Calculation of GDP in value

1 post / 0 new
Calculation of GDP in value
Printer-friendly versionSend by email

Tagore: Bad unities

According to Marx, the substance of the value is work. Its measure is the socially necessary working time, and its unity is the hour, the day, the week, and so on.

It is understood time is expressed for a single average worker. If two average workers work for one hour, this is equivalent to an average worker working for two hours.

Thus, the unit for measuring value must take the form:

Number of workers x time.

Thus the world GDP expressed in value is equal to:

Labor force x 1 year

As long as you do not understand the concept of socially necessary working time, average workers, etc. All your reasonings are non-Marxist. They are eventually neoclassical.

Lbird: The value of value

The problem, Tagore2, is that 'value' can't be 'measured', if by that you mean 'come up with a numerical value'.

'Value' is like 'love' - they are social relationships, which can't be 'measured'. We can estimate, judge or guess a 'measurement', but this 'measurement' is not an 'objective measure' of 'value'.

'Socially necessary' is a moral judgement, and within a communist society, would be 'measured' by a democratic vote. What we humans 'value' changes with society and history.

Marx makes it plain that there is no 'objectively' measurable 'matter' in 'value'. There are no minorities, like mathematicians, scientists, or academics, who can tell us what is 'socially necessary' for us.

Only the democratic producers can determine 'value-for-us'.

Tagore2: No! Marxism is a science.

No! Marxism is a science. The value can be measured from Marx's definition and econometrics.

I am tired of those mystics who take Capital for a Bible and who have not even understood the first chapter of this book.

"The total labor power of society, which is embodied in the total sum of the commodities produced by society ..."

What was the total labor power of society in 2016?

3,449,516,169 workers working for a year ("labor force, total", in World Bank database).

What was "all commodities produced by that society" in 2016?

PPP $ 120,141,763,383,074 (GDP, PPP)

3,449,516,169 workers working for a year in 2016 <=> PPP $ 120,141,763,383,074 in 2016

How much does an average worker produce in 2016?

120,141,763,383,074 / 3,449,516.169 = PPP $ 34,829

What is China's GDP in value?

First the quantity of goods: PPP $ 21,417,149,856,080 in 2016.

Then the average worker's produce in 2016: PPP $ 34,829

21,417,149,856,080 / 34,829 = 614,930,251

China's GDP in value is therefore:

614,930,251 AVERAGE workers working for a year in 2016.

There are 802,968,952 REAL Chinese workers in 2016.


802,968,952 REAL Chinese workers in 2016 <=> 614,930,251 AVERAGE workers in 2016

It's easy!

If you want to calculate value in average hours worked, multiply by the average number of hours worked per year, that is to say about 2000 (OECD: 1763h, China 2000-2200, India: 2100).

Lbird: Can 'measurement' be made without workers' consciousness?

Tagore2 wrote:

No! Marxism is a science.

Actually, I agree with you, Tagore2, that Marx's views were a 'science'.

But any 'science' is a human socio-historical product. 'Science' is not, as bourgeois 'science' ideologically alleges, a 'Universal Method' for arriving at 'Eternal Truth'.

Only the democratic class conscious revolutionary proletariat can determine for itself what its own 'science' consists of, in its needs, interests and purposes.

Clearly, it doesn't consist of pretending that an elite minority have a 'politically neutral method for the disinterested expert', which can simply be employed by that elite, in the absence of the active participation of all of humanity. That would be politically disastrous for the development of class consciousness amongst workers, because it argues that they should be passive in the face of that 'science', and can't vote upon any 'truth' produced by that form of 'science'.

It makes me wonder why comrades like you (who don't seem to realise what 'science' today is, and from which class it emerged from), think that your view of 'science' is politically helpful to workers.

If you think you can 'measure' without a vote by workers, then you're saying that the conscious activity of workers isn't needed for your 'measuring'.