>>2552846i first read that it was ibn khaldun in his "muqaddimah" (1377) who established the LTV in graeber's book on debt (2011). aquinas is sometimes said to have done this earlier in his "summa ii.ii.Q.77" (1274) by instituting a theological "just price" as against usury, and so a price which measures the equivalence of labour in exchange (what in aristotelian terms is also noted by marx as the difference between "economy" and "chrematistics"). in reading the muqaddimah with its various internal references, it makes constant note to chapter 5 being the chapter on labour as the source of value, so i will summarise and review this chapter here (sct. 1):
it begins with a theological justification of property, the same as in locke; that God hath given man dominion over the earth. what is further is khaldun's stipulation of self-ownership as the source of man's self-determination to gain (what is called "profit" generally, and so perhaps incorrectly). this differs in part from locke, since locke says that "property" is a fixed element of ownership which comes from mixing labour and nature, while khaldun sees property as an unconditioned right of abstract man, rather than man in particular. khaldun then says that there is a difference between "sustenance" and "profit" relating to income, with sustenance also being related to rightful ownership (as codefied by the "mu'tazilah", apparently - which is a theological movement which affirms human free will and reason, contrary to popular religion. mu'tazilites also saw the quran as man-made, and so these rationalists may be termed as proto-humanist). khaldun further qualifies by stating that though one may acquire means unrightfully, God may still sustain him, as is his Will. khaldun ends this line of thought by stating that both sustenance and profit require labour.
after this, khaldun speaks on money as "measure of value", once more being scriptural in stating that it is gold and silver which measure value. this also differs from locke, who directly states labour as measure of value. khaldun also makes more clumsy comments, claiming that profit rises with labour and decreases with lack of labour; thus, he says, the more employment you have, the more luxury a civilisation also has. this is a misunderstanding (or mis-categorisation) of "profit" generally, since adam smith saw as early as the tudor period in england, the rate of profit fell in line with the falling rate of interest, which is also paired with a rise in wealth. so then, khaldun is seemingly generalising "profit" as "wealth", rather than "profit" as a lack of social wealth, as per british political economy.
moving onto section 2, we see a further generalisation. he states that the vocation of labour, "livelihood" (ma'ash), seeks sustenance as its end. he then appears to further synonymise sustenance and profit, giving different means of obtaining profit: taxation, hunting, fishing, agriculture, craftsmanship and commerce. he claims for example that "profit" in this case comes from appropriating the product of somebody else (i.e. taxation and commerce).
of these livelihoods, he sees agriculture as the original, which is also part of xenophon's praise of agriculture as the essential craft of a nation, in "the economist". this physiocratic thought was also present in quesnay. after this, he sees craftsmanship develop historically and finally, commerce. on commerce he plainly states that profit is made by selling above the price of purchase, and khaldun also stating an inherent gambling inscribed into it, yet of which is legal, since one still gets something in return. so then, profits here are defined by private appropriation, not surplus production (this he repeats in section 9, where the commercial venture is described as buying low and selling high, not selling at an equivalent rate of a surplus product). in section 3, he quickly states that service work is unbecoming of a man and that receiving a wage is undignified. section 4 is not relevant as to any fruitful discussion.
in section 5, he comes upon a truth as to the source of profit, as uncompensated labour. he states that a man of "rank" will naturally have those who serve without want of payment and that this accumulates profit. khaldun relates this to "political power" (imarah) and its means of utilising free labour, in the difference between (as khaldun states) what is produced and what is paid for. so then, we see the way in which this form of profit is constituted by realising value over labour costs. thus he concludes that one may grow rich without working. jumping to section 9, we see supply and demand at work to achieve a gain by disequilibrium (here also however is a slight discourse on "storage" and "travel" and thus the notion of time-preference in the market).
in section 12 he makes a proper distinction between "profit" (ribh) and "profit" (kasb). looking online, it appears that "riba" refers to usury (haram) and kasb refers generally to proper acquisition; sustenance (halal). in section 15, khaldun gives an aristotelian lesson on the habituation of craft; that it is something essentially practiced, not theorised. in section 18, there is the acknowledgement of the value of craft corresponding to its social demand, and thus the price for which is only granted by its sale to customers. in section 21, he discusses the division of labour as qualities and colours of the soul, which are able to be formed from early on, but as they are fixed, they remain. in section 22 he lists all the crafts, from most basic (necessary) to most splendid: agriculture, architecture, tailoring, carpentry, weaving, midwifery, writing, printing, singing and medicine. he appears to make a similar conclusion as antoine montchretien, that all crafts (arts) make up the integral body politic, but what is equal in montchretien's consideration (of liberal and mechanical arts), is subordinate in the division of labour to khaldun. thus, he makes an austrian inference as to order of economic goods and presumably, their economic value. after this, he concludes the chapter by detailing each craft, yet not by adding anything more to a concept of an LTV.
to conclude thus, the attestation of ibn khaldun's supposed founding of the LTV appears flimsy, since it essentially differs with later modern notions.