On Value: Part 3, Mutualist Value Theory

Mutualism Co-op Note: The following is the third and final transcript of a three part YouTube video series on Value Theory, created by @tak_kakYT. Part One explores the the Labor Theory of Value, Part Two reviews the Subjective Theory of Value as compared to the LTV, and Part Three will cover Mutualist and Individualist insights on the topic. Subscribe to Hades’ YouTube channel here.

Introduction

Hello all, welcome back to my third video on value, and this time I will cover Mutualist Value Theory. Before we start, I would first like to say that one does not need to view the previous two videos on Value Theory to understand this one. Although, you will likely get a greater understanding from watching them beforehand, and this video will wrap up concepts left open previously, this video’s focus is explaining the dominant understanding of Economic Value for Mutualists and Individualists. First will cover Pierre-Joseph Proudhon’s analysis of Constituted Value and how Individualist anarchists responded to developments of Marginalist economics, specifically Hugo Bilgram and Kevin Carson. I have a group reading on Proudhon’s Value Theory on my channel if you are interested in his System of Economic Contradictions, but anyhow, let us proceed to the meat of the subject.

Section VII – Constituted Value

We return to these two terms, Value in Use, and Value in Exchange. Use-Value represents the utilities, the usefulness, that things have for us. It would be wrong for us to say that usefulness directly equates to value. If we imagine a post-scarcity economy, where we have extreme abundance for whatever we want, we indeed have many things useful to our ends, but there is no value, they are not valuable. Value is going to be expressed as a social relation. Exchange-value emerges with commerce, as people trade useful values with each other to satisfy each other’s needs and wants. Its exchangeable value refers to the ratio by which commodities trade for one another, their purchasing power. “Utility is the necessary condition of exchange; but take away exchange, and utility vanishes: these two things are indissolubly connected.” [P.-J. Proudhon, Systems]. If we were to eliminate the utility of someone’s product, then it could not be exchanged. If we were to prohibit its exchange, it would cease to have utility, and would only represent a past burden from production to its owner. “[I]n value, there is nothing useful that cannot be exchanged, nothing exchangeable if it be not useful: value in use and value in exchange are inseparable.” [P.-J. Proudhon, Systems]. These two forms are therefore not only connected, but as we will see, antagonistic to one another. Utility lays the basis for exchange, and exchange facilitates utility. Contradictorily, the multiplication of useful values results in a diminution of the exchange value therefrom. “A peasant who has harvested twenty sacks of wheat, which he with his family proposes to consume, deems himself twice as rich as if he had harvested only ten; likewise a housewife who has spun fifty yards of linen believes that she is twice as rich as if she had spun but twenty-five. Relatively to the household, both are right; looked at in their external relations, they may be utterly mistaken. If the crop of wheat is double throughout the whole country, twenty sacks will sell for less than ten would have sold for if it had been but half as great; so, under similar circumstances, fifty yards of linen will be worth less than twenty-five: so that value decreases as the production of utility increases, and a producer may arrive at poverty by continually enriching himself.” [P.-J. Proudhon, Systems]. Likewise, the opposite occurs in cases of scarcity. Although less useful values are made, the exchangeable value of the goods are increased. These instances reveal a profound insight into the nature of value and the antagonism between useful and exchangeable value, that is the conflict between utility and scarcity. For a moment let us take useful value and exchangeable value as absolutes, to affirm one to the exclusion of the other. We shall find that some of the most useful elements are sold very cheaply, whilst some of the most useless items are sold very highly. We can envision something akin to Adam Smith’s famous Diamond-Water paradox. We would therefore find that what is most useful must be made infinite and free, whilst what is useless is scarce and invaluable. Yet, we know this isn’t the case. Even the most useful things are scarce and no matter how rare an object is it must be in some way useful to possess value. Value therefore is inseparable from utility and scarcity, from useful and exchangeable values. From this antagonism, we find an intersection between these forces in the supplier and the purchaser. Commodities must be of some use to the purchaser, and there must be some scarcity that leads to the purchaser to trade with the supplier. “Therefore, [for the buyer], you have the deciding power; [for the seller], I have it. Take away reciprocal liberty, and exchange is no longer the expression of industrial solidarity: it is robbery.” [P.-J. Proudhon, Systems] As we know in real life, where there is liberty in production, price is not fixed. The prices of goods are fluid, it oscillates and fluctuates, for some commodities more drastically than others. The proximate cause given for this fact is the same now as was in Proudhon’s time, it is supply and demand. Supply and demand govern the exchangeable value of commodities, but again, we can only consider this a proximate and not an ultimate cause. We have yet to understand what governs supply and demand itself. “To say after that that supply and demand is the law of exchange is to say that supply and demand is the law of supply and demand; it is not an explanation of the general practice, but a declaration of its absurdity; and I deny that the general practice is absurd.” [P.-J. Proudhon, Systems] We can see empirically that there exist tendencies of how supply and demand interact. Proudhon points out that if the economists can’t discover the law which governs the tendency, the fault lies not with the reality of the situation, but with the economists themselves. Proudhon likewise answers the Communists of his time on the need for a Value Theory. Both the economists and the Communists deny a reconciliation of the antagonism that Proudhon has identified, and while the economists leave it to remain a mystery, which obscures Justice, the Communists want to nullify antagonism by associating all producers and consumers, and similarly, this also obscures Justice, where understanding Value gives basis for true association and exchange. We have at once seen this antagonism that Proudhon continually points out, and where there is antagonism, where there is contradiction, there is a synthesis or balance. We have also seen the presence of both useful and exchangeable values. Proudhon now presents us with a third synthetic form of value that originates from their reconciliations, and that is, constituted value. It is essentially synthetic, as Constituted Value is not a result of a compromise between useful and exchangeable values, it is the result of fusion between the two, resulting in a new product. It is a proportion of values between products, and represents the positive elements of both whilst inheriting none of their negatives. Agreeing with Adam Smith, Proudhon affirms that the true force for this proportionality of values is labor. Like Smith, Proudhon affirms his gravitation mechanism for constituting the amount of labor necessary into its natural price. If we consider trade from the standpoint of society, and consider it as a type of agent, we shall see that it economizes like the individual. It wants to produce the most utility for the least amount of sacrifice. As society labors, the more it fulfills its wants and enriches itself, in the order of tasks from the most necessary and least onerous to the luxurious and burdensome. If the general rule is violated, if society produces an unnecessary thing, it likewise faces natural consequences which disincentivizes further production of useless articles, which are the costs of production associated with nothing to show for it. This is a simple reframing of the aforementioned gravitation mechanism laid out by the Classical Economists. As producers create a commodity and compete with one another for trade with consumers, competition forces the price to approach the necessary cost of production, which is ultimately, labor. “[T]he effect of labor is continually to eliminate scarcity and opinion as constitutive elements of value, and, by necessary consequence, to transform natural or indefinite utilities (appropriated or not) into measurable or social utilities: whence it follows that labor is at once a war declared upon the parsimony of Nature and a permanent conspiracy against property.” [P.-J. Proudhon, Systems]. The effect of labor on commodities is to socially constitute their value, the Constituted Value, along with the Classical’s notion of a natural price, is the equilibrium price which the gravitation mechanism works towards. The process by which Constituted Value becomes an emergent phenomenon in society comes from the mutualistic interactions between its individuals. This is the process by which people debate the value of merchandise and services in the marketplace, and from this process, economic progress continually adjusts prices in accordance with labor in light of innovation and technology, as more goods can be generated with less labor expended in their production. It is important to remember the context of Constituted Value. As it is integral to economic justice, it is not omnipresent, as labor is not a factor in the production of a select minority of merchandise. These are the class of goods that David Ricardo makes mention of, which make up the rare wines, historical statues, and other intrinsically scarce commodities. Since labor is not a factor in these cases, they are simply regulated by consumers' wants in relation to their scarcity, and labor cannot fix their economic relation, as it has no say. More on this soon.

Section VIII – Reflections on Proudhon

For being written in 1846, The System of Economic Contradictions marvelously answers most if not all the concerns about the Labor Theory of Value from the Subjectivist criticisms to come. It is therefore unsurprising that the Individualist Anarchists didn’t jump ship with the later Subjective Theory of Value. From the reciprocal exchange of producers and consumers within society, and their impulses, they arrive at equivalents based on the necessary labor for what has been exchanged. Let us now take a moment to put Proudhon’s work in the context of the Subjective Theory that would become proposed by Carl Menger almost 40 years after. In short, Menger proposed the idea that value is subjective, and specifically denotes a relation to how much an individual finds something useful, or how much utility it brings, and how much of that thing is available. Specifically, the value of an individual unit in the context of a whole is the marginal utility that that unit offers for the individual. Each voluntary trade of goods therefore represents both parties gaining a good that possesses more marginal utility than what they traded for, as they subjectively valued the purchased item more highly than what they sold. This is being set up in opposition to the Labor Theory of Value, but as we will see going forward, these very simple statements on how individuals trade is not at all contradictory to the Labor Theory of Value. In fact, these very basic statements from the Subjective Theory could be considered latent presumptions for the working of the Labor Theory. Proudhon himself described the constitution of value as an emergent phenomenon as part of the “debates” between producers and consumers over the value of commodities, analogous to how Smith and the Classicals understood the process as a sort of “higgling and bargaining”. This is going to be the main line of argumentation from Individualists moving forward, from Bilgram to Carson. With that, in relation to Proudhon, again, it is striking how consistent his Labor Theory of Value is in the developments of Mutualist and Individualist accounts over the years. There are no major errors that need to be accounted for. Much of the Subjectivist criticisms levied at the Labor Theory of Value center around the supposed exceptions, the goods that Ricardo and the Classical Economists listed as exempt from the effects of what Proudhon would call the constitution of value. Proudhon and the Classicals had well defined limits to the effects of labor on commodities, and therefore, it is only a matter of quibbling that what is supposed to describe a specific phenomenon does not describe every good traded in the market. Proudhon preempted this quibbling, specifically stating that the problem is not with the phenomenon under scrutiny, but the economists who do not want to endorse a specific theory explaining it. Proudhon had pointed out Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s criticism that Adam Smith had not theoretically grounded his intuitions. Again, Proudhon agreeing with Adam Smith on the true force determining the proportionality of value, and preempting Böhm-Bawek’s criticism, goes a step beyond to ground his Labor Theory thoroughly, explaining that labor becomes the determinant of Constituted Value because of the producers balancing the burden to produce with the consumers’ demand. We can therefore distinguish a clear theoretical mechanism for the Labor Theory of Value.

Section IX – Hugo Bilgram’s Synthesis

Proceeding from Proudhon, Mutualists and Individualists then on still had to engage with the emergence of the Subjective Theory of Value and the Marginal Revolution. There is evidence that they were well aware of these developments within economics, but still maintained the Labor Theory of Value to the end. Many of them even incorporate ideas from Marginalists into their own theories. So, we must ask, “How can these Anarchists reconcile the Labor Theory of Value with the Subjective Theory of Value?” Hugo Bilgram, a central figure in Individualist economics, gives us a synthesis, comparing both Theories of Value. Firstly, Bilgram illustrates the naiveté of only considering the valuation of goods by the parties exchanging them. Although voluntary transactions must feature expected benefits from both parties, in a society as complex as ours, our individual valuations of commodities does not truly factor into their prices or their exchangeable values in many cases. No matter how much I personally value something when I go into a store, the price at which I must purchase it is essentially outside of me. Most commodities fluctuate within narrow margins under normal conditions. All that must happen is that I personally find the merchandise more desirable than what I purchase them with. Although there is this objective component to value, this is again an emergent phenomenon, and originates within the subjectivity of individuals. There is firstly an impelling force, which is utility, or more specifically, marginal utility. This impelling force of individuals leads them to seek out satisfaction of their wants, either through labor or through trade. Likewise, the natural counterpoise to this driving force, the restraining factor regulating endless accumulation, is that production requires a cost in labor. “The store of any given commodity that an individual accumulates is, in the nature of things, limited, and, assuming normal conditions, the cause of that limitation is primarily the natural unwillingness of the human being to put forth the necessary effort of production. This reluctance is a restraining force, acting in opposition to the impelling force of desire. Production, then, is regulated by two opposing forces. The desire engendered by the prospective utility of any given product is the incentive, the impelling force to its production, while the difficulty or strain of producing it is the reacting or restraining force.” [Hugo Bilgram & Louis Edward Levy, The Cause of Business Depression as Disclosed by an Analysis of the Basic Principles of Economics] “A commodity can therefore be viewed from two standpoints. To the consumer it represents utility ; it offers the means of gratifying some desire. To the producer, on the other hand, it represents a certain amount of effort spent.” [Hugo Bilgram & Louis Edward Levy, The Cause of Business Depression as Disclosed by an Analysis of the Basic Principles of Economics] Let us graph what is happening here. We have at once spoken of the marginal utility by which the consumer judges products. As someone accumulates more merchandise, the owner is less dependent on individual merchandise to satisfy their most important desires, so therefore, the margin of utility for these goods are less as a unit in the context of the whole. The blue line therefore represents the willingness of consumers to purchase based on the marginal utility of the product. Likewise, from the standpoint of the producer, we must consider the marginal effort of labor. As the laborer works to produce, the relative repugnance or difficulty increases in proportion to the time spent, so that is to say, the seventh hour toiled is going to be more onerous than the first hour of labor. Therefore, the red line represents the marginal effort of labor of the producer. The specific curves may be different for different commodities or services, but the general idea remains the same. Fundamentally, this graph shows how the Labor Theory of Value works by the forces that produce it in a general market, and how necessary labor becomes a factor in the supply aspect of supply and demand. It is important to make mention of the different circumstances which laborer’s face in production. Some laborers possess better facilities for production than others, so, how does this fit into a Labor Theory of Value? From Ricardo, we can see its influence. “The exchangeable value of all commodities, whether they be manufactured, or the produce of the mines, or the produce of land, is always regulated, not by the less quantity of labor that will suffice for their production under circumstances highly favorable, and exclusively enjoyed by those who have peculiar facilities of production ; but by the greater quantity of labor necessarily bestowed on their production by those who have no such facilities ; by those who continue to produce them under the most unfavorable circumstances ; meaning — by the most unfavorable circumstances, the most unfavorable under which the quantity of produce required , renders it necessary to carry on the production.” [David Ricardo, On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation]. It is therefore true that the exchangeable value of reproducible commodities is determined by the worst conditions from which further production is possible before having to abandon production, because this is the price limit for the producer to continue the burden of production. Less reward would be found unsatisfactory for the producer, and any more would encourage more producers to reap the profits. This makes sense, even deferring back to the Subjective Theory of Value, where exchanges are going to be within the context of minimum and maximum price limits for both parties. The restraining force on production is going to determine the seller’s natural reluctance to sell. The labor cost to produce an article is going to lead to the seller wanting a perceived equivalent or greater for their effort. Although, this is not to say that the seller’s price limits cannot change, such as if they can’t sell their merchandise due to misunderstanding of consumer demands, then they will want to sell less to get something as opposed to nothing at all. Nevertheless, the reluctance from labor is still present as an active force. For production to be consistently carried out, there must be a sustaining impelling force from the consumer, valuing the products at or above the cost of production. These intersections of price limits, determined by impelling and restraining forces, are going to come together in the general market to influence exchangeable values. So, with that being said, Bilgram concludes a few things. Firstly, the Labor Theory of Value expounded by the Classicals, as labor determines supply adapted to demand, is essentially true. We can call this final cost of the supply brought to market the “marginal cost” or the “marginal effort” of production. Secondly, the Utility Theory of Value, as expounded by the Austrians such as Menger and Böhm-Bawerk, is also true, since the products that enter the market first as consumed by those with the most urgent wants who are capable of purchase, and as more supply enters the market, less and less important desires are fulfilled. We can call the least important desire satisfied by the supply of the market the “final utility” or the “marginal utility”. “We here find confirmation of two value theories which are generally regarded as incompatible. At first glance it would indeed appear that only one of them could be correct. If value be a function of effort, how can it be dependent on utility ? And if determined by utility, it would seem to be independent of labor or effort. Yet, here we find both theories confirmed . We have arrived at two apparently conflicting conclusions.” [Hugo Bilgram & Louis Edward Levy, The Cause of Business Depression as Disclosed by an Analysis of the Basic Principles of Economics]. “Although utility and effort are independent concepts, marginal utility is not independent of effort, nor is marginal effort independent of utility. Every attempt to establish either of the two theories to the exclusion of the other betokens a failure to trace the law of value to its. fundamental premises.” [Hugo Bilgram & Louis Edward Levy, The Cause of Business Depression as Disclosed by an Analysis of the Basic Principles of Economics]. So, Utility and Labor are corollaries that need each other for a proper account of Exchangeable Value. For Bilgram, the Labor Theory of Value presumes demand as a given, without being understood as being traced to its roots. A similar fault is found in the Subjective Theory, where they assume the stock provided as a given. “It is only by showing how these forces combine in determining the amount demanded and the amount supplied that the law of value is traced to its fundamental factors. In a normal market these two quantities are equal, as are also final utility and marginal cost, hence both the cost and the utility theory are true as far as they go.” [Hugo Bilgram & Louis Edward Levy, The Cause of Business Depression as Disclosed by an Analysis of the Basic Principles of Economics] This is rather insightful to keep in mind, as we have seen a considerable class of commodities whose exchangeable values are determined by utility alone. “[R]are statues and pictures, scarce books and coins, wines of a peculiar quality ...” and the like, are completely independent of labor, and by virtue of their scarcity in relation to utility alone, possess exchangeable value. On the contrary, as we have seen, there are many commodities in the market whose exchange-value is independent of utility, a prime example being staple commodities. Therefore, Bilgram makes a strong point in how we must consider all the forces at play here.

Section X – Praxeological Justification

In 2006, when Kevin Carson published Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, he had unknowingly, without reading Hugo Bilgram, reached the same conclusion as he. Identifying the compatibility of the Subjective and Labor Theories of Value. In doing so, he had kickstarted the modern phenomenon of the Austro-Mutualist tendency. Although not totally original, as most things often aren’t, Carson’s process is worth understanding to illustrate a common method of Mutualist and Individualist political and economic analysis. That is, to turn Capitalist arguments on their head, and in this case, illustrate how the logic of praxeology and the Subjective Theory proves the Labor Theory of Value correct. Carson’s proof relies on Misean praxeology, or as Ludwig von Mises presented it, the theory of human action. Its theorems are based on the essence of human action, based on undeniable truths and axioms, known to us because we are human. “[Praxeological] statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification or falsification on the ground of experience and facts.” [Ludwig von Mises, Human Action] Based on praxeology, we should be able to render real life events and phenomena related to human action decipherable. For example, a praxeological Labor Theory of Value would be able to decipher why prices of reproducible commodities tend to revolve around their necessary costs. The reason this is, is logically entailed from the essence of human action, as Carson points out that “The labor theory and cost principle are logically entailed in man’s nature as a being who maximizes utility and (more to the point) minimizes disutility.” [Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy] So, the fundamental axioms are that:

1. People are utility maximizers, and

2. People minimize disutility.

Disutility is going to cover all the bases for the variable character of labor. Disutility, as the amount of effort or exertion required, will be greater in more intensive fields of work. Jobs requiring more skill or dexterity will likewise require a greater effort on part of the laborer to gain and use these skills for their toils. From understanding the disutility of labor and that people are utility maximizers, we are able to render some examples more intelligible. For example, we can use Adam Smith’s example in Wealth of Nations of a simple market of hunters trading deer and beavers. “If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labor to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer. It is natural that what is usually the produce of two days' or two hours' labor, should be worth double of what is usually the produce of one day's or one hour's labor.” [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations]. The reason exchange rates between deer and beavers is 2:1 is logically entailed from our axioms. Suppose that a deviation occurs, and suddenly, the exchange rate is three deer for one beaver due to an erratic surplus, yet it still takes one hour to hunt a deer and two hours to hunt a beaver. In this manner, it is more economical to obtain three deer, three hours worth of labor, by using two hours to hunt a beaver and then exchanging for the deer on the market. Therefore, as hunting deer is a less rewarding profession, hunters start to hunt more beavers, and the supply of both adjusts back to their natural equivalents. This will even account for exchanges between products of different types of labor. “If the one species of labor should be more severe than the other, some allowance will naturally be made for this superior hardship; and the produce of one hour's labor in the one way may frequently exchange for that of two hours' labor in the other.” [Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations] Carson’s Labor Theory of Value, like Smith, is based on the toil-and-trouble of labor, since the disutility of labor is itself subjective, and therefore can account for the varying types of labor. An immediate concern regarding the disutility of labor is those cases where labor is enjoyable, like a craftsman taking pride in their occupation. Although this is true, people often find satisfaction in labor as creative beings, although this is oftentimes in only limited amounts, there is a nuance that Carson points out which keeps the Labor Theory of Value intact. “[D]isutility, as Mises understood it, was not affected by the joy or tedium of labor. Labor can be especially unpleasant or difficult. But it can also be pleasant. Joy in labor results from the ‘expectation of the labor’s mediate gratification, the anticipation of the enjoyment of its success and yield’; it also results from ‘the aesthetic appreciation of [the worker’s] skill and its product’ (i.e., pride in craftsmanship; and finally, joy results from the satisfaction ‘of having successfully overcome all the toil and trouble involved.’ But none of these things affects the disutility of labor as such, for the reason that people work for the sake of the mediate gratification provided by labor’s product, and not for the pleasure intrinsic to the work itself.” [Kevin Carson, Ludwig von Mises; Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Human Action]. Which makes sense, since people do not labor without mediate gratification in successful endeavors of their labor. There is still sacrifice sunk into the occupation, which we only find pleasurable, because it is working towards an expected result. As part of basing this Labor Theory of Value within a specifically Austrian Subjective framework, Carson derives his Value Theory from Alfred Marshall’s synthesis of the Classicals and the Marginalists. To explain Marshall's findings, in his own words, “We might as reasonably dispute whether it is the upper or the underblade of a pair of scissors that cuts a piece of paper, as whether value is governed by utility or cost of production ...”. Carson is in agreement with Marshall, in that utility is going to govern the short-term fluctuations of exchange-values for reproducible commodities, but the cost of production is going to ultimately govern the long-term of those exchange-values, as producers react to supply and demand. Carson specifically beefs up his own Value Theory in contrast to Marshall and many of the Classical economists on one point, though, and that is the nature of labor as a real cost. Carson’s disagreement with Marshall and the Marginalists is akin to Proudhon’s disagreement with some of the Classical economists, whom Proudhon had criticized as “making privilege [labor’s] equal”. Carson points out that the Marginalists themselves had held the disutility of labor as special in a unique sense, which therefore ought to make labor a special consideration. For example, the only costs of other factors of production, such as land and capital, are their opportunity costs, the different uses which they might be put to, while for labor is an absolute cost, regardless of the quantity of labor available. We are not only deciding which uses we might put labor to, but deciding whether to labor or to not labor. “Labor is a ‘cost’ in a uniquely positive sense. In comparison, other ‘costs,’ like so-called waiting or abstinence, are entirely relative. Indeed, the nature of labor as a unique disutility implies that other costs are only relative. The free gifts of nature, and natural processes, have ‘costs’ (aside from the trouble of making them usable) only to the extent that a privileged owner can regulate access to them, and thus charge for something that is not a real cost to him. The ‘sacrifice’ or ‘cost’ entailed in providing natural goods is only such on the assumption of a ‘natural’ state of affairs in which one can control access. The free gifts of nature have exchange value only to the extent that access to them is controlled.” [Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy] “Unlike labor, which is a positive expenditure of effort or travail, ‘abstinence’ and ‘opportunity cost’ are defined entirely in the context of what one is enabled to charge for access to.” [Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy] Therefore, as Carson illustrates, the reward for such “opportunity costs” is actually more akin to a tollgate on production, where the reward for the privileged owner is given not for any real sacrifice, but for simply allowing production to take place. How these privileged idlers achieved their position is itself, largely an “extra-economic” concern for the Marginalists. All in all, I think the main takeaways we can get from Kevin Carson’s work here, is not necessarily that Mutualists and Individualists need to embrace Misean praxeology, but that the Capitalist arguments against the Labor Theory of Value, actually work better to support it, and that the fault of the Subjective Theory, is not its basic claims about the nature of subjective valuation, but how it is set up in contrast to the Labor Theory.

Conclusion

The Labor Theory of Value is an important intersection between many different Leftist ideas and analyses. For example, for Mutualists, we may use the Labor Theory of Value both prescriptively in the sense that Josiah Warren had found that cost should be the limit of price as a foundation for societal harmony and equitable wealth distribution, and descriptively, in the sense that we can describe economic exploitation, accumulation tendencies, and crises resulting therefrom. If my video series has done anything, it is to challenge the idea that the Labor Theory of Value is a bunk and unusable Theory with no basis in any economic reality, and that Mutualism and Individualism are outdated because most economists don’t use the Labor Theory of Value. As we have seen, this is not true. The Labor Theory of Value describes a very real economic phenomena, and Mutualism isn’t outdated for acknowledging it. Thank you for watching my video series on Value. Although I am going to shift my focus away from Value Theory, I am likely not going to stop making videos related to Value Theory. Subscribe to the Hades YouTube channel for more Mutualism related content.

For further clarifying notes, see Hade’s reddit post here.

Watch the video version of this transcript here.