Some incomplete ramblings.
“Labour Theory of Value”:
"The proposition that goods have their value by virtue of the labour, or labour power, that has gone into producing them."
?
(Part of) my questioning of this theory (if I understand it correctly) is (ridiculously) simple:
Ultimately the (exchange) value of an item – the only value an item can have in conventional economics is surely exchange value? – is simply what someone pays someone else – who happens to “possess” it – (and “Property is theft” anyway) - for it.
(Property MUST be theft - because LOGICALLY NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO POSSESS ANYTHING.)
In terms of exchange value, exchange value is simply arbitrary because someone could give the object to someone else for nothing even if they could charge and be paid 10 million pounds for the same object.
Therefore the exchange value of an object is arbitrary.
Someone could refuse to BUY or SELL anything at ANY TIME.
.....
Please tell me what you think of this.....
There are other kinds of VALUE other than exchange value....
En revanche, low wages in the plundered world = massive profits for bussiness + cheap and plentiful (and unneeded) goods for the plundering world.
This may all sound simplistic.
I must say that Marx's theories themselves are also capable of being called simplistic, especially in their totalising tendency with regard, for example, to the LTV and his simplistic insistence that Labour creates all value....
To be continued.....