what is so evil about surplus?

[punisa]

Was talking to a friend yesterday.
He said that there is an absolute necesity to eliminate/destroy any potential surplus of goods and commodities in a post-revolutionary society.
Because the surplus will always lead into greed and restoration of capitalism.

So a village where they produce corn must never produce a surplus of that corn.

Honestly, this sounds a little over-the-edge, but still, would love to hear your ideas.

Btw, I asked - who will regulate that these nasty surpluses are not produced?
Answer: nobody - the people.

that's the point where I got lost, since I figured it would be too much to ask: how do you make people so careful of the amount they produce?

[tornwarriorx]

Surplus, my friend, means in this context means surplus value. This is the profit the capitalists makes. Profit cannot exist in a post revolutionary society because the workers in such a society would own the means of production, and therefore they would own what becomes the surplus and distribute it, so everyone gets a share of it, and everyone owns it. This also eliminates overproduction, which is also common in capitalist societies.

[danyboy27]

surplus is fine, has long its not wasted, if you eliminate the whole profit making scheme that is in place right now, those surplus could be redistributed.

[ZeroNowhere]

Surplus over what, in this case? We obviously aren't talking about surplus-value, if we are discussing a communist society, so what surplus are we discussing, and why would it lead back to capitalism?

[comrade_cyanide444]

I think what he means is that after a revolution people will fight over any resource surplus, therefore recreating capitalism or an imperialistic society.

[Lyev]

Sounds like he's referring to the NEP? The "surplus" that peasants created from this lead to the rise of a new class, the Kulaks. And we all know what happened when Stalin tried to collectivize; this new class got in the way. Although, having said, that was Russia 90-odd years ago, and this is now. Conditions are somewhat different nowadays; most countries that Revlefters reside in are developed capitalist countries. Something akin to the NEP -- to develop an economy -- would not be needed like it was 90-odd years ago, in backward Russia.

[mikelepore]

"Surplus value" is Marx's technical term for something that exists under capitalism. It does NOT mean "having a surplus."

It is the capitalist's objective generally to pay workers just the amount that workers need to survive. Wealth that workers produce, but the workers' don't receive in the form of wages, Marx calls surplus value.

Out of this surplus value comes the employer's profits and some socially-useless business expenses and taxes.

Socialism would have some necessary deductions from the workers' proceeds, but no systematic inclusion of unnecessary deductions, therefore socialism would not have surplus value.

[The Grey Blur]

I think your friend is very wrong...he seems to think communism of the future will be like the primitive societies - ie cooperation because there was only a pure subsistence amount created. Today we have the technology and labour power to create massive surpluses of food, products, medicines etc but it is not put to use due to the machinations of capitalism (drug prices, the reserve army of labour). In fact tell your friend the opposite is true - the real communism we hope to achieve could only exist on the basis of massive super-abundance, the ability to create such a surplus exists it just isn't employed today.

[blake 3:17]

Surplus production is absolutely essential to socialism. For a society to function in any kind of egalitarian way it is necessary that there is always some extra of x,y or z. Any "socialist" society that fixated on producing the bare minimum would be in the business of distributing misery and starvation.

Trotsky identified the origins of repressive bureaucracy at the moment when there wasn't enough of the basics to go round.

[punisa]

I think what he means is that after a revolution people will fight over any resource surplus, therefore recreating capitalism or an imperialistic society.

Yes, this is exactly what he said when reffering to surplus.
In post-revolutionary or even post-monetary system - if a farmer grows too much corn, he'll find ways to exhange it with other farmers who have surplus of *something* and eventually create another rulling class.

I said that I disagree, first of all because if you look at it from that perspective - every attempt at reaching communism would be a short-lived utopia drowned by the human greed.
I argue that this is not the case and that surplus will be happening and will be equally distrubuted - to everyone according to their needs.

[punisa]

Surplus production is absolutely essential to socialism. For a society to function in any kind of egalitarian way it is necessary that there is always some extra of x,y or z. Any "socialist" society that fixated on producing the bare minimum would be in the business of distributing misery and starvation.

Trotsky identified the origins of repressive bureaucracy at the moment when there wasn't enough of the basics to go round.

That was exactly what I told him. Surplus is in fact what will keep us "content" in the new system, knowing that our needs are secure.

Now - the matter of using that surplus for becoming a priviliged class.. who will actually prevent something like that from happening?
The people? I guess in that case we really need to be sure people believe in the system and don't try to compromise it for their personal benifts.
Any theories on this issue?
I'm pretty sure many wrote about this - what did Marx say on this for example?

Who "guards" the surplus from flowing into the hands of a few?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

There is nothing wrong with surplus amount of produce in Communist society. The same argument can be made for any produce, Capitalists will take it and start selling it. A society of free distribution and access eliminates this possibility in my opinion

[Coggeh]

There is nothing wrong with surplus amount of produce in Communist society. The same argument can be made for any produce, Capitalists will take it and start selling it. A society of free distribution and access eliminates this possibility in my opinion
Theirs not much wrong with surplus in general other than it may be a waste but surplus would exist more so than in a communist society because of such a massive force of production in capitalism they talk about surplus of food when millions are starving. Capitalism can't feed the world because it just isn't profitable to do so so they limit the productive forces not on need but on what method is most profitable.

Take diamonds for instance. If diamonds were mined at full potential they'd be simply worthless, production is slowed to keep their value up.Not that theirs many practical uses for diamonds except cutting tools and for ponces as far as i can think of but just using it as an example.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Goods and commodities have a value. Always.

Thus, goods and commodities that are surplus have a value. In any society that is based on currency, this value takes such a form ultimately - currency.

Now where do you think, in a hierarchical, un-democratic society, surplus value (if we equivocate this to currency), ends up? In the hands of the workers? In the hands of those who can't afford to feed their families? In the hands of people in the USA who need to pay for life-saving healthcare?

No, it most often ends up in some offshore, tax-free savings account, for somebody who already has more than enough money.

Now, in a world of potential abudance, it is entirely inhumane that there are enough foodstuffs to feed the people that currently go without, and that there are the tools to save people who need expensive healthcare, but because of the existence of surplus (and thus inequality in regards to the surplus value, in regards to currency etc.), people go without, needlessly.

That, simply, is why surplus should not exist.

[blake 3:17]

The people? I guess in that case we really need to be sure people believe in the system and don't try to compromise it for their personal benifts.
Any theories on this issue?

A democratic workers state. The origin of policing originates in scarcity. We do have to understand that scarcity is based in social relations.

In His book, Late Victorian Holocausts, Mike Davis makes pretty clear how imperialism caused massive death tolls and horrific famines in Asia and Latin America. He describes scenes of starving people being short distances from massive reserves of grains. The book is challenging (Davis is a very clear write but he is trying to open up a theory of political ecology) and totally worth reading. It may help provide a more sophisticated answer to your friend.

[TheJungle]

We'd split the excess among the people. Everyone will get what they need, then the people will preferably decide democratically what to do with the rest, they may give everyone a bit more, they may save it for later, or they may give it to someone who isn't getting what they need. It's not like they need that surplus produce like capitalists need excess value as currency.

[BAM]

In a socialist/communist society there would need to be a surplus over and above immediate consumption. From the total social fund we need to deduct for the reproduction of the means of production itself (ie replacement of machines due to wear and tear), for a reserve fund in case of disaster and lastly for the expansion of production itself. Also there will be non-productive members of society - children, the elderly, etc - who would need to be provided for, administration, etc., etc.

All this means that workers should indeed be generating more than they individually consume, but the difference is that this surplus will under social and democratic control.

[Guerrilla22]

Stockpiling resources for purposes of selling them to make a profit won't happen in a socialist/communist society. The resources will be distributed to those who need them, instead of one person hoarding them. If anything there will be far more resources available to the general public under a socialist/communist system.

[redwog]

There was a time. when very little, to no, surplus was created by humans. We subsisted and that's it. We had primitive communist social models, with no concentrated bastions of power (not even a primitive state) rather hierarchy based upon an elders system.

This was ended as we begin to develop ways in which to save labour and generate surplus. As soon as the surplus is created it gave rise to the opportunity for some to survive by expropriating the surplus of others. This gives rise to workers and exploiters whom generate more and more complex apparatus to maintain their access to the surplus created by others. The rulers are challenged by the workers and this propels history to its current situation. This is true of Slavery, Feudalism and now Capitalism.

Under capitalism, surplus is abstractified as surplus-value.

The question is not about surplus being bad, it is about who controls. Surplus is the key to advancing humanity and developing technologies, arts, philosophy and fun!

I think socialism is about regaining control of the surplus we create and utilising it to push towards communism.

I think the communist development of surplus is actually abundance which is what totally nullifies the possibility of anyone being able to expropriate value and defend it with a state. Hence, the state withers away. That is our only defense from returning to capitalism.