Surplus Value

[KC]

Surplus-value is the social product which is over and above what is required for the producers to live.

The measure of value is labour time, so surplus value is the accumulated product of the unpaid labour time of the producers. In bourgeois society, surplus value is acquired by the capitalist in the form of profit: the capitalist owns the means of production as Private Property, so the workers have no choice but to sell their labour-power to the capitalists in order to live. The capitalist then owns not only the means of production, and the workers’ labour-power which he has bought to use in production, but the product as well. After paying wages, the capitalist then becomes the owner of the surplus value, over and above the value of the workers’ labour-power.

In all societies in which there is a division of labour, there is a social surplus; what is different about bourgeois society is that surplus value takes the form of capital, and surplus value is in fact the essence of production in capitalism.— Only productive work, i.e., work which creates surplus value, is supported. All “unproductive labour” is eliminated.

The capitalists may increase the amount of surplus value extracted from the working class by two means: (1) by absolute surplus value — extending the working day as long as possible, and (2) by relative surplus value — by cutting wages.

Attempts by individual capitalists to increase their profits by introducing machinery or speeding-up production by technique fail as soon as their competitors copy the new technique and restore their market share. The end effect of these improvements in production may be to increase the productivity of labour, but unless the rate of surplus value is increased proportionately, the rate of profit will actually fall.

Having been accumulated as capital, surplus value must then be distributed to landlords, bankers and other parasites, and expended via taxes on the various expenses of maintaining the social fabic.


Can I get some responses to this on what you think of it? (Source: marxists.org)

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 02:15 AM
Surplus-value is the social product which is over and above what is required for the producers to live.

The measure of value is labour time, so surplus value is the accumulated product of the unpaid labour time of the producers
Surplus-value sounds like a non-sensical term to me.

The value of a good or service is what a willing buyer will pay a willing seller for the good or service.

By the definition you've given, my old 486 powered computer would be worth more because it took more man hours to build then my current Athlon powered computer. Nonsense. A person might labor (labour) for days digging a hole in my front yard. Believe me, that hole would not have any value what so ever and I'd be mad as hell.

Capitalist don't extract anything from anybody. They pay for all the goods and services that make up their product at the market prices for the goods and services. Then they turn around and sell the product at its market prices. The difference is either profit or loss. There's no surplus value, only the difference between what it takes to create a good or service and what that good or service can be sold for.

It's perfectly clear why socialism and communism fail. It's as if a machine was designed and built with out respect to physics. Such a machine can never work.

[anomaly]

It seems, Hank, that you misunderstand the labor theory of value (as described by Marx). The value of any good is not measured solely quantitatively (that is, by how long it took for the item to be produced), but also qualitatively. Your old computer may have taken more labor hours to construct, but since consumers have stopped purchasing it and instead begun purchasing more advanced computers, the qualitative value of the old computer has decreased. And so this leads us to obvious wasted labor (the result of anarchic capitalist production).

There most certainly is surplus value (otherwise all capitalists would be penniless). Surplus value is simply the difference between the value laborers produce (materially represented by the sales of goods they produce) and their compensation for production. Surplus value is simply excess capital that is given to the capitalist. This makes capitalist production extremely unjust. If Lazar and myself produce a table, doesn't it make sense that we receive all the money that is used to purchase the table? Of course! But in capitalist production, workers can produce as much value as they wish (goods), but they will not receive equal compensation (money). Excess money is, of course, 'earned' by the capitalist.

[Freedom Works]

But in capitalist production, workers can produce as much value as they wish (goods), but they will not receive equal compensation (money).

Yes they do, they agreed to something they felt was equal, they made a contract and if they don't like it, they can go somewhere else or go into business for themself. Then they can employ whomever they want, and if their working conditions are unsatisfactory, then the worker will leave. If the worker feels he is not being treated fairly, he can create his own business and run it how he likes.

[quincunx5]

And so this leads us to obvious wasted labor (the result of anarchic capitalist production).


Wasted labour? It didn't seem like it when it was built in the early 90s.

Gee, by that reasoning anything that was previously constructed is wasted labour!
Should we all stop building things because It's just a waste?

The old computer may still work, but he has no need to use it because there is something better.



If Lazar and myself produce a table, doesn't it make sense that we receive all the money that is used to purchase the table?


Where did you guys get the wood (assuming wood)? Did you have to buy it somewhere?
Did you own the tools?
How much did He do and How much did you do?
Who designed the table?

You guys made a wonderful table, nontheless. So who do you sell it to? and for how much?

I assume you want the highest price that anyone is willing to buy, since it's such a nice table. You aren't just going to freely give to away to someone who wants to chop down for firewood.

Whatever you have left over is your profit.

I guess you will just have to get rid of it as soon as possible!

[Freedom Works]

Where did you guys get the wood (assuming wood)? Did you have to buy it somewhere?
Did you own the tools?
How much did He do and How much did you do?
Who designed the table?

Nice, this is a great argument against that stupid one about 50 people being a room together etc...

[KC]

Wasted labour? It didn't seem like it when it was built in the early 90s.

Gee, by that reasoning anything that was previously constructed is wasted labour!
Should we all stop building things because It's just a waste?

The old computer may still work, but he has no need to use it because there is something better.

So if the good is produced and isn't used, the labor is wasted.




Where did you guys get the wood (assuming wood)? Did you have to buy it somewhere?
Did you own the tools?
How much did He do and How much did you do?
Who designed the table?

Our employer.



You guys made a wonderful table, nontheless. So who do you sell it to? and for how much?

I assume you want the highest price that anyone is willing to buy, since it's such a nice table. You aren't just going to freely give to away to someone who wants to chop down for firewood.

Whatever you have left over is your profit.

I guess you will just have to get rid of it as soon as possible!

You have to apply this to the situation. We aren't creating this table independently, we are members of a furniture making business, let's say. The company takes it from us and sells it for a profit. And also, if we did build the table independently, we are the owners of the table and therefore the theory of surplus value doesn't apply. We can sell it for however much we want. It's not someone paid us to make it. Petty bourgeois doesn't matter, as I've stated before.

[quincunx5]

So if the good is produced and isn't used, the labor is wasted.


It was used for some time, until something better came along. It's value came from the use it had.



Petty bourgeois doesn't matter, as I've stated before.


That's the mistake you keep making.

[KC]

It was used for some time, until something better came along. It's value came from the use it had.


If it wasn't used at all, the labor used to make it is wasted.



That's the mistake you keep making.

The mistake is that you keep thinking it matters, when petty bourgeois can be divided into proletariat and bourgeoisie. If we can divide petty bourgeois into proletariat and bourgeoisie, then why don't we just talk about proletariat and bourgeoisie? If that's what petty bourgeois is made of, then let's talk about that.

[quincunx5]

Lazar, will you please stop using bullshit marxist terms left and right as your sole argument.

I as a proletariat, can take my slave wages and buy another company's stock. I would be entitled to a portion of the profits - without doing anything in that other company. Hence I am also a burgeois.

Your words mean nothing.

[KC]

Lazar, will you please stop using bullshit marxist terms left and right as your sole argument.

No? Because that explains it perfectly.



I as a proletariat, can take my slave wages and buy another company's stock. I would be entitled to a portion of the profits - without doing anything in that other company. Hence I am also a burgeois.

You need to own a significant amount of stock to own the means of production, genius.

[Publius]

There most certainly is surplus value (otherwise all capitalists would be penniless).

No, there is only value. Seperating the amount of money paid to for labor from the price of the product is as meaningless as pointing out how much went to materials or to research.

Labor is just a commodity.



Surplus value is simply the difference between the value laborers produce (materially represented by the sales of goods they produce) and their compensation for production.

There is far more to the production of an item than simply labor.



Surplus value is simply excess capital that is given to the capitalist.

It isn't 'excess' capital... it's just capital...



This makes capitalist production extremely unjust.

No, it makes it more just.



If Lazar and myself produce a table, doesn't it make sense that we receive all the money that is used to purchase the table? Of course!

Of course not! Unless you own the material you used to build the table, the tools used to build the table, the facilities to build the table in, and the ability to sell the table.

If you can do all of that, you're free to keep the entire value of the table.

Until then, you are payed for the labor you put into the table, which is only one small part of it's entire production.



But in capitalist production, workers can produce as much value as they wish (goods), but they will not receive equal compensation (money). Excess money is, of course, 'earned' by the capitalist.

Yes, because the capitalist bought or made the means of production, bought the land, oversees design, sales, production and may even work himself depending on the trade.

There is no 'excess' money involved. The capitalist makes what workers and consumers are willing to give him and not a cent more.

[Publius]

You have to apply this to the situation. We aren't creating this table independently, we are members of a furniture making business, let's say. The company takes it from us and sells it for a profit. And also, if we did build the table independently, we are the owners of the table and therefore the theory of surplus value doesn't apply. We can sell it for however much we want. It's not someone paid us to make it. Petty bourgeois doesn't matter, as I've stated before.

Once again, your labor is just a commodity to be bought and sold.

When you produce this table you agree to sell your labor for a specific price.

[NovelGentry]

There is far more to the production of an item than simply labor.

Such as?

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:11 PM



Such as?

Materials, tools, and the ideas behind what you're creating are all vastly important.

I don't need to spell it out for you.

[NovelGentry]

Materials, tools, and the ideas behind what you're creating are all vastly important.

These are all products of labor. Materials stay in the ground unless someone mines them/cuts them/whatevers them. Tools are created by labor too.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 10:20 PM




These are all products of labor. Materials stay in the ground unless someone mines them/cuts them/whatevers them. Tools are created by labor too.

The materials mean nothing without the labor, the labor means nothing without the materials.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

And this still leaves out the ideas for these creations. Surely they have some value as well, right?

[quincunx5]

You need to own a significant amount of stock to own the means of production, genius.


No you do not! You only need to own majority if you want to control the direction of the enterprise. That does not mean you cannot obtain a portion of the profit.

Why do you need to own the means of production if someone else does, and is willing to share their profit with you. YOU did nothing, but buy stock. You contributed absolutely nothing to the other company.

If you can both proletariat and burgeois then neither of them mean anything.



No? Because that explains it perfectly.


You might as well say that you don't need to argue with me, you'll just let marx do all the talking.

The problem is Marx's bullshit does not apply here.

[NovelGentry]

The materials mean nothing without the labor, the labor means nothing without the materials.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

And this still leaves out the ideas for these creations. Surely they have some value as well, right?

But you said there is far more to the production of an item. That is false... there may be far more to an item, but not the production of an item. The production of an item is solely a function of labor.

[HankMorgan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:04 AM
It seems, Hank, that you misunderstand the labor theory of value (as described by Marx). The value of any good is not measured solely quantitatively (that is, by how long it took for the item to be produced), but also qualitatively. Your old computer may have taken more labor hours to construct, but since consumers have stopped purchasing it and instead begun purchasing more advanced computers, the qualitative value of the old computer has decreased. And so this leads us to obvious wasted labor (the result of anarchic capitalist production).

There most certainly is surplus value (otherwise all capitalists would be penniless). Surplus value is simply the difference between the value laborers produce (materially represented by the sales of goods they produce) and their compensation for production. Surplus value is simply excess capital that is given to the capitalist. This makes capitalist production extremely unjust. If Lazar and myself produce a table, doesn't it make sense that we receive all the money that is used to purchase the table? Of course! But in capitalist production, workers can produce as much value as they wish (goods), but they will not receive equal compensation (money). Excess money is, of course, 'earned' by the capitalist.
You're right, anomaly, I don't understand the labor theory of value. It always strikes me as the kind of thing one worker would say to his not so bright neighbor to try to persuade the neighbor to show up at an organizing meeting.

You are also right when you say you and Lazar should be receive all the money that is used to purchase the table...all the money the factory owner pays you and Lazar for the table. The table factory owner then takes the table to the showroom and attempts to sell the table for more than he paid you and Lazar for it. If the table market is good, he makes a profit. If the table market is off, he takes a loss since he paid you and Lazar more then he could sell it for.

Let's go through the life of the table. At the time you and Lazar finish it, I agree you should be paid full value for the table.

At the time the table is sold off the table showroom floor, you say you are entitled to the full amount paid to purchase the table. If the table is sold at a profit you receive the profit. If the table is sold at a loss, are you also responsible to make up the loss?

Years go by. You and Lazar did such fine work when building the table that the table has appreciated in value. The owner of the table can sell it for far more than he paid for it in the table showroom. Are you and Lazar entitled to the profit made by the table owner? When does your entitlement to any profits made by the sale or resale of the table end?

Capitalist production is a series of transactions that are just. No one is exploited. Everyone receives the market value for what they exchange in the trade whether it be labor, money or tables.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 11:59 PM




But you said there is far more to the production of an item. That is false... there may be far more to an item, but not the production of an item. The production of an item is solely a function of labor.

You cannot be serious.

You can labor all you want, but it's just wasted effort without the right materials.

All the cement in the world isn't going to produce an airplane no matter how much labor you put into it.

I'll give you a hammer and some nails and you can beat the fuckers together all day long, but without any wood, you're never going to PRODUCE a chair.

Similarly, I can give you some wood let you see if you break it apart and piece it together with your bear hands and see if you make a chair.

Or I can give you the tools and the wood but make sure you've never heard of or seen a chair and ask you to produce one for me.

To illustrate: Produce a chair for me.

You say: What's a chair?

I say: You don't need to know that, the only thing that matters in production is LABOR!

You say: ...


Without labor, tools, materials and knowledge (All of them), you can't produce anything.

Once again, labor is a commodity like means of production, production materials and knowledge.

[KC]

No you do not! You only need to own majority if you want to control the direction of the enterprise.

The majority isn't a significant amount? Are you stupid?



Why do you need to own the means of production if someone else does, and is willing to share their profit with you.

Because to be bourgeois, you have to own the means of production.



If you can both proletariat and burgeois then neither of them mean anything.

You could be both. It doesn't usually happen though. In fact, it barely happens.



You might as well say that you don't need to argue with me, you'll just let marx do all the talking.


I could if you read Marx.



The problem is Marx's bullshit does not apply here.

Why not?




Without labor, tools, materials and knowledge (All of them), you can't produce anything.

Yes, tools require labor to make. And I'm assuming you'll say other tools too. Which require labor. And so on. Materials require labor to acquire. And so on. Knowledge isn't labor?

[quincunx5]

The majority isn't a significant amount? Are you stupid?
Because to be bourgeois, you have to own the means of production.


The majority is not always a signficant amount.

Many means of production cannot be owned by any given individual. They need to have shareholders.

Ex:
Bill Gates cannot build a death star.
Should he wish to, he would need to borrow funds. Assuming he felt the death start could be profitable, the attributing funds come from the shareholders. The shareholders are entitled to any profits from the death star.

Would you say he owns the means of production even though he financed 3% of it himself, and the other 97% by thousands of other individuals?

This is what a public corporation works like.

Not to mention the obvious example that money you have in the bank may go to finance it as well. You never know. All you know is that your bank will give you what ever interest it promised. You employed the bank!



You could be both. It doesn't usually happen though. In fact, it barely happens.


So in the cases that it does happen, does Marx have a class for this? No I didn't think so. Why?

Because propaganda works best when the drama is between two opposing classes.

How many sporting events have 3 teams playing simultaneously against each other?

OK, now time for some statistics: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulleti...00/0100lead.pdf (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/bulletin/2000/0100lead.pdf)
Page 5 shows savings (1998)
Page 11 shows other financial assets (1998)

Please note that even for those below the US poverty line (I~$10,000 in 1998), 59.2% hold transactional accounts, 3% hold stocks. 70.6% hold some type of finanacial asset

If you look at the all family summary you would see that it doesn't barely happen.

[anomaly]

You're right, anomaly, I don't understand the labor theory of value. It always strikes me as the kind of thing one worker would say to his not so bright neighbor to try to persuade the neighbor to show up at an organizing meeting.

You are also right when you say you and Lazar should be receive all the money that is used to purchase the table...all the money the factory owner pays you and Lazar for the table. The table factory owner then takes the table to the showroom and attempts to sell the table for more than he paid you and Lazar for it. If the table market is good, he makes a profit. If the table market is off, he takes a loss since he paid you and Lazar more then he could sell it for.

Let's go through the life of the table. At the time you and Lazar finish it, I agree you should be paid full value for the table.

You have made this simple example (its the simplest I could think of...perhaps I should have chosen an even simpler example...) extremely complicated. If Lazar and I are compensated for our labor, and all profits from the table go to us, nothing else matters. So I stopped you right there. What I'm pointing out is that under capitalism, we would not be fully compensated for our labor! The profits for the table would not go all to us. Obviously, we, as laborers, created the value, and yet we are not due full compensation for our efforts under capitalism. Instead, most of the profits would go towards the capitalist. But the capitalist did not create the value, we did. And yet he has 'earned' more than we have. Do you see the oddity? Why should a capitalist, who does no production labor, be compensated for work that we have done?

[Freedom Works]

Because he tells you how to do it.

[KC]

No he doesn't! That is what education is about. If I go to college to become an engineer, and get an engineering job, my employer didn't tell me how to engineer.

[Freedom Works]

No, but he would organize the engineers and tell them how to coordinate amongst themselves, as well as solve disputes. You seem to be saying that because someone's actions produce no tangible thing, they should not be rewarded. What a narrowminded view.

exploit: To employ to the greatest possible advantage
If I trade you my pen for your tie, would we be exploiting each other? Yes, yes we would, and that is why communist arguments are silly.

[anomaly]

Why can't the engineers themselves settle their own disputes as well coordinate themselves? That was rhetorical...they can!

If a capitalist exploits his workers, he gains because of surplus value (which he collects). The worker, on the other hand, does not exploit the capitalist. Your example is simply untrue.

[Freedom Works]

Why can't the engineers themselves settle their own disputes as well coordinate themselves?
Human nature - greed. Sure, they may be able to do it sometimes in small groups, but the bigger the commune, the harder it will be.


If a capitalist exploits his workers, he gains because of surplus value (which he collects).
If he is "exploiting" anything, he would be "exploiting" the buyer, who is having to pay more than they would at equilibrium.


The worker, on the other hand, does not exploit the capitalist. Your example is simply untrue.
I heard one guy who would sell his cds of video shows to extremely wealthy people for about $100. Is that "exploitation"? That was rhetorical - it's not!

"Exploitation" is just anti-capitalist propaganda.

[NovelGentry]

You cannot be serious.

You can labor all you want, but it's just wasted effort without the right materials.

All the cement in the world isn't going to produce an airplane no matter how much labor you put into it.

No one is saying it would. But that doesn't change that the production of any item is a function of labor. You cannot produce an airplane with cement, but even with the necessary materials, it is unproduced without labor. Not to mention, those necessary materials are the product of labor as well. Wings don't grow on trees, whether they're made of cement or aluminium. And even if they did grow on trees, someone would probably be planting them, and someone would certainly be harvesting them.


I'll give you a hammer and some nails and you can beat the fuckers together all day long, but without any wood, you're never going to PRODUCE a chair.

Again, wrong perspective. The issue is the production of a chair, period. How is a chair produced -- it is produce through labor. The hammer is a product of labor, the metal in the hammer is a product of labor, the nails and their metal are too a product of labor. The chair in it's final form is a product of labor.



To illustrate: Produce a chair for me.

You say: What's a chair?

I say: You don't need to know that, the only thing that matters in production is LABOR!

You say: ...

The knowledge of how to produce a chair is labor, mental labor, but still labor.


Without labor, tools, materials and knowledge (All of them), you can't produce anything.

And again, tools are a product of labor. Materials are a product of labor. Knowledge is a product of labor. Without labor, you have none of those other things.

[Freedom Works]

The knowledge of how to produce a chair is labor, mental labor, but still labor.

And the knowledge of how to(and proceed to) efficiently organize groups of chairmakers is labor too.

Contradictions galore!

[NovelGentry]

And the knowledge of how to(and proceed to) efficiently organize groups of chairmakers is labor too.

Contradictions galore!

I'm not sure where I ever said it wasn't.

[Publius]

Without labor, you have none of those other things.

And without the other things, you have no (meaningful) labor.

You need materials to make tools, to make chairs and to design things.

This is really a non-sensical debate we're having.

It's like debating chicken vs. egg.

[KC]

Double post!

[KC]

No, but he would organize the engineers and tell them how to coordinate amongst themselves, as well as solve disputes.

Isn't it pretty obvious that they can do this themselves?



You seem to be saying that because someone's actions produce no tangible thing, they should not be rewarded. What a narrowminded view.

I never said any such thing.


exploit: To employ to the greatest possible advantage

Try the second definition: To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor.



If I trade you my pen for your tie, would we be exploiting each other? Yes, yes we would, and that is why communist arguments are silly.

The seller isn't exploiting the buyer. The buyer isn't exploiting the seller. It's the bourgeoisie exploiting the workers that we're talking about, genius.



Human nature - greed. Sure, they may be able to do it sometimes in small groups, but the bigger the commune, the harder it will be.

Human nature is a pretty laughable myth. People become greedy because they grow up in a society that teaches them it.



If he is "exploiting" anything, he would be "exploiting" the buyer, who is having to pay more than they would at equilibrium.


Wrong. The workers created the profit. It should be the workers'. By taking the profit, the owners are exploiting the workers.



I heard one guy who would sell his cds of video shows to extremely wealthy people for about $100. Is that "exploitation"? That was rhetorical - it's not!

Of course not. People don't have to buy them. They can go find them somewhere else if they want to for cheaper.



And without the other things, you have no (meaningful) labor.

You need materials to make tools, to make chairs and to design things.

This is really a non-sensical debate we're having.

It's like debating chicken vs. egg.

I don't think we need to have this debate, as the source of everything is labor. To answer this question, however, we're going to have to go back in history to before this circle began. Let's take indians, for example; the indians first created their tools from what they found in nature. They used pure labor to create tools. They used the tools to create other tools, and used those to create products. And so on. Until now where everything seems circular. Saying tools have always existed prior to labor is a foolish argument; they might have existed in nature but nobody certainly owned them at that time! Labor, therefore, is at the core of every product.

[Publius]

I don't think we need to have this debate, as the source of everything is labor.

And the source of labor is resources.

The 'source' of everything is material as much as it is labor.



To answer this question, however, we're going to have to go back in history to before this circle began.

To when the earth was formed?



Let's take indians, for example; the indians first created their tools from what they found in nature.

Exactly.

Labor + other things = product



They used pure labor to create tools.

No, they used labor, materials, other tools and knowledge to create tools.

You can labor all you want (Say, life cement blocks for instance) but without the right materials you won't produce anything of value.

Labor without the right materials is wasted labor.



They used the tools to create other tools, and used those to create products. And so on. Until now where everything seems circular.

It was circular then. They needed resources to make their tools in the first place.


Saying tools have always existed prior to labor is a foolish argument;

Yes it is. But it's not what I'm arguing at all.



they might have existed in nature but nobody certainly owned them at that time! Labor, therefore, is at the core of every product.

Labor is 'at the core', along with other things.

You can't simply say 'labor = production'. There are other factors.

Without the right tools, the right materials, the right type of labor, the right knowledge, the right conditions and the right laborors, you cannot make certain products.

[Political_Punk]

ok listen:
as I posted in the other room, there is much more to the price of an item being produced than simply the labour that is req'd to assemble it.

The design, development, testing, and more importantly supply and demand are what primarily affect the price of any given product.

That is simply undeniable, economic law.

Ask any business owner: "how do you determine the price of your gadget?" He will tell you of the wide array of factors (which will include more than just the hourly wage of the worker).

I'm sorry, as much as it pains me to say, your labour is directly related to the supply and demand of the product being sold.

Please, understand that, and adjust your opinion accordingly. This is simply not a subjective issue.

Furthermore, if you think you're being underpaid for what you do, find another job, check the avg. wages of your industry - that is how you determine if you're being "exploited".

Of course to say working for ANY employer is exploitative is simply ignorant.

[KC]

Publius, I understand what you mean, but I don't think you're understanding what I mean. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean? Anyways...

You said that for a worker to create a product in present day society, there is more that goes into it besides labor; materials and tools are the ones I'm dealing with here. You said:



Of course not! Unless you own the material you used to build the table, the tools used to build the table, the facilities to build the table in, and the ability to sell the table.

Now, lets go back to my indians. If the indians make the first tools from what they found in nature, nobody owned nature. Therefore the tools are the product of labor and materials owned by nobody. These tools make more tools, and so on, and these tools create products and other tools to create products and so on. Therefore everything is a product of labor, which the basis in everything is these tools created from nature.

Therefore we can say that the tools in the furniture factory where we made our table are a product of labor (who owns them is irrelevant as their basis is in the tools created from nature).

[Political_Punk]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:44 PM
Publius, I understand what you mean, but I don't think you're understanding what I mean. Or maybe I'm not understanding what you mean? Anyways...

You said that for a worker to create a product in present day society, there is more that goes into it besides labor; materials and tools are the ones I'm dealing with here. You said:



Of course not! Unless you own the material you used to build the table, the tools used to build the table, the facilities to build the table in, and the ability to sell the table.

Now, lets go back to my indians. If the indians make the first tools from what they found in nature, nobody owned nature. Therefore the tools are the product of labor and materials owned by nobody. These tools make more tools, and so on, and these tools create products and other tools to create products and so on. Therefore everything is a product of labor, which the basis in everything is these tools created from nature.

Therefore we can say that the tools in the furniture factory where we made our table are a product of labor (who owns them is irrelevant as their basis is in the tools created from nature).
ok, I'm going to jump here and clarify what we mean:

yes, things don't produce themselves, that takes labour. But also, raw, unfinished items have a value simply b/c they exist and are in demand. Look at the prcisous metals market, for example. Gold has shot up significantly in the past 4 years thanks simply to increased demand - not b/c the workers made it more valuable.

Or even something like a rock. Yes, a pile of rocks in a quarry is worth something, but when it's refined into a bag of cement, and finally into the foundation of a home, it of course has more value. Not simply b/c of the work involved, but b/c it is in demand.

Look at the price of housing: In most places in the US prices have shot up 30% in about an year. It's not b/c the workers themselves somehow raised the price, it's b/c the demand for homes have increased (thanks to the lower interest rates).

I am just trying to get you Communists to understand that economic law is applicable and directly affects the price of any product. That said, it's not simply the labour that affects the price/value of any product.

I mean, I'm sure it'd be very difficult and labour intensive to make a car made strictly out of plastic and cardboard - and even if something like that could functoin, who the hell would want to buy it? Not many I think... and thus, the final price would be worth much less than a real car.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 05:44 PM



You said that for a worker to create a product in present day society, there is more that goes into it besides labor; materials and tools are the ones I'm dealing with here. You said:



Of course not! Unless you own the material you used to build the table, the tools used to build the table, the facilities to build the table in, and the ability to sell the table.


Yes, and it remains true.




Now, lets go back to my indians. If the indians make the first tools from what they found in nature, nobody owned nature. Therefore the tools are the product of labor and materials owned by nobody.

Up to this point, we're in agreement.



These tools make more tools, and so on, and these tools create products and other tools to create products and so on. Therefore everything is a product of labor, which the basis in everything is these tools created from nature.

Yes, the tools of today can be traced back to the tools of yesterday, and subsequently, the labor of yesterday but this has no tengential effect on production.

There is obviosly more to the production of any item than YOUR (Perhaps this will help to clarify some) labor.

As such, it is false to say you should keep the table you made.

There is more than YOUR LABOR involved in it's production, so you don't have complete control of it. Actually, you have no control over it because you sold your labor away.



Therefore we can say that the tools in the furniture factory where we made our table are a product of labor (who owns them is irrelevant as their basis is in the tools created from nature).

Who owns them is the only factor of importance.

The people who made the tools, sold them to the current owner.

The tools are a product of labor (A commodity) just as they are the product of metal (A commodity).

I understand what you're saying, I just disagree with you.

[NovelGentry]

And without the other things, you have no (meaningful) labor.

But the means by which you get the other things is labor.


You need materials to make tools, to make chairs and to design things.

Indeed, and all are products of labor.


This is really a non-sensical debate we're having.

It's like debating chicken vs. egg.

It's really quite easily settled. Pretty much every raw material we use needs labor applied to it to even be useful. Trees need to be cut. Ores need to be refined. There is no chicken vs. egg issue, the issue is merely you being too blind to see that production starts, continues, and finishes in labor.

You would rather misconstrue the argument to make it sound like I (and maybe others) are saying that any labor can create any product. Not true. I (and maybe others) are well aware you can bang nails to wood all day and produce nothing, but again, that doesn't change that to produce a chair, you are still banging wood together with nails. Nor does it change how that wood was made available. Nor does it change how the nails and hammer came into existence, or for that matter whatever refined metal it is they are made from.

[NovelGentry]

There is obviosly more to the production of any item than YOUR (Perhaps this will help to clarify some) labor.

As such, it is false to say you should keep the table you made.

There is more than YOUR LABOR involved in it's production, so you don't have complete control of it.

Watch out boys, he's arguing like a communist.

Indeed production is a social issue. Smith realized this a long long time ago, using several examples, one of a coat in production, another of nails being produced. This is why we look at it in terms of class; as social conditions, social antagonisms, and social structures, because to do otherwise is to deny the very nature of production itself.


The people who made the tools, sold them to the current owner.

That is doubtful. What is more accurate under capitalism is that the people who made the tools sold their labor, the tools then produced by that labor are sold by their "boss(es)."

[PJ O'Rourke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 07:19 AM
You have made this simple example (its the simplest I could think of...perhaps I should have chosen an even simpler example...) extremely complicated. If Lazar and I are compensated for our labor, and all profits from the table go to us, nothing else matters. So I stopped you right there. What I'm pointing out is that under capitalism, we would not be fully compensated for our labor! The profits for the table would not go all to us. Obviously, we, as laborers, created the value, and yet we are not due full compensation for our efforts under capitalism. Instead, most of the profits would go towards the capitalist. But the capitalist did not create the value, we did. And yet he has 'earned' more than we have. Do you see the oddity? Why should a capitalist, who does no production labor, be compensated for work that we have done?
So what if I value the table at 15 dollar and my friend at 25? Who is correct? Waht is the objective value of the table?

Let's assume you're making the a table and get compensated for 10 dollars. Your capitalist boss then sells the table for 15 dollars. You claim that you should be compensated an extra 5 dollars. What if he can only sell the table for 5 dollar, are you going to compensate your boss for your crappy work?

[quincunx5]

PJ, They will not answer you because Marx only talks about Surplus Value.

They are not familiar with Deficit Value.

They do not want to discuss the case of the reseller. The one who does absolutely nothing but find another buyer willing to pay more.

They also do not want to discuss indirect employment, such as banks, stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc.

Why hasn't anyone responded to my last post? Did I offend the Marxists with statistics?

[quincunx5]

Why can't the engineers themselves settle their own disputes as well coordinate themselves? That was rhetorical...they can!


I'm an engineer, and no they can't. The argument may go on forever, but time is short and things must be done. You need someone to make the decision. That someone will be your manager. They take the blame for the bad decisions, and you keep engineering!

(Note that the manager can be one of the engineers, the point is blame is assigned to the one who makes the decision)



If a capitalist exploits his workers, he gains because of surplus value (which he collects).


So exploitation can only occur if there is profit? Are the workers exploiting the capitalist when there is a loss?