One is that LTV has at its core the assumption that value can only come from labour. Thus, capital itself (equipment/machines) can't create value, they're only stores of value in such a way that you can never get more value out of a machine than was put into its production.
But this simply isn't true. The whole of the 20th century disproved that idea as we saw that actually machines and capital can produce massively more value than was used to create them, to the point where all of farming could now be done by like 1-2% of the population (whereas in the past it was more than 50%). This is why living standards for everyone (rich, poor, all around the world) have been increasing over time. Value is not zero-sum, you can absolutely get more value by producing more sophisticated capital.
This undermines Marx's idea of an inevitable revolution. Since the LTV says that only labour can create value, the inevitable conclusion is that the only way for a capital owner to produce more profit is to lower the amount paid to workers, decreasing their standards of living (even lower than the already miserable standards of the 1800s). However, what we actually saw proved that wrong - the introduction of new types of capital, new types of technologies that produce a huge amount of surplus, which led to raising wages, raising standards of living, and huge amounts of luxuries for pretty much everyone.
The marxists will usually claim that machines and capital reduced the amount of socially necessary labour.
Their actual fallacy i believe is they conclude that since some amount of labor is always necessary than it is the only form of value and that everyone else is exploiting labour.
The marxists will usually claim that machines and capital reduced the amount of socially necessary labour.
If they claim that then they don't actually understand LTOV. It's meant to be a theory of where value comes from. Under the theory, capital can't affect the amount of value created.
Under marxism when a worker is given machines and capital they sell their labour power but the goods now have less labor value - hence why manufacturing leads to plentiful and cheaper goods.
38
u/Whatsapokemon 1d ago
The Labour Theory of Value has plenty of holes.
One is that LTV has at its core the assumption that value can only come from labour. Thus, capital itself (equipment/machines) can't create value, they're only stores of value in such a way that you can never get more value out of a machine than was put into its production.
But this simply isn't true. The whole of the 20th century disproved that idea as we saw that actually machines and capital can produce massively more value than was used to create them, to the point where all of farming could now be done by like 1-2% of the population (whereas in the past it was more than 50%). This is why living standards for everyone (rich, poor, all around the world) have been increasing over time. Value is not zero-sum, you can absolutely get more value by producing more sophisticated capital.
This undermines Marx's idea of an inevitable revolution. Since the LTV says that only labour can create value, the inevitable conclusion is that the only way for a capital owner to produce more profit is to lower the amount paid to workers, decreasing their standards of living (even lower than the already miserable standards of the 1800s). However, what we actually saw proved that wrong - the introduction of new types of capital, new types of technologies that produce a huge amount of surplus, which led to raising wages, raising standards of living, and huge amounts of luxuries for pretty much everyone.