Don't blame the Unions.
When a laborer goes to work for an eight hour day in our manufacturing sector, it takes the sale of only a portion of what he produces to cover his total compensation for the day. The rest of what he produces belongs to the owner of the business and is called surplus value. From this share the owner must pay his business expenses (less labor costs) and gain his profit.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Mark Eden
Dan - You will need to justify your .75 figure that you snatch out of thin air. Why should one accept that that amount of surplus value was necessary to spend as you claim it was (for your example) in production? You seem to be saying something like - 'what is is what is necessary'.
How about we just cut back on lawyer and lobbying costs if we're looking for a wage increase?
Mark
27 - Mark Eden
btw Dan -
- the second set of graphs in the article include figures for all salaried employees
- land, equipment and buildings are assets
Mark
28 - Phillip Winn
Mark, whether it's .01 or .75 or higher or somewhere in between, it doesn't figure into you analysis at all. Call it x, it's still important -- more so, in many ways, than "surplus value."
A world in which every product is solely the result of labor plus material is much more simple than today's world, in which automation, distribution, marketing, and many other factors often serve to make labor costs a very small piece of the pie.
That's all just theory, however, so examples might help. I'll wait.
29 - Dan(Miller)
Mark, How about we just cut back on lawyer and lobbying costs if we're looking for a wage increase? Sounds good to me -- for both employers and unions, of course.
As to the seventy-five cent figure, I pulled it out of the same air from which you pulled your workers making two $1.00 widgets per day and being paid $1.00 per day. Why should one accept that that amount of surplus value was necessary to spend as you claim it was (for your example) in production? Why not? A lot probably depends on the nature of the widgets being made: are they simple widgets or complex widgets? Do they require really fine tolerances in manufacture, or can it all be done with a pocket knife beside a pleasant babbling brook? How are they transported to markets where? These questions, and a whole lot of others, suggest to me that the concept of "surplus value," whatever legitimacy it may have had back in the good old days when Karl Marx was writing, has very little to do with the currently rather more complex industrial situation in which the United States finds herself. Technology, distribution, and a whole lot of other things have changed dramatically since then; the concept of "surplus value," apparently, has not.
Dan(Miller)
30 - Mark Eden
Phillip and Dan - while your point is well taken, the purpose of the exercise was to get a picture of trends in the rate of surplus value. A more thorough analysis looking for exact/real annual rates of surplus value would factor in all of the expenses that you and Dan raise and would use the actual full market value of what is produced.
Using 'value added' allowed me to limit the problem and loosely factor in your 'x' cost. Perhaps I need to take a few years at random, work out such a 'full' analysis, and compare the results with what I came up with.
The modern complexity of production doesn't eliminate surplus value.
Mark
31 - Mark Eden
('Perhaps I need to take a few years at random, work out such a 'full' analysis, and compare the results with what I came up with.' was a joke, of course. But I hear no laughing.)
Phillip - your ...today's world, in which automation, distribution, marketing, and many other factors often serve to make labor costs a very small piece of the pie. is pretty much my point in the article. The trend in surplus value that I point to 'proves' what you say true. So I ask again: what sense does it make to blame unions for the sorry state of affairs in manufacturing?
Mark
32 - Clavos
But I hear no laughing
Probably because pixels have no sense of humor...
33 - Mark Eden
Beware of prankster pixels, Clavos.
34 - Mark Eden
Dave, Phillip and Dan - Let me try to be clear about my intent in the article that I clearly have failed to get across. You guys seem to think that I am calling for a wage increase or some kind of a Walmart 'roll-back' in the rate of surplus value so that the owner would have less and the worker more. In fact, I am only trying to describe how the system has developed over the past sixty years based on something more than theory and suspicion.
Arguing over where a raise might come from or whether owners are spending their surplus value appropriately misses the point.
Were I to advocate, it would be for a total overthrow of the owner/worker distinction.
I apologize for the confusion.
Mark
35 - Dan(Miller)
Mark, I don't think I completely missed your point. What I was trying to suggest in my comments was that the "surplus value" concept which you espouse makes no sense in a complex, industrialized economy such as the U.S. presently has. Using that concept to argue that somehow the system is unfair to workers does not convince me.
As to total overthrow of the owner/worker distinction, that seems utopian and highly counterproductive at best -- even though, like Christianity, it has never been seriously attempted on a large scale.
Dan(Miller)
36 - Mark Eden
Dan - call the amount ((market value) less (labor cost))what you would like to. Calling it 'surplus value' makes it no less a real amount than any other name would. Call the percentage ((market value) less (labor cost) divided by (labor cost)) what you would like to. Calling it 'the rate of surplus value' makes it no less real a percentage based on real numbers. Are you arguing that 'market value' and 'labor costs' cannot be figured in our complex economy? That they are somehow imaginary numbers?
Using that concept to argue that somehow the system is unfair to workers does not convince me.
Again you misunderstand me. The only issue of fairness that I argue in the article is that it is unfair to blame workers for the crises that manufacturers are experiencing. 'Fairness' as you seem to be using the term is not the issue and plays no part in my analysis. Were I to argue fairness I'd say the system, doomed as it is to repetitive crises, is 'unfair' to all.
...total overthrow of the owner/worker distinction...seems utopian and highly counterproductive at best
In my opinion, anything less simply will perpetuate our ongoing dystopia. But that's a different argument than whether or not the trend in the rate of surplus value is accurately described by my exercise.
Mark
37 - Doug Hunter
All of the value of an item flows into three categories: Labor, Taxes, and Profit. If the percentage of labor is going down then either taxes or profits are up.
Taxes are indeed going up an average of 7-8% of GDP during the time period of the graph so that could explain some of the discrepancy.
Profits can only go up in the absence of adequate competition. As most humans seek to gain profit and power for themselves at all levels, from employee, to entrepeneur, to businessman and beyond the lack of competition is not a natural problem. Usually a lack of competition is either a sign of low demand or government interference in the marketplace (necessary or otherwise)
The government needs to ensure a competitive marketplace, get back to destroying monopolies instead of handing them out. Any company that is 'too big to fail' is too big a liability to exist and needs to be broken up. A special department needs to be set up to identify where the government is interfering with competition and find ways to mitigate or regulate profits if the conflict cannot be avoided (utilities, intellectual property, etc). I'd even go as radically far as suggesting the government actually subsidize or tilt the playing field in favor of new or smaller businesses.
Competition is alot like exercise, no one likes it but in the end it's good for us. Let's get back to doing what's right for society even if it makes some corporate bigwigs have to work a bit harder. In short, capitalism and corporatism aren't the same thing. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
38 - Dave Nalle
Were I to advocate, it would be for a total overthrow of the owner/worker distinction.
I actually think I got that - see my earlier discussion of cooperatives. My counter to that would be that it would be wrong to impose such an overthrow by force of government, so it would need to be a grassroots movement of some sort, which started small, proved it could compete in the marketplace and was so successful that the old capitalist model became obsolete. Good luck with that.
Dave
39 - Cindy D
...it would be wrong to impose such an overthrow by force of government...
It would be insane also. But, what we could be doing is something like requiring that all businesses receiving bailouts be collectivized to the workers--or allowed to collapse.
40 - Cindy D
Dave,
I consider you an expert and I need some help. Can you give me a very succinct description of what Capitalism is supposed to accomplish? I mean as a basis for freedom and liberty.
41 - Cindy D
I am working on an argument, which I would like to begin, not with my own conception, but with yours, as a supporter of Capitalism.
Not caring much for it, I might otherwise miss some alleged benefit.
42 - Dave Nalle
Cindy, what we talk about when we talk about "capitalism" is probably much broader than the strict definition of capitalism.
At its most basic, capitalism is the system of commerce in which individuals control resources, trade in them or use them in manufacturing goods which are then sold to consumers.
The great irony of capitalism is that as a system it was defined not by capitalists, but anti-capitalists and in particular marxists, so the entire definition is somewhat suspect. Capitalists never defined capitalism themselves, because as far as the early capitalists were concerned it was just the natural state of the free market.
When we talk about capitalism today, we're really talking about a broad classification which includes a number of different forms of capitalism.
Closest to the original model is "Free Market Capitalism" which is differentiated from other forms of capitalism by the absence of any form of governmental coercion or regulation of trade, though it may allow for regulation of things like workplace and product safety and other aspects of manufacturing not associated with the actual exchange of goods or resources. This is the form of capitalism which I support, because it allows individuals to receive the most possible return on their efforts and investment and the most control over what work they do and how they do it.
IMO (and I'm going into wild personal theories here), most of the capitalism practiced today is some form of what I call Corporatism, which is very close in function to Mercantilism which most economists would say preceded and was replaced by capitalism. But as I see it the way corporatism functions is not a hell of a lot different from how Mercantilism functioned. In a corporatist system the natural push of capitalism to be as efficient as possible in the generation of profit results in the pooling of assets and wealth into corporate entities, because in most industries economy of scale dictates that larger means more efficiency and less overhead. Corporatism becomes like Mercantilism, because once the corporations become large enough their wealth and influence cause the government to become protective of their interests, creating a symbiotic relationship between government and business, to the point where the interests of business and the interests of government become almost indistinguishable. In the bailout we can see where this system ends up when it goes bad.
When I advocate capitalism I am NOT advocating corporatism, but rather free market capitalism, which allows for the pooling of wealth and resources and the creation of corporations, but maintains a strict line of separation between business and government. That separation allows government to fill a regulatory role, but not a protectionist role or to become interdependent with business.
Currently the dominant alternative to corporatism is some form of market socialism, where resources and vital industries are primarily controlled by the state, but a certain amount of entrepreneurism and free trade is allowed within that framework, often under the restrictions of some sort of central economic planning from the government. IMO this is no better than corporatism and ends up with most of the same problems.
Was that at all helpful?
Dave
43 - Mark Eden
Doug - All of the value of an item flows into three categories: Labor, Taxes, and Profit.
This is a reasonable way to view things. For my purposes, though, it has the problem of where to find data that relates these categories in some consistent fashion so that we can see change over time.
Dave - My counter to that would be that it would be wrong to impose such an overthrow by force of government, so it would need to be a grassroots movement of some sort, which started small, proved it could compete in the marketplace and was so successful that the old capitalist model became obsolete.
I agree completely about force of government, and frankly think that the use of force at all (even at the grassroots level) would be disastrous. Any change will have to be based on the development of a new rationalizing principle for the market to replace maximizing profit that doesn't stifle innovation, etc. This is a tall order that no one has handled well so far imo. But then, crisis does get the creative juices flowing.
Mark
44 - Dave Nalle
If you come up with a better business model in these hard times, people will beat a path to your door. I suspect that as things go, the old-fashioned agricultural coops and their members and the guys selling at the farmers market will prosper. The same for those using the internet as their primary mode of business, which is a kind of new business model.
BTW, I'm not sure about Doug's Labor-Taxes-Profit troika. Where are the costs for materials, facilities, research, etc? Shouldn't taxes just be replaced with overhead, which includes all of these things and taxes as well?
Dave
45 - Cindy D
Dave,
Closest to the original model is "Free Market Capitalism" which is differentiated from other forms of capitalism by the absence of any form of governmental coercion or regulation of trade, though it may allow for regulation of things like workplace and product safety and other aspects of manufacturing not associated with the actual exchange of goods or resources.
So, say workplace safety was compromised in a foreign country, how would the U.S. government insure safety in that case without interfering with trade? Would you object to interference here?
...free market capitalism, which allows for the pooling of wealth and resources and the creation of corporations, but maintains a strict line of separation between business and government.
So, are you saying that it's not really the size of the corporation that's the real problem, but government protection of corporate interests?
Thanks, that was helpful. Could you give me an idea why you believe this system results in maximum individual freedom and liberty?
46 - Mark Eden
If you come up with a better business model in these hard times, people will beat a path to your door.
Dave, I'm still way back at the beginning trying to come up with a clear evidence based explanation of 'why crises' and a motivational argument for why these crises cannot be ignored or simply lived with as necessary evils. (Although the latter might well take care of itself as our unemployment rate soars.)
Cindy, re your request for something to read on this, get a hold of Miguel Ramirez' 1990 paper Keynes Marx and the Business Cycle. It's a decent portal into the topic.
Mark
47 - Mark Eden
Concerning Doug's approach - when he gets it quantified and presented as an argument, then we can argue the specifics. In the meantime, I admire and encourage his attempts to clearly state his case.
Mark
48 - Doug Hunter
"BTW, I'm not sure about Doug's Labor-Taxes-Profit troika. Where are the costs for materials, facilities, research, etc?"
Have you ever paid a material to do anything? Materials are priced based on the labor it takes to find, extract, and transport them (with taxes and profits to the middlemen of course). Likewise buildings and research are simply the products of labor, etc.
That being said, overhead is indeed a very important concept. It is a primary barrier to competition. Anything that can be done to reduce or eliminate overhead for new businesses would be a plus and that includes taxes and government red tape in my mind.
49 - Dave Nalle
I guess you can reduce some aspects of overhead to labor, but some things DO have intrinsic value independent of labor. Different raw materials have different levels of scarcity. Building widgets from gold is inherently more expensive than building them from clay. And the real estate on which your facility sits has an intrinsic value as well, based primarily on location and that cannot be reduced to labor.
Dave
50 - Dave Nalle
Cindy: So, say workplace safety was compromised in a foreign country, how would the U.S. government insure safety in that case without interfering with trade? Would you object to interference here?
I would expect workplace safety in a foreign country to be managed by the government of that country. After all, the safety of their citizens/workers is their responsibility, not the responsibility of a foreign government. Doubly true since in many cases the management of the factory will be local and contracted by a US or international business to work for them on a for hire basis.
Cindy: So, are you saying that it's not really the size of the corporation that's the real problem, but government protection of corporate interests?
The size of the corporation is what gives it the clout to influence or control the government and which makes government develop this attitude that the corporation cannot be allowed to fail which we see in great evidence today. Since it's unfair restraint of trade to tell corporations they have to divest if they get too large (though Teddy Roosevelt did it with great success), the alternative is to put strict restrictions on what role government can play in the economy.
Cindy: Thanks, that was helpful. Could you give me an idea why you believe this system results in maximum individual freedom and liberty?
Because anyone who has the desire and can raise the money can enter into business without the approval of government and with the expectation that no companies will be operating with a priveleged status or advantages granted by government - like the charters of the Mercantilist era - so long as he abides by the rules and regulations that everyone else does.
Mark: Dave, I'm still way back at the beginning trying to come up with a clear evidence based explanation of 'why crises' and a motivational argument for why these crises cannot be ignored or simply lived with as necessary evils. (Although the latter might well take care of itself as our unemployment rate soars.)
I'm increasingly convinced you're right about this. There are cycles in the economy. We were probably due for a downturn. IMO the actions of the government are as likely to make things worse as to make them better and we'd probably do best by letting things run their natural course. I think spending all this money on bailouts is foolish unless they can point to a specific button which they can push with X amount of dollars to produce X specific result.
Frankly, the auto industry bailout makes a hell of a lot more sense than the $700 billion plus financial bailout, because at least with the auto industry it's loans for a specific purpose and we know what we'll be getting for it.
Dave
51 - Mark Eden
Hell, I'd go with just about anything to keep people in their jobs and homes -- even though we'll probably be screwed even worse when Obama looses his nerve. The piper will be paid...no getting around it.
Mark
52 - Dave Nalle
I still think there are some people who would be better off not staying in their homes. As a society why can't we just accept the idea that some people are better of renting and aren't ready and don't need to own a house. Being financially responsible in a rental home within your means is a much better sign of success than temporarily owning property you can't afford.
Dave
53 - STM
Dave's right. If you can't afford a house, and can't pay the mortgage, don't buy it. Also, lenders need to carry the freight here too - if you think people can't afford to pay you back, why lend in the first place.
The only situation I can see here where I might feel different about that is when a person who was in previously secure employment and has a good record of meeting mortgage payments suddenly loses their job, or suffers some kind of family crisis.
Perhaps then the banks or the non-bank lenders need to cut folks a little bit of slack for a few months until they get back on their feet. It would be better for both parties in the long run anyway.
If they can't get back on their feet, fair enough ... but everyone deserves a go at least.
I'm sure in the US right now people are losing their homes by default when a small amount of extra time would have made the difference.
But this is the big problem with sub-prime lending ... and it's largely what's pre-empted our current financial crisis.
54 - Mark Eden
For many (most?), a rented space is home. Where are they to go when they lose their incomes?
Mark
55 - Doug Hunter
"guess you can reduce some aspects of overhead to labor, but some things DO have intrinsic value independent of labor."
We're digressing a bit here but air and water have some of the highest intrinsic values around and one is universally free and the other cost very little (at least in the US). Gold on the other hand is 'practically' worthless as you can't eat it, can't wear it, or live in it and it has only limited practical use in industry. The high cost of gold is due to the amount of labor necessary to extract it coupled with an odd fascination people have with the shiny metal. Also, you didn't ask, but I consider debt a form of ownership and lump debt payment into the profit category.
Anyway, the original point and one that I still think is valid, is that people often underestimate the amount of labor when taking a look at these things. Just because you're paying for a 'material' you're still paying for the labor of the truck driver hauling it to you, the miner working a mile underground and a hundred other people in between.
The ratio mentioned in the original post between labor and profit is important, but if you can't accurately determine the amount of labor then it renders the comparison meaningless. Things like overhead, outsourcing, taxes and many others if not handled properly could make the data very suspect. Take outsourcing for instance. If a company outsources a part of the process they have reduced their 'labor' cost and still should have the same amount of sales skewing the ratio and dropping the percentage of labor. How does the graph above handle this situation? In my view outsourced labor is still labor even if it is in the production of a 'material'.
56 - Dave Nalle
For many (most?), a rented space is home. Where are they to go when they lose their incomes?
When the income goes away they're not going to be any better off in a home they "own" and can't pay for than one they rent and can't pay for.
Dave
57 - Cindy D
Mark,
Thanks, I have acquired that paper. I am still on the first paragraph since last night. Do you think this paper at socialist.net might help me understand that paper?
Or do you think it's time for me to simply try this route? :-)
58 - Cindy D
Dave,
Thank you. That gives me a starting place for my argument.
59 - Mark Eden
Doug - The ratio mentioned in the original post between labor and profit is important
The ratio examined here is between labor cost and market value - distinct from profit.
...if you can't accurately determine the amount of labor then it renders the comparison meaningless.
Or you could say: the more accurately you determine the amount of labor then the more accurate the comparison.
Take outsourcing for instance. If a company outsources a part of the process they have reduced their 'labor' cost and still should have the same amount of sales skewing the ratio and dropping the percentage of labor. How does the graph above handle this situation?
The category 'value added' ... is derived by subtracting the cost of materials, supplies, containers, fuel, purchased electricity, and contract work from the value of shipments. Labor costs that are embedded in material cost are, thus, subtracted as well. For US made materials, these costs are added back in as the producing companies report their own data. Foreign labor costs hidden in materials are not added back in which allows the estimate to be limited to the rate of surplus value in the US only.
I agree that getting an estimate for the international rate of surplus value and how it has changed over time would be valuable, but this isn't the data source for such an analysis.
Things like overhead, outsourcing, taxes and many others if not handled properly could make the data very suspect.
I mentioned some of my concerns with taxes and legacy commitments in the article and agree that the better one accounts for these factors the better the estimate that results.
Dave, that there are cycles in the economy is well documented, but there is no general agreement on the 'why' of them. Of further interest is the theory that what you're calling a 'downturn' might be a general crisis that will make all post WWII contractions look like good times and will require some destructive process along the lines of war to get out of.
We need another bubble.
When the income goes away they're not going to be any better off in a home they "own" and can't pay for than one they rent and can't pay for.
I agree, which is why I have a hard time understanding your suggestion that we 'ride it out'. I'm not even sure what that means.
Cindy - I suggest that you sit back and think about our production process from a worker/owner perspective and look for the contradictions that would cause its smooth functioning to get jammed up. Reading doctrinaire Marxists can leave a body pretty cold - so much is assumed to be fact with little other than belief backing it up. As you can see from the reaction to the lingo up thread, we need to update the presentation and base it on evidence. That's not to say that Brooks' presentation isn't worth reading. It's thorough fer sure.
Mark
60 - Dave Nalle
Dave, that there are cycles in the economy is well documented, but there is no general agreement on the 'why' of them. Of further interest is the theory that what you're calling a 'downturn' might be a general crisis that will make all post WWII contractions look like good times and will require some destructive process along the lines of war to get out of.
I'm not buying this theory. I don't see enough strong negatives in enough sectors of the economy for a depression-scale crisis, unless the government somehow manages to precipitate it.
We need another bubble.
All bubbles do is eventually burst.
On the upside, it looks like if I manage to take a trip to Europe next year the dollar will be nice and strong relative to the imploding Euro.
Dave
61 - Mark Eden
(Raising a mug o' mead) Here's to hoping you're right, Dave.
62 - Mark Eden
Cindy, since you enjoy reading Marx as you do, I dug up this for you.
63 - Cindy D
Mark,
Thanks. I actually couldn't believe I understood the 1st two paragraphs. After the 4th reading of the 4th paragraph (and unable to figure out where the little "c" and the little "v" came from)--I expect my head might explode.
I like to work difficult reading out by going sentence by sentence, rewriting the sentences and rewording them until the author's point becomes understandable. I find it very worthwhile in many cases.
It will take a while. He explains that s/C. I am feeling happy and confident. Things are looking up. Then out of nowhere there is a freakin' little c and v? With no explanation at all. What the hell?
Bubu and Kiki or whatever their names were, were more fun.
64 - Cindy D
But, don't mind my whining. I will get it. It is worthwhile.
65 - Cindy D
I finally found something helpful.
So for example, let us suppose a worker earns $100 and consumes $1000 worth of materials and components to produce a product which is sold for $1300. This value could be represented as constant capital ($1000) + variable capital ($100) + surplus value ($200). That $200 of surplus value was added to the product solely by the activity of the worker. That is, of the capitalist’s investment of $1100, only the variable capital, $100, expanded.
Marx represented this relation symbolically:
c + v -› c + v + s
What a wonderful thing a simple glossary is.
66 - Mark Eden
I skated over the important content in Dan Miller's #25 where he points to a connection between the rate of surplus value and incentive for investment. He and Phillip talk about the costs of business that have grown as our economy has become more complex and (at least seem to) imply that to cover these increases and maintain profitability (and therefore incentive for investment) it is only reasonable that the owner increase his share of the value of what is produced. But there is nothing necessary here. Increasing market value by increasing price and/or the amount of product actually sold is another option. In reality owners go for all of these approaches, but labor's share of the value of production is negotiable only because of the owners' relatively strong position of political power.
Mark
(nice Cindy)
67 - bliffle
the real problem is that as productivity rises the economy must either consume more product, or the work week must be reduced. For 50 years we have increased consumption rather than reduce the work week, and now we pay the price of that poor decision. Partly facilitated by the egregiously high house prices that excess income created.
68 - Mark Eden
Bliffle - if my graphs reflect the rate of surplus value accurately, I'd look to the drop in the rate that occurred 97 - 01 for the more immediate cause of the investment/credit crisis and contraction.
Mark
69 - Dave Nalle
the formula Cindy quotes in #65 shows brilliantly how utterly full of crap Marx's ideas are.
Where does Marx get off making the assumption that the $100 investment of labor is worth more in determining the 'surplus' value (aka profit) than the $1000 invested by the capitalist in materials and facilities? That's an erroneous and biased assumption.
In fact the workers wages are indistinguishable from the cost of materials as just another of the costs of production, and the workers share of the overall cost of production is minuscule compared to the share represented by the capitalist's investment.
Dave
70 - Mark Eden
Dave, could you expand on your use of the term 'determining' in the above? It's not clear to me that you are talking about the same process that Marx was trying to describe in 'c + v -› c + v + s' and his 'labor theory'. In any case, I think your question of where he 'gets off' is a good one for anybody who is trying to understand his argument to keep in mind.
Mark
71 - Dave Nalle
'determining' wasn't exactly the part of that comment I expected to have questioned. I was using in the sense of making a calculation or finding something out. In this case the calculation of who is really responsible for the surplus value in the production equation.
Dave
72 - Mark Eden
Concerning responsibility for production and the value that it produces, here's my supersimplified take on what Marx meant:
While workers could perform the necessary function of accumulating and pooling value without owners, owners could not produce anything without workers.
This little symbol, '->', in the formula that Cindy quoted has an awful lot packed into it.
(and btw, I've been waiting for a Marxist like Les Slater to show up and ream me a new one for my oversimplified formulation of 'surplus value')
Mark
73 - Les Slater
(and btw, I've been waiting for a Marxist like Les Slater to show up and ream me a new one for my oversimplified formulation of 'surplus value')"
I've been busy. There is an important development in the class struggle taking place in Chicago, the occupation of the Republic Windows and Doors assembly plant by workers who were laid off without being paid accrued vacation time and other grievances.
Marx's Capital is not an easy subject. Marx was not a theoretical accountant nor is Capital a manual for revolutionary accountants. It is was written to develop an understanding of capitalism devoid of undue mystery.
Marx's own formulas are abstractions and simplifications. They are not meant to be an accounting of the details of the actual workings of capitalism.
One of the main points is to understand Marx's explanation that the various relationships between capital, labor, money etc. are social relationships. They appear as things but they represent social relationships. That the commodity/capitalist mode of production, like all modes of production, determine the social relationships between people, the methods by which society is organized.
Marx sought a scientific explanation of how, unlike the explicitly enforced social relations of previous systems such as chattel slavery or feudalism, capitalism regulated the distribution of labor.
Marx was a revolutionary. He didn't seek to understand capitalism in an academic sense, he sought to expose the internal contradictions WITHIN the capitalist mode of production and its necessary social relations. He looked at capitalism as just a transitional system that history had shown all previous systems to be. He logically showed that labor, the working class had to develop numerically as capitalism developed. He understood the developing potential power of the working class and fought for the education and organization of that class to take power.
The understanding of capitalism, not in every detail, but its tendencies, including with the unmasking of its fetishes, its antagonisms, and ultimately the objective weakness of its exploiting layer, and how to rid ourselves of it, are what's important.
74 - Dave Nalle
The understanding of capitalism, not in every detail, but its tendencies, including with the unmasking of its fetishes, its antagonisms, and ultimately the objective weakness of its exploiting layer, and how to rid ourselves of it, are what's important.
All while ignoring the contradictions, impracticalities and abstraction from reality of any marxist system.
Dave
75 - Dave Nalle
It occurs to me that basically Das Kapital is nothing but an incredibly extended example of what we call the "straw man" argument, where Marx himself defines the thing which he is going to criticize and then analyzes and critiques it based on his own definition of its characteristics.
Prior to Marx there was really no definition of "capitalism" as such, and those who preceded him who analyzed the economies of the early industrial era did not define them the same way that he did, nor would most of them have accepted his description and labelling of capitalism. Certainly later writers in the liberal tradition disagreed markedly with Marx' view of capitalism.
Dave