Theory of Value and surplus-value

[rvn10]

Well, currently im reading Ernest Mendel's book "An Introduction to Marxist Economic Theory". Since im fairly new to deep Marxist theories i thought this was a good start in my readings.

So basically i have raised my first questions from the reading.

Mendel explains the Theory of Value and surplus-value. He argues that as long as one man can only produce enough for his own subsistence , social divisions won't take place. I guess this means that as long as man just works so that his production will be enough for him just to get by there won't be "class struggles".

How can this be achieved in todays society? What sort of measures would we have to take in order for man to just produce for his own? Can this be achieved in big urban areas?

And at the same time, i just sort of have a conflict with this. Isn't surplus innevitable? Even when we have the same things?

Say 3 men are given the same size of land to farm, and the same amount of seeds to plant. What if one of the 3 men happens to be a better farmer than the rest? What if he is more skilled at what he does? And thus produces a surplus over the others. How would this be dealt with?

thank you

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:03 am
How can this be achieved in todays society? What sort of measures would we have to take in order for man to just produce for his own?
You'd have to go back to the Old Stone Age.


Can this be achieved in big urban areas?

No. When Mandel's explaining the basis of primitive communism, I don't think he intends to imply it's desirable or possible to return to that past. (If he did, he'd be dead wrong.) Rather, it's necessary to go forward and create the basis for a new kind of communism - on the basis of abundance not scarcity.

Class society is based on a certain amount of scarcity too: that there isn't enough production for everybody to live a really decent life, just the ruling class. As the productivity of labor increases, modern communism becomes possible on the basis of supplying enough to meet everyone's needs.

Should be noted, BTW, that primitive society wasn't based on each individual producing only his/her own needs. Rather, most primitive tribes are highly communal. It's just the productivity of labor is so low the hunters and gatherers can only feed themselves/each other. There's no room for a ruling class living off other people's labor.

And no incentive to keep slaves, etc., since they wouldn't produce any extra after feeding themselves. Or not enough extra to be worth the trouble of guarding them.

[rvn10]

thank you for your response Severian


You'd have to go back to the Old Stone Age.

Yeah, thats why i asked that specific question, and thats what i was thinking. Hell no, i don't want to go back to the Old Stone Age, that would be "un" human thing to do, it would be against civilization etc.


No. When Mandel's explaining the basis of primitive communism, I don't think he intends to imply it's desirable or possible to return to that past. (If he did, he'd be dead wrong.) Rather, it's necessary to go forward and create the basis for a new kind of communism - on the basis of abundance not scarcity.

I see. Well, after reading further, Mendel does recognize the impoverishment that accompanies these primitive societies. (which i would presume is not what we want at all, even if we were all equal)

Ok, so you argue that a new kind of communism with a basis of abundance? Can you please explain?


Class society is based on a certain amount of scarcity too: that there isn't enough production for everybody to live a really decent life, just the ruling class. As the productivity of labor increases, modern communism becomes possible on the basis of supplying enough to meet everyone's needs.

Well, what do you catagorize as a "decent life"? That is one of the problems i see, many of us argue that as long as we have a roof and a plate of food thats good enough. The percentage of Americans without house or food is probably very very very low. Sure we have poor people, but poor in comparasion to the others in our society. We do have inequality thats for sure.



Should be noted, BTW, that primitive society wasn't based on each individual producing only his/her own needs. Rather, most primitive tribes are highly communal. It's just the productivity of labor is so low the hunters and gatherers can only feed themselves/each other. There's no room for a ruling class living off other people's labor.

And no incentive to keep slaves, etc., since they wouldn't produce any extra after feeding themselves. Or not enough extra to be worth the trouble of guarding them.

Yes, that is true, i see it all the time on the Travel Channel etc, where tribes in Papau New Guinea are probably 100% communal. But again, even Mendel points out that these are obviously unproductive and very impoverished societies. I doubt we want to resort to living like them :lol: