The basic premise of Marx’s theory about the value of labor is the claim that the value of a commodity is defined by the average number of labor-hours that go into its production. Then, the profit a capitalist makes when such a commodity is sold is what forms the surplus value of the commodity, and is not his rightful share but what he makes by cheating the laborer. The capitalist buys labour-power in order to use it; and labour-power in use is labour itself. ” (Kelso, 2005, n.p.) Here, if one were to take into account the scientific and technological developments the world has seen since the industrial revolution, we find that it’s the capital-provider who becomes the rightful recipient of the profits made by them by selling the product. Let me elaborate.
With the advancement of technology, we have seen times, as much as we are seeing now, the production of machines that create more machines, automated ones too, which create a commodity that is sold. The machines themselves form a commodity too. Thus the profits that are brought home would be deserved by the ones that produced them: the machines which are owned by the capitalist, and hence the profit should go to him or her. Besides, if a product’s value were to be defined by the number of labor-hours that go into it’s making, then the fundamental paradox that is brought out is an interesting one: how can a product, say, an automated coffee-maker be of such a low value as the number of man-hours a labourer spends in operating the machine that makes it? ...Show more