'Schumpeter' on Robotics and the Labour Theory of Value

From Amazon

I spent a significant number of years contemplating Marx's version of the Labour Theory of Value, recognising its attraction as the source of what we're able to bring to market (subject to rents of course, such as found things).

And yet: Marx himself indicates that value is not a property of a commodity but an abstract social relationship, established under highly idealised circumstances, in general market transactions. In practice value is not observable, so how can it be causal?

I discovered Joseph Schumpeter's masterly explication and critique of Marx's economic and sociological ideas very late. But that's better than never; with ChatGPT I can actually chat with the master economist himself. Note that our lives did not overlap.

---

Exploring Marx and Value Theory: A Conversation with Joseph Schumpeter (ChatGPT)

This is a reconstructed dialogue between myself and the economist "Joseph Schumpeter" (1883–1950), inspired by his seminal work Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. In this hypothetical exchange, we use Schumpeter's perspective to explore complex topics such as Marx's labour theory of value and the notion of "social surplus product" within capitalist systems. The aim is to shed light on the unique ways that Marx and Schumpeter approached questions of value and economic growth—and to consider how these ideas might apply to a world of increasing automation.

---

Me: So, Joe, I know you’re not fully on board with Marx’s labour theory of value. But how do you feel about the broader idea of the social surplus product?

Schumpeter: Ah, an excellent question! While I certainly take issue with Marx’s labour theory of value as a strict framework, I’m more receptive to the concept of a social surplus product. Marx rightly recognized that societies generate a surplus beyond basic subsistence needs, and this surplus becomes the fuel for investment, growth, and—crucially—innovation.

But here’s where I differ. Marx viewed this surplus as a tool of exploitation, a force driving capitalism toward collapse and class conflict. I, on the other hand, see it as the engine of capitalism’s unique adaptability. In capitalism, this surplus isn’t just appropriated by the capitalist class but reinvested, spurring cycles of what I call “creative destruction.” Capitalism, through this cycle, continually evolves, creating new industries and wealth.

So yes, I find the social surplus concept useful, but I see it as a catalyst for capitalism’s evolution, not its inevitable downfall.

Me: To be fair, you have yourself acknowledged that Marx also emphasised that capitalists are driven to reinvest their appropriated wealth. But on another topic, do you think, then, that Marx was guilty of what we might call “vitalism”? I mean, what would happen to his model if we replaced human workers with equally capable robots who perform all productive labour and maintain themselves? If these robots earned a “wage” to cover their self-maintenance costs, then like any other form of constant capital wouldn’t Marx’s framework imply that no new value could ever be created, even though production continues in all other respects unchanged?

Schumpeter: Ah, yes, this is an insightful question! In a sense, Marx’s model does seem bound to something resembling vitalism. By his account, only human labour can create new value because, for him, human labour uniquely adds surplus value in production. If we replaced workers with robots, who would merely be another form of "constant capital", his model would suggest that no value is generated—only transferred.

This creates a dilemma. The productive process, as you note, remains the same; the output is identical, and profit still exists. So, has anything truly changed?

I would argue that this scenario points to a limitation in Marx’s framework. He insists on tying value creation exclusively to human labour, almost as if labour contained an "animating spirit." It’s as though Marx was implicitly holding onto a vitalistic view of labour, which limits the applicability of his theory in an age where machines increasingly perform complex labour.

Me: So, from your perspective, value creation doesn’t require a human “animating spirit.”

Schumpeter: Precisely. From my perspective, value creation lies in the productive function rather than in human effort alone. Imagine a fully automated system, where robots both maintain themselves and perform all productive tasks. Such a system could indeed generate value—not because of some mysterious property of human labour, but due to its efficient organisation and minimal input costs.

This interpretation sees value not as a product of human labour alone but as an outcome of productive efficiency and innovation. Marx’s model is restricted by this vitalistic assumption, limiting its usefulness in a world that increasingly relies on automation and artificial intelligence.

Me: I read your book, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" with great interest. It's a true tour-de-force: visionary, objective, not at all tribal and steeped in your vast expertise in history, economics and politics. Eighty two years later, I am most struck by your pessimism about capitalism's lack of enduring vitality, and by your misplaced faith in the power of so-called 'rational bureaucracy' to get things done. The collapse of the Soviet model and much else shows how effectively bureaucracy without competition kills progress and allows institutions to be captured by their own elites - to the detriment of wider societal interests. So how would you reappraise the prospects of the future of capitalism if you were writing today?

Schumpeter: When I wrote my book, my central argument was that capitalism’s greatest strength—its capacity for creative destruction—would also sow the seeds of its eventual decline. By relentlessly revolutionizing the means of production, capitalism disrupts not only markets but also the cultural and social fabric that supports its institutions. Over time, I predicted, capitalism would erode the entrepreneurial spirit that made it dynamic, replacing it with a class of managers and bureaucrats who, while efficient, lack the visionary energy to sustain perpetual innovation.

Now, in hindsight, I see that I underestimated the resilience of entrepreneurial capitalism, particularly when tied to democratic institutions and bolstered by global competition. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the stagnation of centralized economies underscore how essential competition and private incentives are to innovation. Bureaucracy alone, far from being a neutral executor of rational plans, often succumbs to sclerosis, inefficiency, and elite capture. The lessons of Kornai’s 'The Socialist System'—a work I would eagerly reference today—make clear how central planning inherently breeds shortages, inefficiency, and corruption due to its structural inability to adapt to complex, dynamic markets.

You are correct that I overestimated the efficacy of rational bureaucracy. My optimism was rooted in the idea that a bureaucratic structure could, at its best, implement policies consistently and rationally. However, what I underestimated—what history has since made painfully clear—is that without the competitive pressures of the market, bureaucracies lack both the incentive and the feedback mechanisms necessary to innovate and respond effectively to change. Instead, they protect their own existence and entrench their elites. This tendency is not limited to socialist states; even in capitalist democracies, public institutions often suffer from a similar ossification, as seen in the inefficiencies of large welfare states and regulatory bodies.

Finally, a word on capitalism’s potential future adversary. If socialism as envisioned by Marx and Lenin is now discredited, a new form of bureaucratic corporatism or "managerialism" may well take its place. The threat to capitalism today lies not in revolutionary upheaval but in the creeping expansion of non-competitive structures—be they state bureaucracies or monopolistic corporations—that stifle innovation and dynamism. The battle for the future, then, is not between capitalism and socialism but between innovation and stagnation, competition and rent-seeking.