CSW
13-07-2005, 18:03
(Let's not have this turn into a firefight between the Marxists and the non-Marxists, this is not a discussion about which 'side' is right, capitalists or the Marxists, so let's not start. Okay?)
That said, I have a few questions (rather, answers to some questions that are often asked about Marxist economics) that I'd just like to bounce off of everyone and get their opinion on. I don't claim to be an expert in any form of economics at all.
Mainly, I'm dealing with the argument that was voiced in starship troopers (the book, yeah, I know) and Atlas Shrugged, that no matter how much pure labor is forced into an object, you'll still have muck in the end if the person doesn't know what he is doing. Let's use two chefs, one highly experienced and the other...bad.
The two chefs are cooking an apple pie. One, who is brilliant at it, makes the best apple pie that people have ever tasted, and his creation sells for 20 dollars. The other makes a horrid dish, which barely sells at all. Both put in the same amount of labor, so it is claimed by the above that they should have the same price. I think that it is foolish, if we assume Marxist economics to be true (lets, for the sake of argument) to say that, for the following reasons:
My first idea comes from the fact that labor-value is considered to be an average, that although it may take a master chef very little labor to produce a brilliant apple pie (hence giving himself and his employers a large amount of profit), the hypothetical average worker would need to invest a large amount of labor to produce a comparable product, driving up the price of the great apple pie. On the other hand, while the bad chef may have invested a relatively large amount of time into the product, the average worker would have spent relatively little labor in cooking a comparable product, which means that the value of the product is lower then it appears it should be under marxian economics.
Second, more of a question then anything else, wouldn't the experience of the chef count as a sort of capital, slowly adding its value back into the meals that he creates during the course of his lifetime? Obviously his learning periods (we've all had those, hello burnt meals) consist of an 'investment' of value into himself, so he has a 'reserve' of value inside of him, much as capital does. The more experienced chef has this, increasing the value of his meal, while the bad chef does not (clearly).
Third, more of a semantics question, can you even call both of the meals the same commodity? Clearly they are both apple pies, but they have different exchange values (and use-values as well, the quality is drastically different), which suggests to me that they can not be considered to be the same commodity, and thus comparing them is useless and silly.
Anyway, tear this to shreds, please.
That said, I have a few questions (rather, answers to some questions that are often asked about Marxist economics) that I'd just like to bounce off of everyone and get their opinion on. I don't claim to be an expert in any form of economics at all.
Mainly, I'm dealing with the argument that was voiced in starship troopers (the book, yeah, I know) and Atlas Shrugged, that no matter how much pure labor is forced into an object, you'll still have muck in the end if the person doesn't know what he is doing. Let's use two chefs, one highly experienced and the other...bad.
The two chefs are cooking an apple pie. One, who is brilliant at it, makes the best apple pie that people have ever tasted, and his creation sells for 20 dollars. The other makes a horrid dish, which barely sells at all. Both put in the same amount of labor, so it is claimed by the above that they should have the same price. I think that it is foolish, if we assume Marxist economics to be true (lets, for the sake of argument) to say that, for the following reasons:
My first idea comes from the fact that labor-value is considered to be an average, that although it may take a master chef very little labor to produce a brilliant apple pie (hence giving himself and his employers a large amount of profit), the hypothetical average worker would need to invest a large amount of labor to produce a comparable product, driving up the price of the great apple pie. On the other hand, while the bad chef may have invested a relatively large amount of time into the product, the average worker would have spent relatively little labor in cooking a comparable product, which means that the value of the product is lower then it appears it should be under marxian economics.
Second, more of a question then anything else, wouldn't the experience of the chef count as a sort of capital, slowly adding its value back into the meals that he creates during the course of his lifetime? Obviously his learning periods (we've all had those, hello burnt meals) consist of an 'investment' of value into himself, so he has a 'reserve' of value inside of him, much as capital does. The more experienced chef has this, increasing the value of his meal, while the bad chef does not (clearly).
Third, more of a semantics question, can you even call both of the meals the same commodity? Clearly they are both apple pies, but they have different exchange values (and use-values as well, the quality is drastically different), which suggests to me that they can not be considered to be the same commodity, and thus comparing them is useless and silly.
Anyway, tear this to shreds, please.