When studying, I encountered a question: if mental labor creates value, then there is a sense that knowledge can create value. But if mental labor cannot create value, how should we view programmers and other mental workers?
8 Likes
You must say that your question is very good; it touches on an important issue encountered when studying political economy. In fact, our association discussed this question several years ago and provided an answer. Now, I will answer this question again. Of course, due to time constraints, I will give a brief response.
First, the distinction between whether labor can create value is not about mental or physical labor, so the premise of this question is incorrect.
The difference between labor that can or cannot create value lies in whether this type of labor is productive or unproductive labor. Moreover, this discussion presupposes that labor capable of creating value exists only in a society where commodity production and commodity exchange occur. Otherwise, in a society where there is no need for commodity production and exchange, once products are produced, there is no need to express the amount of labor contained within them in the form of value.
In a society where commodity production and exchange exist, generally speaking, productive labor is labor that creates value, while unproductive labor does not create value.
However, this involves the definition of productive and unproductive labor.
There are actually three definitions of productive and unproductive labor.
For the bourgeoisie: labor that can bring profit is productive labor; labor that cannot bring profit is unproductive labor.
For capitalist society: labor that can create surplus value is productive labor; labor that cannot create surplus value is unproductive labor.
Finally, the true definition is: labor that can create material wealth is productive labor; labor that cannot create material wealth is unproductive labor.
Therefore, whether a type of labor creates value depends on whether it creates material wealth.
Additionally, it must be pointed out that there is no purely mental labor, nor purely physical labor. Mental labor refers to labor primarily conducted with the brain, and physical labor refers to labor primarily conducted with physical effort. There is no such thing as purely mental labor.
25 Likes
The above answer is an introduction, and now we begin the formal explanation of this issue.
First, directly answering whether programmers’ labor creates value (or as the questioner said, whether mental labor creates value), because their labor does not produce material wealth, it does not create value.
First, according to Marxist political economy’s theory of labor value, it must be acknowledged that the value of commodities is composed of human labor contained within them, and the amount of value of a commodity equals the amount of homogeneous human labor contained within it. Thus, we can see a problem: programmers are usually regarded as ‘producers’ of commodities like programming code. And it is obvious that programming code is not a form of material wealth, and according to the labor theory of value, the prices of so-called electronic application commodities circulating in the market are clearly not proportional to programmers’ mental labor. Without proportionality, it indicates that programmers’ labor is not directly materialized in these so-called electronic application commodities. So, can we then say this kind of labor is non-productive labor? Not necessarily; the logic is not so simple.
First, regarding the above explanation, electronic applications themselves are not commodities because commodities must be material things with a material carrier to exist. Taking video games as an example, a video game itself cannot be a commodity because it is not a material thing. A video game is simply a program set by the programmer, running on a computer, changing the electronic arrangement on the screen to display different content. In fact, “video games” are traded through certain material carriers, such as burning the game content onto a CD, then buying and selling the CD. They can also be bought and sold via online platforms like Steam, which requires physical servers for transmission. Therefore, the actual traded commodities are diverse, changing based on the material carrier, and the price of these commodities depends on the labor consumed in manufacturing and maintaining these carriers. In this process, only the labor involved in producing and burning CDs, or producing and maintaining servers, is productive labor. And only these labor processes create value.
Then, another question arises: based on real-world experience, it is easy to understand that the labor involved in producing and burning CDs, or maintaining servers, is fixed, but the same material carrier with different game contents can be sold at different prices. Does this violate the law of value?
Of course not. We can use another commodity as an analogy to explain why the same material carrier with different game contents has different prices. This commodity is a book. Because it is a well-known material carrier capable of carrying different consciousness contents, we can abstract away other factors. According to the above theory, in the process of producing books, the labor of workers producing ink, paper, and responsible for printing is productive labor. However, we encounter the same problem here: books with similar production equipment, processes, and raw materials can have different prices because of their content. In fact, this price is a monopoly price. Monopoly price is a special form of price. When the production of a commodity is monopolized due to special production conditions, the producer can set the price as a monopoly price. (Another special case of monopoly price is when the buyer monopolizes the conditions for purchase, and the seller can only sell to a few buyers; in this case, the monopoly price can be far below the commodity’s value.) Monopoly prices are not determined by value or by the transformed form of value into production prices but are determined by the buyer’s purchasing power and willingness to buy. Therefore, in a society where commodities are produced, because different books contain different content, which has different audiences, and these audiences have different purchasing power and willingness, and their numbers vary, the prices of different types of books differ, even to the extent that each individual book has a different price.
Thus, the case of “video games” with the same material carrier but different content, leading to different prices, is fully explained. In fact, real-world examples prove this. Steam, as a gaming platform, sets the cost of game servers and maintains them at a fixed cost, but the prices of games sold on Steam vary across different countries and regions. This is because the principle of monopoly prices is at work. Different countries and regions have different purchasing power and willingness among gamers, the consumers of these video games. We often see that game prices are higher in developed countries like Europe and North America, and lower in less developed countries. A clear example is the lower prices in Argentina, leading many players to buy Argentine accounts or switch their accounts to the Argentine region.
However, monopoly prices do not completely violate the law of value. According to the labor theory of value, the total value of commodities produced by society is fixed. Regardless of how individual prices deviate from their values, the total value of all commodities in society equals the total price. Therefore, the part of the price of commodities that exceeds their value significantly is compensated from elsewhere. This profit, which exceeds the commodity’s own value (or is below its value), is called monopoly profit.
Monopoly profits have several sources: 1. Small commodity producers. Only the bourgeoisie can hold the monopoly rights over commodities, so transactions between the bourgeoisie and small producers often result in the bourgeoisie gaining monopoly profits from small producers, usually when small producers sell raw materials and the bourgeoisie buys at low prices.
2. Colonial peoples. Because colonial countries are economically backward, lacking independent industrial systems, they cannot produce most of their needed goods independently and must rely on imports. Imperialist countries often use colonies as raw material bases, developing monoculture agriculture or simple mining industries. In such cases, imperialist countries sell their industrial products at prices far above their value to colonies and extract raw materials at prices far below their value, plundering the colonies. This unequal exchange allows imperialist countries to earn huge monopoly profits—both buying and selling at high profits.
3. The labor value of the working people. Usually, we say exploitation occurs during production, where the bourgeoisie, through owning means of production, appropriates the material wealth created by workers who can only sell their labor power, thus extracting surplus value. However, in the imperialist stage, exploitation can also occur in circulation through monopoly prices. Since imperialism is monopoly capitalism, monopoly prices have become a common form of commodity prices. When workers buy commodities at monopoly prices, they have to spend part of their labor value to obtain these goods. This means exploitation occurs during circulation, breaking the principle of equivalent exchange. This also reflects the extreme decadence of capitalism in the imperialist stage. High-priced video games and their items are essentially using monopoly prices to siphon money from players into the pockets of the bourgeoisie. Of course, those who spend large sums on video games are members of the bourgeoisie or their camp, and their spending originates from the exploitation of the working people. Therefore, the existence of video games is one of the roots of worsening the laboring masses.
Additionally, the sources of monopoly profits include the monopoly bourgeoisie exploiting state monopoly capitalism policies, such as relying on militarized national economy (currently in China, with national economy pandemic policies) to obtain large government orders. This part is not elaborated here.
26 Likes
In the context of the three sources of monopoly profits described:
-
Small commodity producers: The large bourgeoisie, which holds the monopoly over commodities, trades with small producers, extracting monopoly profits from them. This typically occurs when small producers sell raw materials at low prices, and the bourgeoisie buys at these low prices.
-
Colonial peoples: Colonies, lacking independent industrial systems, rely on imported industrial goods. Imperialist countries develop monoculture agriculture or simple mining industries in colonies, selling industrial products at prices far above their value and buying raw materials at prices far below their value, thus plundering colonies and earning enormous monopoly profits.
-
The labor value of the working people: Exploitation occurs not only in production but also in circulation through monopoly pricing. Since imperialism is monopoly capitalism, monopoly capital dominates, and monopoly prices become a common form of commodity prices. When workers buy goods at monopoly prices, they pay part of their labor value, leading to exploitation during circulation and breaking the principle of equivalent exchange.
Applying this to the high prices of games in Europe and America, compared to less developed countries, the analysis suggests that:
- The costs of game carriers, such as servers and land rent, are high.
- These costs are derived from the exploitation of laborers’ labor value.
- Additionally, monopoly pricing in the gaming industry allows companies to extract profits.
Therefore, the high prices are partly due to monopoly profits gained through the exploitation of labor and the control of market prices, which aligns with the three sources of monopoly profits described.
No way, this is due to monopoly pricing. Because Europeans have higher purchasing power, the monopolist bourgeoisie believes they can extract more monopoly profits from them, thinking that they can afford higher prices. For example, the ordinary proletariat or lower petty bourgeoisie, whose labor value (wages or turnover, since the petty bourgeoisie also relies on their labor to earn money, which is also labor value) is partially taken away by these monopolist bourgeoisie.
3 Likes
Monopoly prices are formed under conditions where the seller (or buyer) of a commodity has a monopoly on the sale (or purchase) of that commodity. The sale of video games mainly involves plundering the labor value of people from various countries. Video games have a strong corrupting influence on people’s spirits and can also make people impoverished materially. If the consumers of video games are bourgeois, then they are using surplus value; after spending a large amount of money on video games, they will strengthen their exploitation of the proletariat. If they are petty bourgeois, they will spend their own labor and further corrupt their morals, becoming more distant from the proletariat. If the proletariat unfortunately becomes addicted to video games, their wages—just enough to sustain their basic living expenses (i.e., labor value)—must also be partly allocated to video games, leading to extreme deterioration of living standards. Aren’t there many such examples in reality? Many people prefer to endure hunger and eat instant noodles just to pay for internet access or in-game purchases.
7 Likes
Another point to mention is that, with the development of modern science and technology and the continuous improvement of labor productivity, the production costs of various material carriers of different consciousness contents should have actually decreased significantly. However, the bourgeoisie now profits greatly by using monopoly pricing, which is also a manifestation of the decadence of monopoly capitalism, namely imperialism.
In the past socialist China, the pricing of books was very low, often only a few cents or a few jiao. This was because in socialist China, there was no phenomenon of exploiting the people through monopoly prices. The pricing of books mainly depended on the labor consumed by ink workers, papermaking workers, and printing workers.
But today in capitalist society, there is the so-called “intellectual property rights,” which in fact is a monopoly of knowledge to give its material carriers the attribute of commodities with monopoly prices. This phenomenon of private ownership of knowledge is also very reactionary. It is precisely because of this private ownership of knowledge that the prices of various so-called “cultural commodities” are soaring today. In capitalist society, how much spare money can those workers who are barely able to cover their basic needs spend on these high-priced so-called “cultural commodities”? And the vast petty bourgeoisie spends a large amount of money on these so-called “cultural commodities,” such as “watching videos, playing games, viewing pornography.” They are using their own money to support the bourgeoisie and to dominate their own spiritual lives. Moreover, they are also strengthening the bourgeoisie, creating more reactionary ideologies, and maintaining the stability of their society.
23 Likes
I want to ask roughly how much those books would be at current prices per copy.
Using the one I saw before as an example, it includes “Ten Thousand Why’s to Defeat Liu Shaoqi” to estimate it, with a back price of two mao six.
Can you stop running around like a child? When will you address the questions we raised?
4 Likes
Why did you change your name?
Take away money, take away benevolence, keep on criticizing.
Based on all the previous answers, the question initially posed by the questioner should be answered.
Simply put, whether a type of labor creates value depends on whether it creates material wealth, that is, whether it is productive labor. Pure mental labor cannot create material wealth, and in fact, there is no such thing as pure mental labor.
Programmers’ labor does not create material wealth, and therefore does not create value; it belongs to non-productive labor.
Programmers’ income comes from the redistribution of the entire society’s national income. They earn their income from workers who create material wealth, that is, productive labor (whether in terms of value form or physical form).
However, it must be pointed out that non-productive labor is not necessarily inferior to productive labor. It can only be said that productive labor is the foundation of non-productive labor. Without productive labor, non-productive labor cannot exist. The development of productive labor is a prerequisite for the development of non-productive labor.
Within non-productive labor, it is also necessary to distinguish whether each type of non-productive labor is beneficial or harmful. Some non-productive labor benefits human social development, while others are useless. Beneficial labor, such as necessary commercial labor, promotes the circulation of goods and maintains the normal operation of the commodity economy and society, for example, revolutionary literary and artistic creation can spread correct ideas. On the other hand, non-productive labor that is harmful to humanity is very common in today’s imperialist era, such as the creation of reactionary bourgeois art, which is useless to humanity. As for programmers, the current IT industry serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, and many of its activities are completely useless to social production, and some even help spread reactionary bourgeois spiritual opium. Of course, for each programmer, it is necessary to analyze their work content specifically.
The characteristics of the imperialist era are the increasing amount of labor that is detached from production and from beneficial labor for humanity. For example, due to capitalism entering the imperialist stage, its inherent contradictions are extremely sharp, leading to extreme difficulties in the circulation of commodities. The bourgeoisie, in order to smoothly realize commodities, has strengthened their mutual competition and greatly increased pure commercial circulation costs. In fact, many of today’s pure commercial circulation costs are unnecessary. For example, high advertising expenses. Specifically, labor used for advertising program development is unnecessary, and labor for e-commerce live streaming to promote commodity circulation is also unnecessary. There are complex situations within these issues that need analysis, but these are not the questions I am addressing now, so I will not elaborate further.
18 Likes
Are there any examples of mental labor as part of productive labor
, for instance, what is programming automation machines considered? Is drawing blueprints or writing articles on paper considered creating material wealth? Does programming to change the state of hardware devices count as using one’s labor to alter the material form? If burning CDs is considered productive labor, then programming by developers might also be considered as well? It’s just that the complexity level is higher
It’s easier to understand that physical labor in the service industry does not create value.
3 Likes
This was an error that occurred during the整理思路 (organizing thoughts), and it has now been corrected.
In fact, because programmers’ mental labor does not directly create material wealth, it cannot be called productive labor. However, sometimes non-productive labor also plays a role as part of the entire production activity. It does not directly create material wealth, but helps productive labor to better create material wealth.
2 Likes
Is the mental labor mentioned here referring to the “pure mental labor” mentioned above? If it’s general mental and physical labor, because the proportions of mental and physical effort are just different, it wouldn’t necessarily mean productive or unproductive labor, right? I’m a bit confused. I remember saying that a writer handwritten a book and also created material wealth, but very rarely.
There is no purely mental labor, nor purely physical labor; one side always dominates. However, when mental labor is not aimed at directly creating material wealth, it does not generate value. The example given long ago was about a person writing a book; if he wrote a handwritten copy, it was equivalent to producing the material wealth of the handwritten book himself. From this perspective, the act of copying becomes physical labor. But mental labor and physical labor cannot be clearly distinguished, so rather than saying the difference between mental and physical labor, it is better to say the difference between productive labor and unproductive labor. If a person is a scribe who writes a copy, producing a book, then its value must be very high. And the labor of creating the handwritten copy becomes productive labor.
3 Likes
I have a logical question. Marx once mentioned in his manuscript of “Capital” that the labor which produces surplus value under capitalism is the productive labor, as follows: “Because the immediate purpose and inherent product of capitalist production is surplus value, only the labor that directly produces surplus value is productive labor, and only the user of the labor capacity that directly produces surplus value is a productive worker—meaning, only the labor that is consumed in the production process for the purpose of increasing the value of capital is productive labor.” This definition of productive labor is specific to capitalism and is also correct. Because only industrial capital is the capital that produces surplus value. And the labor driven by industrial capital is all labor that produces material wealth (whether means of production or consumer goods), which does not conflict with the most general definition of productive labor—that is, labor that produces material wealth. However, small farmers who work and cultivate for their own livelihood under capitalism do not participate in commodity exchange with their labor, nor do they create surplus value. Therefore, their labor should not be considered “productive labor that produces surplus value,” nor should it be considered productive labor under capitalism. But they are indeed creating material wealth through their labor. How should this be explained? 
I believe that the petty bourgeoisie is the middle class in capitalist society. The surplus (surplus product) they earn while working for themselves is generally profit. Their surplus labor directly creates profit, unlike capitalists who need to transform the surplus value exploited from workers into profit. In this regard, the profit earned by the petty bourgeoisie is similar to the profit obtained in socialist production, in that neither is derived from exploitation but from labor. However, unlike socialist production, the petty bourgeoisie works solely for themselves, and the profit they gain is ultimately used to increase their personal wealth. Eventually, this leads to polarization: either the profit accumulates to a certain point and transforms into capital, leading to capitalist wage labor exploitation, or they continuously incur losses and go bankrupt, falling into the proletariat. Therefore, their labor can be strictly considered productive labor under capitalism (which is indeed the case for small farmers), but it cannot be classified as a capitalist mode of production. Moreover, small farmers in capitalist society are unlikely to be entirely outside commodity exchange; modern society no longer permits such small farmers to exist outside of a capitalist economy. Farmers must sell their agricultural products to exchange for industrial goods they need. Their labor in producing agricultural commodities is thus productive labor under capitalism. As for their self-serving labor, such as producing their own food, it can be seen as necessary labor for workers under capitalism. After production, they consume it themselves, which can be simply understood as paying themselves a ‘wage’ (although strictly speaking, the category of ‘wage’ only applies to the proletariat, but for convenience, an analogy can be made). Ultimately, they produce food mainly to meet their own needs for labor reproduction and to produce surplus agricultural products for exchange with industrial goods, not for other purposes. If they are not part of the capitalist mode of production to begin with, then this issue becomes irrelevant.
2 Likes
Your question is actually very simple, because the kind of small-scale production you mention is not within the scope of capitalist production at all. It is a supplement to capitalist production, but it is not itself a mode of capitalist production. The study of political economy should be based on a primary mode of social production, excluding those complex interfering factors.
Defining “labor that creates surplus value as productive labor” is within the scope of capitalist production. Capitalist production is the most advanced commodity production. Labor for one’s own use, self-sufficient labor, is not capitalist production.
4 Likes
The work of programmers does not create value; their wages are the price paid by software companies to purchase their labor. The profit of software companies comes from the surplus value in society, participating in the distribution of surplus value.
1 Like