Reply #163: In part, yes. [View All]

[ElboRuum]

Certainly there is a relationship, and true, the nature of the object holds value too. However, no amount of labor imbues value into an object with a nature that isn't itself of value. For example, I could spend quite a bit of labor constructing a widget, which creates value, however the widget is fundamentally useless which negates the value of the labor. Moreover, there are things which exist which are of such value that the labor to create them adds insignificant value to their natural value, for example, works of art, in which the labor required to create them pales in comparison to their cultural importance.

So, while I agree in principle, at least as far to say that labor carries some of the weight in the creation of value, I believe that Marx misses the mark in using it to explain this in his views on exploitation. The worker only becomes poorer with the more wealth he produces if we assume that the largest contributor to value is labor and that the compensation that is received is not equitable to the value imbued. At some point the nature of the thing produced and whether or not that thing is valuable to others are the final arbiters of worth. It is the idea of labor itself having intrinsic value, that is to say value absent of its context which is what the LTV suggests, when clearly it is contributory only and lacks this quality without the productive context is what I take issue with.