C A P I T A L A ND V A L U E

in the following manner. Process 1 uscsnztl units of the commodity

produced by process 1 and a2l units of the commodity produced
by process 2, together with labour of 0.5, for the production of
one unit of the commodity. Similarly, process 2 combines a12
units of the commodity produced by process 1 and a22 units of the
commodity produced by process 2 with labour of 0.25 to produce
one unit of the commodity. The conditions which are required
technologically are only a11 + a21 = 0.25 and a1 2 -ha22 = 0.5, so
that atjS may be taken as:
an = -25> 21 = > 12 = *25> 22 = *25*
Then we have the value-determination equations
Ai = o.25A1 +0.5,
A2= o.25Aj + o.25A2+ 0.25,
where A1 denotes the value of the commodity produced by pro
cess 1 and A2the value of that produced by process 2. If the value
ought to be determined uniquely for each commodity, Axand A2
should be equalized. However, solving the above equations, we
have Aj = and A2 = . Obviously, Ax 4=A2; thus a situation
contradicting the uniqueness postulate is generated, as the same
commodity has different actual values simultaneously.
We have so far assumed that all labour is homogeneous. In
recognizing its heterogeneity, however, Marx wrote: As the
coat and the linen are two qualitatively different use-values, so
also are the two forms of labour that produce them, tailoring and
weaving. Were these two objects not qualitatively different, not
produced respectively by labour of different quality, they could
not stand to each other in the relation of commodities. Coats are
not exchanged for coats, one use-value is not exchanged for
another of the same kind.5 (1, pp. 41-2.) He also said: 'Some
people might think that if the value of a commodity is determined
by the quantity of labour spent on it, the more idle and unskilful
the labourer, the more valuable would his commodity be,
because more time would be required in its production.5
(h p. 39-)
In the calculation of values, these different varieties of labour
embodied in the different kinds of commodities are reduced to
their common quality of'human labour in the abstract5. 'It is
i g O
T HE L A B O U R T H E O R Y OE V A L U E R E V I S I T E D KJI
the expenditure of simple labour-power, i.e. of tin-labour power
which, on the average, apart from any special development,
exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. Simple
average labour, it is true, varies in character in different countries
and at different times, but in a particular society it is given.
Skilled labour counts only as simple labour intensified, or rather,
as multiplied simple labour, a given quantity of skilled being
considered equal to a greater quantity of simple labour.
(i, p. 44.) All are reduced to one and the same sort of labour,
human labour in the abstract. (1, p. 38.)
Marx admitted that the distinction commonly drawn between
skilled and unskilled labour was ambiguous. In his words: The
distinction between skilled and unskilled labour rests in part on
pure illusion, or, to say the least, on distinctions that have long
since ceased to be real, and that survive only by virtue of a tradi
tional convention; in part on the helpless condition of some
groups of the working-class, a condition that prevents them from
exacting equally with the rest the value of their labour-power.
Accidental circumstances here play so great a part, that these
two forms of labour sometimes change places. (x, pp. 197-8.)
Therefore he proposed a scientific formula by which all kinds of
actual labour could be reduced to their common character of
being human labour generally: In order to modify the human
organism, so that it may acquire skill and handiness in a given
branch of industry, and become labour-power of a special kind,
a special education or training is requisite, and this, on its part,
costs an equivalent in commodities of a greater or less amount.
This amount varies according to the more or less complicated
character of the labour-power. The expenses of this education
(excessively small in the case of ordinary labour-power), enter
pro tanto into the total value spent in its production. (1, p. 172.)
In spite of this formula, Marx assumed every kind of labour to
be unskilled, simple labour. However, it is not difficult to revise
his value-determination equations so as to allow for different
kinds of labour. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that there
are no joint products and no alternative processes. We also do
not group commodities into capital goods, wage goods and
luxury goods, and assume that there are h goods and n + 1 kinds
of labour. To produce a unit of good 1 , un' ts
good?' {i = and l,,,units of labour k( = i , ...,+ 1) are
CAPI TAL AND VALUE
required, while to produce a unit of labour; ( j 1,
units of good i (i i , h) and mkj units of labour k (k = 1,
tH- 1) are required. We take labour n + 1 as the standard labour,
i.e., the unskilled, simple labour or human labour in the abstract.
Then the values of the commodities A = (Ax, Xh) and the
conversion ratios of skilled into unskilled labour 0 = (8 l y 8 n)
are determined by the following equations:
A = A/l + OR + /, (21)
0 = AQ + QT+m, (22)
where
192
A =
A 1 al h
, Q =
A i QIn
A i * a hh.
A hi * tfhn-
R =
^11 - kh
, T =
~mn ..
Win
Jn1
* * ^nh~ nn-
^ (^n+l, 1 *** ^n-f 1, h) ) m ~~ \m n+l, 1 * * * m n+l, n)
If the production of commodities and skilled labour is produc
tive the values and the conversion ratios are simultaneously
determined to be positive. With the 0 thus obtained, (21) can be
written as A AA t T / x
A - A A+L, (23)
where L = QR + l; (23) can further be partitioned into two sets
of equations for capital goods and for wage and luxury goods, as
has been done elsewhere in this book.
This generalization of Marxs labour theory of value might
seem, at first sight, to give rise to no difficulty, as Marx believed.
However, a closer examination enables us to see that it is in
conflict with his theory of exploitation, unless the conversion
ratios are determined to be proportional to the wage rates of the
various kinds of labour. Let (oi be the number of consumption
baskets which the worker who offers a unit of labour i for one hour
can buy by spending his hourly wages. Then a unit of the zth
labour power is valued at coi Al l c in terms of unskilled labour,
where An is the vector of the values of wage goods and c the
vector of the quantities of wage goods contained in a unit of the
T HE L A B O U R T H E O R Y OF VALUE REVI SI TED 193
basket. On [hr oth>" hand, a v.ff. of lab / <.*;! a 0 i uuiu>
of unskilled labour. Hence the worker i is exploited at the rate
w i An^
{l - I 0,
where 9 i = for = 72+1. It is now seen that there prevails
a uniform rate of exploitation throughout n 4-1 different kinds of
labour, e1 = e%= ... = en+1, if and only if coJ(jjv hl = k for all
i =1, n.
However, there is no reason why &>s should be proportional
to Os. As the previous quotation from Marx shows, it is possible
that a more skilled labourer with a larger 0 i may be paid a lower
wage rate. Then we may have several groups of workers exploited
at different rates, in contradiction to Marxs two-class view of the
capitalist economy. To avoid this difficulty, we have to abandon
the scientific determination of the conversion rates by the
formulas (21) and (22), and simply convert different kinds of
labour into unskilled labour in proportion to their wages. That is
to say, the values of commodities are determined by
A = A/i-f L*,
where Z* = WR + l and W = ..., wnlwn+i) 9 wi being
the money-wage rate of labour. In this case, although the rate of
exploitation is equalized throughout all kinds of labour, the
values do not satisfy the postulate of independence from market
conditions and may easily fluctuate from period to period as
relative wages change.
We conclude by suggesting to Marxian economists that they
ought radically to change their attitude towards the labour
theory of value. If it has to determine the amounts of labour
which the techniques of production actually adopted in a capi
talist economy require, directly and indirectly, in order to pro
duce commodities, it is not a satisfactory theory at all. As has been
seen above, the value system may be determined to be negative,
indefinite or even contradictory to the postulate of the uniform
rate of exploitation. These findings urge us to abandon the
theory.
For a thorough-going Marxist it would be impossible to con
ceive of Marxian economics without the labour theory of value.
Since it provides the workers with an inspiring ideological