#frankly marx's reliance on classical political economists is one of his weakest points

[anomalocariscanadensis]

@jiskblr re: this post:

i agree that there's a common view where merchants are evil because they're not productive, but you're somewhat wrong on the intellectual history side of things. Adam Smith believed the labor theory of value* and Marx's labor theory of value in Capital is largely derived from Smith's and Ricardo's (because he was responding to the dominant economic thought of his day). Marx's primary innovation afaik was his emphasis on the split between exchange-value/price and use-value/utility (which he views in its concrete, particular manifestations rather than as an abstract aggregatable quality, e.g. the use-value of a coat is it keeps you warm and dry).

i havent read Ricardo but if wikipedia is to be believed, Ricardo and Marx differ from Smith in that they attempt to actually count the full amount of labor embodied in commodities. on the other hand, Smith and Marx differ from Ricardo in that they believe laborers receive the full, fair price of their labor as wages (yes, Marx believes this**). in Marx and Smith, unlike Ricardo, the LTV is intended to be a description of actual price formation (on average, in equilibrium, modulo supply and demand, etc) rather than some moral ideal about what prices should be.

and Marx at least is very clear that transportation of goods is productive labor*** because it generates use-value by moving them from somewhere they're less useful to somewhere they're more useful (Capital vol 2 ch 6). i didn't make it through the whole Wealth of Nations but i assume Smith says something similar somewhere.

*Wealth of Nations vol 1 ch 5: "The real price of everything, what everything really costs to the man who wants to acquire it, is the toil and trouble of acquiring it...Labour was the first price, the original purchase-money that was paid for all things. It was not by gold or by silver, but by labour, that all the wealth of the world was originally purchased; and its value, to those who possess it, and who want to exchange it for some new productions, is precisely equal to the quantity of labour which it can enable them to purchase or command... At all times and places that is dear which it is difficult to come at, or which it costs much labour to acquire; and that cheap which is to be had easily, or with very little labour. Labour alone, therefore, never varying in its own value, is alone the ultimate and real standard by which the value of all commodities can at all times and places be estimated and compared. It is their real price; money is their nominal price only."

**This is one of the most common misunderstandings about Marx even among self-identified Marxists. This post is already long but the short version is, unlike Ricardo, he's not mad that workers aren't paid "fairly", but instead thinks "fairness" under the system means awful conditions for workers. I can go into more detail about how he theoretically justifies this if desired.

***Also probably worth noting that this is not a moral term. "Productive" to Marx means "producing value for capitalists". Domestic servants, for instance, are not productive laborers in this schema (despite obviously doing hard work with real utility) because their labor is purchased for its use-value directly as a form of consumption for the wealthy, rather than as a way to make money. Marx is more vague about administration, management, etc, but does make a point somewhere in Vol 1 of noting that these jobs are usually not done by the actual big capitalists, but rather by people hired for the specific purpose and paid wages like any other worker.