Beyond "surplus-value"

[abbielives!]

Can people explain to me what Kropotkin means here?

"The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said, thus narrowing the Socialist conception and the general view of the capitalist system; the surplus-value itself is but a consequence of deeper causes. The evil lies in the possibility of a surplus-value existing, instead of a simple surplus not consumed by each generation; for, that a surplus-value should exist, means that men, women, and children are compelled by hunger to sell their labour for a small part of what this labour produces, and, above all, of what their labour is capable of producing."

http://libcom.org/library/conquestofbread1906peterkropotkin8

[Luís Henrique]

The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said, thus narrowing the Socialist conception and the general view of the capitalist system; the surplus-value itself is but a consequence of deeper causes. The evil lies in the possibility of a surplus-value existing, instead of a simple surplus not consumed by each generation; for, that a surplus-value should exist, means that men, women, and children are compelled by hunger to sell their labour for a small part of what this labour produces, and, above all, of what their labour is capable of producing.

It gives me the feeling that Kropotkin didn't know what he was talking about. Perhaps an anarchist can explain what does that mean?

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

LH I think you are being too hard on the old huge-bearded man.

After rereading it a few times, I think he meant that the extraction of surplus value is not the evil itself, but its a just a symptom of a greater malaise.

I dont know how that contradicts Marx though.

[Hyacinth]

The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said, thus narrowing the Socialist conception and the general view of the capitalist system; the surplus-value itself is but a consequence of deeper causes. The evil lies in the possibility of a surplus-value existing, instead of a simple surplus not consumed by each generation; for, that a surplus-value should exist, means that men, women, and children are compelled by hunger to sell their labour for a small part of what this labour produces, and, above all, of what their labour is capable of producing.
What Kropotkin seems to be saying is that it isn’t surplus value itself that is the problem (as Marmot pointed out), but instead, if I understand him correctly (or at least this is the most intelligible interpretation that I can come up with), that it is waged labour that is the problem.

The point that Kroptkin seems to be confused on is that he is in disagreement with Marx.

[rouchambeau]

The point that Kroptkin seems to be confused on is that he is in disagreement with Marx.
I would disagree with you there. I think he is in agreement with Marx. Marx, too, was against the existence of surplus value, and he knew--just as Kropotkin knew--that for there to be something left over after the workers have been paid, there must be some sort of coercive relationship standing against the workers. That is what it seems Kropotkin meant when he said:

that a surplus-value should exist, means that men, women, and children are compelled by hunger to sell their labour for a small part of what this labour produces

[Hyacinth]

I would disagree with you there. I think he is in agreement with Marx. Marx, too, was against the existence of surplus value, and he knew--just as Kropotkin knew--that for there to be something left over after the workers have been paid, there must be some sort of coercive relationship standing against the workers.
I agree with you, I may have phrased myself badly.

All that I had in mind was that Kropotkin seems to be contrasting his views with those of Marx when he says:

The evil of the present system is therefore not that the "surplus-value" of production goes to the capitalist, as Rodbertus and Marx said...
...when in fact Marx and Kropotkin appear to be in agreement.

[gilhyle]

It seems reasonably clear that he meant by that the following


The great harm done by bourgeois society, as we have already mentioned, is not only that capitalists seize a large share of the profits of each industrial and commercial enterprise, thus enabling them to live without working, but that all production has taken a wrong direction, as it is not carried on with a view to securing well-being to all.

And why is it not carried on with a view to securing the well being of all.....because of private property.....THus Kropptkin seeks to reinstate the property relationship as the fundamental issue rather than being the reflection in legal relations of the fundamental issue.

Kropotkin does indeed disagree with Marx by inverting the relations Marx focuses on to make the legal the foundation of the economic rather than vice versa.

[Luís Henrique]

It seems quite clear that he hadn't read, or at least understood, Marx.

Luís Henrique

[abbielives!]

It seems quite clear that he hadn't read, or at least understood, Marx.

Luís Henrique


well, Marx IS pretty unintelligible.

[Luís Henrique]

well, Marx IS pretty unintelligible.

Anything is unintelligible when you don't want to understand it.

Luís Henrique

[piet11111]

i think he is saying that wage labor is not the problem but the fact that the capitalists extract a profit from it that they keep for themselves.

(if i am right please tell me as i could use the ego boost for understanding English better then those who have it as a first language :lol:)

[Luís Henrique]

i think he is saying that wage labor is not the problem but the fact that the capitalists extract a profit from it that they keep for themselves.

I don't think so. He seems to be saying that,



Marx (and Rodbertus, who seems to be here like Pilate in the creed) believed that the problem with surplus value is that it goes to the capitalists;
that Marx's supposed views on the issue are narrow (apparently, because Marx would only redistribute surplus value, instead of abolishing it);
that surplus value is a consequence of "deeper causes";
that the real problem is not in that the surplus value goes to capitalists, but the very existence of surplus value;
that the existence of surplus value compells people to sell their labour for a small part of what such labour produces (and of what that labour is capable of producing).

To the substance:



Nowhere Marx says that the problem is that surplus value goes to capitalists;
much less Marx favours a mere redistribution of surplus value;
the "deeper causes" of surplus value are forgotten for the rest of the paragraph;
that the existence of surplus value itself is - minus the metaphysical dressings ("evil") that Kropotkin likes - Marx's position;
here Kropotkin gets everything upside down: he thinks people selling their labour is a consequence of the existence of surplus value, when evidently it is the other way round - surplus value is merely the difference between what labour produces and the "small part" of that product labour force (and not labour itself) is exchanged for.

Luís Henrique

[Zurdito]

well if we're being generous we can say it looks like an argument against economism.

in any case the full context would probably explain what he really meant.