A few questions regarding economics
- This topic has 84 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think this is a fairly interesting exercise as it always good to stress test any theory by looking at what it applies to from a different perspective to see how well it stands up. I think we are discussing ‘un-productive labour’ without any clear definition of what it is, or with a definition that changes with the argument? I propose , as a class analysis, ‘productive labour’ should be considered to be; the production of something useful (or a use value- or need) for the consumption of the class that do produce use-values. And that ‘un-productive labour’ should be considered to be; the production of something useful (or a use value- or need) for the consumption of the class that don’t produce any use-values. Before we even start must avoid getting bogged down by subjective evaluations as to whether or not any use-values are really useful or for that matter intangible like a opera song or watching a football match. Eg Marx 1867 (Capital)The Commodity[….first chapter of the first German edition of Capital. Modern editions of Capital have a first chapter based on the second or subsequent editions…. I prefer it] The nature of………needs is irrelevant, e.g., whether their origin is in the stomach or in the fancy. We are also not concerned here with the manner in which the entity satisfies human need; whether in an immediate way as food – that is, as object of enjoyment – or by a detour as means of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/commodity.htm So we could test the proposition? That would make butlers and chauffeur driven cars un-productive labour and fast food workers, bus driving, NHS healthcare workers and state education of the proles productive labour. And the commercial money ‘economy’ as something useful or needed by the capitalist class, and not us in moneyless socialism, un-productive labour. As well as the arms industry; and obviates the problem of whether making a very tangible aircraft carrier or hellfire carrying drone is productive labour or not. Unless you disagree and think it is productive labour of course. If you are going to switch the analysis of capitalism from one based on the predicates, definitions or premises of value and surplus value etc to an analysis of productive labour, which is a good idea I think; then you well you have to do just that. Which is why the department of labour analysis or model is useful. So if we start with; ‘productive labour’ should be considered to be, the production of something useful (or a use value- or need) for the consumption of the class that do produce use-values. Then what is that? There are obviously a proportion of the workers making stuff for the consumption of all workers and not stuff for the capitalist class. [ it is probably a bit idealised, as with all models, as the capitalist class will probably consume some of the same commodities as the workers even if they don’t ride around on buses etc- but I don’t think it is a real deal breaker unless we are going to begrudge a non producing useless 1% the same consumption fund or the working class. It was perhaps clearer in Stalin’s Russia were production was more directly organised and sectionalised according to who it was for] The seemingly obvious fact that only a proportion of the workers are making stuff for the consumption of all workers must be reassuring as surplus product and surplus labour makes an immediate appearance. The surplus product and surplus labour of productive workers, (those making stuff only for workers) goes immediately to the other workers who are producing things that are not needed by the producers of use values. Thus a proportion of my surplus product will go and be consumed by chauffeurs, domestic servants, money shufflers, advertising and arms industry workers. Stuff that I, as a productive worker, don’t consume or need, and might even suffer from as an anti use-value. That 8 hour amounts of my (as a productive worker) surplus product that ends up in the hands of a capitalist somewhere along the line might be used to extort 10 hours of labour out of a chauffeur that a capitalist finds useful to himself is of no matter. Another proportion of my surplus product will go and be consumed by workers producing new ‘means of production’, eg factories, machines, roads and electrification etc. In capitalism that is done because it is an economic necessity for the individual capitalist class. If they don’t expand and increase the productivity of their workers and lower the labour time value of the commodities they produce they go under. And they monopolise that ‘social’ process, or own and control it as much as they can control anything in capitalism. (like they have lost control of the expansion and accumulation of productive capital now) Accumulation of capital eg more factories is useful or a need for them, whose use-value or cui bono. But we will still be producing new ‘means of production’ beyond given temporal ‘requirements’ to increase the productivity and lower the labour time value of the consumable use values in socialism to lower the length of our wageless working day, perhaps? But nobody should say that everything that capitalism does is diametrically opposed to socialism. Or as Lenin put it; …free and rapid development of capitalism is of decided advantage to the working class…. http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/TT05.html#c6 Anyway from Karl. Capital Vol. IIIPart VII. Revenues and their SourcesChapter 48. The Trinity Formula This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product. Surplus-labour in general, as labour performed over and above the given requirements, must always remain. In the capitalist as well as in the slave system, etc., it merely assumes an antagonistic form and is supplemented by complete idleness of a stratum of society. A definite quantity of surplus-labour is required as insurance against accidents, and by the necessary and progressive expansion of the process of reproduction in keeping with the development of the needs and the growth of population, which is called accumulation from the viewpoint of the capitalist. It is one of the civilising aspects of capital that it enforces this surplus-labour in a manner and under conditions which are more advantageous to the development of the productive forces, social relations, and the creation of the elements for a new and higher form than under the preceding forms of slavery, serfdom, etc. Thus it gives rise to a stage, on the one hand, in which coercion and monopolisation of social development (including its material and intellectual advantages) by one portion of society at the expense of the other are eliminated; on the other hand, it creates the material means and embryonic conditions, making it possible in a higher form of society to combine this surplus-labour with a greater reduction of time devoted to material labour in general. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch48.htm I like this part of the quote from Karl; “This surplus-labour appears as surplus-value, and this surplus-value exists as a surplus-product.” As it rolls up together the ‘trinity’ of labour-value-product in one short sentence.
If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism. The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production…. Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction…… And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease. Capital Vol. III Part VIIRevenues and their SourcesChapter 49. Concerning the Analysis of the Process of Production This is the sole portion of revenue which is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation. Whether it actually serves as such, or covers merely a loss in reproduction, depends upon chance. This is also the only portion of surplus-value and surplus-product, and thus of surplus-labour, which would continue to exist, outside of that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction, even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. This, of course, presupposes that the portion regularly consumed by direct producers does not remain limited to its present minimum. Apart from surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htm
'The' chapter on the matter is as below. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm I think i am taking for convience a combination of. For example: if a day’s labour only sufficed to keep the worker alive, that is, to reproduce his labour-power, speaking in an absolute sense his labour would be productive because it would be reproductive; that is to say, because it constantly replaced the values ( equal to the value of its own labour-power) which it consumed. <Assuming, however, that no capital exists, but that the worker appropriates his surplus-labour himself—the excess of values that he has created over the values that he consumes. Then one could say only of this labour that it is truly productive, that is, that it creates new values.>
DJP wrote:Sympo wrote:Did you mean to write "the employer will NOT be extracting surplus value"?Nope.Employed workers in the non-productive sphere will still be being exploited by the employer in the same way as workers in the productive sphere. i.e surplus labour will be being extracted from them. It's just that all the "value" that is handled in the non-productive sphere is not newly made value, but value that has come from the productive sphere. So the surplus the capitalist takes is not newly created "surplus value", but value that has been pulled from other areas of the economy.We are only talking about capitalist relations here, and the distinction has no bearing on the social usefulness of the labour.Does putting it that way help?
No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?
[
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?[/quote]..because the employer still realises a profit greater than the wage ration he pays out to the worker.
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?Let's take two workers.Worker one works in a restaurant, cooking meals. Worker one is a chef.Worker two carries the meals to the tables, and is a waiter..Worker one makes meals, makes objects with value, and adds value, her average necessary social labour time that goes into the making of meals. Worker one is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing her ability to work. That value will be less than the value added by worker one to the food.Worker two, does not add value: but without worker two, the restaurateur cannot get any payment unless the food reaches the tables. Worker two is paid the value of average socially necessary labour time that goes into creating and reproducing his ability to work. That value will be less than the surplus value added by worker one, and effectively comes out of that total value.Worker two, to the capitalist, is unproductive, and is a dead loss, but the capitalist needs him in order to realise the value added by worker one.In both cases the workers are receiving the full and correct value of their ability to work (labour power), and are competing in the same jobs market. The value is added by the whole process, and overall the retaurant owner is concerned with the profitability of all her staff.Worker three is anaccountant, again, she adds no value, but again, the reaturateur does not know how much money she is making if no-one keeps her books for her.Workers two and three are not exploiting worker one.
Sympo wrote:No, sorry. I don't personally get how non-productive workers are exploited, perhaps it is impossible for anyone to explain this to me.What are some common non-productive jobs?Also, perhaps its useful to consider what exploitation means: it means to use someone, as a means, not as an end in themselves. unproductive workers are compelled into labour by the threat of poverty, they might not add value to the product, but they remain essential to the realisation of profit.
Dave B wrote:If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism. The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production…. Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction…… And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease.To me Marx's comments make no sense at all. As I see it the very idea of an "economic surplus" will have no traction in a socialist society and is only really meaningful in the context of a class based society.I am not just talking about "surplus value" which is really just the monetised form of the surplus product as it appears in capitalism. I'm talking about ALL forms of the economic surplus. They all denote some or other form of class exploitation whether it takes the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour (slave labour) or the direct appropriation of goods as use values (Feudalism) Now the objection might well be raised that no society could function, let alone prosper, without an "economic surplus" of some kind, without setting aside some of its resources to meet its future needs. A socialist society would also need to do this. Surely, goes the argument, it’s really a question of who gets to appropriate this surplus – society as a whole or a small class within it? I think this way of looking at this question is wrong headed, frankly. Actually, the concept itself suggests, if anything, what I would call a kind of “social fund” model of wealth. There are clear hints of this in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875, Ch1) where he talks of the various “deductions” to be made from the “total social product” before it can be distributed for consumption purposes: “First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc”. Bearing in mind that we talking here of Marx’s first phase of communist society, based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production in which a system of labour vouchers regulates consumption, I find all this highly misleading. It implies a certain homogenised view of wealth whereby everything is rendered commensurable and, behind that, some universal unit of accounting which we call money. How else would you make arithmetical “reductions” from the “total social product” if this did not imply commensurability – money? True, Marx was at pains to point out that his system of labour vouchers was not money since, unlike money, these vouchers did not circulate. He reasoned that the need for this stemmed from the fact that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. (ibid) Ironically, there is a sense in which Marx’s own thinking on this matter likewise bears here the stamp of the “old society”. Of course, in capitalism, capital accumulation – the development of the means of production – is funded out of the extraction of surplus value (the capitalist form of the economic surplus) but we cannot simply transpose this basic model of wealth creation to a future non-market socialist or communist society. The operational dynamics of such a society, I suggest, will be radically different. In such a society, production needs (which include replacing existing means of production as well as expanding those means where necessary to accommodate future changes in demand), cannot meaningfully be construed as being “surplus” to existing consumption needs, or vice versa, which is precisely what the arithmetical concept of “deduction” encourages us to think. Rather, they are simply two different sets of functional requirements both essential to the maintenance of society which ideally speaking, align with, or mutually adjust to, each other and primarily through a self regulating mechanism of stock control.. The idea of an economic surplus arising in socialism seems to suggest that any kind of society with even the most rudimentary social division of labour must produce a "surplus" of some kind. If I focus on fishing as an occupation and my neighbour grows wheat then my consumption of bread is dependent on my neighbour producing more wheat than she can consume. That is to say she produces wheat surplus to her requirements. That is true enough but is this really what is meant by an economic surplus.If it were then it would effectively lumping together exploitative societies with non exploitative societies or blurring the distinction between them. One reason why the concept of an economic surplus has to entail more than just this. it is a SOCIAL concept not one pertaining to individuals as in my neighbour producing more wheat than she needs The problem also arises, I think, because we tend to look at this concept of an economic surplus in terms of “opportunity costs”. So the opportunity costs of devoting all our resources to meeting our current needs, for instance, is that we will have left none over to meet our future needs. Hence, purportedly, the need for an “economic surplus” – to meet the latter needs. However, this does not really capture, in my view, what is truly meant by an economic surplus. There are, of course, opportunity costs, to be taken into account in any kind of society. For example, there are opportunity costs involved in directing labour and resources between different lines of production. More tonnes of steel or hours of labour going into the construction of ships means less of these things for, say, tractor production. In this instance, certainly, an arithmetical procedure is implicated involving the subtraction or addition of the units in question. This is what is meant by “calculation in kind” and it t is indispensable to the operation of any kind of large scale society including –or perhaps one should say, especially – a hypothetical future socialist society. Nevertheless, what lies behind Marx’s reference to, for example, the need for certain reserve or insurance funds” in the case of accidents, dislocations or natural calamities etc., seems to entail more than just the notion of opportunity costs. The setting aside of these funds out of some notional surplus seems to imply some universal unit of accounting. Now for an exchange economy, this form of accounting makes perfect sense– to facilitate the exchange of commodities by rendering these commodities commensurable – but, for a socialist or communist society, it is deeply problematic. That is why I would reject the claim that this concept of an “economic surplus” would or could have any traction in a socialist society
Dave B wrote:If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism. The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production…. Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction…… And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease. Capital Vol. III Part VIIRevenues and their SourcesChapter 49. Concerning the Analysis of the Process of Production This is the sole portion of revenue which is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation. Whether it actually serves as such, or covers merely a loss in reproduction, depends upon chance. This is also the only portion of surplus-value and surplus-product, and thus of surplus-labour, which would continue to exist, outside of that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction, even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production. This, of course, presupposes that the portion regularly consumed by direct producers does not remain limited to its present minimum. Apart from surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htmDas Capital is an analysis of the capitalist society and its operation. Surplus value on a classless society is totally absurd. Marx never created a blueprint of the socialist-communist society
One thing is economical surplus, and another thing is surplus value
robbo203 wrote:Dave B wrote:If people think I am taking an outrageous interpretation of surplus value, surplus product and surplus value in socialism; I would like to refer them to the following passage. Where Karl after rambling on about the insurance industry in capitalism makes a rare and extremely interesting detour into communism. Examining which theoretical or analytical aspects of capitalism will inevitably carry over into communism. The less interesting bit starts of with the kind of idea of some surplus product/labour/value in capitalism going towards a disaster fund, or whatever. Or stuff that “is neither consumed as such nor serves necessarily as a fund for accumulation”. He goes onto to say that this would continue; …even after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production…. Along with; ….that portion serving for accumulation, and hence expansion of the process of reproduction…… And; ….surplus-labour for those who on account of age are not yet, or no longer, able to take part in production, all labour to support those who do not work would cease.To me Marx's comments make no sense at all. As I see it the very idea of an "economic surplus" will have no traction in a socialist society and is only really meaningful in the context of a class based society.I am not just talking about "surplus value" which is really just the monetised form of the surplus product as it appears in capitalism. I'm talking about ALL forms of the economic surplus. They all denote some or other form of class exploitation whether it takes the form of straightforward unpaid surplus labour (slave labour) or the direct appropriation of goods as use values (Feudalism) Now the objection might well be raised that no society could function, let alone prosper, without an "economic surplus" of some kind, without setting aside some of its resources to meet its future needs. A socialist society would also need to do this. Surely, goes the argument, it’s really a question of who gets to appropriate this surplus – society as a whole or a small class within it? I think this way of looking at this question is wrong headed, frankly. Actually, the concept itself suggests, if anything, what I would call a kind of “social fund” model of wealth. There are clear hints of this in Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875, Ch1) where he talks of the various “deductions” to be made from the “total social product” before it can be distributed for consumption purposes: “First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc”. Bearing in mind that we talking here of Marx’s first phase of communist society, based on the common ownership of the means of wealth production in which a system of labour vouchers regulates consumption, I find all this highly misleading. It implies a certain homogenised view of wealth whereby everything is rendered commensurable and, behind that, some universal unit of accounting which we call money. How else would you make arithmetical “reductions” from the “total social product” if this did not imply commensurability – money? True, Marx was at pains to point out that his system of labour vouchers was not money since, unlike money, these vouchers did not circulate. He reasoned that the need for this stemmed from the fact that: “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges. Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society — after the deductions have been made — exactly what he gives to it. (ibid) Ironically, there is a sense in which Marx’s own thinking on this matter likewise bears here the stamp of the “old society”. Of course, in capitalism, capital accumulation – the development of the means of production – is funded out of the extraction of surplus value (the capitalist form of the economic surplus) but we cannot simply transpose this basic model of wealth creation to a future non-market socialist or communist society. The operational dynamics of such a society, I suggest, will be radically different. In such a society, production needs (which include replacing existing means of production as well as expanding those means where necessary to accommodate future changes in demand), cannot meaningfully be construed as being “surplus” to existing consumption needs, or vice versa, which is precisely what the arithmetical concept of “deduction” encourages us to think. Rather, they are simply two different sets of functional requirements both essential to the maintenance of society which ideally speaking, align with, or mutually adjust to, each other and primarily through a self regulating mechanism of stock control.. The idea of an economic surplus arising in socialism seems to suggest that any kind of society with even the most rudimentary social division of labour must produce a "surplus" of some kind. If I focus on fishing as an occupation and my neighbour grows wheat then my consumption of bread is dependent on my neighbour producing more wheat than she can consume. That is to say she produces wheat surplus to her requirements. That is true enough but is this really what is meant by an economic surplus.If it were then it would effectively lumping together exploitative societies with non exploitative societies or blurring the distinction between them. One reason why the concept of an economic surplus has to entail more than just this. it is a SOCIAL concept not one pertaining to individuals as in my neighbour producing more wheat than she needs The problem also arises, I think, because we tend to look at this concept of an economic surplus in terms of “opportunity costs”. So the opportunity costs of devoting all our resources to meeting our current needs, for instance, is that we will have left none over to meet our future needs. Hence, purportedly, the need for an “economic surplus” – to meet the latter needs. However, this does not really capture, in my view, what is truly meant by an economic surplus. There are, of course, opportunity costs, to be taken into account in any kind of society. For example, there are opportunity costs involved in directing labour and resources between different lines of production. More tonnes of steel or hours of labour going into the construction of ships means less of these things for, say, tractor production. In this instance, certainly, an arithmetical procedure is implicated involving the subtraction or addition of the units in question. This is what is meant by “calculation in kind” and it t is indispensable to the operation of any kind of large scale society including –or perhaps one should say, especially – a hypothetical future socialist society. Nevertheless, what lies behind Marx’s reference to, for example, the need for certain reserve or insurance funds” in the case of accidents, dislocations or natural calamities etc., seems to entail more than just the notion of opportunity costs. The setting aside of these funds out of some notional surplus seems to imply some universal unit of accounting. Now for an exchange economy, this form of accounting makes perfect sense– to facilitate the exchange of commodities by rendering these commodities commensurable – but, for a socialist or communist society, it is deeply problematic. That is why I would reject the claim that this concept of an “economic surplus” would or could have any traction in a socialist society
I do agree with many of the ideas expressed by Robbo203, We must also remember that socialism-communism is not going to be an economical system, but a social production, it is not going to be production for production sake
It comes back to a theoretical definition or premise. You cannot start with a definitive statement then change it later. The reductive, minimalist or abstract ‘mathematical’ definition is. Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). What it produces is a surplus product. And its value is the amount of labour time required for it and that is surplus value. It applies irrespective of commodity production, exchange value, capitalism, labour vouchers or free access moneyless socialism. It isn’t actually a condition of the premise that what is produced during the necessary labour time is sold for money (or exchanged for vouchers) in order that the direct producers can buy stuff they need to reproduce their labour time. That fact that the premise was derived from how it operates in capitalism is of no matter. If you want to make a definitive statement conditional ie in capitalism or with exchange value then you can. That is in fact what people do; with value as conditional on the existence of exchange value and surplus value as conditional on profit and capitalism etc etc. You could argue that Karl should have made it conditional or was wrong not to etc; which would be a bit of a separate argument. But he clearly didn’t I think. Thus the feudal peasants worked on the Lords land on Thursdays and Fridays, during . those days they produced a surplus product, which they did not consume. (What they consumed was the stuff that they made on Mondays to Wednesday). The Thursdays and Fridays was surplus labour time ie surplus value that existed (embodied) in the surplus product. Actually that does not require exchange value or money or wages. Thus; So much is evident with respect to labour rent, the simplest and most primitive form of rent: Rent is here the primeval form of surplus-labour and coincides with it. But this identity of surplus-value with unpaid labour of others need not be analysed here because it still exists in its visible, palpable form, since the labour of the direct producer for himself is still separated in space and time from his labour for the landlord and the latter appears directly in the brutal form of enforced labour for a third person. In the same way the "attribute" possessed by the soil to produce rent is here reduced to a tangibly open secret, for the disposition to furnish rent here also includes human labour-power bound to the soil, and the property relation which compels the owner of labour-power to drive it on and activate it beyond such measure as is required to satisfy his own indispensable needs. Rent consists directly in the appropriation of this surplus expenditure of labour-power by the landlord; for the direct producer pays him no additional rent. Here, where surplus-value and rent are not only identical but where surplus-value has the tangible form of surplus-labour, the natural conditions or limits of rent, being those of surplus-value in general, are plainly clear. The direct producer must 1) possess enough labour-power, and 2) the natural conditions of his labour, above all the soil cultivated by him, must be productive enough, in a word, the natural productivity of his labour must be big enough to give him the possibility of retaining some surplus-labour over and above that required for the satisfaction of his own indispensable needs. It is not this possibility which creates the rent, but rather compulsion which turns this possibility into reality. But the possibility itself is conditioned by subjective and objective natural circumstances. And here too lies nothing at all mysterious. Should labour-power be minute, and the natural conditions of labour scanty, then the surplus-labour is small, but in such a case so are the wants of the producers on the one hand and the relative number of exploiters of surplus-labour on the other, and finally so is the surplus-product, whereby this barely productive surplus-labour is realised for those few exploiting landowners. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch47.htm
We do not need long definition. Surplus value is just dead labor, unpaid labor stolen from the sweat of the working class. If we look at all the corners of the capitalist society, from the bottom to the top, and from the top to the bottom, it is surplus value, or stolen labor
Dave B wrote:It comes back to a theoretical definition or premise. You cannot start with a definitive statement then change it later. The reductive, minimalist or abstract ‘mathematical’ definition is. Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). What it produces is a surplus product. And its value is the amount of labour time required for it and that is surplus value. It applies irrespective of commodity production, exchange value, capitalism, labour vouchers or free access moneyless socialism.I don't agree Dave. I think the concept of surplus labour or surplus product is completely meaningless outside the context of a class based or exploitative society. The surplus product is what the dominant class appropriates at the expense of the subordinate class(es) To consider your definition: Surplus labour is labour performed beyond which it is necessary for the direct producer(s) themselves(s) to reproduce their labour time (necessary labour time). Relating this to free access moneyless socialism – what might be necessary for the direct producers to reproduce their labour time. To reproduce their labour time through the consumption of consumer goods it is necessary also to make use of intermediate or producer goods. You cant produce the things you consume by hand so clearly producer goods are not "beyond" what is necessary for the direct producers to reproduce their labour time. Marx's mistake in suggesting an economic surplus or surplus product would continue to exist in socialism comes from unwittingly transposing the argument about surplus value in relation to capitalism. In capitalism, producer goods are financed out of surplus value as capital. So there develops a habit of thinking about producer goods like machinery as having to do with surplus labour or a surplus product. Producer goods are produced over and above what we consume so we consider the labour required to produce them as "surplus labour". But I put it to you that producer goods are not surplus in that sense at all in a free access socialist system. They are as necessary to the reproduction of labour time as consumer goods themselves – that is to say, you cannot produce consumer goods without producer goods If there is such a thing as a surplus product in socialism what exactly is it meant to be "surplus" to? No, the whole idea of a surplus product or surplus labour can only be relevant in the context of a class based society where one class is systematically compelled to produce more than what it itself consumer and for the benefit of another class
There would not exist any surplus value on a classless society, as well, there would not exist any proletarian class, and exploitative class to obtain aggregated value from the working class, even more, on a socialist society work is going to be voluntary, and we are going to have free access to whatever mankind will produce. It is just logical, we do not need Karl Marx to explain that
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.