The Value Of Labor
A Stupid Theory
Far too much time has been wasted discussing the labor theory of value. To put it simply, what should have been said is that labor is what human beings should receive compensation for. If you get compensation based on something else, then that may be considered unfair.
We could then call this "the labor basis for compensation".
Similar to the idea of democracy, that people should be allowed authority based on popular support properly documented, the labor basis of compensation is a political value that if economic compensation diverges too far from one's labor, then something is flawed. It would be nice, it seems, to not have freeloaders or swindlers.
Even so, I find this political value ill conceived, especially when taken to an extreme. It is probably better when labor and compensation have some degree of proportionality, but we pay people for our own satisfaction, and not for their pain. If you measure something, then you will maximize that thing. So a very strict labor basis for compensation, could easily result in excess and unnecessary pain, purely on the basis of seeking to game what constitutes labor.
There may be a defensible version of the labor theory of value, but if there is, it is far too obtuse and convoluted to warrant serious discussion. To me, it seems much more political than anything.
The interesting part of Marx, is dialectic: things have multiple aspects to them, and one aspect can get more attention then others.
It is better not to think of this a scientific or historical principle. Philosophers have long taken such vague and uncommittal ideas too seriously, because intelligent people end up using very strange heuristics to generate new ideas.
The smarter you are, the less easy it is to replicate your process of finding new ideas. But the better those ideas themselves should stand up to scrutiny. There is no method to genius, but the damn sure better be some kind of method
So the principle of dialectic, is something actually interesting that Marx talked about, and especially Steve Keen has done a great job of describe this general __principle__ or rough heuristic.
Engineering and science typically use much more robust and concrete notions for analysis than philosophical notions of "dialectic", and for good reason. So if an idea is useful, it should stand up to much more direct scrutiny. A philosophical comprehension is useful, but not convincing until it has been expressed more concretely.
This is thus an extended essay on what the value of human labor actually is, what human labor is good for, how it improves the world, and what it costs.
There is a sense in which we can eliminate unjust deserts, but ultimately, justice is the responsibility of the universe, it is not a man made invention. If you step on a rake, it will hit you in the face.