‘Surplus Theory’ versus Marxian Theory
- This topic has 148 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
robbo203 wrote: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
No, surplus product is what peasants make over subsistance. Surplus profit is where a capitalist firm produces at a rate below the average socially necessary labour time (though technical innovation, say) but can still sell 'above value' by selling at the prevailing market rate.
Young Master Smeet wrote:robbo203 wrote: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 allNo, surplus product is what peasants make over subsistance. Surplus profit is where a capitalist firm produces at a rate below the average socially necessary labour time (though technical innovation, say) but can still sell 'above value' by selling at the prevailing market rate.
OK Im with you now…
Sepehr wrote: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."Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning" Critique of the Gotha Progamme K Marx
Quote: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.Sepehr, I noticed that you cited Wolff approvingly in an earlier post. I wonder if this mention is related to his proposals for Worker Self Directed Enterprises.
Sepehr wrote: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.If this is the passage you are referring (and quote in an earlier post) then Marx is not saying what you say he is saying(that "commodities are produced under all modes of production"). What he is saying is that
Marx wrote:The process of production expires in the commodity. The fact that labour-power was expended in its fabrication now appears as a material property of the commodity, as the property of possessing value. The magnitude of this value is measured by the amount of labour expended; the value of a commodity resolves itself into nothing else besides and is not composed of anything else. […] 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. But in the present case the entire product of labour, as well as its entire value, belongs to the capitalist. Like every other producer he has to convert his commodity by sale into money before he can manipulate it further; he must convert it into the form of the universal equivalent." (Capital, Vol II, Chapter XIX, 5. Recapitulation, pp. 235, 236)What he is saying that wherever commodities are produced, i.e whenever goods are produced for sale, so is value, irrespective of who produces it and under what conditions, whether by a wage-worker employed by a capitalist, a worker working for himself on his own, by slaves (as, eg, in the antebellum American South) or by "a community of working people" (e.g a cooperative of one sort or another). If, on the other hand, the producers are not producing commodities (wealth for sale) then no value is produced, again irrespective of the conditions, whether by subsistence farmers, slaves or serfs producing for their direct use and the direct use of their masters, or free producers in socialist society.But this passage does mean that Marx, you and us agree on one thing: where commodities are produced by "communities of working-people" (as Wolff and you propose) then so is value and, if you like, "surplus value" (as the value produced over and above the value of what is needed to maintain the workers fit to work). The point of disagreement is over whether or not Marx regarded such an arrangement as socialism. We think not, and the evidence is on our side. Marx clearly wanted to see an end to commodity-production, of which capitalism is the highest form, and its "fetishism" (alienation).
Sepher wrote: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.Here you are mixing up two different concepts of "necessary labour" in Marxian economy. There is (a) necessary labour in the sense of the labour needed to maintain the producers as producers and (b) socially necesssary labour as the content of value. No doubt (a) will exist in all societies, including socialism, but (b) is something different. It is a measure of the labour embodied in a commodity which of course is more than "necessary labour" in sense (a). If the value of commodities was determined by the amount of sense (a) necessary labour then of course they would be selling at a price much lower than they actually do. True, it wasn't a good idea to use the term "necessary labour" with two different meanings but there you are.
Vin wrote:Socially necessary labour time is the product of a competitive market system.Not at all! Socially necessary labour time is a measurement and absolutely necessary for any kind of social planning, whether capitalistic or socialistic. It may rise due to infavourable circumstances such as a drout, etc., or it may fall due to favourable circumstances such as improved technology, etc. Capitalism as we see today has increasingly done away with the competitive market system, do you think the labour theory of value no longer applies? That is a very peculiar approach to Marx's contributions!
You are using snlt out of its context which was to explain 'exchange value' in Karl Marx's anylisis of the commodity in Capital.Labour is necessary to produce anything but that explains nothing. It is not 'measured' in capitalism it is a social relationship specific to commodity production. Commodities will not be produced in socialism. 'things' for use will be produced for free distribution not for sale
robbo203 wrote:"Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor. The phrase "proceeds of labor", objectionable also today on account of its ambiguity, thus loses all meaning" Critique of the Gotha Progamme K MarxThus production appears as the point of departure, consumption as the conclusion, distribution and exchange as the middle, which is however itself twofold, since distribution is determined by society and exchange by individuals. The person objectifies himself in production, the thing subjectifies itself in the person; [9] in distribution, society mediates between production and consumption in the form of general, dominant determinants; in exchange the two are mediated by the chance characteristics of the individual. Distribution determines the relation in which products fall to individuals (the amount); exchange determines the production[10] in which the individual demands the portion allotted to him by distribution. Thus production, distribution, exchange and consumption form a regular syllogism; production is the generality, distribution and exchange the particularity, and consumption the singularity in which the whole is joined together. This is admittedly a coherence, but a shallow one. Production is determined by general natural laws, distribution by social accident, and the latter may therefore promote production to a greater or lesser extent; exchange stands between the two as formal social movement; and the concluding act, consumption, which is conceived not only as a terminal point but also as an end-in-itself, actually belongs outside economics except in so far as it reacts in turn upon the point of departure and initiates the whole process anew. (Grundrisse, pp. 30, 31) The more deeply we go back into history, the more does the individual, and hence also the producing individual, appear as dependent, as belonging to a greater whole: in a still quite natural way in the family and in the family expanded into the clan [Stamm]; then later in the various forms of communal society arising out of the antitheses and fusions of the clan. Only in the eighteenth century, in ‘civil society’, do the various forms of social connectedness confront the individual as a mere means towards his private purposes, as external necessity.(Grundrisse, p. 26 The latter statement pertains to the discussion of socialization of production. Heterospheric trusts and cartels are the highest forms of socialized production today. Between separate branches of a trust, transactions take place in the form of usual exchanges, i.e. C-M-C. However, it is not through a competitive market, but based on a central plan. Communes and associations of self directed workers will be no different in that sense. This however, is not as straightforward as I am showing here. I am just giving a hint of a protracted discussion, many parts of which are still open questions to us, as they were to Marx, therefore demanding social experimentation in long path towards socialism.
Some societies would have used more labour time than necessary (a point Morris makes), the builders of the likes of Stonehenge may have eschewed production methods that used less labour in favour of using more (to demonstrate the nyumber of followers in their band). Arguably, socialism will be ends driven, and will not necessarilly try to spare labour. Whilst indicative labour planning might be useful we shouldn't be dictated to by it.
alanjjohnstone wrote:Sepehr, I noticed that you cited Wolff approvingly in an earlier post. I wonder if this mention is related to his proposals for Worker Self Directed Enterprises.Wolff is a practical man. His target audience is the masses of people, the same people who enjoy watching American Awards, Oscar or Miss World shows for hours. He also targets students of economics, the same students who are pumped with fairy tales of "market equilibrium" theories all the time. He often encourages them to read Marx, but he sure knows most people would not do that. And he has been successful so far with unlimbering a real social movement. His followers are expanding at a visibly rapid pace. Of course it is not possible to summarize all three volumes of Marx's Capital, let alone all his works, in a few chapters of a book which is intended to target simple minded ordinary people. Wolff himself often admits that he is over-simplifying many discussions. Nonetheless, his overall direction is quite permissible and complies with the conclusions of much profounder discussions given by others. Wolff is not a lone wolf! He is part of a whole school of thought, an intellectual movement and a succession of generations, from Baran, Sweezy, Magdoff and Gunder Frank to Istvan Mezaros, Samir Amin and John Bellamy Foster. If you think you need the profound discussions instead of the over-simplified versions put forward by Wolff, you ought to study other works. I would suggest writings of Istvan Mezaros, especially his magnum opus, entitled "Beyond Capital". There you can see the complete picture. All about communes and all the rest of it in great detail. Once you have gone through that, come back and check Wolff's works. Only then you would truely appreciate his approach.
Vin wrote:You are using snlt out of its context which was to explain 'exchange value' in Karl Marx's anylisis of the commodity in Capital.Labour is necessary to produce anything but that explains nothing. It is not 'measured' in capitalism it is a social relationship specific to commodity production. Commodities will not be produced in socialism. 'things' for use will be produced for free distribution not for saleMarx was not interested in Utopianism, that is why he did not waste his time phantasizing about it.In a capitalist society, commodities are produced for the purpose of exchange. That is why we often see commodities that are supposed to have a certain use-value but indeed do not have it. Nevertheless, under the same capitalist society, commodities must also have a use-value, otherwise there could be no exchange. That is what Marx was trying to explain about the dual character of commodities. In other words, although commodities are produced for the purpose of exchange, but use-value still exists and cannot be eliminated. Now think one step ahead and beyond capitalism. Consider a society where production is organized for the purpose of creating use-values. In such a society exchange will still exist in the same way that use-values still exist under capitalism. If you are thinking about a society in which exchange is completely eliminated while the highly socialized character of production still persists, that for now belongs to the realm of phantasy. You may argue my suggestion is not "Marxist", then I will have to ask you to go and check what Marx himself did during his political activism. Did he not vindicate coalition with the bourgeoisie at some stages? Did he not vindicate nationalism? Did he not support peasant communes in Russia? Marx, too, was a practical man, he never got himself restricted by the manacles of dogma. That is why I say your quibbles about Wolff are purely scholastic.
Sepehr, How do you rate Andrew Kliman as a Marxist teacher? I believe he engaged in some polemics with Wolff. He fairly recently addressed a meeting of this Party which you can watch herehttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/andrew-kliman-failure-capitalist-production-pt1http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/video/andrew-kliman-failure-capitalist-production-pt2Having read a fair amount on Mondragon Co-op, I think i must agree with you that Wolff's endorsement of that model in an over-simplification using it more as a propaganda piece for WSDEs by softening his criticisms of Mondragon. Sepehr, another question on another Marxist economist. What do you think of Paul Mattick's (and now his son Paul Jnr's) contribution to Marxist economic interpretation, Paul Snr. was very critical of Paul Sweezy and Paul Baran's analysis. https://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1966/monopoly-capital.htm
Quote:I will have to ask you to go and check what Marx himself did during his political activism."Did he not vindicate coalition with the bourgeoisie at some stages?" He certainly did but being adherents to the material conception of history we have to place this support in its proper context of time and circumstances. He viewed the relics of feudalism as a hinderance to the development of industry and the growth of the working class and the rise of the bourgeois democratic form. But most of all he emphasised their political independence from the bourgeois starting from his 1850 Address to the Communist League, a position that he maintained throughout his life. IMHO he wouldn't be supporting Sanders Democratic Party presedential candidate nominee bid but that is speculation on my part. Did he not vindicate nationalism? Again this was conditional and not carte blanche as we see by his attitude towards Slavic nationalism. His support for Polish independence was that it would weaken Tsarism. Whereas he viewed Slav freedom as proxy support for Russia.Closer to home, is support for Irish independence was for it would weaken the position of the English landed aristocracy. The English landed aristocracy still enjoyed considerable political power. The majority of the working class were still vote-less, there were not yet secret ballots, the House of Lords could still reject any Bill it objected to as long as it was not financial.As he put it in a letter dated 9 April,1870:
Quote:"Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of the aristocracy’s material welfare; it is its greatest moral strength. It, in fact, represents the domination of England over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the great means by which the English aristocracy maintains its domination in England itself. If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to withdraw from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution there. But the overthrow of the English aristocracy in Ireland involves as a necessary consequence its overthrow in England. And this would fulfil the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England"Marx may well have been right about the effect of Irish independence in 1870. Since the English landlords only retained their power to exploit the Irish peasants by force of British arms, a British withdrawal from Ireland could well have led to their expropriation. But this was never put to the test and the Irish land question was solved in quite a different way even before Ireland got independence. The series of Land Purchase Acts introduced between 1885 and 1903 enabled the government to buy out the Anglo-Irish landowners and then lend the peasants the money to buy their farms. By 1921 Ireland was largely a country of small farmers. In the meantime the political power of the English landed aristocracy had finally been broken by a series of reform measures .What this meant was that by the time Ireland was about to get independence after the World War 1, the changes Marx had expected it to bring—land reform in Ireland and a weakening of aristocratic power in England—had already been brought about by other means. His particular case for supporting Irish independence was thus no longer relevant. Marx’s strategy on Ireland was concerned with furthering the establishment of political democracy in England. Marx realised that the struggle of the Irish Nationalists for Home Rule was bound to help the evolution in Britain of political democracy because both struggles were directed against: the same class enemy, the English landed aristocracy. It was not an anticipation of the Leninist theory of imperialism according to which independence for colonies will help precipitate a socialist revolution in the imperialist countries, though it is sometimes misunderstood to be this by many on the Left.Did he not support peasant communes in Russia?He certainly shared Kropotkin’s optimism that they may well be of use in building socialism. Marx shows himself not to be a determinist and confirms his materialist approach. Marx's hopes of the emancipatory possibilities of the "peasant commune" in Russia was, however, not reflected by the Bolshevik’s or by their practices. Today we should neither should be manacled by dogma, as you so rightly say…What Marx said and did in the 19th C, has to be weighed up in regard to the conditions of today. That is Marxism.
There are many things Marx said that we would disagree with. However we do agree with him that 2 plus 2 equals 4. We also agree with his analysis of political economy and his theory of history: Historical Materialism.I use penicillin but I don't agree with everything Alexander Flemming said or did.
This is a essentially an argument over the meaning of socialism and, secondarily, over what Marx meant by socialism (or communism as he preferred to call it). Does socialism, can socialism, involve an exchange economy? We say no. Wolff and his followers say yes. Marx said no too, but that's a matter of historical interest and accuracy.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.