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

[Ryan Lanham]

On 2/16/10, Christian Siefkes <christian at siefkes.net> wrote:
>
> 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



Thanks.  And I accept your corrections.  I would still like to see Stallman
answer the question...is he a Marxist?

I personally don't see where you derive that Smith had a labor theory of
value.  He clearly understood markets.  I've meandered through Wealth of
Nations more than once...but I'll put the question to Gavin who is certainly
the authority...and a decently trained economist as well as historian.
http://adamsmithslostlegacy.com/

As to profit, the big boogeyman of this list, I'd love to see someone define
it and categorize it without a cost theory or labor theory of value.  I'd
also love for someone to advance a moral theory as to why profit is
definitively inefficient, immoral or otherwise detrimental or when and under
what conditions it might be so.

That would be useful to P2P theory, I would think.

Ryan

I cannot, for the life of me, see any issue in one person selling something
with gain if another person happily buys it.  Where the exploitation lies in
such systems is very hard to grasp.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100216/e959dbf8/attachment.html>