Medium

I’m returning to the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) after writing a series of posts about it here, here, here, here, and here. Writers on Marx often claim that the LTV isn’t necessary to understand his story about capitalism, the nature of exploitation, etc. A recent example is found in this blog post by Professor Liam Kofi Bright at the London School of Economics. I think people say this because the LTV is supposed to have been refuted, and they don’t want to damn the rest of Marx’s theory alongside it. I believe that (i) the LTV is indispensable to Marx’s story and (ii) this shouldn’t worry those who believe his story, because the theory is correct. The refutation rests on a false assumption. By the LTV here I mean the theory that the exchange value of a commodity — any good or service — is determined by the amount of average labour time that goes into making it and making any inputs into its production (for example, extracting the raw materials that it is made from, or building the to

I’m returning to the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) after writing a series of posts about it here, here, here, here, and here. Writers on Marx often claim that the LTV isn’t necessary to understand his story about capitalism, the nature of exploitation, etc. A recent example is found in this blog post by Professor Liam Kofi Bright at the London School of Economics. I think people say this because the LTV is supposed to have been refuted, and they don’t want to damn the rest of Marx’s theory alongside it. I believe that (i) the LTV is indispensable to Marx’s story and (ii) this shouldn’t worry th