in exactly that measure in which the indirect labour- quantities stored in these means and methods of production can be transferred into them.
The more indirect labour-quantities can be transferred into the production process in the manufacture of goods, the less need there is for direct labour-quantities. One can also say that the need for labour time in the manufacture of a product is reduced if the amount of stored indirect labour- quantities which can be transferred to the manufacturing process increases. Conversely, a smaller amount of transferable indirect labour-quantities creates a greater need for direct labour-quantities in the manufacture of a product; this means an increase in the expenditure of direct labour time in the manufacture of a product. It does not mean that the productiveness of labour itself is changeable, but rather that the indirect labour-quantities can be transferred in greater or lesser amount to the products.
Now, because Marx, in his labour theory of value, did not recognize the existence as such of indirect labour-quantities, he was mistakenly obliged to calculate their effect exclusively in terms of the changeabilitiy of the productiveness of the worker in the last stages of production. The indirect labour-quantities are the source of what Marx in his theory denoted as 'relative surplus value'. This 'relative surplus value' does not, in fact, exist at all and is only evidence for the way in which Marx smuggled certain terms from objective non-existence into subjective existence.
Therefore we can also find the following passage in his 'laobur theory of value': "... the greater the productiveness of labour, the less is the labour time required for the production of an article, the less is the amount of labour crystallised in that article, and the less is its value; and vice versa, the less the productiveness of labour, the greater is the laour time required for the production of an article, and the greater is its value." (See footnote 13)
Such a theory in which the 'direct labour-quantities', i.e. the 'labour time' expended in the last stages of production, are taken as the total of all 'labour-quantities' of the complete production process, and in which the 'indirect labour-quantities' are not recognised, such a theory is nothing more than a subjective and informal edifice of ideas.
The fundamental problem of the value of a product can also examined from the point of view of its inherent capability to satisfy human needs'. Moreover, an equal measue of quantity and quality in products must also reqire in each individual article an equal magnitude of the 'capability to satisfy human needs', and should further bestow an equal value on these products.
Marx disputes this in that he regards articles which in kind and size are completely the same as less valuable when they are manufactured with the aid of machines, and as more valuable when these same articles are made completely by hand. The cause of such mistake by Marx, besides lying in the already criticised faults, also possibly lies in his being influenced by the so-called 'marginal utility theory'. According to this theory the value of a plurality of products of the same quality and quantity is determined by the subjective needs of the individual human being, for whom, in the course of his satisfying his needs, the individual products alter in value one after another.
If, for example, a person has a great thirst and would like to quench this with water, he finds the greatest satisfaction of his needs after drinking the first glass of water, whose value is consequently more highly estimated than that of the second equally full glass, whose content is not so strongly desired or enjoyed and therefore sinks in his estimation. A third glass of water he values even less, because his need for water has diminished still further, and so on.
Marx has possibly transferred such views to the field of the development and improvement of production techniques, and thus asserts that products which are the same in kind and size can take on different values.
The techniques of production go on improving with time, and this mostly means an increase in the amount of products, their quality remaining the same. Marx concludes from this that the value of individual products decreases in the course of technical development, and that products are more valuable when they are produced with comparatively more primitive, less technically perfect manufactureing methods. It is now quite obvious that it is impossible to allow such subjective value systems to be made the basis of a general objective theory of value. Each person judges for himself the same thing differently from instance to instance, thus a fixed standard of value is missing. A generally adopted standard of value is not achievable.
Because Marx did not recognise the nature of human labour, he created a false labour theory of value, and the further theories and laws based on it could therefore not possibly accord with the facts of economic development in human society. One of the most important of these mistaken derivations is his well-known 'law of surplus value'. Because Marx failed to recognise the existence of indirect labour-quantities, he treated the means of production only as constant capital, and contended further that the means of production could have no influence upon the originating of value. Further Marx recognised neither the meaning of production findings, technical insights, etc., nor their effects on the manufacturing process. Thus Marx despised the labour time of reseachers, educators, managers and similar workers, and classed them without further ado with the conditions for the development of the productiveness of the direct workers in the last stages of the manufcturing process.
Such problems will not be treated with further here; they must be taken up again at a later point. As it is the aim of this book to construct a correct labour theory of value, I have, up to this point, often referred to the basic mistakes in the Marxist labour theory of value, and tried to analyse them as convincingly as possible in order to be able to correct them later. The remaining surbordinate and derivative mistakes in Marx are not mentioned further in this book.
Now, the 'labour theory of value' is the foundation of the whole Marxist system of ideas. Almost all the theories and laws in Marx's system are based on this fundamental theory, are derived from it, or use its argumentation. But when a fundamental theory is once recognised as false, none of the other reflections which rest on it can be counted as correct. Such defective theories can, of course, never be the foundation or the method which leads human society to the ideal society of all human beings. This recognition is reason enough why the further faults in Marxist theory are not more closely and critically examined in this book.
On the othe hand, I think that Karl Marx used and sacrificed his peosonal happiness for the benefit of his work for the whole of humanity. Human beings with such as generous mind must be highly esteemed at all times. I dare to contend that humanity without the contribution of Karl Marx would, today, not have reached its present level of social development, and that far more people would live oppressed and exploited than it is really the saddening case. It would, at any rate, be completely wrong, on account of the mistakes of his theory, to want to deny or conceal the historic contribution of Karl Marx to the progress of humanity.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
15) Instead of the gram, of course, one can also use the ounce as a unit, but not two diffreent units at the same time for the same thing. If, for example, there are two persons or more, one using the gram as a unit (e.g. at $5 a gram) and the other(s) want to buy two ounces, how are they to manage this? They must first find out the equivalence between the two systems of avoirdupois weight and metric weight, then they may trade with each other. I mention this here because Mr General Pierre Douchy has misunderstood me. He has written that in the English system of weights one can use a 'metri ton' and a 'short ton'. (See General Pierre Douchy, Une Nouvelle Th‚orie de la Valeur du Travail de Monsieur Chao Tzu.yuan, in 'Les Ôtudes Sociales' 1974, No.3-4, Paris, p.34. footnote.)
16) Marx, Das Kapital. Erster Band, ibid, p.532f.
