Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:23, 22 August 2006

For other uses of the term value see value disambiguation.

The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory from classical economics that views the value of an exchangeable good or service as equal to the amount of labor required to produce it, including the labor required to produce the raw materials and machinery used in the process. Many of the key theorists in the LTV distinguish between several important uses of the term value within political economy alone. For any commodity, C: 1) value "in use" is the usefulness of C or its utility; 2) value "in exchange" is the amount of money paid for C; 3) value without any qualifying adjective refers to the amount of labor embodied in commodity C.This third term for value is the one typically understood in the phrase labor theory of value.

Value in the labor theory of value is therefore different than other uses of the term value, such as moral value, appraised value (potential price), price or usefulness. Consequently the assessment of a thing's value within the labor theory of value’s use of the term will likely differ from the other assessments of a thing's value according to other meanings of the term. Much of the work surrounding the labor theory of value has centered on explaining the relation between value and price, though these mean different things within the theory.

Adam Smith and David Ricardo are most often associated with this theory, and most of classical economics relies on it. Neoclassical economics, on the other hand, does not deploy a concept of value in the sense used by the labor theory of value. It instead relies on other concepts such as price, utility, preferences, technology and endowments which would be understood within classical political economy as things other than 'value'.

Within the field of political economics, Karl Marx had his own version which he used as a tool for understanding the social relations between workers, as owners of labor power, and the owners of capital; as such, the labor theory of value is important to Marxism, but more as an institutional theory for understanding exploitation, alienation, class and crises.

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's 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 will thus produce more value through the production of greater quantities of the finished commodity: each unit still bearing the same value as all the others of the same class of commodity. By working sloppily, the 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 this unskillful workers cannot hope to sell the result of their labor process at a higher price (as opposed to value) 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, for the production process these bring no value to the 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:

${\displaystyle c+L=W}$,

where

• ${\displaystyle c}$ is the constant capital of materials used in a period plus the depreciated portion of tools and plant used in the process. (a period is typically a day, week year or a single turnover:meaning the time required to complete one batch of coffee, for example)
• ${\displaystyle L}$ is the quantity of labor time (average skill and productivity) performed in producing the finished commodities during the period
• ${\displaystyle W}$ is the value of the product of the period (${\displaystyle w}$ comes from the German word for value: wert)

Note: if the product resulting from the labor process is homogenous (all similar in quality and traits, for example, all cups of coffee) then the value of the period’s product can be divided by the total number of items (use-values) produced to derive the unit value of each item. ${\displaystyle {\begin{matrix}w_{i}={\frac {W}{\sum uv}}\,\end{matrix}}}$ where ${\displaystyle \sum uv}$ is the total items produced.

The LTV further divides the value added during the period of production, ${\displaystyle L}$, 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 (or week): denoted ${\displaystyle NL}$. The remaining period is considered the surplus labor portion of the week: or ${\displaystyle SL}$. The value used to purchase labor-power, for example the $1,000 paid in wages to these workers for the week, is called variable capital (${\displaystyle v}$). This is because in contrast to the constant capital expended on means of production, variable capital can add value in the labor process. The amount it adds depends on the duration, intensity, productivity and skill of the labor-power purchased: in this sense the buyer of labor-power has purchased a commodity of variable use. Finally, the value added during the portion of the period when surplus labor is performed is called surplus value (${\displaystyle s}$). From the variables defined above, we find two other common expression for the value produced during a given period as:

${\displaystyle c+v+s=W}$

and

${\displaystyle c+NL+SL=W}$

The first form of the equation expresses the value resulting from production, focussing on the costs ${\displaystyle c+v}$ and the surplus value appropriated in the process of production, ${\displaystyle s}$. The second form of the equation focusses on the value of production in terms of the valued added by the labor performed during the process ${\displaystyle NL+SL}$.

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 values act as a center of gravity for prices. As counter-intuitive as this may seem to those accustomed to neoclassical price theory, some empirical evidence suggests values are a better predictor of empirically recorded prices than prediction by any other means.

However, other schools within LTV expect, at least conceptually, that prices are more strongly influenced by an equalization in the rate of profit. The equalization in the rate of profit combined with the application of different proportions of means of production and labor-power in various industries implies that the price of any given commodity will often diverge significantly from its value. The demonstration of the relation between commodities' unit values and their respective prices is knows as the transformation problem or the transformation of values into prices of production (in Marx's terminology). The transformation problem has probably generated the greatest bulk of debate about the LTV, even originating as early as Smith's work. 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 (proportional to labor) and prices (proportional to total capital advanced) is incomplete. Various solutions and impossibility theorems have been offered for the transformation, but the debate has not reached any clear resolution.

The justification of the theory

Contrary to popular belief, the 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 (1865), 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.

It is the level of this equilibrium which the LTV seeks to explain. 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 Shaikh.

The theory’s development

The birth of the LTV

Benjamin Franklin in his 1729 essay entitled "A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency" is sometimes credited with originating the concept. However, the theory has been traced back to Treatise of Taxes, written in 1662 by Sir William Petty.

British economist Adam Smith accepted the LTV for pre-capitalist societies but saw a flaw in its application to capitalism. He pointed out that if the "labor embodied" in a product equalled the "labor commanded" (i.e. the amount of labor that could be purchased by selling it), then profit was impossible. David Ricardo (seconded by Marx) 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 (wages). The value of labor, in this view, covered not just the value of wages (what Marx called the value of labor power), 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 — 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 that 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 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 (how much of another good or service it exchanges for in the market) 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" (Ricardo 1817). 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 , 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) 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 it is 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 price at which a good sells.

Template:Marxist theory

Marx's contribution

Contrary to popular belief, Marx does not base his LTV on what he dismisses as a "ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor", arguing in the Critique of the Gotha Program that:

Labor is not the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much a source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth consists!) as labor which is itself only the manifestation of a force of nature, human labor power.

Here Marx is drawing a distinction between exchange value (which is the subject of the LTV) and use value.

Marx uses 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 starts 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 (concrete) 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 labour. Only wage workers of productive sectors of the economy produce value.

Robert Nozick, however, has criticized the qualifier "socially necessary" in the labor theory of value as not well-defined and concealing a subjective judgment of necessity.

Exploitation

Marx uses his LTV to derive his theory of "exploitation" under capitalism.

Unlike Ricardo or the Ricardian socialists, Marx distinguishes between labor power and labor. "Labor-power" is the ability of workers to work, given their muscles and brains. "Labor" is the actual activity of producing value. The profit or surplus-value arises when workers do more labor than is necessary to pay the cost of hiring their labor-power.

To explain the normality of exploitation, Marx points to capitalism's institutional framework, in which a small minority (the capitalists) monopolize the means of production, in which the workers cannot survive except by working for capitalists, and in which the state preserves this inequality of power. In this explanation, the normal role of force is structural, part of the usual workings of the system. The reserve army of unemployed workers continually threatens employed workers, pushing them to work hard to produce for the capitalists.

The importance of labor

Marx stated that only labor could cause an increase in value. Assuming that all labor is equal, this suggests that labor intensive industries ought to have a higher rate of profit than those which use less labor -- which is empirically false. Marx explained this by that in real economic life prices vary in a systematic way from values. The mathematics applied to the transformation problem attempt to describe this (albeit with the unwelcome side consequences described above).

Critics (following, for instance, studies of Piero Sraffa) respond that this makes the once intuitively appealing theory very complicated; and that there is no justification for asserting that only labor and not for example corn can increase value. Any commodity can be picked instead of labor for being the commodity with the unique power of creating value, and with equal justification one could set out a corn theory of value, identical to the labour theory of value. A critic of Marxism, Jonathan Wolff says "By reproducing for corn or iron or coal, all the striking results that Marx derived concerning for labor, we have, it seems to me, raised questions about the foundations of Marx's critique of capitalism and classical political economy."

However, there are several problems with this criticism. First, the starting point for Marx's argument was: "What is the common social substance of all commodities? It is labor." Since neither corn, iron, nor coal could be said to be common to all commodities, they all fail to fulfill the criterion.

Second, the criticism treats labor as a commodity which Marx's theory of value explicitly differentiates from the realm of commodities. Marx distinguished labor from the commodity labor-power. In identifying labor as the common substance of commodities the (the source of value) the LTV identifies a substance that is not itself a commodity. This was a necessary aspect for the substance of value Marx elaborates upon in Capital and Theories of Surplus Value.

Third, proponents of this argument completely disregard Marx's direct refutation of this very criticism. The corn theory of value is cited by Marx in both Capital and Theories of Surplus Value. The restatement of this criticism without acknowledging Marx's response ignores the contributions Marx made to this developing theory of value.

Some supporters of the LTV, however, accept the thrust of this critique but emphasize the social aspect of what Marx calls the "common social substance", arguing that labor power is unique as it is the only commodity not sold by capitalists but rather sold by the wage workers themselves, who are vulnerable to exploitation. But it can be argued that this is circular logic, since the LTV is used to show that the workers are exploited.

Modern criticisms

Virtually all modern critics of the Labor Theory of Value are supporters of marginalism, which is the view that the value of any good or service is determined by its marginal utility in satisfying a specific consumer's wants. According to marginalism, value is subjective (since the same item will have a different marginal utility to different consumers) and therefore cannot be determined by measuring how much labor went into the production of an item. However, marginalism does not deny that labor applied to resources can make them more useful in satisfying human wants; more labor applied can even make a good less useful.

Menger's Critique

Opponents of Marxist economics argue that the Labor Theory of Value is trivially disproven. In his 1871 work Principles of Economics, Austrian Economist Carl Menger writes:

There is no necessary and direct connection between the value of a good and whether, or in what quantities, labor and other goods of higher order were applied to its production. A non-economic good (a quantity of timber in a virgin forest, for example) does not attain value for men if large quantities of labor or other economic goods were applied to its production. Whether a diamond was found accidentally or was obtained from a diamond pit with the employment of a thousand days of labor is completely irrelevant for its value. In general, no one in practical life asks for the history of the origin of a good in estimating its value, but considers solely the services that the good will render him and which he would have to forgo if he did not have it at his command...The quantities of labor or of other means of production applied to its production cannot, therefore, be the determining factor in the value of a good. Comparison of the value of a good with the value of the means of production employed in its production does, of course, show whether and to what extent its production, an act of past human activity, was appropriate or economic. But the quantities of goods employed in the production of a good have neither a necessary nor a directly determining influence on its value.

Böhm-Bawerk’s criticism

The Austrian economist Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk argued against both the Ricardian labor theory of price and Marx's theory of exploitation. On the former, he contended that return on capital arises from the roundabout nature of production. A steel ladder, for example, will be produced and brought to market only if the demand supports the digging of iron ore, the smelting of steel, the machines that press that steel into ladder shape, the machines that make and help maintain those machines, etc. Advocates of the LTV point out that every step in that process, however roundabout, involves labor. But Böhm-Bawerk said that what they missed was the process itself, the roundaboutness, which necessarily involves the passage of time.

Roundabout processes, Böhm-Bawerk maintained, lead to a price that pays for more than labor value. This makes it unnecessary to postulate exploitation in order to understand the return on capital.

Furthermore, Böhm-Bawerk's positive theory of interest argued that workers trade in their share of the end price for the more certain wages paid by the entrepreneur. Entrepreneurs, he claimed, have given up a safer wage-earning job to take on the role of entrepreneur. In other words, he claimed that profits compensated the entrepreneur for the willingness to bear risk and to wait to receive income.

Methodological Individualism

The Austrian school, led by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, argues against the whole tradition of the LTV (see above). Neoclassical economics also follows this lead — and that of Jevons, Menger, and Walras — from the 1870s and discards the LTV in favor of (general equilibrium theory), which determines prices based on the interaction of preferences, technology and endowments through supply and demand. Some Marxists (see analytical Marxism) have adapted to this neoclassical general equilibrium theory with a new emphasis on individual exchange and markets through what they call methodological individualism.

Frank Knight

In his critiques of socialism delivered at the London School of Economics in the 1930s, economist Frank Knight argued that:

The "labor theory of value," which has been the most important source of corruption in economic thinking through most of its history, is an unanalyzable mixture of fallicious causal analysis and false ethics.

Inapplicability of LTV

The LTV cannot claim to explain the value of everything. Problematic cases are:

• pieces of art (which could be explained as an instance of monopoly)
• uncultivated land (which has value, even if there is no labor involved. The value of land is explained by the theory of rent. Both Ricardo and Marx developed theories of land-rent based on the LTV.)
• paper money
• value of shares (explained similarly like the value of land)

Notes

1. The distinction between value and price is common throughout the literature surrounding the LTV dating at least from Adam Smith. The transformation problem is a common place where the distinction in these magnitudes is discussed. Marx also disccuses it in Capital vol.1 ch. 3

   But although price, being the exponent of the magnitude of a commodity’s value, is the exponent of its exchange-ratio with money, it does not follow that the exponent of this exchange-ratio is necessarily the exponent of the magnitude of the commodity’s value. Suppose two equal quantities of socially necessary labour to be respectively represented by 1 quarter of wheat and £2 (nearly 1/2 oz. of gold), £2 is the expression in money of the magnitude of the value of the quarter of wheat, or is its price. If now circumstances allow of this price being raised to £3, or compel it to be reduced to £1, then although £1 and £3 may be too small or too great properly to express the magnitude of the wheat’s value; nevertheless they are its prices, for they are, in the first place, the form under which its value appears, i.e., money; and in the second place, the exponents of its exchange-ratio with money. If the conditions of production, in other words, if the productive power of labour remain constant, the same amount of social labour-time must, both before and after the change in price, be expended in the reproduction of a quarter of wheat. This circumstance depends, neither on the will of the wheat producer, nor on that of the owners of other commodities.

   Also see Smith's Wealth of Nations and Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in particular Chapter 3 where he distinguishes betweeen value natural price and market price.
2. Another place where Marx makes a disitnction is in Capital volume 1 ch1 §3.a.4 where he writes: “In other words, the value of a commodity obtains independent and definite expression, by taking the form of exchange value” (empahsis added).. Here one can read Marx distinguishing even in chapter 1 between value and exchange-value.
3. Enrique Dussel in his [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~fmoseley/Dussel.pdf Four Drafts of Capital discusses Marx's attempt to make the distinction between value and exchange-value clearer throughout his revisions of the Capital.
4. The word value as used in the labor theory of value is therefore a homograph and homonym of the other uses of the term value.
5. Unless otherwise noted, the description of the labor process and the role of the value of means of production in this section are drawn from chapter 7 of Capital vol1 (Marx 1867) harv error: no target: CITEREFMarx1867 (help).
6. In the case of instruments of labor, such as the roaster and the brewer (or even a ceramic cup) the value transferred to the cup of coffee is only a depreciated value calculated over the life of those instruments of labor according to some accounting convention.
7. see for example The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value
8. Marx, Karl (1865). Value, Price and Profit.
9. Smith On Labour Value
10. Marx, Karl Value Price and Profit
11. (Marx 1867) harv error: no target: CITEREFMarx1867 (help)
12. see for example The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value
13. Parrington vol 1 ch 3
14. Smith on Labor Value
15. see Utopians and Socialists: Ricardian Socialists
16. Smith quoted in Whitaker, Albert C. History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value, pp. 15-16
17. Whitaker, Albert C. History and Criticism of the Labor Theory of Value, pp. 15-16
18. Critique of the Gotha Program ch 1
19. "Value, Price and Profit ch 6
20. Karl Marx§ 3
21. Robert Paul Wolff, quoted in Ellerman's Property and Contract in Economics: the case for economic democracy ch 4
22. Value, Price and Profit ch 6
23. see ch1 of Capital
24. See Marx's discussion of measures such length and the area of triangles in ch 20 p 312
25. see footnote 23 of chapter 1 where Marx discusses Bailey's corn theory of value; the more recent claims to have come up with a "corn theory of value criticism" of Marx seem to be simply plagiarizing Marx or Bailey with no attribution
26. Theories of Surplus Valuech 20 p 312
27. Knight, Frank H. (1940). "Socialism: The Nature of the Problem". Ethics. 50 (3): 253–289.

See also

• law of value
• Abstract labour and concrete labour
• surplus value
• surplus labour
• surplus product
• prices of production
• transformation problem
• productive and unproductive labour
• cost the limit of price
• Producerism

Opposing Theories

• Subjective Theory of Value
• Objectivist theory of value
• Marginalism
• Criticisms of communism

References

• 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 (Classic criticism of Marxist economic theory)
• —. A critical explanation of LTV
• Template:Harvard reference
• Ellerman, David P. (year needed). Property and Contract in Economics: the case for economic democracy
• Engels, F. (1880). Socialism: Utopian and Scientific
• Freeman, Alan: Price, value and profit - a continuous, general treatment. In: Alan Freeman, Guglielmo Carchedi (editors): Marx and non-equilibrium economics. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK, Brookfield, US 1996.
• Keen, Steven Use, Value, and Exchange: The Misinterpretation of Marx
• Template:Harvard reference ( )
• —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
• — (1863) Theories of Suprlus Value
• — Wage Labour and Capital
• — Critique of the Gotha Program
• Ormazabal, Kepa M 2004). Smith On Labour Value Bilbo, Bizkaia, Spain: University of the Basque Country Working Paper.
• Parrington Title Unavailable
• Prychitko, David L. Marxism see section 1: "The Labor Theory of Value"
• Template:Harvard reference

• Rubin, I.I. Commentary on Marx's form and content of value (accessible read)
• Shaikh, Anwar (1998). "The Empirical Strength of the Labour Theory of Value" in Conference Proceedings of Marxian Economics: A Centenary Appraisal, Riccardo Bellofiore (ed.), Macmillan, London
• Template:Harvard reference

• Wolff, Jonathan (2003). " Karl Marx in Standord Encylopedia of Philosophy
• Wolff, Richard D., Bruce B. Roberts and Antonio Callari (1982). "Marx's (not Ricardo's) 'Transformation Problem': A Radical Reconceptualization." History of Political Economy 14(4): 564-82.
• Anonymous. Utopians and Socialists: Ricardian Socialists

External links

• Critique of the labor theory of value
• The Marxists Internet Archive
• Robert Vienneau's LTV FAQ
• Jim Devine's alternative view of Marx's LTV
• Cotton, Corn, Labor
• ErnestMandel.org

• Labor
• History of economic thought
• Marxist theory
• Value
• Classical economics
• Value theory