5 ms·

>No, Marx considered profit made from the value added to commodities by labour, this profit arising from purchasing of labour-power, to be exploitation. That i

>No, Marx considered profit made from the value added to commodities by labour, this profit arising from purchasing of labour-power, to be exploitation. That is what I was implying. I was making the point that the non-labouring beneficiary of an enterprise that makes use of labour, who contributes only a financial investment, was accused of extracting economic rent, or in his words, 'surplus value'. >You've asserted that Marxism is demagogic quackery multiple times, without really saying why. Why do you think this is the case? Because it ignores the value contributed by the capital the investor provides. If the value of labour on its own was really equal to the value of money paid to the worker + the profit earned by the employer from the work the worker did on the commodities, then a worker on their own would be able to spend an equivalent number of hours converting commodities into a product, and earning a profit equal to what they would have made selling their labour, plus the profit their employer would have earned from their labour. The use-value of the work of the investor in saving capital, and intelligently directing it, is ignored in Marx's estimations, which is why this contradiction exists in what Marx claims labour is worth, and what profit it could actually produce on its own, without the capital of the investor.

ue_ 9y ago
> If the value of labour on its own was really equal to the value of money paid to the worker Nobody, not even Marx, is claiming this. The employer does not actually buy labour, this is a popular misconception. He purchases the capacity to perform labour, which is measured usually in hours (though it can be measured by other metrics too). This capacity is a separate commodity, which is the only thing most workers have available to sell. This commodity is a special kind, for its use value (not exchange value) is the ability to create value, that value is transferred to the products themselves and is crystallised in them, as abstract labour. >and intelligently directing it Nobody denies that the direction itself is applying labour to the products; for if it wasn't, engineers or project managers wouldn't be applying labour. The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. Do you not think that a capitalis' labour, when applied in conjuction with the labour of the workers, equals a product which is exactly equal in value to the product if the capitalist was also extracting surplus? The fact is that surplus does not need to be extracted for the products to be made, which is the entire argument behind socialism - you don't need the capitalist for production.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  > The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor because the capitalist is not only supplying labor, but also supplying capital. And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. We're all out in the fields, harvesting them with sickles, because nobody is willing to buy tractors. Or put it this way: Here's a tool that makes workers more productive. Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. That surplus value goes a few directions. Some of it goes to the workers. (Those workers are now worth more due to knowing how to use the tool, because their labor is more productive.) Some goes to the workers who made the tool. And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. You may consider this to be unjust, because the capitalist is getting paid for the labors of others. But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. And even if you still consider the situation to be unjust, in the real world the capitalist needs to be rewarded, or nobody buys the tools. (Note well: I am saying that it is just that the capitalist gets some of the surplus value created by the use of the tools - not all of it.)
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor No, the capitalist actually receives all of it; the products of labour are re-appropriated at the end of production. The capitalist then pays wage, which is equal to the amount required to sustain the worker, i.e what is required to reproduce his labour-power commodity. > And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. I agree, though I can't see why the workers cannot band together and buy tools and capital themselves. Also, tools aren't purchased so that the workers can be more productive, they are purchased in order to increase profit, which may come at the expense of workers. > And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. Marx was not arguing that the world should be like this, though. It's important to note that according to his law of value, it's only socially necessary labour which counts, a manufacturer can thus increase the value of one hour taken to make his product relative to others by purchasing machinery that gets the job done faster. > Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. No, the value is merely transferred from the tool to the product, no extra value is created simply by employing the tool. The products may end up with more value, or the same value. > And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. The surplus doesn't go to the capitalist to buy the tool; in fact, the tool is purchased prior to the good being sold. The capitalist may re-invest surplus into buying more tools, though. > But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. No, the others could labour and even purchase the tools themselves, without the capitalist. In a Communist society, this is how it would function. A property owner is not required for the process of producing useful things. Surplus value, according to Marx, does not come out of using tools, it only comes out of the disparity between the value created by the use-value of labour power and the exchange value of labour power. The capitalist in the long run would in fact extract less surplus value with the more automation he employs, because variable capital produces the value whereas constant capital (tools etc.) can only be purchased, and they are worn down according to the value they add. Their maintenance however requires more labour, and that labour the capitalist can profit from.

ue_ 9y ago

> If the value of labour on its own was really equal to the value of money paid to the worker Nobody, not even Marx, is claiming this. The employer does not actually buy labour, this is a popular misconception. He purchases the capacity to perform labour, which is measured usually in hours (though it can be measured by other metrics too). This capacity is a separate commodity, which is the only thing most workers have available to sell. This commodity is a special kind, for its use value (not exchange value) is the ability to create value, that value is transferred to the products themselves and is crystallised in them, as abstract labour. >and intelligently directing it Nobody denies that the direction itself is applying labour to the products; for if it wasn't, engineers or project managers wouldn't be applying labour. The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. Do you not think that a capitalis' labour, when applied in conjuction with the labour of the workers, equals a product which is exactly equal in value to the product if the capitalist was also extracting surplus? The fact is that surplus does not need to be extracted for the products to be made, which is the entire argument behind socialism - you don't need the capitalist for production.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
> The question is why the capitalist not only receives the fruits of his own labour, but also the fruits of others' labour. The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor because the capitalist is not only supplying labor, but also supplying capital. And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. We're all out in the fields, harvesting them with sickles, because nobody is willing to buy tractors. Or put it this way: Here's a tool that makes workers more productive. Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. That surplus value goes a few directions. Some of it goes to the workers. (Those workers are now worth more due to knowing how to use the tool, because their labor is more productive.) Some goes to the workers who made the tool. And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. You may consider this to be unjust, because the capitalist is getting paid for the labors of others. But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. And even if you still consider the situation to be unjust, in the real world the capitalist needs to be rewarded, or nobody buys the tools. (Note well: I am saying that it is just that the capitalist gets some of the surplus value created by the use of the tools - not all of it.)
- ue_ 9y ago
  >The capitalist receives some of the fruit of other's labor No, the capitalist actually receives all of it; the products of labour are re-appropriated at the end of production. The capitalist then pays wage, which is equal to the amount required to sustain the worker, i.e what is required to reproduce his labour-power commodity. > And if the capitalist doesn't get paid, then he/she has no incentive to risk the capital in order to buy tools so the workers can be more productive. I agree, though I can't see why the workers cannot band together and buy tools and capital themselves. Also, tools aren't purchased so that the workers can be more productive, they are purchased in order to increase profit, which may come at the expense of workers. > And then we're in a world where all that really counts is the labor invested in a product, but it's not a better world. Marx was not arguing that the world should be like this, though. It's important to note that according to his law of value, it's only socially necessary labour which counts, a manufacturer can thus increase the value of one hour taken to make his product relative to others by purchasing machinery that gets the job done faster. > Workers using that tool create more value than would be created by the same workers without that tool. No, the value is merely transferred from the tool to the product, no extra value is created simply by employing the tool. The products may end up with more value, or the same value. > And some goes to the capitalist who puts up the money to buy the tool. The surplus doesn't go to the capitalist to buy the tool; in fact, the tool is purchased prior to the good being sold. The capitalist may re-invest surplus into buying more tools, though. > But the capitalist is also enabling the labors of others. No, the others could labour and even purchase the tools themselves, without the capitalist. In a Communist society, this is how it would function. A property owner is not required for the process of producing useful things. Surplus value, according to Marx, does not come out of using tools, it only comes out of the disparity between the value created by the use-value of labour power and the exchange value of labour power. The capitalist in the long run would in fact extract less surplus value with the more automation he employs, because variable capital produces the value whereas constant capital (tools etc.) can only be purchased, and they are worn down according to the value they add. Their maintenance however requires more labour, and that labour the capitalist can profit from.