Surplus Value And Capitalists

[Comrade Martin]

I have a big question and its really bugging me; I need help immediately.

Okay, so the profits in the business which are pocketed by the Capitalist are exploited from workers, in theory, are they not? To my understanding of Marxist economics, yes.

But is the labor of the Capitalist which went in to hiring workers, buying land and machinery, advertisement, business budget balancing, the purchasing of raw materials, and the facilitation of the sale of the product amount to nothing in economic terms? Is his labor not valuable, and if not, why?

In Socialism, will we not still have managers of local business and then other managers of those managers who will coordinate economic activity and growth for the benefit of the people in a nationally coordinated plan for the betterment of all? And if we have those managers, will they not be performing the duties formerly relegated to Capitalists, and will they not recieve a wage?

And if they do recieve a wage, then why is it that their labor is valuable now, when it was not valuable as a Capitalist?

I need some serious answers from some Marxists more learned than myself.

[JKP]

http://infoshop.org/faq/secC2.html#secc22

[ComradeRed]

This is one of those last ditch efforts to justify capitalism by the capitalists. One thing to bear in mind is that the "fruits" of the capitalist's labor (assuming he worked enough to earn the investment) is made by the workers that he exploits!

How, then, could he "earn" any of what he steals?

One common misconception is that value "is not" derived from labor...as if it falls from the sky! The problem mathematically is that this posits the dependent and independent variables (consumer and capitalist) to have the opposite roles! Consumers decide the price of everything regardless to the capitalist.

Try going to a "7-11" and bartering for a bottle of water! It's not going to work! That would be more of a feudal form of transaction rather than a capitalist one. Bartering is reactionary :lol:

Further, the "manager" under socialism (the real thing in the future) would probably be nonexistent! Everything would be vastly automated, rendering the "need" of a manager to be obsolete...much like the feudal lord under capitalism.

Moreover, there would be no wages. Remember "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability".

[violencia.Proletariat]

But is the labor of the Capitalist which went in to hiring workers, buying land and machinery, advertisement, business budget balancing, the purchasing of raw materials, and the facilitation of the sale of the product amount to nothing in economic terms? Is his labor not valuable, and if not, why?

If you believe that value is formed from labor, then what use value does the capitalists labor produce? NOTHING. The labor he puts into his buisness does not preform the physical construction of his goods. One could say that his organization helps make the goods possible, while this is true under capitalism, history has already shown that hierarchy is not necessary in production and that capitalist management is obsolete. Rather his role as manager is necessary in capitalism because production is centered around having managers. The workers can organize their own production however.

[ComradeRed]

Yes, the "labor" performed by the capitalist is not useful labor. They contribute nothing to the value of the commodity, they leech off the wages of the workers.

[Shredder]

It is wrong to say that absolutely nothing capitalists do is useful labor. Someone needs to keep some books and other small tasks. These things are "socially neccessary labor." A very small part of what capitalists do is indeed "socially neccessary labor time". But it is very, very small and does not correspond to the amount of wealth they appropriate to themselves. The only neccessary labor capitalists do is of the very most basic kind.

What capitalists do is divided into two categories, the useful and the useless. In the useful group, they do simple tasks of administration and accounting that could be performed by any person who knows basic arithmetic and knows the simple business secrets that allow capitalists to calculate the best output decisions. The other things capitalists do are harmful and usually resolve in marketing conspiracies to trick consumers into buying things they don't want or rebuying things they already have. Essentially, they stand opposed to the good of the people, but claim an inalienable right to appropriate wealth based on their doing tasks a child could do.

I'm not saying the capitalist is socially neccessary. But the tasks he performs are. Once the workers take control of those tasks, it will become clear that the capitalist is superfluous.

[JKP]

Do not combine the manager/administrator with the capitalist.

The capitalist only exists due to his possession of property; as the collectives in Argentina right now are showing, the capitalist is indeed, totally superfluous.


Regarding administrative duty, its role changes dramatically when it comes to means of production that are democratically owned. Input/Output, resource allocation and produce distrobution are handled through the collective. While it does result in quite a bit of bickering, the results are worth it. The documentary "The Take" illustrates some of this.

I think you are referring to administrative roles that require an administrator. I personally think most workplaces could do without them. However, for the few jobs that may require an adminstrative role, the first thing that the workers should do, is see if the workplace can operate without one. Since bureaucracy is stifling, workers should use their newfound freedom to restructure their work environments as to avoid such positions. (and gain improved efficiency in the process.)

If for some reason an adminstrator is absolutely, 100% required, then that postition should be highly scrutinized. The workers should be able to recall Its occupier at any moment. Also the responsibilties the administrator has should be outlined very specifically. Measures to supress bureaucracy must be undertaken, such as rotation. Great care must be taken because it could very well result in a return to capitalism or degenerate into a "red bureaucracy".

However, as I said, workers are capable of managing their own affairs. History proved that fact both in the past and the present.

The capitalist may need the workers, but the workers don't need him.

EDIT: When I refer to an administrator, I don't mean someone who has the final authority(No one should have that). His duty would much more have in common with an advisory role. To ensure that goods end up on the shelves, so to speak.

[STI]

Let's say that every single second in a capitalist's day was spent on socially-necessary labour. Take the number of hours he works per day, and use that number to divide his total income per day to determine "how much money he makes per hour".

Now, compare that to the hourly wage of the workers who produce the commodities. Of course, the capitalist will be receiving much more per hour than the workers.

So then, exploitation happens regardless of how much the capitalist "deserves" money.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Originally posted by Comrade Martin
But is the labor of the Capitalist which went in to hiring workers, buying land and machinery, advertisement, business budget balancing, the purchasing of raw materials, and the facilitation of the sale of the product amount to nothing in economic terms? Is his labor not valuable, and if not, why?

This is called fixed capital. In Marxist economics it is called "constant capital". Labour or variable capital, is by definition the amount of capital it costs to pay workers to produce a product once the fixed capital costs have been realised.

[Comrade Martin]

Yes, this reaffirmed much of what I was thinking. Thank you all very very much for your contributions. I am deeply grateful for your willingness to be helpful.