Name: Wage Labour and Capital
ISBN: 9781411448650

What Hacker News says

0x262dAug 2026

That's certainly an opinion... Quite a lot of condemnation for no real argument. I personally think surplus value and socially necessary labor time are quite straightforward, intuitive concepts. Meanwhile, I found this tidbit on Henry George's wikipedia page: "Upon Marx's death, George admitted he has not read any of his works, which were untranslated into English at the time,"

For anyone interested in reading more from Marx's side, Wage Labour And Capital by Marx is a pamphlet meant for mass distribution and not a difficult read. I've heard A People's Guide To Capitalism recommended as a high quality modernized version of the same ideas.

thread

beckman466May 2021

> Anybody wrote a book on trickle-up economy yet?

Yep it's called 'The Communist Manifesto' by Karl Marx. [1]

Further:

'Socialism: Utopian and Scientific' by Friedrich Engels [2]

and

'Wage Labour and Capital' by Karl Marx [3]

[1] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-m...

[2] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/in...

[3] https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour...

thread

claudiawernerSep 2020

Whatever you do, do not only read the Manifesto. It was designed as an agitation pamphlet rather than an as a complete exposition of his thinking, and it is almost entirely devoid of his economic thought. As other commenters here have said, Wage Labour and Capital is a good read. You may also benefit from a companion guide if you want the full picture. Capitalism: A Companion to Marx's Economy Critique by Johan Fornas is a very high quality book, and relatively new; published by Routledge.

You will not come away with a good overview (whether you are sympathetic or not) just from the Manifesto. This is not enough to learn about Marx's thought. WLaC is better, but it too does not do a deep enough dive into the peak of his thought, nor his method of exposition. Capital, with a companion guide, is your best bet.

As another commenter here said, the first chapters (even as admitted by Marx himself) are difficult to get through, mainly due to the fact that Marx uses a dialectical presentation in his work, in which the most 'core' and highly abstract concept is dealt with first, before progressing to more concrete concepts. As such, the book gets easier as it goes on.

thread

0x262dMar 2020

Looking through some of the comments, I want to add that Piketty talks much more clearly about these topics and makes better points than most consensus economists, pundits, etc, so I'm glad people are reading him rather than eg NYT columnists.

But I think people who find this sort of thing interesting would find marxism's analysis of the economy much more interesting and convincing. Start with Wage Labour And Capital then try either Value Price And Profit or Capital itself.

thread

0x262dMar 2020

This is still a misunderstanding, sorry. In your hypothetical, the price of oil would nosedive for a while as long as there was over investment in getting it out of the ground that would be wasted if it wasn’t sold low. This is just a higher supply. But at some point, the lower demand for plastics, etc would use that up, leading to a steady state - one in which oil would again be sold at its value, its labor cost. It can’t be sold for less long term because otherwise the people digging it up and selling it would make a loss on doing that.

also yes, capitalism drives down the labor cost of things through innovation or lowering workers’ living conditions. yes that lowers their value (labor value) according to LTV. that’s fine and not only consistent with but essential to LTV and results in, yes, lower prices longterm.

two further things. first, yes, LTV doesn’t talk about temporary supply-demand price drops. that’s not the point of it or in its scope or what it’s useful for. that’s fine. it has many other different useful conclusions unrelated to determining the exact price of a commodity at a given time under given market conditions.

second: I mean this in good faith. you have expressed the same misconception a couple times now. Please read Wage Labour And Capital, it’s a short pamphlet written for 19th century working class people. It’s very readable and if after reading it, you still think LTV is invalid, you might be able to express why more clearly. However I think you might be surprised.

EDIT: as a caveat yes cartels can distort this and sell high and collect super profits. but really please just read the source material so I don’t have to go over everything like this! marx is a good writer!

thread

uk_programmerMar 2020

> This is still a misunderstanding, sorry.

No it isn't. You are constantly using the term value when you should be using the term cost. The monetary value of something is largely subjective and is dependant on whoever is purchasing, the cost of something is objective.

To someone that cycles everywhere the price of petrol is always too high because a bicycle doesn't need petrol.

For example there was Head and Shoulders shampoo. When they first introduced it nobody bought it because it was too cheap. People just assumed it didn't work. When they increased the price people started buying it. Tell me how the LTV explains that? It doesn't.

The LTV doesn't explain the price of Art, It doesn't explain the second hand market. There are all sorts of things the LTV doesn't explain.

> In your hypothetical, the price of oil would nosedive for a while as long as there was over investment in getting it out of the ground that would be wasted if it wasn’t sold low. This is just a higher supply. But at some point, the lower demand for plastics, etc would use that up, leading to a steady state - one in which oil would again be sold at its value, its labor cost. It can’t be sold for less long term because otherwise the people digging it up and selling it would make a loss on doing that.

What happens if plastic is replaced by something else?

> also yes, capitalism drives down the labor cost of things through innovation or lowering workers’ living conditions. yes that lowers their value (labor value) according to LTV. that’s fine and not only consistent with but essential to LTV and results in, yes, lower prices longterm.

Yes that is because the labour market itself is subject to supply and demand. If there was no oil tomorrow, there would be no need to pay for the oil derrick workers. Their worth in that market would be nothing. They would be out of a job.

As I said in another reply here. Go to Total Jobs in the UK (it just happens to be the site I use) and search for C# developer in Manchester. The going rate for ASP.NET developers in £350-450 per day. The rate for Angular JS is £500-750 per day (the last time I looked). Why is that? It is because many companies are building single page applications and there are less Angular JS developers. So to attract talent they have to raise their rates accordingly.

I can program in python. There isn't one single Python job in my area (that is advertised at least). If I knew only Python I wouldn't be able to get a contract because there is no demand for it.

> But at some point, the lower demand for plastics, etc would use that up, leading to a steady state - one in which oil would again be sold at its value, its labor cost. It can’t be sold for less long term because otherwise the people digging it up and selling it would make a loss on doing that.

The materials that produce plastic are a by product of crude oil refinery. So in this scenario plastic would get very expensive to produce, people wouldn't pay for it and manufacturers would just find another material to build things with. If it is uneconomic to drill for oil, they would just stop drilling for oil.

LTV doesn't explain any of this. Market forces do.

> two further things. first, yes, LTV doesn’t talk about temporary supply-demand price drops. that’s not the point of it or in its scope or what it’s useful for. that’s fine. it has many other different useful conclusions unrelated to determining the exact price of a commodity at a given time under given market conditions.

Right so it doesn't explain things accurately. When things aren't accurately described by theory, then the theory is incorrect and must be either modified or you have to find an alternative explanation.

LTV doesn't explain it (as you have admitted). Market forces do.

> second: I mean this in good faith. you have expressed the same misconception a couple times now. Please read Wage Labour And Capital, it’s a short pamphlet written for 19th century working class people. It’s very readable and if after reading it, you still think LTV is invalid, you might be able to express why more clearly. However I think you might be surprised.

I don't think I really need to. You have continually ignored that things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them and haven't addressed it. Additionally you can't seem to distinguish the difference between the price that something is sold for and the cost of its production.

thread