‘Surplus Theory’ versus Marxian Theory

[Young Master Smeet]

Charlie wrote:

Secondly, after the abolition of the capitalist mode of production, but still retaining social production, the determination of value continues to prevail in the sense that the regulation of labour-time and the distribution of social labour among the various production groups, ultimately the book-keeping encompassing all this, become more essential than ever.

 https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch49.htm

Chuck wrote:

In the case of socialised production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labour-time. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch18.htm(My Bold — Also, note, not socially necessary labour time, but labour time, also note that vouchers are not essential, but an optional add on).Also, lets not forget Marx' distinction between concrete and abstract labour.  Where we have socialised production we are working to achieve definite ends.

Charlie (with the Help of The Devil Himself) wrote:

Whoever directly satisfies his wants with the produce of his own labour, creates, indeed, use values, but not commodities. In order to produce the latter, he must not only produce use values, but use values for others, social use values. (And not only for others, without more. The mediaeval peasant produced quit-rent-corn for his feudal lord and tithe-corn for his parson. But neither the quit-rent-corn nor the tithe-corn became commodities by reason of the fact that they had been produced for others. To become a commodity a product must be transferred to another, whom it will serve as a use value, by means of an exchange.)

With associated production, there won't be exchange, any more than there is exchange between different parts of a production line in a Ford plant.

[Sepehr]

You wrote: "This sums up your misunderstanding neatly"Quite contrary, it shows your own misunderstanding. "If everything is held in common how can exchange take place?" Who said that everything would be held in common?! That is a common misunderstanding about Marx's idea of "abolition of private appropriation of means of production".Besides, I did not invent that statement myself. Go back and read the statement I had quoted from Marx.

[Sepehr]

Since you have only reiterated the same erroneous exegesis, I need not to add anything new to my previous comments. Go back and read what I said earlier, and that too in case you truely seek to learn. Otherwise, which I believe is the case with you,  continue pattering your childish prattles, pretending to speak of science. Just like those kids who draw a penis on the blackboard, impersonate their geometrics teacher and pretend to talk in a most serious expression, therefore indulging themselves by openly expressing how much they hate both the teacher and those boring scientific discussions he teaches them.

[DJP]

One of the prerequisites of a successful discussion is respect for the other parties. As that is clearly missing I think there is no point continuing…

[Young Master Smeet]

Sepehr wrote:

How interesting indeed! According to Marx, and this is delineated well early in the very first volume of Capital, the definition of surplusvalue is any value generated excess to the "necessary labour";

Sorry, just spotted this, whilst fact checking.  For Marx the exchange value is the average socially necessary labour time: surplus value is the differenence between the value of commodity labour-power and the socially necessary labour time employed.  If, thus, we cease to purchase labour power, we abolish surplus value.  You may be thinking of surplus-profit.If, to take an example, a co-operative sets out to sell it's products, and divides all the income not needed for constant capital purchase and amortisation between its members, there is no surplus value (though we could notionally calculate one if an existing labour market could tell us the respective value of the labour-power of the co-op members), but there is value.

[Young Master Smeet]

Sepehr wrote:

Besides, I did not invent that statement myself. Go back and read the statement I had quoted from Marx.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch19.htmThe quoted section comes from a discussion of the notion of 'three revenues', and the thrust is that value comes from labour, not from land nor interest.  So the phrase "In this a commodity produced by a capitalist does not differ in any way from that produced by an independent labourer or by communities of working-people or by slaves." is directed against the idea that the capitalist (nor the landlord) bring anything to the table, value-wise.  This doesn't say anything about the nature of surplus value, nor would would happen under production among a conscious association.

[Dave B]

There is again a problem with all this as people here and elsewhere or even in general repeatedly confound value with exchange value when they are fundamentally different and derived from a completely different logical perspective.                                              You could argue that it matters jack shit at the end of the day but the problems become palpable when we start to quote Karl. The confusion is understandable after a fashion because the word ‘value’ lends itself to confusion with ‘economic’ value; whereas it should be understood as ‘a’ particular  value as in something that can be quantified. It would be therefore better I think if was dropped totally and all the words ‘value’ substituted for ‘quantity of human effort’, denominated in time, for the sake of convenience. So talking generalities, and even specifically excluding economics totally. Lets start with an empirical observation that one thing is ‘equal’ to another for reasons and causes, as yet, unknown or certainly unknown and involving concepts and the existence of ‘things’ beyond contemplation. We could start with an empirical observation, an effect or phenomena, here ‘on earth’, that a ‘lump or iron’ when ‘related’ to a ‘loaf of sugar’ on a ‘weighing balance’ are ‘equal’.   And that falcon feather weighs more than a hammer or not etc. If we were in outer space and on the space station and carefully placed our falcon feather and hammer on the balance they would both register 0 and we would be oblivious of the fact that either of them had a ‘weight’; in the narrow visible sense perception formal sense. Now if you were to propel both across the space station room at the same speed towards your comrade the difference in ‘mass’ rather than weight would manifest itself when they were hit on the head with it. As a transference of different amounts of kinetic energy as it hits our head. We naturally confound ‘weight’ and ‘mass’ re the kinetic energy of momentum in our sense perception world when we think of dropping a ‘moving’ brick on our foot.  At the moment it appears that the general scientific opinion is that ‘mass’ exists and ‘is’ and other stuff ‘acts’ on it to produce the phenomenal effect of weight.     Then;  “If, however, we bear in mind that the weight [exchange value] of an object has a ‘purely’ gravitational reality [ simple commodity production & capitalism etc], and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical Higgs Boson? Baryonic? substance, viz., mass, [labour theory of value etc etc] it follows as a matter of course, that mass [ labour theory of value/property] can only manifest itself in the gravitational relation [ simple commodity production & capitalism etc], of object to object.   In fact we started from weight, or the weight relation of objects, in order to get at the mass that lies hidden behind it. We must now return to this form [ as opposed to content] under which mass first appeared to us.” Or if you like in other words this ‘hidden’ thing called ‘mass’ first became apparent to us in  weight relations on gravitational earth in ‘phenomenal’ weight relations; but mass, like the ‘labour theory of value’ transcends that as a ‘thing in itself’ rather as effect or ‘weight’ phenomenon ie exchange value.  “Value”, like mass?, as a property or quantity of human effort that is ‘embodied in something’, as a predicate, is a ‘thing in itself’ that as such ‘categorically’ continues to exists independently of any relationships they may have with each other. Would ‘value’, or ‘quantity of human effort’, continue to exist or ‘matter’ in free access socialism? Or would it be I want it, I like it, it is available, it must be ok co’s otherwise they wouldn’t have, taken it for granted, made it etc etc?

[ALB]

Dave B wrote:

The confusion is understandable after a fashion because the word ‘value’ lends itself to confusion with ‘economic’ value; whereas it should be understood as ‘a’ particular  value as in something that can be quantified.It would be therefore better I think if was dropped totally and all the words ‘value’ substituted for ‘quantity of human effort’, denominated in time, for the sake of convenience.

I don't think that would be helpful as it suggests that "value" is a thing but this is precisely the point at issue. That's a definition which, like any definition, can be defended as it was, for instance, by David Ricardo, but not by Marx.This is what he wrote when introducing the concept of "value" in the opening chapter of Capital (in Section 3, a few pages in)

Marx wrote:

The value of commodities is the very opposite of the coarse materiality of their substance, not an atom of matter enters into its composition. Turn and examine a single commodity, by itself, as we will, yet in so far as it remains an object of value, it seems impossible to grasp it. If, however, we bear in mind that the value of commodities has a purely social reality, and that they acquire this reality only in so far as they are expressions or embodiments of one identical social substance, viz., human labour, it follows as a matter of course, that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity.

So a product of "human effort" only has value (in this sense) when it is produced to be exchanged for other such products, i.e to be bought and sold. And, although the substance of value is a "quantity of human effort", the value of a item produced for sale (a commodity) is not the actual amount of  effort exerted to produce it but the quantity of "abstract social labour" which is not the same and which can't be measured independently of the market; in fact it is the market which establishes what it is. This is why of course value in the Marxian sense won't exist in socialism as a non-market, non-exchange society. In fact to say that socialism is a non-market society is to say that is a non-value society.So, what you write in the following about value isthe  exact opposite of what Marx was trying to say( "that value can only manifest itself in the social relation of commodity to commodity"):

Dave B wrote:

“Value”, like mass?, as a property or quantity of human effort that is ‘embodied in something’, as a predicate, is a ‘thing in itself’ that as such ‘categorically’ continues to exists independently of any relationships they may have with each other.

For Marx products of human effort only have value precisely because their enter into relationships with products of human effort. A product of human effort on its own does not have any value (in the Marxian sense).Of course if you think it does then value has always existed and always will. To say something had value would just be another way of saying that it was a product of human effort..

Dave B wrote:

Would ‘value’, or ‘quantity of human effort’, continue to exist or ‘matter’ in free access socialism?

Of course in socialism products would still be the products of human effort and could be said to embody of a "quantity of human effort" but that wouldn't be value in the Marxian sense. And it would be the product of specific types of human effort not of "abstract human labour". Yes, it will need to be measured as will all the other resources used to produce something. But this will be part of calculation in kind and won't be a value calculation.

[Sepehr]

Dave B wrote:

There is again a problem with all this as people here and elsewhere or even in general repeatedly confound value with exchange value when they are fundamentally different and derived from a completely different logical perspective.                                              […] Would ‘value’, or ‘quantity of human effort’, continue to exist or ‘matter’ in free access socialism? Or would it be I want it, I like it, it is available, it must be ok co’s otherwise they wouldn’t have, taken it for granted, made it etc etc?

 Well said. Your point perfectly conforms to Marx's conception and method. But then again some "Marxists" would resort to grusome techniques of hermeneutics in order to force Marx to conform to their conceptions! Marx differentiated his works from utopian socialists, emphasizing on the scientific  aspect of it. That is in the sense that socialism cannot be built in dreams or ideas alone. Quite contrary, it must emanate out of the realities, utilizing all that is available under capitalism. The discussion of the two departments in volume II is not merely an abstract analysis of the capitalist market system. It also shows how a socialist society could replace the chaotic capitalist markets with a conscious social plan, and that is never possible without value measurements and system. Three points: 1- Since Marx wrote Capital, capitalism has overcome a great deal of its chaotic nature. Markets in the sense that they existed back then, no longer exist today. In the age of monopoly capitalism, as opposed to competitive capitalism, prices are no longer determined by markets based on competitive costs. It is rather demand and purchase power of consumers which is the main driver of prices. This is a big discussion and I am only giving a hint here. 2- A recurring mistake that I see here is the idea that somehow under socialism all the value produced by an association of workers is going to be distributed among them, therefore, based on this premise, it is concluded that surplusvalue ceises to exist. This is a huge misunderstanding. As I mentioned earlier, this was originally put forward by Lassale and Marx despised him for it. Under socialism, still workers will continue to produce a surplusvalue, but that surplusvalue is controlled collectively and goes to a social fund for development programs or other social or communal programs. 3- I feel there is also a misunderstanding about the meaning of communism as meant by Marx. As Marx grew older, he focused more and more on political economy and said very little about communism from a philosophical point of view. Marx's ideas were not holy verses descending from heaven. His thoughts were exceedingly dynamic and constantly evolving. Only within the last ten years of his life, he produced around 30,000 pages of manuscript, most of which is still not published in any language. If there is going to be enough funding, it will take at least another 20 years until we could have those works available. But to see how the late Marx was thinking about communism and wherewithals of transition into it, I would recommend his letter to Zasulich, especially its three drafts.The concept of communes is at the core of communism. Notice that communes is in plural form, i.e. there are several communes interacting with each other in a given society and that interaction will definitely include commodity exchange too. However, this exchange will acquire new qualities and is different from that undertaken between capitalist firms. Therefore it is impermissible to suggest a communist society is no different than a Ford plant!

[Sepehr]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

The quoted section comes from a discussion of the notion of 'three revenues', and the thrust is that value comes from labour, not from land nor interest.  So the phrase "In this a commodity produced by a capitalist does not differ in any way from that produced by an independent labourer or by communities of working-people or by slaves." is directed against the idea that the capitalist (nor the landlord) bring anything to the table, value-wise.  This doesn't say anything about the nature of surplus value, nor would would happen under production among a conscious association.

 So is that how you read Marx? In that case, e.g. all that Marx has said in his "On the Jewish Question" only pertains to Jews and cannot be used in any other context! He clearly mentions commodities are produced under all modes of production. If there are commodities, there is exchange. If there is exchange, there is value. If there is value, there is surplusvalue, i.e. produced value excess to the socially necessary labour time. And socially necessary labour time exists in all societies, whether capitalist or non-capitalist.

[Young Master Smeet]

Sepehr wrote:

2- A recurring mistake that I see here is the idea that somehow under socialism all the value produced by an association of workers is going to be distributed among them, therefore, based on this premise, it is concluded that surplusvalue ceises to exist. This is a huge misunderstanding. As I mentioned earlier, this was originally put forward by Lassale and Marx despised him for it. Under socialism, still workers will continue to produce a surplusvalue, but that surplusvalue is controlled collectively and goes to a social fund for development programs or other social or communal programs.

You're referring to the critique of the Gotha programme.  Marx was criticising the idea that the full value of each worker's labour would be returned to them, merely pointing out that a portion of their product would have to be used for new means of production and social assistance, that is, the product would be distributed among the whole community.  Marx does not mention surplus value there, nor would that be surplus value, it would simply be a fraction of the total product.  It would only be surplus value if the commune purchased labour power at its commodity value, but that wouldn't be the case (even with the labour time vouchers Marx discussed as an option).

Sepehr wrote:

The concept of communes is at the core of communism. Notice that communes is in plural form, i.e. there are several communes interacting with each other in a given society and that interaction will definitely include commodity exchange too. However, this exchange will acquire new qualities and is different from that undertaken between capitalist firms. Therefore it is impermissible to suggest a communist society is no different than a Ford plant!

Something from the late Marx:

Late Marx wrote:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm

Bakunin wrote:

The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?

Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

I'd also note that a Ford plant is part of an assembly process where doors are manufactured in one country, windows in another, and engines in yet another, these are internal within firm transfers, much as they would be between the different branches of the world socialist commune.

[Anonymous]

Sepehr wrote:

And socially necessary labour time exists in all societies, whether capitalist or non-capitalist.

Absolutely not!Socially necessary labour time determines value. It is a social relationship and applies only to commodity production.  'Labour time' cannot determine value because that would mean an individual could take as long as they wish to produce a commodity and increase its value.Socially necessary labour time is the product of a competitive market system.  

[Young Master Smeet]

Sepehr wrote:

Marx wrote:

"In this a commodity produced by a capitalist does not differ in any way from that produced by an independent labourer or by communities of working-people or by slaves."

 So is that how you read Marx? In that case, e.g. all that Marx has said in his "On the Jewish Question" only pertains to Jews and cannot be used in any other context! He clearly mentions commodities are produced under all modes of production. If there are commodities, there is exchange. If there is exchange, there is value. If there is value, there is surplusvalue, i.e. produced value excess to the socially necessary labour time. And socially necessary labour time exists in all societies, whether capitalist or non-capitalist.

Sorry, I dabble in English.  So, Marx says "A commodity produced" at the start of the sentence, he is assuming it is a commodity, he is not saying all modes of production and types of society produce commodities.  he then notes (and here is where the context is relevent) that a commodity produced without a private capitalist is still a commodity (which is precisely what we usually argue).  So, for example, if slaves are working on a plantation to create comodities, their labour time still creates value.  But if the slaves are used to keep the plantation self sufficient, it is not a commodity.Also, I note you are still conflating surplus value with surplus profit, as clearly explained, average socially necessary labour time is the definition of the total value of a commodity: surplus value is the difference between the value of labour power and the average socially necessary labour time that goes into a  commodity.  What you are arguing is closer to Proudhon than it is to Marx.

[robbo203]

Sepehr wrote:

 . It also shows how a socialist society could replace the chaotic capitalist markets with a conscious social plan, and that is never possible without value measurements and system. …….The concept of communes is at the core of communism. Notice that communes is in plural form, i.e. there are several communes interacting with each other in a given society and that interaction will definitely include commodity exchange too. However, this exchange will acquire new qualities and is different from that undertaken between capitalist firms. Therefore it is impermissible to suggest a communist society is no different than a Ford plant!

 This does not follow at all.  In fact you whole argument seems to be based on a contradiction.  First you assert socialism  or communism , according  to Marx,  will be a based on a "conscious social plan" i.e  society wide central planningThen you assert it will involve communes interacting with each other spontaneously i.e. that planning occurs at the level  of the communes and not society – and that these unplanned interactions will "defintely include commodity exhange too".  Thats nonsense.  When did Marx ever suggest commodity  exchange would continue in communism?.  As the Communist Manifesto itself noted, communism would entail the "communistic abolition of buying and selling" i.e. commodity productionI think where your reasonuing goes wrong is in assuming that anything short of full scale society-wide  central planning must entail market exchange.   I totally reject that argument.  Its the kind of argument put forward by the Ancaps to justify the need for a market.  In fact I would argue that the only realistic model of a totally non market socialist or communist economy would be one which would be very largely self regulatng  and decentralised. We see this in embryonic form today in the system of physical accounting   – stock control – that exists alongside the system of monetary accounting linking business enterprises along a supply chain. Socialism will dispense with monetary accounting  but will retain the physical accounting aspect of this relationship There would be no economic exchange in the quid pro quo sense since this necessarily implies private property and hence the absence of common ownership.  It would be very wrong to deduce from the mere existence of numerous planning bodies e.g. your aforementioned communes, the existence of private property as such which is what, I think , you are doing.

[robbo203]

Young Master Smeet wrote:

Also, I note you are still conflating surplus value with surplus profit, as clearly explained, average socially necessary labour time is the definition of the total value of a commodity: surplus value is the difference between the value of labour power and the average socially necessary labour time that goes into a  commodity.  What you are arguing is closer to Proudhon than it is to Marx.

 Dont you mean surplus PRODUCT?  Im not sure this would even be meaningful in the context of a socialist society.  There will just be different products satisfying different ends and that there will be opportunity costs involvd in producing anything at all

[Author]

Posts