Surplus value

[blueeyedboy]

Is surplus value still as relevant today as it was when Karl Marx wrote about it. More to the point, does surplus labour still create as much wealth as it did in Marx's times, or has it changed? Is there still such a thing as unpaid labour disguised as paid? Any real life examples would be good.

These are probably silly questions, but I was just wondering if everything surplus is as powerful in creating wealth as it was back in Marx's days.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 01:00 pm
Is surplus value still as relevant today as it was when Karl Marx wrote about it.
Surplus value is how the capitalist gets his profit, so it is "as relevant" now as it is at any point in time in the capitalist mode of production.

Suppose we have a factory that produces every hour 10 commodities A per worker. The cost to produce 1 unit of A is equal to the value of the labor to produce 1 A plus the raw commodities to produce A (and because the equiptment is deteriorating from use, there is a fraction of the value of the machine added to the cost).

The contribution to the cost (not the price but the cost of production) from labor is the "variable capital", the contribution to the cost of production from the raw materials and instruments of production is the "constant capital".

The constant capital "transfers" its own value to the item, whereas variable capital "creates" value.

The difference between the value created by the variable capital and the cost of the variable capital is surplus value. It will exist so long as the capitalist mode of production does.

[blueeyedboy]

I didn't understand that that well. What makes the worker thinks he/she is getting paid the right amount for what they produce?

Sorry, ComradeRed for being a pain.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 12:24 am
I didn't understand that that well. What makes the worker thinks he/she is getting paid the right amount for what they produce?

Sorry, ComradeRed for being a pain.
Good question. You see, the value of the worker's labor is equal to the value to keep the worker living. Do not confuse this with the value that the labor creates! That is a common mistake.

The worker's value is only a fraction of the value that the worker creates in the process of production. In other words the worker has to create value that is greater than his cost of being there. Otherwise the capitalist does not get any surplus value (well, technically he does get a negative surplus value, but for all practical purposes the surplus value gained is nonexistent since the value created by the worker is less than the value of the labor of the worker).

The value of labor is equal to the value of the goods that keeps labor alive (the amount of groceries for the worker, the rent, etc.). The value created by the labor is variable depending on various factors (e.g. productivity of labor, intensity of labor, etc.).

Surplus value is the difference between the value created by the labor, and the value of the labor. This is a characteristic inherent in all forms of the capitalist mode of production.

So I guess whatt answers your question is if the worker is being paid at least the amount to survive, s/he believes s/he is getting paid adequately for his/her labor. I would highly suggest reading Das Kapital (volume I) as Marx goes through this in greater detail.

[blueeyedboy]

Thanks ComradeRed