Where does surplus value come from?

[Vinny Rafarino]

I finally found a decent question posed by that coo-coo kat from MIM. He sasked Where does the majority of surplus value originate? In the first world or in the second world? To answer the question with any degree of accurace, I had to factor in Imperialism.

Here is my response;

There are two stages for capital, constant and variable. Constant capital is the measure of the value of all the materials and costs associated worth producing goods and commodities.

Variable capital represents the wages that are paid to the worker for producing these goods.

Surplus value is determinded by adding C to V and subtracting that from the market value of the finished product.

Imperialism mearly mean the expansion of one's territory. This normally is used to offset the rigid increase in constant capital versus the demand for increase in variable capital against the steady decrease in the rate of profit due to portions of surplus value being required to limit the expansion of constant capital.

This is so because quite frankly, variable capital can only fall so low before production of goods begins to fall dynamically. The rate of constant capital will always be constant, so if forecasted production value falls lower than that of constant capital, there can be no possible way to pay variable capital, much less create surplus value.

This can be "slowed" in two ways, create additional markets to sell oversupply at a rate that will allow for constant capital to get it's return while paying variable capital, but will also allow for additional labour pools that are willing to accept only a fraction of the variable capital that is required to continue production. Obviously the market value will be lower in these regions so these goods are immediately used in the governing territory where there is no longer an oversupply of goods. (why do you think so many people wanted NAFTA!)

Effectively, the rate of constant capital has been driven down by geographic market value of cost of materials subtracted to the much lower rate of variable capital allowing for just enough surplus value to be added to the domestic variable capital to keep it "reasonable to the proletariat" while re-creating surplus value.

This only shows that though capitalism can still be maintained, it cannot be maintained indefinitely as each new nation will enevitable succomb to the constant falling rate of profit at some point in time. Leading to the need for constant expansion of territory. (we are currently experiencing this phenomenon is today's market)

Eventually you run out of territory to conquer. At this point there is nothing the offset the falling rate of profit except with variable capital, producing massive cutbacks in employment. These cutbacks will begin to affect the constant capital ratio once production ceases to even match that of constant capital. We will then see the progressive disintegration of capitalism.

So that's where Imperialism fits into economics.

With the origins of C V and S now being calculated, we can now easily answer the original question of;

"how much surplus-value is extracted in the imperialist countries and how much in the Third World? Where does it end up?"

We can now clearly see, the majority of surplus value is extracted from third world nations.


What are your thoughts comrades?

[crazy comie]

The surplus value is mainly comming from third world countries and being absorbed into the bougeoisie of the rich countries

[redstar2000]

"how much surplus-value is extracted in the imperialist countries and how much in the Third World? Where does it end up?"

We can now clearly see, the majority of surplus value is extracted from third world nations.

Maybe, maybe not.

Bourgeois statisticians do not gather the kinds of numbers that would be required to ascertain the quantity of surplus value generated within any particular national economy...much less globally.

All that can reasonably be said in light of the known lower wages in "third world" countries is that a greater amount of surplus value is probably extracted from each individual worker in those countries than in the advanced capitalist countries.

But since there are far more productive workers in the advanced capitalist countries than in the "third world" countries, the total of surplus value could still be greater--even by a wide margin--in the advanced capitalist countries.

So I do not see it as a question that can be definitively answered.

Nor, objectively, do I see why it would even matter except in the academic sense; this is why capitalism is not immortal. That's true, but so what?

Since surplus value can be determined for an individual corporation only with the greatest difficulty--forget about entire economies--there can be no demonstration of the hypothesis that higher or lower levels of surplus value generation can have any particular correlation with political consciousness.

Or, to put it another way, there's no evidence that the degree of exploitation is positively correlated with the degree of class rebelliousness.

This, of course, is what the "coo-coo kat" from the Maoist Internationalist Movement is "getting at". He's trying to "prove" that Maoist hypothesis that the "third world" will have earlier "proletarian" revolutions because they are more intensely exploited than workers in the advanced capitalist countries.

But even if most surplus value did come from the "third world", it does not necessarily follow that they will be the first to have proletarian revolutions...especially since the working class is still a minority in those countries.

When a country "develops", it's not just a working class that emerges...a domestic capitalist class also comes with the "package" and they have all the motivations that we associate with modern capitalists in our own countries.

Alas for the maoists...they end up making bourgeois revolutions, all their aspirations to the contrary notwithstanding.

That's the way it goes.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

But since there are far more productive workers in the advanced capitalist countries than in the "third world" countries, the total of surplus value could still be greater--even by a wide margin--in the advanced capitalist countries.



As I clearly defined in the original post, surplus value in first world countries is sent back into constant and variable capital to offset the contiunuing falling rate of profit. Therefore no matter how "productive" first world workers are, they are not contributing surplus value to any major degree any longer as S it is constantly used prior to becoming profit. So in turn, no, the surplus value is not greater, especially by a "wide margin".



So I do not see it as a question that can be definitively answered.


I already answered the question.



Since surplus value can be determined for an individual corporation only with the greatest difficulty--forget about entire economies--there can be no demonstration of the hypothesis that higher or lower levels of surplus value generation can have any particular correlation with political consciousness.


The question was not about individual companies. The question was about entire economies. I thought that was very clear.



Or, to put it another way, there's no evidence that the degree of exploitation is positively correlated with the degree of class rebelliousness.


I'm not even sure why you bothered to bring up "class rebelliousness" as it does not pertain one bit to the above theory. First world and third world are not defined by their state of rebellion but by the sate of their GDP.



This, of course, is what the "coo-coo kat" from the Maoist Internationalist Movement is "getting at". He's trying to "prove" that Maoist hypothesis that the "third world" will have earlier "proletarian" revolutions because they are more intensely exploited than workers in the advanced capitalist countries

Agreed, however my question simply was about surplus value. It had no connection to future rebellion.



But even if most surplus value did come from the "third world", it does not necessarily follow that they will be the first to have proletarian revolutions...especially since the working class is still a minority in those countries.


Again, I never made mention of any rebellion what so ever.



When a country "develops", it's not just a working class that emerges...a domestic capitalist class also comes with the "package" and they have all the motivations that we associate with modern capitalists in our own countries.


I covered this briefly but not thoroughly. As a third world nations surplus value continually drops, there will come a time when the rate of profit is not substantial enought to offset the growing rate of constant and variable capital in the third world nation, much less be enough to be applied to the first world C and V capital rates. Thus the need for constant imperialistic expansion.

[sc4r]

The value of a particular quantity of a particular quality of a particular commodity is a reflection of how much it is wanted/ needed. As such there can be no such thing as a fixed value in this context.

The combination of labour* plus an existing tool or facility produces more output value than labour alone would do. This roughly equates to what you are calling ‘surplus value’ I think. But you seem (to me) to be assuming that there is a natural relationship between labour and output value that is unconnected to investment; and that capitalists extract a part of this. They don’t. What they extract is a part of the output value when Labour is combined with an investment of some sort . This investment could be a production facility, it could be a distribution network. It might even be merely a storage facility, because sometimes you can increase the value of a commodity by using it a different time. Please note that value here is not set by a market price; it’s the other way around, the market price is fixed by the value. And the value is determined by how much people want or need the particular type of output at a particular time.

But to create tools or facilities, and so allow the product of labour to be multiplied, one has to forego consuming some immediate output (in other words you have to invest).

Labour itself can require an investment which produces no immediate output. As in farming, for example. In those cases some output from the past must (obviously) be retained to take care of ongoing consumption by labour.

So at any point in time you have:

O = L x Im

O can be either consumed © or used to increase I in the future.

m (multiplier) depends upon how good you are planning Investments. In essence it reflects your ability to mange the funds you can spend (a factory with no roads to it is a bad investment and would have a very low multiplier).

I is Investment (which equals the sum of previous O-C).

And as an cumulative function you have:

Function:
O=L x Im
I=I-D
I=I+O-C
:Function

where D=depletion. This covers deterioration in facilities as well as consumed investment.

This is actually the function for any economy (Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist) and there is nothing especially unstable about it. An economy can remain steady without growth (where Im is held at the same level as D) or it can grow if Im is higher.

The key point about Capitalism is that I is owned; individuals are allowed to negotiate the conditions under which they will allow I to be used. Typically this means that they will demand that they be given a disproportionate share of Output (which of course means that if they so choose they can accumulate increases in the value of I which they ‘own’).

But Individuals are in competition with one another (why does not matter for the purposes of this discussion), and this does give rise to a dynamic which can be counter productive. A s they each seek to maximise the function for their own personal ‘economy’ they tend to make m sub optimum for the function across the entire economy.

The second cause of instability in Capitalist society is quite simply that the easiest way for a capitalist to maximise his personal ‘economy’ is to negotiate from a position of strength and so reduce the values of C and D. But this a social instability not anything to do with the economy itself. Put simply if you negotiate too hard then people will repudiate your agreements. They wont ave it !

I’d say ‘surplus value’ has no meaning as an independent term. It only has meaning in the context of ‘surplus to some specific requirement, and therefore available for a different use’; which could be consumption, but could also be consumption + investment.

So when we ask ‘does the third world (or the first) currently produce much surplus value?’ It is impossible to answer from a global perspective because to do so you would have to be inputting the O or C or L value from one discrete function into another. And you just can’t do this and get a meaningful result.

You can say that I in the third word is disproportionately low compared to L; and that therefore one would expect that increasing I there would lead to greater output.

You can say that the value of I allowed for ongoing consumption in the third world is low and that therefore one would expect these people to be more likely to repudiate the capitalist agreement.

You can postulate that third world output value is incorrectly reflected in the stated GDP’s (because the global investment in distribution is mostly shown as a first world asset and that the associated multiplication of final output value is therefore attributed to first world economies). This BTW is equivalent to saying the third world is getting ripped off J

But you don’t really know where you should genuinely show any particular investment against any particular labour pool or where to extract the Value figure to plug into O from. This is because economies are so intertwined, and because the distribution and storage investment is not actually ‘owned’ by any ‘country’ but by individuals.

Putting it another way (god I hear you say NOT YET ANOTHER WAY J ) the decision to show value (O) as being created by any particular set of Investment and Labour combinations is not much more than an accounting convention created by the Capitalist negotiating framework. As such it only has meaning given that you accept that framework as valid. Which of course we don’t.

And if the above made sense to ANYONE on first, second, or even third readings I’ll be amazed J It is one of those things which is simple, but not easy to grasp because to grasp it you have to intuitively understand that the basic function is dynamic and that any attempt to extract discrete sub functions can only be done if you arbitrarily specify what the rules for doing so are. Having done that you cannot then say anything except that ‘Under those rules – this is what is shown’. You cant argue that the figures ‘prove’ that the values under some other rules (or evaluation criteria, same thing) are good, bad or indifferent. All you can do is argue whether the rules themselves are a good idea given that they will produce those results.

Which of course is exactly what I do say, and I guess you say too RAF. Under the rules of capitalism the third world is, for whatever reason, disadvantaged. That’s not right say I.


MICRO STRUCTURE

The above described the fundamental workings of an economy. But The actual workings are a great deal more complex. This is because absolutely masses of law, convention, and agreements about the future are involved*.

Here we do see a problem with stability. The capitalist micro structure is set up so that it must keep growing or see parts of that structure (large parts, corporations and governments) unable to service their agreements. Once that happens of course the whole thing’s credibility is threatened.

Here the third world is important. It is (because of the low relationship between Labour and Investment) much easier to obtain growth in Output (which is what really matters) than in the already developed world simply by investing fairly small amounts. But as has been said this gets progressively harder as the value of existing Investment increases.
In order to maintain order in the developed world the investment there (particularly the investment in providing consumption goods) is not readily reduceable (again it causes a social problem) which means that increased investment in the third world has to be sourced from increased output in the third world.

The problem comes when it is no longer possible to balance the books and value the output produced by the third world at different prices depending upon where it is consumed . In other words when you cannot simultaneously increase investments (which are of course constantly producing a lower marginal increase in output) in both places sufficiently to cover the demands of both. Or in yet another way when you actually have to concentrate on investments which increase the output value by increasing output rather than on investments in distribution which may increase the nominal value of the output but not the output quality or quantity itself.

All sorts of things contribute to this increasing difficulty of obtaining what has come to be seen as acceptable growth. Most dramatically oil. When the oil runs out (unless a substitute is available) investment becomes much harder and less productive anyway. At that point the whole house of cards tumbles.


*BTW the most common idiocy for Socialists and Communists to commit is to try and contrast what they see as the failings of micro structural Caoitalism with the Macro workings of Socialism. Don’t even try; you are not comparing like with like. All you can do is point to the problems that Caoitalism is creating and ask ‘are these problems an acceptable imperfection’.

[Severian]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 27 2003, 11:16 AM
I finally found a decent question posed by that coo-coo kat from MIM. He sasked Where does the majority of surplus value originate? In the first world or in the second world? To answer the question with any degree of accurace, I had to factor in Imperialism.
To answer this question would require facts, not just a priori reasoning. Marxists are supposed to be materialists y'know and seek truth in the material world and not the ideal world of pure reason unsullied by facts.

Redstar wrote:


All that can reasonably be said in light of the known lower wages in "third world" countries is that a greater amount of surplus value is probably extracted from each individual worker in those countries than in the advanced capitalist countries.

But since there are far more productive workers in the advanced capitalist countries than in the "third world" countries, the total of surplus value could still be greater--even by a wide margin--in the advanced capitalist countries.

This seems very confused. The productivity per hour of labor is far higher in the advanced capitalist countries, which would probably more than offset the difference in wages. A single miner running modern automated equipment can produce thousands of dollars an hour worth of coal - very little of that has to go towards wages. So "a greater amount of surplus value is probably extracted from each individual worker" in the industrialized countries.

On the other hand, the majority of the world's population lives in the "third world" so there would be "far more productive workers" there, opposite to what Redstar says. (Other toilers, and not just wage-laborers, do produce surplus-value y'know.) So it's possible then that "the total of surplus value could still be greater" ... in the semi-colonial countries.

RAF also seems confused. He wrote:

Imperialism mearly mean the expansion of one's territory.

Not to Lenin it didn't - he wrote that it was the final stage of capitalism, characterized by finance capital, monopoly, the export of capital rather than just commodities, and the division and redivision of the world market and the world's territories among blocs of finance capital and their states. But never mind, I don't want to argue about terminology.

Simple expansion of territory, moving a border, has none of the effects you go on to talk about, constant and variable capital, etc. That has to do with the extension of capitalist property relations to involve people who previously were not producing commodities for the world market.

I guess RAF is attempting to state Luxemburg's idea from Accumulation of Capital, which I don't know enough about to give a definite opinion on. But I know enough to see that's it's being presented in a very confused way.

And:


As I clearly defined in the original post, surplus value in first world countries is sent back into constant and variable capital to offset the contiunuing falling rate of profit. Therefore no matter how "productive" first world workers are, they are not contributing surplus value to any major degree any longer as S it is constantly used prior to becoming profit. So in turn, no, the surplus value is not greater, especially by a "wide margin".


This is something to be proved with facts, not just "defined." You have given no facts or numbers to prove it.

And the question was, "where is more surplus-value produced?", not "how is this surplus-value used" or "where is the rate of profit higher"? So none of that has anything to do with the question; if you want to get into it, you'll have to ask a different question. Again, confused.

Sc4r, I think you have to know something about Marxist economics to understand and participate in this discussion, or at least classical bourgeois economics e.g. Ricardo. Labor theory of value...and what surplus-value is, which you do not state correctly.

[sc4r]

Apparently not :)

Since according to you all those who do know the words apply them incorrectly.

What you have to know to have any sensible discusion about economics is how value arises, what it is, and from where it stems.

Nevertheless I'll take your advice and find out what surplus value is supposed to mean.

Or you could just tell me ;0

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2003, 11:20 PM
What you have to know to have any sensible discusion about economics is how value arises, what it is, and from where it stems.
Well, you don't. And I'm not going to rewrite the first volume of Capital here today.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I provided facts. Couple with the fact that the falling rate of profit has been proven many many years ago, I don't see your point.

Can you prove me wrong?




This seems very confused. The productivity per hour of labor is far higher in the advanced capitalist countries, which would probably more than offset the difference in wages. A single miner running modern automated equipment can produce thousands of dollars an hour worth of coal - very little of that has to go towards wages. So "a greater amount of surplus value is probably extracted from each individual worker" in the industrialized countries.

On the other hand, the majority of the world's population lives in the "third world" so there would be "far more productive workers" there, opposite to what Redstar says. (Other toilers, and not just wage-laborers, do produce surplus-value y'know.) So it's possible then that "the total of surplus value could still be greater" ... in the semi-colonial countries.



YOU think I'M confused. How cute.

You obviosly did not understand the text. Productivity per hour MEANS NOTHING when the rate rate of profit has fallen so low that there is NOTHING from surplu value left to suppliment constant and variable capital. Resulting in extreme OVER-SUPPLY. I don't think ou have a grasp on economics mate. Surplus value is not condsidered "surplus value" until constant and varialble capital are satisfied.

In essence it is YOU that are confused.




Not to Lenin it didn't - he wrote that it was the final stage of capitalism, characterized by finance capital, monopoly, the export of capital rather than just commodities, and the division and redivision of the world market and the world's territories among blocs of finance capital and their states. But never mind, I don't want to argue about terminology.

Simple expansion of territory, moving a border, has none of the effects you go on to talk about, constant and variable capital, etc. That has to do with the extension of capitalist property relations to involve people who previously were not producing commodities for the world market.

I guess RAF is attempting to state Luxemburg's idea from Accumulation of Capital, which I don't know enough about to give a definite opinion on. But I know enough to see that's it's being presented in a very confused way.



Bullshit. We all know what the definition of imperialism is. It is precesely what I said it is, a means to suppliment constant and variable capital without sacrificing all of surplus value in the process. If you don't understand these simple economic issues, then you have no reason TO EVER say I am "confused".

Here is my ENTIRE quote describing imperialism. Not just the hacked up portion this kid used to attempt to make his point.

Imperialism mearly mean the expansion of one's territory.[this is where severian cuts off] This normally is used to offset the rigid increase in constant capital versus the demand for increase in variable capital against the steady decrease in the rate of profit due to portions of surplus value being required to limit the expansion of constant capital.


As anyone with a clear mind can see, I am describing the final stages of capitalism when the falling rate of profit has actually dipped so low that constant capital and varialble capital equar more than the market value of goods produced, leaving a negative surplus value. This is exactly what Lenin describes.

The theory I presented had nothing to to with Luxemburg's theories. If you had ever bother to read her theories you would know this. The falling rate of profit had already been proven by Marx and later Lenin. I suggest you research them prior to bothering me with these subjective and inaccurate posts of yours.



This is something to be proved with facts, not just "defined." You have given no facts or numbers to prove it.


I have already posted these materials in THIS VERY MESSAGE BOARD. It's too bad you did not bother to read them. I also suggest you research the MANY economists that have come to the same conclusions.


And the question was, "where is more surplus-value produced?", not "how is this surplus-value used" or "where is the rate of profit higher"? So none of that has anything to do with the question; if you want to get into it, you'll have to ask a different question. Again, confused.



Now you're just being a prick. Let me spell it out for you son. The original question from MIM included to phrase "and how was it used". I created the thread and deleted that portion of the question as this is not relevant. I then copied and pasted MY ORIGINAL post from another board into this one without editing out the bottom portion that was replying directly to MIM. I saw it yet did not think it was necessary to re-edit it as I did not think ANYONE would be a such a prick to even mention it, much less use it as ammunition when referring to me as "confused"

Make sense to you now? 2 + 2 = 4 kiddo.

By the way son, just like the HGE thread from before, you don't impress me. As a matter of fact, I find your intellect to be simply "standard". The reason for this is you pretent to be brilliant, when you are actually average. It's pretty much on the level of false advertising you dig?



Sc4r, I think you have to know something about Marxist economics to understand and participate in this discussion, or at least classical bourgeois economics e.g. Ricardo. Labor theory of value...and what surplus-value is, which you do not state correctly.

:lol:

[Vinny Rafarino]

That smiley was not for you scar. (for some reason I could not edit the last post to clarify) I was laughing at how much subjectivity Sevarian puts in his posts. It's amazingly funny.

[RyeN]

So if I understand correctly. The Surplus is created by the work force in third world contries. Lots of sweatshop's. Creating more money in revenue to go to the pockets of the Bougeois. Creating growth and market value for the products we use. However there need to be levels of weath in the capitolist societey to keep the markets stable.

However with Socialism or Capitolism the sweat shops wouldnt be creating a surplus because the cost to employe them will rise drasticaly. Sky rocketing the price of commodities until deflation kicks in.

[Severian]

Comrade RAF wrote:

I provided facts.

Where did you provide them? There's no numbers in this thread.


Couple with the fact that the falling rate of profit has been proven many many years ago, I don't see your point.

Guess you can't. Hint: I'm not disputing that the rate of profit tends to fall. (Due to the increasing proportion of constant capital, which doesn't produce surplus-value, over variable capital/wages, which does.)


Can you prove me wrong?

No. It's even possible you're right - on where the majority of surplus-value is produced, that is. My point is, facts would be required to determine this.



Originally posted by ></span><table border=&#39;0&#39; align=&#39;center&#39; width=&#39;95%&#39; cellpadding=&#39;3&#39; cellspacing=&#39;1&#39;><tr><td>[b
QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td id=&#39;QUOTE&#39;>&#60;&#33;--QuoteEBegin--&#62;This seems very confused. The productivity per hour of labor is far higher in the advanced capitalist countries, which would probably more than offset the difference in wages. A single miner running modern automated equipment can produce thousands of dollars an hour worth of coal - very little of that has to go towards wages. So "a greater amount of surplus value is probably extracted from each individual worker" in the industrialized countries.

On the other hand, the majority of the world&#39;s population lives in the "third world" so there would be "far more productive workers" there, opposite to what Redstar says. (Other toilers, and not just wage-laborers, do produce surplus-value y&#39;know.) So it&#39;s possible then that "the total of surplus value could still be greater" ... in the semi-colonial countries.


YOU think I&#39;M confused. How cute. [/b]

Considering that you can&#39;t tell when I&#39;m responding to you and when I&#39;m responding to Redstar - even though I quote him by name - yes, I&#39;d say you&#39;re confused.


You obviosly did not understand the text. Productivity per hour MEANS NOTHING when the rate rate of profit has fallen so low that there is NOTHING from surplu value left to suppliment constant and variable capital. Resulting in extreme OVER-SUPPLY. I don&#39;t think ou have a grasp on economics mate. Surplus value is not condsidered "surplus value" until constant and varialble capital are satisfied.

By "suppliment" you mean replace? You&#39;re right, surplus value starts after the replacement of the capital invested. So does profit. (Profit being just one form of surplus-value, along with rent, interest, taxes, etc.) So, unless the rate of profit is zero or negative, there is still surplus value being produced.

I&#39;m here to tell you, the rate of profit on capital invested in, say, the U.S. is not zero. If it was, nobody would invest here.

I don&#39;t know where you get this idea of "NOTHING" left over, but it ain&#39;t from Capital and Marx&#39;s explanation of the falling rate of profit. Which, BTW, you got wrong in your first post, but like I told Sc4r, I don&#39;t have time to rewrite Capital here.



Not to Lenin it didn&#39;t - he wrote that it was the final stage of capitalism, characterized by finance capital, monopoly, the export of capital rather than just commodities, and the division and redivision of the world market and the world&#39;s territories among blocs of finance capital and their states. But never mind, I don&#39;t want to argue about terminology.

Simple expansion of territory, moving a border, has none of the effects you go on to talk about, constant and variable capital, etc. That has to do with the extension of capitalist property relations to involve people who previously were not producing commodities for the world market.

I guess RAF is attempting to state Luxemburg&#39;s idea from Accumulation of Capital, which I don&#39;t know enough about to give a definite opinion on. But I know enough to see that&#39;s it&#39;s being presented in a very confused way.


Bullshit. We all know what the definition of imperialism is. It is precesely what I said it is, a means to suppliment constant and variable capital without sacrificing all of surplus value in the process. If you don&#39;t understand these simple economic issues, then you have no reason TO EVER say I am "confused".

Who says that&#39;s the definition of imperialism?



Here is my ENTIRE quote describing imperialism. Not just the hacked up portion this kid used to attempt to make his point.

Well, I tried to avoid snipping your post this time, that make ya happy? IMO it just adds length without adding clarity though. People who want to reread your whole post can go back and do that; I prefer to just quote enough to indicate what I&#39;m responding to.



Imperialism mearly mean the expansion of one&#39;s territory.[this is where severian cuts off] This normally is used to offset the rigid increase in constant capital versus the demand for increase in variable capital against the steady decrease in the rate of profit due to portions of surplus value being required to limit the expansion of constant capital.


As anyone with a clear mind can see, I am describing the final stages of capitalism when the falling rate of profit has actually dipped so low that constant capital and varialble capital equar more than the market value of goods produced, leaving a negative surplus value. This is exactly what Lenin describes.


No, he doesn&#39;t. The idea of capitalist production going on without producing surplus value is completely ridiculous. Why would they continue producing, if they&#39;re not earning a profit? If you want to advocate such a ridiculous idea, fine, but don&#39;t hang that millstone around Lenin&#39;s neck.


The theory I presented had nothing to to with Luxemburg&#39;s theories. If you had ever bother to read her theories you would know this. The falling rate of profit had already been proven by Marx and later Lenin. I suggest you research them prior to bothering me with these subjective and inaccurate posts of yours.

Falling rate of profit, yes. The idea that capital could only expand by drawing pre-capitalist economies into capitalism, however, was original to Luxemburg. Like I said, I&#39;m not ready to say if she was right or wrong in that debate.

The idea of the rate of profit falling to zero or negative is yours alone, AFAIK. Certainly not Marx, Lenin, or Luxemburg.



This is something to be proved with facts, not just "defined." You have given no facts or numbers to prove it.


I have already posted these materials in THIS VERY MESSAGE BOARD. It&#39;s too bad you did not bother to read them. I also suggest you research the MANY economists that have come to the same conclusions.


Wow, that narrows it down. Somewhere on "THIS VERY MESSAGE BOARD." I just have to search the board for your posts, read all of them, and I&#39;ll find the "materials."

Which economists?




And the question was, "where is more surplus-value produced?", not "how is this surplus-value used" or "where is the rate of profit higher"? So none of that has anything to do with the question; if you want to get into it, you&#39;ll have to ask a different question. Again, confused.


Now you&#39;re just being a prick. Let me spell it out for you son. The original question from MIM included to phrase "and how was it used". I created the thread and deleted that portion of the question as this is not relevant. I then copied and pasted MY ORIGINAL post from another board into this one without editing out the bottom portion that was replying directly to MIM. I saw it yet did not think it was necessary to re-edit it as I did not think ANYONE would be a such a prick to even mention it, much less use it as ammunition when referring to me as "confused"

Make sense to you now? 2 , 2 = 4 kiddo.

No. Less sense than before, and none of that has anything to do with anything. The thread topic is "Where does surplus value come from?" , you start off "Where does the majority of surplus value originate? In the first world or in the second world? " and end up "We can now clearly see, the majority of surplus value is extracted from third world nations. " Nothing you&#39;ve posted helps to answer those questions or prove that conclusion. Other questions, maybe some relevance, but that question, no.

Just noticed another example of confusion, BTW, 2nd world vs 3rd world.


By the way son, just like the HGE thread from before, you don&#39;t impress me. As a matter of fact, I find your intellect to be simply "standard". The reason for this is you pretent to be brilliant, when you are actually average. It&#39;s pretty much on the level of false advertising you dig?

When did I claim to be brilliant? Don&#39;t have to be, to see you&#39;re a tad confused.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 29 2003, 12:40 AM
That smiley was not for you scar. (for some reason I could not edit the last post to clarify) I was laughing at how much subjectivity Sevarian puts in his posts. It&#39;s amazingly funny.
Dont worry about it. I&#39;m not that thin skinned mate.

[redstar2000]

The productivity per hour of labor is far higher in the advanced capitalist countries, which would probably more than offset the difference in wages. A single miner running modern automated equipment can produce thousands of dollars an hour worth of coal - very little of that has to go towards wages. So "a greater amount of surplus value is probably extracted from each individual worker" in the industrialized countries.

On the other hand, the majority of the world&#39;s population lives in the "third world" so there would be "far more productive workers" there, opposite to what Redstar says. (Other toilers, and not just wage-laborers, do produce surplus-value y&#39;know.) So it&#39;s possible then that "the total of surplus value could still be greater" ... in the semi-colonial countries.

To which I must admit that you could be right.

In the conditions of advanced capitalist economies, constant capital is high (that mining machine wasn&#39;t cheap), wages are high, and surplus value (thousands of dollars worth of coal in one shift) can be extraordinarily high.

I&#39;m not sure how "typical" an example that might be...but I can&#39;t argue the general principle.

As to the "third world", again I am frankly uncertain. Perhaps I am under the erroneous impression that "most" people there are still subsistence farmers...producing at best a small surplus for the local market.

Certainly, those that produce agricultural commodities for the world market (including illegal drugs, of course) generate substantial value (if they are independent producers) or surplus value (if they are agricultural laborers).

And there could be a lot more of them than I realize.

What we need on this board is a really knowledgeable Marxist economist...as I am quite willing to admit that these matters are "murky waters" for me.

From what I&#39;ve seen so far, I&#39;m not alone.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

I reckon that answers that&#33; Young severian think&#39;s everyone is confused but him.


Where did you provide them? There&#39;s no numbers in this thread.


Well you should have been paying attention to the threads. Sorry mate but I&#39;m not gonna re-write the first edition of Capital just for you. :lol:



Guess you can&#39;t. Hint: I&#39;m not disputing that the rate of profit tends to fall. (Due to the increasing proportion of constant capital, which doesn&#39;t produce surplus-value, over variable capital/wages, which does.)



Do you even know what you are talking about here? If S = K - (C + V ) then how can constant capital NOT produce surplus value? You&#39;re confused here. Surplus value is merely the amount of capiatal left over once you add together constant and variable capital and subtract them from the market value of the finished product. Done. So, since that&#39;s a proper definition of surplus value by economical terms it is true that both constant and variable capitals produce surplus value, as they both are crucial components in the equation.

You are confusing it with the association with the Labour Theory of Value. It is true that surplus value also designates the value of labour that is denied the proletariat but to not consider that this value is created and survives by capital would be nonsense.



No. It&#39;s even possible you&#39;re right - on where the majority of surplus-value is produced, that is. My point is, facts would be required to determine this.


Well fortunately what you consider to be facts and what others consider to be facts are different. If you can find find any actual holes in the socio-economic theory then please do. You will find that it is a complete and logical explanation of how capitalism in first world nations retains itself once surplus value falls into negative.

The only thing needed was a starting point, a complete determination of how the falling rate of profit will eventually decrease to the point where the total market value of goods produced is actually LESS than the sum of constant and variable capital. This has already been proven. The math will only give you the reality of the situation not the solution and the solution is clear.

How do you create more surplus value? Simple, cut back on the rate of constant and variable capital without decreasing the market value of the goods produced. (an average controlled inflation rate of 3.5% in the USA sees that market value continues to rise) Well since we live in the first world, there are "bottom line" levels that restrict C and V from falling indefinitely. Materials can only be purchased for the lowest price possible for the manufacturer to still retain profit. Wages can only fall so far as the natioinal minimum wage. You can only lay off so many people before production begins to suffer.

There are definite finites and where there are finites logic will always prevail.

So, once you reach these finite levels in the first world, the rate of profit will not simply "stop falling" and you can no longer gain reprive from robbing C and V. Because of this, surplus value is NO LONGER even being produced&#33;

Where do you go? You go someplace where the bottom line for C and V are even LOWER than the domestic rates, THE THIRD WORLD. The value of C and V in the third world is much smaller than that doestically, however, the goods produced will be sold at the normal domestic market rate, effectively re-producing surplus value.

The west has been doing this for decades mate, it ain&#39;t recent news.




I don&#39;t know where you get this idea of "NOTHING" left over, but it ain&#39;t from Capital and Marx&#39;s explanation of the falling rate of profit. Which, BTW, you got wrong in your first post, but like I told Sc4r, I don&#39;t have time to rewrite Capital here.



No I didn&#39;t. I already told you twice kid. THE FALLING RATE OF PROFIT HAS ALREADY BEEN PROVEN. I did not even address it with more that a passing thought. How can I be wrong about something I did not describe eh? You are reaching.

Please quote me where I addressed the falling rate of profit with more than one sentence at a time. As a matter of fact, I will do it for you;

"This normally is used to offset the rigid increase in constant capital versus the demand for increase in variable capital against the steady decrease in the rate of profit due to portions of surplus value being required to limit the expansion of constant capital"

If you think that the rate of profit is not affected by hacking into surplus value then it&#39;s possible you cannot be helped. If this was simply about proving the falling rate of profit AGAIN, I would have simply left a link to Marx&#39;s and Lenin&#39;s works.

"This only shows that though capitalism can still be maintained, it cannot be maintained indefinitely as each new nation will enevitably succomb to the constant falling rate of profit at some point in time"

And this statement is fact. If ANY third world nation adopts a capitalist economic system, they will be burdened with a continually falling rate of profit.


I have discovered your problem after considering it for a moment. You are attempting to evaluate bourgeois economics (what I have been addressing) by Marxist economical definition. For example,

You are thinking about the rate of profit in terms of the total amount of capital invested in a given cycle of reproduction. Which is appropriate when concerning the rate of profit in a socialist environment.

In capitalist economics it merely means the proportion of the total capital invested that is accruing to the individual owners of these specific means of production as profit per year.

You can&#39;t think use Marxist thinking when bourgeois economics are concerned. This is probably what has led to your confusion.



Who says that&#39;s the definition of imperialism?


Just every dictionary in the English language. If you strictly want to refer to economical imperialism then you will have to specify that as the word "imperialism" means a VERY specific thing. I hope you&#39;re not one of those kids that says "I dont care what the dictionary" says once he has been proven wrong. Those kids are pathetic.


Well, I tried to avoid snipping your post this time, that make ya happy? IMO it just adds length without adding clarity though. People who want to reread your whole post can go back and do that; I prefer to just quote enough to indicate what I&#39;m responding to.



Then in the future respond to the entire quote in place of the hacked portioin like you did here. Nice attempt to backpeddle.



No, he doesn&#39;t. The idea of capitalist production going on without producing surplus value is completely ridiculous. Why would they continue producing, if they&#39;re not earning a profit? If you want to advocate such a ridiculous idea, fine, but don&#39;t hang that millstone around Lenin&#39;s neck.


Are you mad? Of course this is what comrade Lenin describes. Remember kid the falling rate of profit is CONSTANT, meaning eventually it will reach ZERO. When it does, to remain IN BUSINESS C and V will have to be lowered to recreate S which will re-create P. This period is what I am describing to you now, OPEN YOUR EYES. I&#39;m stunned that you can&#39;t see this. It&#39;s so simple.


You get it now? As long as there are ways to keep surplus value from reaching ZERO then production will continue.

Now, quote me ANYWHERE as saying production will continue when there is NO surplus value being produced. And when you ignore this question, I will bring it up again, so you may as well address it.



Considering that you can&#39;t tell when I&#39;m responding to you and when I&#39;m responding to Redstar - even though I quote him by name - yes, I&#39;d say you&#39;re confused.

Yes, I probably should have read the quote in detail rather than allowing your insolence to get me wound up.



Wow, that narrows it down. Somewhere on "THIS VERY MESSAGE BOARD." I just have to search the board for your posts, read all of them, and I&#39;ll find the "materials."

Which economists?

What? You actually need help finding information on the falling rate of profit and it&#39;s connection to the fall of capitalism? Good grief kid, are you confused or something? They are, Ricardo, Smith, Marx, Lenin, Grossman, Bauer and Luxemburg. You do know who these people are yes? You are aware they all have addressed the falling rate of profit yes?

The theory I posted was an extension of Grossman&#39;s original calculations with a few of additions that he overlooked in his original theory. For instance, S and V can both be used to offset the cost of C.



No. Less sense than before, and none of that has anything to do with anything. The thread topic is "Where does surplus value come from?" , you start off "Where does the majority of surplus value originate? In the first world or in the second world? " and end up "We can now clearly see, the majority of surplus value is extracted from third world nations. " Nothing you&#39;ve posted helps to answer those questions or prove that conclusion. Other questions, maybe some relevance, but that question, no.

Just noticed another example of confusion, BTW, 2nd world vs 3rd world.



Then why did you ever bother to bring up the subject if "the topic was whare does surplus value come from"? Apparently logic is of no use to you. You&#39;re definitely confused here.

Let me take you back;


*I started the thread with the "where does the surplus value come from".

*I cut and pasted my response from another thread where the question was "Where does the surplus value come from AND where does it go"

*I did not clip the bottom portion of my post that states "With the origins of C V and S now being calculated, we can now easily answer the original question of;

"how much surplus-value is extracted in the imperialist countries and how much in the Third World? Where does it end up?"

* I never addressed this point originally and meant to remove it from the text posted here. Forgetting to do so, I moments later noticed I had left it in but didn&#39;t bother to edit it out thinking "who in their right mind would ever bother to bring up something so trivial" Well now we know EXACTLY who would be trivial enough, YOU.

*You then write "And the question was, "where is more surplus-value produced?", not "how is this surplus-value used" or "where is the rate of profit higher"? So none of that has anything to do with the question; if you want to get into it, you&#39;ll have to ask a different question. Again, confused."

How can you possiby now attempt to ignore the fact that immediately following this post I explained in detail (detail any half witted mind should have understood) And ONCE AGAIN use "you&#39;re confused" as a defense. Pathetic Severian&#33;

Here is my explanation;

*"The original question from MIM included to phrase "and how was it used". I created the thread and deleted that portion of the question as this is not relevant. I then copied and pasted MY ORIGINAL post from another board into this one without editing out the bottom portion that was replying directly to MIM. I saw it yet did not think it was necessary to re-edit it as I did not think ANYONE would be a such a prick to even mention it, much less use it as ammunition when referring to me as "confused"

Which is precesely what I have said here. Get it NOW?

*You then reply with this bit, "No. Less sense than before, and none of that has anything to do with anything. The thread topic is "Where does surplus value come from?" , you start off "Where does the majority of surplus value originate? In the first world or in the second world? " and end up "We can now clearly see, the majority of surplus value is extracted from third world nations. " Nothing you&#39;ve posted helps to answer those questions or prove that conclusion. Other questions, maybe some relevance, but that question, no."

I certainly hope you do not address this subject again. If you have not gotten it by now you never will.



When did I claim to be brilliant? Don&#39;t have to be, to see you&#39;re a tad confused

Oh I understand you would never make a preposterous claim such as this. You will also notice I NEVER said that you EVER claimed to be brilliant, merely that you "pretend" to be. You must be confused.

Here is my statement ONCE AGAIN;

By the way son, just like the HGE thread from before, you don&#39;t impress me. As a matter of fact, I find your intellect to be simply "standard". The reason for this is you pretent to be brilliant, when you are actually average. It&#39;s pretty much on the level of false advertising you dig?


Please show me where I say you ever "claim" to be brilliant. I believe you&#39;re a "tad" bit confused on this one kiddo.

All this definitely makes my assertion that you are still huffy about the HGE thread look more and more truthful.

[crazy comie]

The dictionary is often wrong it saes that communism is totolitarianism.

As evry one said surplus value is coursed bye c+v+s=capital
S at 100% more time after the wage has been paid of bye labour.Then s equels v
The loss of the rate of profit is caussed bye increasing constant capital.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Okay kids. Lesson time.


Imperialism- The act of expanding ones territory. This also includes introducing economic control over other countries.


Do you all get it now? Good. Let&#39;s move on;


You all are talking about bourgeois economics using marxist formulas. You will find that doies not work.


When concerning bourgeois economics, surplus value does not equal variable capital. Surplus value equals variable capital added to constant capital subtracted from the market value of the goods produced.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2003, 06:24 AM
Certainly, those that produce agricultural commodities for the world market (including illegal drugs, of course) generate substantial value (if they are independent producers) or surplus value (if they are agricultural laborers).

Surplus value is also gained by capitalists from independent producers. Interest on loans they&#39;ve taken out, for example - and it&#39;s pretty impossible to farm without borrowing, given the time between sowing and harvest. Also commercial profit - as small farmers are often buying and selling on unfavorable terms.

It&#39;s an interesting question, how many farmers in the world are producing primarily for the market, vs. producing primarily for their own use (subsistence farming). Probably hard to find numbers on it, esp. since the line is fuzzy.

[Severian]

Here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch13.htm) is the chapter of Capital where Marx explains why the rate of profit tends to fall.


The progressive tendency of the general rate of profit to fall is, therefore, just an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labour. This does not mean to say that the rate of profit may not fall temporarily for other reasons. But proceeding from the nature of the capitalist mode of production, it is thereby proved logical necessity that in its development the general average rate of surplus-value must express itself in a falling general rate of profit. Since the mass of the employed living labour is continually on the decline as compared to the mass of materialised labour set in motion by it, i.e., to the productively consumed means of production, it follows that the portion of living labour, unpaid and congealed in surplus-value, must also be continually on the decrease compared to the amount of value represented by the invested total capital. Since the ratio of the mass of surplus-value to the value of the invested total capital forms the rate of profit, this rate must constantly fall.

Note that: ratio.

[sc4r]

I followed this with interest to see if anything possibly would come out of it. Not to my surprise it did not.

This is because the Marxist concept of &#39;surplus value&#39; is not a real thing but simply one way of looking at things.

Marx asserts that all output value is created by labour alone. And in an ultimate sense he is indeed right, because any tools or facilities used in the production of output were at one time created by labour.

But where he misleads is when he attributes the ongoing boost that a tool gives to production, to the labour of the user not the labour of its creator.

What he in effect does is to confuse cost and value. He asserts that Value is the sum of costs, but it is not. Value is determined by how much end users want a thing not by how long it took to make, or how much effort went into it. For example - if you dig a big big hole in my garden its value to me will be less than zero, and you making it bigger wont change this.

In fact all he is doing is saying that in general people wont tend to invest more time in a thing than its value to them. THEN of course it is true that Cost=Value. But when you are talking of people producing things for others you cannot absolutely know that this will be true until after you have produced it. Thats where judgement (what I called m originally) comes in.

The reality is that output is created by the combination of immediate labour and tools. Exactly how you decide to account for what part of the resulting value should be attributed to the tool and what part to labour, and what part to good judgement about how to use the tool, and what to make, is determined by convention, not by any objective reality.

Terms like &#39;Surplus value&#39;; &#39;Constant Capital&#39; and &#39;variable capital&#39;; dont change anything. All they do is express one way of looking at the reality that total Output Value = desirability to potential users * volume available (up to a limit of the maximum required by end users); Output Cost = expenses + Depreciation; and that Output Value - Output Cost if positive means that either growth or increased consumption is made possible Whereas if negative it means you&#39;d have been better off making something else.

Marx does not, for example, seem to spot that Capitalists dont consume all of their &#39;profit&#39; (output value- output cost); they use much of it to fund growth.

The problems for capitalism dont really come from this because all it is is someone doing what would be done anyway.

The problems come partly because Capitalists do consume some &#39;profit&#39; and this causes resentment. But mainly because the competitive nature of the detailed system leads them to find ways to create artificial profit. That is profit (to them) which does not actually come from increasing output value but from distorting the perception of where value is. Thats the flaw; and it is that which will eventually get found out, because each time you distort the true situation you need to cover it up with another bigger distortion somewhere down the line. At some point the distortions becaome impossible to cover up, and then POP&#33; like the South Sea Bubble the whole thing disintegrates.

To put it another way; growth is required to cover up the distortions. When growth cant occur fast enough to do so then the sham is revealed.

Marx believes that people should be treated equally. I agree with him. But all his economic theories do is show how an economy could be analysed given that this is so. They dont &#39;prove&#39; that it should be so; quite the reverse the theories only make sense if the assumption is correct, not the other way around.

And because of this you cant use those ideas to prove that &#39;surplus value&#39; is created in any particular place. Because there is no measure of ultimate &#39;value&#39; prior to final consumption or use; only a cost. And to bring a third world product into the first world there is more than one discrete Labour+Investment cost combination involved. Which &#39;really creates&#39; the value? who could say, it depends how you look at it.

Best wishes Severian. I am sorry I am unwilling to talk only in Marxist terminology as you would wish.

[crazy comie]

You can use marxist economics to explain this in the abstract.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 30 2003, 02:39 PM
You can use marxist economics to explain this in the abstract.
Sorry? Use marxist economics to prove what &#39;in the abstract&#39;. I dont know what you mean or even what you are referring to.

Marxist economics allows you to assert that Surplus value arises in a particular place alright. But thats because Marxist economics simply assumes that it does.

But as severian said once you try and actually put numbers on it it becomes impossible, because you run into the difficulty that the numbers that are available dont show it arising in any such way and you cannot manipulate them to do so without leaving great swathes of unaccounted for investment and labour which dont seem to be producing any value whatsoever, or by double, triple, and quadruple counting the value.

The problem is that production does not go straight to end consumers (who are the people who ultimately determine value) but are processed through multiple distribution and storage facilities, which self evidently do add value. If you simply assume that the value they add is as stated by capitalist market accounting rules then you find that most of the &#39;surplus value&#39; originates in the first world; but if you dont accept this then you are left merely guessing (or in othe words asserting) at where it does arise.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2003, 11:23 AM
But where he misleads is when he attributes the ongoing boost that a tool gives to production, to the labour of the user not the labour of its creator.
Marx "attributes" no such thing.

You&#39;re not obligated to read Capital, of course, but if you choose not to you should refrain from commenting on it.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 30 2003, 09:08 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Severian @ Sep 30 2003, 09:08 PM)
[email protected] 30 2003, 11:23 AM
But where he misleads is when he attributes the ongoing boost that a tool gives to production, to the labour of the user not the labour of its creator.
Marx "attributes" no such thing.

You&#39;re not obligated to read Capital, of course, but if you choose not to you should refrain from commenting on it. [/b]
Yes he does.

Who does Marx say &#39;Surplus value&#39; really belongs to? Its the worker is it not? what do you think this surplus value is if not the boost given to labour alone by using a tool to increase productivity?

Marx very clearly says it when talking specifically about surplus value and &#39;variable/ constant capital&#39;; and it is absolutely implicit throughout the whole labour theory of value.

Of course if you want to corect me and tell me to whom surplus value should in fact belong to if not the worker then by all means do so.

Or tell me that prices should not reflect any element of surplus value and that in fact they should be set according only to the labour used. If you do that you&#39;ll get a follow up piece of basic economic fact.

Severian its piss poor argument to respond to somebody by merely claiming to be better read. It does not require a whole book to explain what you are talking about here. Constant and Variable Capital + surplus value can be summed up in 2-3 short paragraphs by anyone who genuinely understands it. I suspect you really dont understand how it fits in with economics in general , hence your reluctance. Its especially laughable given that my initial statement of what &#39;surplus value&#39; effectively is, was completely and utterly in accord with Marx&#39;s view of it.

I am not commenting on Das kapital here. I am commenting on one small part of it. The part that is relevant to this discusion. You may have recently read Das Kapital but this does not qualify you as the worlds sole expert on economics, and frankly the fact that you cant get agreement to what you are saying from people who I would guess have read it from cover to cover only backs this up.

But the truly stupid part is that you dont seem to have twigged that in essence I am agreeing with your original statements.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I think it would be easier if we all started talking about the same form of economics. Bourgeois economics is different then socialist economics.


In bourgeois economics "advances in technolgies" and "better tools" only provise a temporary boost to surplus value by cutting back on constant and variiable capital for the time it takes for all of your competitors to begin using the same "tools" or "advancements". In turn leaving no one with any real competitve "edge" as the market will soon reflect the increased supply of these goods, dropping distinct advantages in market share. (this of course does not apply to monopolies) The market value of the goods produced will in turn reflect the increased supply and stabalised market share.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 30 2003, 11:59 PM
I think it would be easier if we all started talking about the same form of economics. Bourgeois economics is different then socialist economics.


In bourgeois economics "advances in technolgies" and "better tools" only provise a temporary boost to surplus value by cutting back on constant and variiable capital for the time it takes for all of your competitors to begin using the same "tools" or "advancements". In turn leaving no one with any real competitve "edge" as the market will soon reflect the increased supply of these goods, dropping distinct advantages in market share. (this of course does not apply to monopolies) The market value of the goods produced will in turn reflect the increased supply and stabalised market share.
At the risk of seeming very out of step with what is an understandable desire given that this is a Marxist board; I&#39;d say, RAF, that I dont think its a particularly good idea to all start talking &#39;marxist economics&#39;. I would not dream of objecting because someone was doing so; but I think it&#39;s silly to insist upon it.

In the first place I personally find quite a lot of Marx&#39;s terminology to be clumsy and archaic anyway (thats not a crtiicism as such; it was formulated 150 years ago after all). And it can be misleading. For example &#39;surplus value&#39; is seemingly used by Marx to mean both an actual value measure, and also a strange mixture of value less cost; which he assumes to be the same thing. I personally find &#39;variable capital&#39; used to mean &#39;direct costs&#39; rather clumsy too.

Secondly you have to remember that Marxist economics does assume the correctness of the basic Marxist attitude. I, of course, agree with this attitude. But having said that you have to be very careful if you are using it to &#39;prove&#39; anything which may be used to show the inequity in a non Marxist society that you dont effectively end up with a circular argument.

There is a counterpoint to this second point of course, that you do have to be very careful that in using non Marxist terminology you dont do the same thing but in the opposite direction.

But a great deal more work has been done on Non Marxist economics concepts than on Marxist ones; they have been developed considerably over the last 150 years, and the basic ideas are intended, and expected, to reflect universal realities. There are some ideas (like those of return on investment) which do only make sense if interpreted within a capitalist context, but these are usually fairly obviously so.

What I&#39;m really saying is that jargon is not something I ever feel comfortable with. Far too many people use it to cover up ignorance.

Best wishes. This is only my personal opinion.

[crazy comie]

hmm