Skip to main content

Economics of Socialism 1: Prices vs. Labor Value

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy or Socialism
  • 161 Accesses

Abstract

Socialism cannot be properly understood without a foundation in Marxist economic theory. This theory differs fundamentally from mainstream economic theory in its definition of economic value. In practice, the difference between the two theories is a difference between a centrally planned economy and its free-market alternative, a difference that is determined by Marxism using labor hours, not market prices, as the definition of value. By necessity, this value definition requires a very different model for the allocation of economic resources than what is the case under a price-based value theory. To function, Marxist economics requires central economic planning and motivates the termination of private property as part of its political method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For simplicity, it is assumed that inputs and raw materials have been paid for. Marxist theory of capital has its own creative solution to how to define those items under the “capital” concept; that solution is of no consequence to the present example.

  2. 2.

    It is easy to be led astray from the economic core of Marx’s conflict theory. For an example of a dead-end debate, see Nozick (1974, chapter 8) and Smith (1982).

  3. 3.

    For simplicity, suppose the labor-based value of the output is identical to the market value. This is a strictly hypothetical scenario; any identity between market-price value and labor-theory value is entirely coincidental.

  4. 4.

    Empirically, this may not be entirely accurate.

  5. 5.

    It deserves to be noted in this context that efficiency is only partly about the use of energy and natural resources. It is also a matter of using labor, input products, finances, and land and real estate in the least wasteful, most productive way possible.

  6. 6.

    Notably, the demographic aspect has often made its way into central planning as a corollary to strict economic planning. In the 1930s, when the Swedish social democrats laid the foundations for their welfare state, they saw a need to use indicative central planning to grow the population. In, e.g., China and India, central economic planning in various forms has been coupled with demographic control for the opposite purpose, namely to curb or prevent population growth. More recently, central-planning overtures have been coupled with arguments to limit global population for environmental purposes.

References

  • Alchian, A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrow, C. (2000). The Marx problem in Marxian state theory. Science & Society, 64(1), 87–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach, E. (1975). Marxian analysis. Industrial Relations, 30(4), 772–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, J. (1978). Innovation and central economic planning. Il Politico, 43(1), 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bideleux, R., & Jeffries, I. (1998). A history of Eastern Europe: Crisis and change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, M. (1967). Marxian influences in “bourgeois” economics. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 624–635.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, P. (1978). Money and the real world. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, J. (1973). Economics and the public purpose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godard, S. (2018). The Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the failed coordination of planning in the socialist bloc in the 1960s. In M. Christian et al. (Eds,), Planning in cold war Europe: Competition, cooperation, circulations (1950s–1970s). Boston, MA: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment. Interest and Money: Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange, O. (1936). On the economic theory of socialism: Part one. The Review of Economic Studies, 4(1), 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, S. (2002). Uncertainty, macroeconomic stability and the welfare state. Aldershot, UK & Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, L. (2016). “As planning is everything, it is good for something!” A Coasian economic taxonomy of modes of planning. Planning Theory, 15(3), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief, W. (1938). The significance of Marxian economics for present-day economic theory. The American Economic Review, 28(1), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. (1960). Second treatise on government: Cambridge texts in the history of political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manish, G., & Counter, C. (2018, May 29). Labor and capitalist exploitation: Böhm-Bawerk and the close of Marx’s system. Mises Wire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nove, A. (1967). Marxist economic theory today. The World Today, 23(12), 493–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okun, A. (1981). Prices and quantities. Washington, DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, J. (1973). Marxian economics today. Social Scientist, 1(8), 43–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P., & Stevenson, M. (1968). Alienation and central planning in Marx. Slavic Review, 23(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sau, R. (1978). On Marxian economics. Social Scientist, 7(5), 3–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneirov, R. (2003). New perspectives on socialism II socialism and capitalism reconsidered. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 2(4), 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackle, G. L. S. (1992). Epistemics and economics. Transaction. Edinburgh: The University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, G. (1944). Mrs. Robinson on Marxian economics. The Economic Journal, 54, 213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H. (1957). The definition of socialism: A rejoinder. The Economic Journal, 67(265), 139–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1982). Robert Nozick’s critique of Marxian economics. Social Theory and Practice, 8(2), 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sowell, T. (1963). Marxian value reconsidered. Economica, 30(119), 297–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor IV, F. (Ed.). (2011). The great lie: Classic and recent appraisals of ideology and totalitarianism. Wilmington, DE: ISI Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yagi, K. (1986). ‘Ownership in capital’ in Marxian economics. Kyoto University Economic Review, 56(1), 50–63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Larson, S.R. (2021). Economics of Socialism 1: Prices vs. Labor Value. In: Democracy or Socialism. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-65643-0_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics