O que é VALOR para Marx? | #LéxicoMarx, com Michael Heinrich

Summary

This transcript explores Karl Marx's value theory, emphasizing the distinction between concrete and abstract labor. It challenges the oversimplified notion of labor theory of value, clarifying that Marx’s perspective is more nuanced. Concrete labor refers to specific, skilled tasks producing use values, while abstract labor refers to the labor time that generates economic value in a commodity-based system. Marx's critique of political economy hinges on this distinction, revealing how value is only created under commodity production and how bourgeois economists fail to grasp this crucial social and historical aspect of labor.

Takeaways

• 😀 Marx's value theory is central to his critique of political economy, forming the foundation of his entire economic theory.
• 😀 Marx never explicitly spoke about a 'labor value theory,' but emphasized that labor plays a crucial role in determining value in a more complex way than just the amount of labor involved.
• 😀 There is a distinction between use value (the utility of something) and exchange value (what can be obtained in exchange for it), which Marx adopts from classical political economy.
• 😀 Adam Smith criticized the idea that utility alone determines exchange value, using the example of water and diamonds: water is more useful but has lower exchange value, while diamonds are scarce and thus more valuable.
• 😀 Marx refined Smith's labor theory of value by arguing that commodities have a dual character: they possess both use value and exchange value.
• 😀 Marx introduced the distinction between concrete labor (the specific work done by a worker) and abstract labor (the general labor time that creates value in a commodity).
• 😀 Concrete labor results in specific use values, such as a carpenter making a table or a tailor making clothes, each requiring different skills and labor processes.
• 😀 Abstract labor, on the other hand, is the labor time that contributes to the production of value in a commodity, regardless of the specific form of labor (e.g., carpenter vs. tailor).
• 😀 Marx argues that labor time is what gives commodities their abstract economic value, and this value only exists in a society that produces commodities for exchange.
• 😀 In non-commodity production economies, labor still produces use values, but abstract economic value does not exist because there is no exchange of commodities.
• 😀 Marx's critique of political economy starts with this fundamental distinction between concrete and abstract labor, which he sees as the key to understanding the functioning of capitalist economies.

Q & A

What is the core foundation of Marx's critique of political economy?

Marx's critique of political economy is fundamentally based on his theory of value, which he sees as central to understanding the entire structure of capitalist economics.

How does Marx's theory of value differ from the common 'labor value theory'?

Marx never explicitly referred to his theory as a 'labor value theory.' While labor is crucial, Marx did not simplify value to being just the amount of labor needed to produce something. His theory involves a more complex relationship between labor, value, and exchange.

What is the distinction between 'use value' and 'exchange value' in Marx's theory?

In Marx's theory, 'use value' refers to the utility or usefulness of a commodity in fulfilling human needs, while 'exchange value' refers to the value of a commodity in the market, which is expressed in terms of its exchange for other goods.

Why did Adam Smith criticize the idea that utility determines exchange value?

Adam Smith argued that the utility of a commodity, such as water, does not determine its exchange value. Despite water being essential for human survival, diamonds have a much higher exchange value, illustrating that utility alone does not explain exchange value.

How did Adam Smith contribute to the labor theory of value?

Adam Smith argued that the labor required to produce a commodity determines its exchange value. He highlighted that commodities like diamonds, which are rare and require significant labor to extract, have higher exchange values than commodities like water, which are abundant.

What is the significance of 'concrete labor' and 'abstract labor' in Marx's value theory?

'Concrete labor' refers to the specific, tangible labor involved in producing a particular commodity (e.g., a carpenter making a table), whereas 'abstract labor' refers to the general, unquantifiable labor time that is represented in the exchange value of all commodities, regardless of their concrete form.

How does Marx view the relationship between concrete labor and abstract labor?

Marx sees concrete labor and abstract labor as two different aspects of the labor process. Concrete labor produces use values, while abstract labor produces exchange value, which is a socially accepted form of labor that contributes to the economy of commodity production.

What role does labor time play in Marx's value theory?

In Marx's value theory, labor time is key to determining the exchange value of commodities. However, it is not just any labor time that counts; only labor that produces commodities that are exchanged in the market contributes to the creation of value.

Why is abstract labor only relevant in a commodity-producing economy?

Abstract labor is only relevant in an economy that produces commodities because it is in such an economy that labor is socially accepted as a general measure of value. In non-commodity-based economies, labor is focused on the production of use values, not exchange values.

How do bourgeois economists view the abolition of commodity production?

Bourgeois economists view the abolition of commodity production as a threat to the economy, believing it would end productive labor. They see the transformation to an economy based on cooperation and communal production as undermining the usefulness and qualifications of production.