On the limits of planning in labor time from the standpoint of the theory of value

This paper critically examines the assumption of effective labor mobilization underlying Cockshott and Cottrell’s canonical labor-time calculation model of planning. According to these scholars, the practical limitations of planning in kind can be overcome by using labor time instead of monetary values as the accounting unit of the plan. From Marx’s theory of value, we know that this approach involves converting various forms of concrete labor into equal quantities of abstract, socially necessary labor time. These quantities could then serve as technical coefficients employed by the planning board. While market competition naturally provides this equivalence by enforcing labor discipline and ensuring an appropriate distribution of concrete working times across industries, attaining the same outcome in a planned economy requires a deliberate effort to establish technically sufficient proportions among different types of work activities. These proportions differ when considering diverse technical needs and the actual time spent in production, which challenges the idea that labor commitment can be motivated solely by remunerating workers based on their working time rather than their unequal contributions to the production process. Labor in production and distribution can follow different economic proportions, but the expectation that material incentives can compensate for the absence of labor discipline in a planned economy conflicts with the assumption that labor coefficients are inputs rather than outputs of the production process. The paper argues that a more comprehensive exploration of the interplay between labor mobilization and labor equalization is essential for strengthening the case of the labor-time calculation model.