[p2p-research] Profit Measures the Payer's lack of Physical Source Ownership

[Christian Siefkes]

Ryan Lanham wrote:
> A cost theory of value is generally a variation on a labor theory of
> value--a core tenet of Marxism as I understand it.  These have been
> articulated many times in many forms.

The labor theory of value is certainly a core tenet of Marxism, but that
doesn't mean that everybody who has a labor theory of value is a
Marxist--otherwise Adam Smith would have been a Marxist. Not very likely.

And a "cost theory of value" (profit is just a surcharge on cost) is not a
variation of labor theory, but an alternative and contradicting theory. A
theory which cannot be true, as Marx pointed out. Imagine: everybody adds a
surcharge of (say) 5% when selling something--that's her profit.

So I (as a capitalist) buy the elements necessary to produce something
(materials, labor, whatever) which cost me $100. I then add my 5% and sell
for $105. Apparently, I have made $5 profit.

But, sad to say, that profit disappears as soon as I spend my money, since
everybody else also adds a surcharge of $5 whenever they sell. So regardless
of how I spend my $105, the products I get will always have an aggregate
cost of $100 and a profit surcharge of $5--somebody else's profit. Boh--I
tried so hard to get a profit, and all I got was--nothing!

So it doesn't matter whether the general profit level is 5%, 10%, 20%, or
even 0% -- all that changes is the nominal value of the money I can save in
my bank ($105/110/120/100), but the goods I can get in return for that money
are always the same. Profit, in short, would not exist, except as a purely
nominal affair that can't nourish a single capitalist (let alone make
him/her wealthy).

Hence either profit doesn't exist, or else the "cost theory of value" is
wrong. Marx concluded the latter and went on working on the labor theory of
value instead.

> I'll try to stop using the term Marxism.  You may well be right that I don't
> know how to use it.  I wonder does anyone?  Was Marcuse a Marxist?  So much
> of what he says seems to have nothing to do with Marx.  How about Eric
> Hobsbawm?  I can't name a current Marxist...is Stallman one?  I wonder how
> he would answer that.

Marcuse was certainly deeply influenced by Marx. Hobsbawm is a Marxist, in
his own understanding. Stallman has nothing to do with Marx whatsoever.

Best regards
	Christian

-- 
|------- Dr. Christian Siefkes ------- christian at siefkes.net -------
| Homepage: http://www.siefkes.net/ | Blog: http://www.keimform.de/
|    Peer Production Everywhere:       http://peerconomy.org/wiki/
|---------------------------------- OpenPGP Key ID: 0x346452D8 --
2 + 2 = 5 for suitably large values of 2.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100216/64f0681d/attachment.bin>