What about Marx Matters?

For anyone younger than 50, it might be hard to imagine the zeal and inflammatory context wrapped in the calling out of Marxism or Communism. There was a time when it triggered fear, fear of ostracism, loss of employment, or any many other adverse physical or social outcomes. Now that history has sorted itself out, the source of terror stemmed from the madmen who adopted Marx’s writings as their intellectual endorsement. Most agree that Marx would oppose the outcomes done under his philosophical banner. Most don’t bother to read the text to find out for themselves.

Last week, an English professor, Alex Moscowitz, suggested that Marx’s work is foundational for economics. The economists objected, debunking the validity of his work. Business people are particularly offended by his Labor Theory of Value, which the nineteenth-century thinker penned in Das Capital.

“The value of a commodity, therefore, is determined by the quantity of labor expended to produce it, but only of labor that is socially necessary. Socially necessary labor time is the labor time required to produce any use-value under the conditions of production normal for a given society and with the average degree of skill and intensity of labor prevalent in that society.”
(Das Kapital, Volume I, Chapter 1)

Everyone knows that in the commercial world, one gets paid the market rate for labor.

Noah Smith types up an interesting overview of the topic in Should Economists Read Marx. He chews through a lot of the interesting aspects of the topic, including listing out the foundational economic material he was required to tackle while a PhD student. Each work tussles with market failures or public goods. The greats like Paul Samuelson and Kenneth Arrow devoted intellectual energy to issues on the cusp of private and public sectors, two sectors each with their own structure.

It’s just that people who came after Marx took his text to initiate disruption and then exert social control. Noah closes with a reminder to his contemporaries that accuracy is not everything. An impassioned sweep and forceful embellishment of an errant study can end in tragedy.

This should serve as a warning to economists — a reminder of why although narrow theories about auctions or randomized controlled trials of anti-poverty policies might seem like small potatoes, they’re not going to end with the skulls of thousands of children smashed against trees. Modern economics, with all of its mathematical formulae and statistical regressions, represents academia appropriately tamed — intelligence yoked to the quotidian search for truth, hemmed in by guardrails of methodological humility. The kind of academia that Alex Moskowitz represents, where the study of Great Books flowers almost instantly into sweeping historical theories and calls for revolution and war, embodies the true legacy of Marx — something still fanged and wild.

But what about the labor theory of value? Is there anywhere in life where there is a pooling value to the work at hand? Consider intellectual property. Is there some pool of work hours necessary to accomplish a new way of thinking about a technology? Scientists in twos and threes or on their own throw their time into advancing an idea. Isn’t the idea behind a patent that the inventor doesn’t get his labor time paid for in the idea development process, so he has a claim to future benefits from the product as a reimbursement mechanism?

What about founders and startup folks. Don’t they calculate the labor hours they think they’ll need to put into a new venture and then figure out whether they’ll be able to recoup their labor time?