Like many of my fellow hexbearians, I like to punish myself with the cognitohazard that is reddit. Today, I encountered this post, on a joke explanation subreddit, and it was accompanied by a particularly stupid series of comments from an r/neoliberal poster (who also had an AI Ghibli profile picture, truly a potent combo) claiming that Marx's LTV "falls apart under scrutiny" among other things. Essentially, the discussion seemed to center around the idea that, because a top OnlyFans earner makes so much more than the median, labor cant possibly explain the value they are creating, since the labor they are doing should be fairly similar.
I thought it would be a fun exercise in deepening my understanding of LTV to try and formulate arguments against this, and hopefully you feel inclined to add your own thoughts down below!
The first claim the neolib makes is that marx thought all labor was equal between individuals (lmao no he didnt) but hes rather swiftly shut down by someone bringing up Socially Necessary Labor Time. In an attempt to save himself from this obvious hole in his critique, he says a few things.
-
He claims that marx's idea of Socially Necessary Labor Time, particularly the idea of the average productivity that a given laborer would be compared to, has a low standard deviation. I'm not sure if this is my ignorance on the subject or if hes pulling this out of his ass, but did Marx really imply this anywhere? He is obviously trying to imply that the difference between a top and median onlyfans earner is a massive deviation, and therefore Marx was wrong, but did Marx ever actually make a claim like this?
-
He claims that Socially Necessary Labor Time does not have a rigorous mathematical definition because Marx was too bad at math to give it one. While I agree that what is "Socially Necessary" is up for some amount of debate, I feel like this is again a stupid thing to say when he is referencing the average. What rigorous mathematical definition is required to figure out an average? It really feels like hes trying to appeal to the complexity of modern western economics and their obtuse formulas (which ironically seem to have far less predictive power about reality than anything Marx ever said) when there is nothing particularly mathematically complicated about calculating this average, whats prohibitive is the collection of the data. Its a bit like saying it would be hard to figure out, with perfect accuracy, the average age of all humans on Earth. The math isnt whats hard, its finding every single persons age that is tedious.
The delusional ramblings of a neoliberal aside, I think there are some important factors missing from the discussion. For one, I would inquire how a neoliberal would seek to explain this phenomenon; could you really confidently say "This top earner is actually 10,000 times more attractive than the median one. If they are a 10, then the median earner must necessarily be a .001"? It seems a bit ridiculous to suggest that the attractiveness differential between any two individuals could be that high. But more importantly, I think theres a lot of "invisible" labor that is being ignored in order for the neoliberal to make his argument. Its easy to say "Top earner shoved this up their butt, median earner shoved this up their butt, they are doing the same labor", but anyone who is familiar with these types of services knows that its actually usually people that were already famous that have the largest platform. Basically, all the labor they did to amass that following is being ignored so that they can be equated. That doesnt even begin to mention the other labor that could potentially be separating these individuals; if the commodity you are selling is your body, what about all the labor that goes into its maintenance? All the dieting, working out, cosmetic surgery, etc that a top earner has both the means and the impetus to work towards, is not being factored into this labor comparison. All the constant capital in the form of high quality cameras, rented hotel rooms, ring lights, is again ignored when comparing profitability.
Finally, I remember marx saying something about nature being just as much a source of wealth as labor (I think its something particularly about use-value but thats where my understanding gets murky, would love to have that clarified), and in this case obviously if you are just born with massive honkers that is going to convey a definite advantage to you in your onlyfans career over someone born with neurofibromatosis.
I know this is probably the most ridiculous thing any of us could spend our intellectual energy on but I refuse to cede any ground to some dork neoliberal and was frustrated by my own inability to formulate a counter-argument, so I came here hoping the great minds of hexbear could dish out some wisdom on the subject. Heres the link to the comment thread if you want to see what the lib said for yourself: https://www.reddit.com/r/PeterExplainsTheJoke/comments/1kb4t77/comment/mpruwa4/
I think a lot of the confusion can be cleared up if you simply see that "social revenue" (as you call it) and "employment" are proportional to value and direct labor used (socially necessary labor time, but only the v part out of c s v).
The reason I am talking about the former rather than the latter however is that in practice, the latter "direct" quantities are typically measured in the former terms, where employment and "value added" constitute readily available data.
There is also the reason that for a lot of people, especially those who are less knowledgeable of Marxism, the explanation from employment and value added is much easier to understand.
This is a very complicated topic. I've looked into profit equalization quite a bit and the simple answer is that profit equalization doesn't exist in reality. There is a tendency for capital to adjust between industries on this basis, but real industries have a large profit variation spread.
The proportionality between industry size and value added is also just a tendency. It does not exist perfectly, there is a spread. This tendency is enforced from the fact that value is the physical limit of the economy. In an economy where labor is dominant constraint, and all prices correspond to LTV prices, both GDP (sum of monetary prices for all outputs) and total employment can remain constant while allowing any distribution of labor between sectors that you want. Basically, LTV prices allow for a maximum possible configuration space for an economy (constrained only by labor inputs, not by natural inputs).
Keeping the GDP constant, any random walk through the space of possible states of an economy defined by a (price, employment) vector for all sectors will spend much more time near the LTV price region than any other possible prices. And while the assumptions of a purely random walk and constant GDP are unrealistic, this property of LTV prices is effectively what makes them, and the concept of value so special.
A capitalist economy does move randomly to a great degree (even if not 100% randomly), and the GDP itself changes usually only 5% per year at the higher end.