Labor theory of value

Labor theory of value


The labor theory of value is a heterodox economic
theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by
the total amount of labor required to produce it. At present this concept is usually associated
with Marxian economics, although it is also used in the theories of earlier classical
economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo and later also in anarchist economics. Definitions of value and labor
When speaking in terms of a labor theory of value, value, without any qualifying adjective
should theoretically refer to the amount of labor necessary to the production of a marketable
commodity, including the labor necessary to the development of any real capital employed
in the production. Both David Ricardo and Karl Marx attempted to quantify and embody
all labor components in order to develop a theory of the real price, or natural price
of a commodity. The labor theory of value, as presented by Adam Smith, however, did not
require the quantification of all past labor, nor did it deal with the labor needed to create
the tools that might be employed in the production of a commodity. The Smith theory of value
was very similar to the later utility theories in that Smith proclaimed that a commodity
was worth whatever labor it would command in others or whatever labor it would “save”
the self, or both. But this “value” is subject to supply and demand at a particular time. The real price of every thing, what every
thing really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring
it. What every thing is really worth to the man who has acquired it, and who wants to
dispose of it or exchange it for something else, is the toil and trouble which it can
save to himself, and which it can impose upon other people. Smith’s theory of price has nothing to do
with the past labor spent in the production of a commodity. It speaks only of the labor
that can be “commanded” or “saved” at present. If there is no use for a buggy whip then the
item is economically worthless in trade or in use, regardless of all the labor spent
in its creation. Duncan has provided remarkable insights into how Smith’s theory of value
accounts for role of nature in generation of value.
Distinctions of economically pertinent labor Value “in use” is the usefulness of this commodity,
its utility. A classical paradox often comes up when considering this type of value. In
the words of Adam Smith: The word VALUE, it is to be observed, has
two different meanings, and sometimes expresses the utility of some particular object, and
sometimes the power of purchasing other goods which the possession of that object conveys.
The one may be called ‘value in use ;’ the other, ‘value in exchange.’ The things which
have the greatest value in use have frequently little or no value in exchange; and on the
contrary, those which have the greatest value in exchange have frequently little or no value
in use. Nothing is more useful than water: but it will purchase scarce any thing; scarce
any thing can be had in exchange for it. A diamond, on the contrary, has scarce any value
in use; but a very great quantity of other goods may frequently be had in exchange for
it. Value “in exchange” is the relative proportion
with which this commodity exchanges for another commodity. It is relative to labor as explained
by Adam Smith: The value of any commodity, … to the person
who possesses it, and who means not to use or consume it himself, but to exchange it
for other commodities, is equal to the quantity of labour which it enables him to purchase
or command. Labour, therefore, is the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities. Value is the labor embodied in a commodity
under a given structure of production. Marx defined the value of the commodity by the
third definition. In his terms, value is the ‘socially necessary abstract labor’ embodied
in a commodity. In Ricardo and other classical economists, this definition serves as a measure
of “real cost”, “absolute value”, or a “measure of value” invariable under changes in distribution
and technology. Ricardo, other classical economists, and Marx
began their expositions with the assumption that value in exchange was equal to or proportional
to this labor value. They thought this was a good assumption from which to explore the
dynamics of development in capitalist societies. Other supporters of the labor theory of value
used the word “value” in the second sense, to represent “exchange value”.
LTV and the labor process Since the term value is understood in the
LTV as denoting something created by labor, and its “magnitude” as something proportional
to the quantity of labor performed, it is important to explain how the labor process
both preserves value and adds new value in the commodities it creates.
The value of a commodity increases in proportion to the duration and intensity of labor performed
on average for its production. Part of what the LTV means by “socially necessary” is that
the value only increases in proportion to this labor as it is performed with average
skill and average productivity. So though workers may labor with greater skill or more
productivity than others, these more skillful and more productive workers thus produce more
value through the production of greater quantities of the finished commodity. Each unit still
bears the same value as all the others of the same class of commodity. By working sloppily,
unskilled workers may drag down the average skill of labor, thus increasing the average
labor time necessary for the production of each unit commodity. But these unskillful
workers cannot hope to sell the result of their labor process at a higher price simply
because they have spent more time than other workers producing the same kind of commodities.
However, production not only involves labor, but also certain means of labor: tools, materials,
power plants and so on. These means of labor — also known as means of production — are
often the product of another labor process as well. So the labor process inevitably involves
these means of production that already enter the process with a certain amount of value.
Labor also requires other means of production that are not produced with labor and therefore
bear no value: such as sunlight, air, uncultivated land, un-extracted minerals, etc. While useful,
even crucial to the production process, these bring no value to that process. In terms of
means of production resulting from another labor process, LTV treats the magnitude of
value of these produced means of production as constant throughout the labor process.
Due to the constancy of their value, these means of production are referred to, in this
light, as constant capital. Consider for example workers who take coffee
beans, use a roaster to roast them, and then use a brewer to brew and dispense a fresh
cup of coffee. In performing this labor, these workers add value to the coffee beans and
water that comprise the material ingredients of a cup of coffee. The worker also transfers
the value of constant capital — the value of the beans; some specific depreciated value
of the roaster and the brewer; and the value of the cup — to the value of the final
cup of coffee. Again, on average the worker can transfer no more than the value of these
means of labor previously possessed to the finished cup of coffee So the value of coffee
produced in a day equals the sum of both the value of the means of labor — this constant
capital — and the value newly added by the worker in proportion to the duration and
intensity of their work. Often this is expressed mathematically as: , where
is the constant capital of materials used in a period plus the depreciated portion of
tools and plant used in the process. is the quantity of labor time performed in
producing the finished commodities during the period
is the value of the product of the period Note: if the product resulting from the labor
process is homogeneous then the value of the period’s product can be divided by the total
number of items produced to derive the unit value of each item. where is the total items
produced. The LTV further divides the value added during
the period of production, , into two parts. The first part is the portion of the process
when the workers add value equivalent to the wages they are paid. For example, if the period
in question is one week and these workers collectively are paid $1,000, then the time
necessary to add $1,000 to — while preserving the value of — constant capital is considered
the necessary labor portion of the period: denoted . The remaining period is considered
the surplus labor portion of the week: or . The value used to purchase labor-power,
for example the $1,000 paid in wages to these workers for the week, is called variable capital.
This is because in contrast to the constant capital expended on means of production, variable
capital can add value in the labor process. The amount it adds depends on the duration,
intensity, productivity and skill of the labor-power purchased: in this sense the buyer of labor-power
has purchased a commodity of variable use. Finally, the value added during the portion
of the period when surplus labor is performed is called surplus value. From the variables
defined above, we find two other common expression for the value produced during a given period
as: and The first form of the equation expresses the
value resulting from production, focusing on the costs and the surplus value appropriated
in the process of production, . The second form of the equation focuses on the value
of production in terms of the valued added by the labor performed during the process
. The relation between values and prices
One issue facing the LTV is the relationship between value quantities on one hand and prices
on the other. If a commodity’s value is not the same as its price, and therefore the magnitudes
of each likely differ, then what is the relation between the two, if any? Various LTV schools
of thought provide different answers to this question. For example, some argue that value
in the sense of the amount of labor embodied in a good acts as a center of gravity for
price. As counter-intuitive as this may seem to those accustomed to neoclassical price
theory, some empirical evidence suggests labor values are a better predictor of empirically
recorded prices than prediction by any other means.
However, most economists would say that cases where pricing is even approximately equal
to the value of the labor embodied are only special cases, and not the general case. In
the standard formulation, prices also normally include a level of income for “capital” and
“land”. These incomes are known as “profit” and “rent” respectively. Keep in mind that—like
the terms labor and value—the terms price, capital, land, profit, and rent are used here
in a theoretical way that does not always correspond to everyday use, even by accountants.)
In Book 1, chapter VI, Smith explains: The real value of all the different component
parts of price, it must be observed, is measured by the quantity of labour which they can,
each of them, purchase or command. Labour measures the value not only of that part of
price which resolves itself into labour, but of that which resolves itself into rent, and
of that which resolves itself into profit. The final sentence shows us how Smith sees
value of a product as relative to labor of buyer or consumer, as opposite to Marx who
sees the value of a product being proportional to labor of laborer or producer. And we value
things, price them, based on how much labor we can avoid or command, and we can command
labor not only in a simple way but also by trading things for a profit.
The demonstration of the relation between commodities’ unit values and their respective
prices is known in Marxian terminology as the transformation problem or the transformation
of values into prices of production. The transformation problem has probably generated the greatest
bulk of debate about the LTV. The problem with transformation is to find an algorithm
where the magnitude of value added by labor, in proportion to its duration and intensity,
is sufficiently accounted for after this value is distributed through prices that reflect
an equal rate of return on capital advanced. If there is an additional magnitude of value
or a loss of value after transformation compared with before then the relation between values
and prices is incomplete. Various solutions and impossibility theorems have been offered
for the transformation, but the debate has not reached any clear resolution.
LTV does not deny the role of supply and demand influencing price, since the price of a commodity
is something other than its value. In Value, Price and Profit, Karl Marx quotes Adam Smith
and sums up: It suffices to say that if supply and demand
equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their
natural prices, that is to say, with their values as determined by the respective quantities
of labor required for their production. The LTV seeks to explain the level of this
equilibrium. This could be explained by a cost of production argument—pointing out
that all costs are ultimately labor costs, but this does not account for profit, and
it is vulnerable to the charge of tautology in that it explains prices by prices. Marx
later called this “Smith’s adding up theory of value”.
Smith argues that labor values are the natural measure of exchange for direct producers like
hunters and fishermen. Marx, on the other hand, uses a measurement analogy, arguing
that for commodities to be comparable they must have a common element or substance by
which to measure them, and that labor is a common substance of what Marx eventually calls
commodity-values. Some statistical evidence for the theory has
also been advanced by Anwar Shaikh. The theory’s development
Origins of the labor theory of value The labor theory of value has developed over
many centuries. It had no single originator, but rather many different thinkers arrived
at the same conclusion independently. Some writers trace its origin to Thomas Aquinas.
In his Summa Theologiae he expresses the view that “… value can, does and should increase
in relation to the amount of labor which has been expended in the improvement of commodities.”
Scholars such as Joseph Schumpeter have cited Ibn Khaldun, who in his Muqaddimah, described
labor as the source of value, necessary for all earnings and capital accumulation. He
argued that even if earning “results from something other than a craft, the value of
the resulting profit and acquired must include the value of the labor by which it was obtained.
Without labor, it would not have been acquired.” Scholars have also pointed to Sir William
Petty’s Treatise of Taxes of 1662 and to John Locke’s labor theory of property, set out
in the Second Treatise on Government, which sees labor as the ultimate source of economic
value. Karl Marx himself credited Benjamin Franklin in his 1729 essay entitled “A Modest
Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency” as being “one of the first”
to advance the theory. Pioneer Scottish economist Adam Smith accepted
the theory for pre-capitalist societies but saw a flaw in its application to contemporary
capitalism. He pointed out that if the “labor embodied” in a product equalled the “labor
commanded”, then profit was impossible. David Ricardo responded to this paradox by arguing
that Smith had confused labor with wages. “Labor commanded”, he argued, would always
be more than the labor needed to sustain itself. The value of labor, in this view, covered
not just the value of wages, but the value of the entire product created by labor.
Ricardo’s theory was a predecessor of the modern theory that equilibrium prices are
determined solely by production costs associated with Neo-Ricardianism.
Based on the discrepancy between the wages of labor and the value of the product, the
“Ricardian socialists” — Charles Hall, Thomas Hodgskin, John Gray, and John Francis
Bray, and Percy Ravenstone — applied Ricardo’s theory to develop theories of exploitation.
Marx expanded on these ideas, arguing that workers work for a part of each day adding
the value required to cover their wages, while the remainder of their labor is performed
for the enrichment of the capitalist. The LTV and the accompanying theory of exploitation
became central to his economic thought. 19th century American individualist anarchists
based their economics on the LTV, with their particular interpretation of it being called
“Cost the limit of price”. They, as well as contemporary individualist anarchists in that
tradition, hold that it is unethical to charge a higher price for a commodity than the amount
of labor required to produce it. Hence, they propose that trade should be facilitated by
using notes backed by labor. Adam Smith and David Ricardo
Adam Smith held that, in a primitive society, the amount of labor put into producing a good
determined its exchange value, with exchange value meaning in this case the amount of labor
a good can purchase. However, according to Smith, in a more advanced society the market
price is no longer proportional to labor cost since the value of the good now includes compensation
for the owner of the means of production: “The whole produce of labour does not always
belong to the labourer. He must in most cases share it with the owner of the stock which
employs him.” “Nevertheless, the ‘real value’ of such a commodity produced in advanced society
is measured by the labor which that commodity will command in exchange. … But [Smith]
disowns what is naturally thought of as the genuine classical labor theory of value, that
labor-cost regulates market-value. This theory was Ricardo’s, and really his alone.”
Classical economist David Ricardo’s labor theory of value holds that the value of a
good is proportional to how much labor was required to produce it, including the labor
required to produce the raw materials and machinery used in the process. David Ricardo
stated it as, “The value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which
it will exchange, depends on the relative quantity of labour which is necessary for
its production, and not as the greater or less compensation which is paid for that labour.”
In this heading Ricardo seeks to differentiate the quantity of labor necessary to produce
a commodity from the wages paid to the laborers for its production. However, Ricardo was troubled
with some deviations in prices from proportionality with the labor required to produce them. For
example, he said “I cannot get over the difficulty of the wine, which is kept in the cellar for
three or four years [i.e., while constantly increasing in exchange value], or that of
the oak tree, which perhaps originally had not 2 s. expended on it in the way of labour,
and yet comes to be worth £100.”(Quoted in Whitaker) Of course, a capitalist economy
stabilizes this discrepancy until the value added to aged wine is equal to the cost of
storage. If anyone can hold onto a bottle for four years and become rich, that would
make it hard to find freshly corked wine. There is also the theory that adding to the
price of a luxury product increases its exchange-value by mere prestige.
The labor theory as an explanation for value contrasts with the subjective theory of value,
which says that value of a good is not determined by how much labor was put into it but by its
usefulness in satisfying a want and its scarcity. Ricardo’s labor theory of value is not a normative
theory, as are some later forms of the labor theory, such as claims that it is immoral
for an individual to be paid less for his labor than the total revenue that comes from
the sales of all the goods he produces. It is arguable to what extent these classical
theorists held the labor theory of value as it is commonly defined. For instance, David
Ricardo theorized that prices are determined by the amount of labor but found exceptions
for which the labor theory could not account. In a letter, he wrote: “I am not satisfied
with the explanation I have given of the principles which regulate value.” Adam Smith theorized
that the labor theory of value holds true only in the “early and rude state of society”
but not in a modern economy where owners of capital are compensated by profit. As a result,
“Smith ends up making little use of a labor theory of value.”
Anarchism Pierre Joseph Proudhon’s mutualism and American
individualist anarchists such as Josiah Warren, Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker adopted
the liberal Labor Theory of Value of classical economics but used it to criticize capitalism
instead favoring a non-capitalist market system. Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first
American anarchist, and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833, The Peaceful
Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published,Cost the limit of price was a maxim
coined by Josiah Warren, indicating a version of the labor theory of value. Warren maintained
that the just compensation for labor could only be an equivalent amount of labor. Thus,
profit, rent, and interest were considered unjust economic arrangements In keeping with
the tradition of Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations, the “cost” of labor is considered
to be the subjective cost; i.e., the amount of suffering involved in it. He put his theories
to the test by establishing an experimental “labor for labor store” called the Cincinnati
Time Store at the corner of 5th and Elm Streets in what is now downtown Cincinnati, where
trade was facilitated by notes backed by a promise to perform labor. “All the goods offered
for sale in Warren’s store were offered at the same price the merchant himself had paid
for them, plus a small surcharge, in the neighborhood of 4 to 7 percent, to cover store overhead.”
The store proved successful and operated for three years after which it was closed so that
Warren could pursue establishing colonies based on mutualism. These included “Utopia”
and “Modern Times.” Warren said that Stephen Pearl Andrews’ The Science of Society, published
in 1852, was the most lucid and complete exposition of Warren’s own theories.
Mutualism is an economic theory and anarchist school of thought that advocates a society
where each person might possess a means of production, either individually or collectively,
with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market. Integral to the
scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal
interest rate, just high enough to cover administration. Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value
that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive
goods or services embodying “the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly
similar and equal utility”. Mutualism originated from the writings of philosopher Pierre-Joseph
Proudhon. Collectivist anarchism as defended by Mikhail
Bakunin defended a form of labor theory of value when it advocated a system where “all
necessaries for production are owned in common by the labour groups and the free communes …
based on the distribution of goods according to the labour contributed”.
Karl Marx Contrary to popular belief, Marx opposed “ascribing
a supernatural creative power to labor”, arguing that:
Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values as
labor, which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.
Here Marx was distinguishing between exchange value and use value.
Marx used the concept of “socially necessary abstract labor-time” to introduce a social
perspective distinct from his predecessors and neoclassical economics. Whereas most economists
start with the individual’s perspective, Marx started with the perspective of society as
a whole. “Social production” involves a complicated and interconnected division of labor of a
wide variety of people who depend on each other for their survival and prosperity. “Abstract”
labor refers to a characteristic of commodity-producing labor that is shared by all different kinds
of heterogeneous types of labor. That is, the concept abstracts from the particular
characteristics of all of the labor and is akin to average labor.
“Socially necessary” labor refers to the quantity required to produce a commodity “in a given
state of society, under certain social average conditions or production, with a given social
average intensity, and average skill of the labour employed.” That is, the value of a
product is determined more by societal standards than by individual conditions. This explains
why technological breakthroughs lower the price of commodities and put less advanced
producers out of business. Finally, it is not labor per se, which creates value, but
labor power sold by free wage workers to capitalists. Another distinction to be made is that between
productive and unproductive labor. Only wage workers of productive sectors of the economy
produce value. Criticisms Many liberal economists believe that the Marxist
labor theory of value has been discredited. The labor theory of value has been seen by
some to predict that profits will be higher in labor-intensive industries than in capital-intensive
industries, and empirical data contradicts this. This is sometimes referred to as the
“Great Contradiction.” In volume 3 of Capital, Marx attempts to explain why profits are not
distributed according to which industries are the most labor-intensive and why this
is consistent with his theory. Whether or not this is consistent with the labor theory
of value as presented in volume 1 has been a topic of debate. According to Marx, surplus
value is extracted by the capitalist class as a whole and then distributed according
to the amount of total capital, not the just variable component. In the example given earlier,
of making a cup of coffee, the constant capital involved in production is the coffee beans
themselves, and the variable capital is the value added by the coffee maker. The value
added by the coffee maker is dependent on its technological capabilities, and the coffee
maker can only add so much total value to cups of coffee over its lifespan. The amount
of value added to the product is thus the amortization of the value of the coffeemaker.
We can also note that not all products have equal proportions of value added by amortized
capital. Capital intensive industries such as finance may have a large contribution by
capital, while labor-intensive industries like traditional agriculture would have a
relatively small one. Within anarchist economics some anarchists
have rejected the labour theory of value. The difference between collectivist anarchism
and anarchist communism is that under the former, a wage system is retained based on
the amount of labor performed. Anarchist communism, like collectivist anarchism, also advocates
for the socialization of production, but the distribution of goods as well. Instead of
‘to each according to his labor’, in anarcho-communism the community would supply the subsistence
requirements to each member free of charge according to the maxim ‘to each according
to his needs’. Anarcho-communists believe that subsistence, productive and distributive
property should be common or social possessions while personal property should be private
possessions. Nonetheless, many elements of the theory are
still believed to be valid, or the theory is presented in a non-Marxist tradition. For
instance mutualist anarchist theorist Kevin Carson’s Studies in Mutualist Political Economy
opens with an attempt to integrate marginalist critiques into the labor theory of value.
Some Post-Keynesian economists have been highly critical of the labor theory of value. Joan
Robinson, who herself was considered an expert on the writings of Karl Marx, wrote that the
labor theory of value was largely a tautology and “a typical example of the way metaphysical
ideas operate”. Others have argued that the labor theory of
value, especially as it arises in the work of Karl Marx, is due to a failure to recognize
the fundamentally dialectical nature of how human beings attribute value to objects. Pilkington
writes that value is attributed to objects based on our desire for them and that this
desire is always inter-subjective and socially determined. He writes that: [V]alue is attributed to objects due to our
desire for them. This desire, in turn, is inter-subjective. We desire to gain [a] medal
or to capture [an] enemy flag [in battle] because it will win recognition in the eyes
of our peers. [A] medal [or an enemy] flag are not valued for their objective properties,
nor are they valued for the amount of labour embodied in them, rather they are desired
for the symbolic positions they occupy in the inter-subjective network of desires. Pilkington insists that this is an entirely
different conception of value than the one we find in the marginalist theory found in
many economics textbooks. He writes that “actors in marginalist analysis have self-contained
preferences; they do not have inter-subjective desires”.
See also Abstract labor and concrete labor
Cost the limit of price Division of labor
Law of value Prices of production
Producerism Productive and unproductive labor
Social division of labor Surplus labor
Surplus product Surplus value
Transformation problem Value-form
Competing theories Anarcho-communism
Criticisms of the labor theory of value Marginalism
Neo-Ricardianism Subjective Theory of Value
Entitlement theory Notes References Further reading
Bhaduri, Amit. 1969. “On the Significance of Recent Controversies on Capital Theory:
A Marxian View.” Economic Journal. 79(315) September: 532-9.
von Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen Karl Marx and the Close of His System
 —. Capital and Interest: A Critical History of Economical Theory
G. A. Cohen ‘The Labour Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation’, in his History
Labour and Freedom Duncan, Colin A. M. 1996. The Centrality of
Agriculture: Between Humankind and The Rest of Nature. Mc-Gill-Queen’s University Press,
Montreal. –2000 The Centrality of Agriculture: History,
Ecology and Feasible Socialism. Socialist Register, pp. 187–205.
–2004 Adam Smith’s green vision and the future of global socialism. In Albritton,
R; Shannon Bell; John R. Bell; and R. Westra [Eds.] New Socialisms: Futures Beyond Globalization.
New York/London, Routledge. pp. 90–104. Dussel, Enique, The four drafts of ‘”Capital”,
Rethinking Marxism 13: 10., retrieved August 3, 2006 
Eldred, Michael Critique of Competitive Freedom and the Bourgeois-Democratic State: Outline
of a Form-analytic Extension of Marx’s Uncompleted System. With an Appendix ‘Value-form Analytic
Reconstruction of the Capital-Analysis’ by Michael Eldred, Marnie Hanlon, Lucia Kleiber
and Mike Roth, Kurasje, Copenhagen. Emended, digitized edition 2010 with a new Preface,
lxxiii + 466 pp. ISBN 87-87437-40-6, ISBN 978-87-87437-40-0.
Ellerman, David P. Property & Contract in Economics: The Case for Economic Democracy.
Blackwell. Chapters 4,5, and 13 critiques of LTV in favor of the labor theory of property.
Engels, F.. Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Freeman, Alan: Price, value and profit – a
continuous, general treatment. In: Alan Freeman, Guglielmo Carchedi: Marx and non-equilibrium
economics. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK, Brookfield, US 1996. ISBN 9781858982687
Hagendorf, Klaus: The Labour Theory of Value. A Historical-Logical Analysis. Paris: EURODOS;
2008. Hagendorf, Klaus: Labour Values and the Theory
of the Firm. Part I: The Competitive Firm. Paris: EURODOS; 2009.
Henderson, James M.; Quandt, Richard E. 1971: Microeconomic Theory – A Mathematical Approach.
Second Edition/International Student Edition. McGraw-Hill Kogakusha, Ltd.
Keen, Steven Use, Value, and Exchange: The Misinterpretation of Marx
Marx, Karl, Frederick Engels, ed., Capital : Volume 1, Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling,
Marxist.org, ISBN 0-394-72657-X, retrieved July 5, 2006 
 —Capital, Complete in Three volumes. Frederick Engels, editor, 1867-1894. Definitive Kerr
Edition, in English, as re-issued 1906-1909. Capital, Volume 1 1867
Capital, Volume 2 1885 Capital, Volume 3 1894  — Theories of Surplus Value
 — Wage Labour and Capital  — Critique of the Gotha Program
Ormazabal, Kepa M. Smith On Labour Value Bilbo, Biscay, Spain: University of the Basque Country
Working Paper. Parrington Title Unavailable
Prychitko, David L. Marxism see section 1: “The Labor Theory of Value”
Ricardo, David, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Marxist.org, ISBN 0-486-43461-3,
retrieved August 3, 2006  Rubin, I.I. Commentary on Marx’s form and
content of value Shaikh, Anwar. “The Empirical Strength of
the Labour Theory of Value” in Conference Proceedings of Marxian Economics: A Centenary
Appraisal, Riccardo Bellofiore, Macmillan, London
Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, AdamSmith.org,
ISBN 1-4043-0998-5, retrieved August 3, 2006  Vianello, F. [1987], “Labour theory of value”,
in: Eatwell, J. and Milgate, M. and Newman, P.: The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics,
Macmillan e Stockton, London e New York, ISBN 978-09-35-85910-2.
Wolff, Jonathan. ” Karl Marx in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Wolff, Richard D., Bruce B. Roberts and Antonio Callari, Marx’s ‘Transformation Problem’:
A Radical Reconceptualization, History of Political Economy 14: 564–82, doi:10.1215/00182702-14-4-564. 
External links The Marxists Internet Archive
Robert Vienneau’s LTV FAQ Jim Devine’s alternative view of Marx’s LTV
Cotton, Corn, Labor ErnestMandel.org

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *