This concept, a product of early-industrialization, is the result of increasing:
-machinery costs (higher cost of production not being earned by workers who use the machinery)
-capital costs (those who invest, rather than consume, their production- machinery)
-cost of transportation
-cost of management
These factors, which are the difference between the price of product and the price of labor, were a new phenomena from which surplus labor was developed. The tragedy is not the concept's birth, but its continued life- which has morphed from an intellectual pursuit to a political bludgeon- with a spiked handle.
I am too stupid to understand this shit. Shouldn't companies thrive to get as much value out of their workers if they can get away with it? Is this a bad thing?
Caleb Price
whatever you say, kike
Adrian Moore
This. These filthy goyim will accept the central planning and they will like it
Juan Miller
i just wanna see her ass and tits
Leo King
Same. Them be some very nice tits.
Elijah Lee
The only surplus I see here is her chest. I would hump her surplus out of existence.
>half filled water balloons I don't think you know how water balloons work user
Henry Scott
Surplus value is the difference between how much money a worker produces, and how much money they earn. So, if a worker is making $20 worth of products per hour, and only earning $10 per hour, their surplus value is $10 per hour. Under marxist economic theory, surplus value is just the factory workers (bourgeoisie) stealing from the workers (proletariat). OP is arguing that it isn't outright theft, since the owners have to cover other costs related to production.
Corporations fight to get more surplus value by lowering wages in order to lower the production costs of their goods. This allows them to lower the prices of goods, keeping things cheap, at the cost of workers' quality of life. Workers, on the other hand, fight to lower their surplus value by asking for better wages & conditions. This allows them to have a decent standard of living, but makes goods more expensive.
Juan Garcia
>factory workers (bourgeoisie) I meant factory owners
Levi Rogers
Hello gomrades! XDDDD Dis general is for disgussion of margsism-lebonnism, da ideology of rebolutionary socialism and gommunism.
Gommunism is da next stage of guckery following real society.
Wat exagtly is gommunism aggording to gommies:
>Gommunism is a stage of guckery in which the produgtive infrustrugture runs away from gommie country, and no goods are produced and beeple starve. XDDDD >Gommunism in full form is obressive, statist society dat follows maxim "gib gib gib!" :DDDD >To achieve gommunism we must replace broduction with murderous obressive rulers liek me, fug working glass beeple. XDDDD Struggle while I liquidate you
all lol. When capitalists run away we win and I kill you all. Eventually the functions of state cease and state becomes murderous and indistinguishable
>Sdage one Bourgers aren't allowed to vode :DDD but otherwise da system is digtadorshib of gommies. Everything is stole by digtadors and digtadors rule all.
>Sdade two Withering All beeple who aren't digtador glass starve. XDDD Once glass disabears and we steal everything more beeple wither away. Bolice begome unnecessary as
beeple are dead lol :DDDDD Central blanning begomes unnecessary begause sgarcity caused starving. Money is all ours.
>Sdage three Gommunism. No beeple. No food. My money. Much benis.
>Sdage four Nod real gommunism. Move on to nexd goundry :DDDDDDD
Let us, first of all, investigate a particular industrial process, and whenever I state something with which you disagree, please interrupt me. Here is a shoe factory. This factory takes leather and makes it into shoes. Here is one hundred dollars' worth of leather. It goes through the factory and comes out in the form of shoes, worth, let us say, two hundred dollars. What has happened? One hundred dollars has been added to the value of the leather. How was it added? Let us see.
`Capital and labor added this value of one hundred dollars. Capital furnished the factory, the machines, and paid all the expenses. Labor furnished labor. By the joint effort of capital and labor one hundred dollars of value was added. Are you all agreed so far?'
`Labor and capital having produced this one hundred dollars, now proceed to divide it. The statistics of this division are fractional; so let us, for the sake of convenience, make them roughly approximate. Capital takes fifty dollars as its share, and labor gets in wages fifty dollars as its share. We will not enter into the squabbling over the division.1 No matter how much squabbling takes place, in one percentage or another the division is arranged. And take notice here, that what is true of this particular industrial process is true of all industrial processes. Am I right?'
`Now, suppose labor, having received its fifty dollars, wanted to buy back shoes. It could only buy back fifty dollars' worth. That's clear, isn't it?
Joseph King
`And now we shift from this particular process to the sum total of all industrial processes in the United States, which includes the leather itself, raw material, transportation, selling, everything. We will say, for the sake of round figures, that the total production of wealth in the United States is one year is four billion dollars. Then labor has received in wages, during the same period, two billion dollars. Four billion dollars has been produced. How much of this can labor buy back? Two billions. There is no discussion of this, I am sure. For that matter, my percentages are mild. Because of a thousand capitalistic devices, labor cannot buy back even half of the total product.
`But to return. We will say labor buys back two billions. Then it stands to reason that labor can consume only two billions. There are still two billions to be accounted for, which labor cannot buy back and consume.'
`Labor does not consume its two billions, even,' Mr. Kowalt spoke up. `If it did, it would not have any deposits in the savings banks.'
`Labor's deposits in the savings banks are only a sort of reserve fund that is consumed as fast as it accumulates. These deposits are saved for old age, for sickness and accident, and for funeral expenses. The savings bank deposit is simply a piece of the loaf put back on the shelf to be eaten next day. No, labor consumes all of the total product that its wages will buy back.
`Two billions are left to capital. After it has paid its expenses, does it consume the remainder? Does capital consume all of its two billions?'
Luke Sullivan
`Stop and think a moment. If capital consumed its share, the sum total of capital could not increase. It would remain constant. If you will look at the economic history of the United States, you will see that the sum total of capital has continually increased. Therefore capital does not consume its share. Do you remember when England owned so much of our railroad bonds? As the years went by, we bought back those bonds. What is the meaning of the fact that to-day the capitalists of the United States own hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars of Mexican bonds, Russian bonds, Italian bonds, Grecian bonds? The meaning is that those hundreds and hundreds of millions were part of capital's share which capital did not consume. Furthermore, from the very beginning of the capitalist system, capital has never consumed all of its share.
`And now we come to the point. Four billion dollars of wealth is produced in one year in the United States. Labor buys back and consumes two billions. Capital does not consume the remaining two billions. There is a large balance left over unconsumed. What is done with this balance? What can be done with it? Labor cannot consume any of it, for labor has already spent all its wages. Capital will not consume this balance, because, already, according to its nature, it has consumed all it can. And still remains the balance. What can be done with it? What is done with it?'
`Because of this balance arises our need for a foreign market. This is sold abroad. It has to be sold abroad. There is no other way of getting rid of it. And that unconsumed surplus, sold abroad, becomes what we call our favorable balance of trade. Are we all agreed so far?'
Xavier Ortiz
`The United States is a capitalist country that has developed its resources. According to its capitalist system of industry, it has an unconsumed surplus that must be got rid of, and that must be got rid of abroad. Every one of such countries has an unconsumed surplus. Don't forget that they have already traded with one another, and that these surpluses yet remain. Labor in all these countries has spent it wages, and cannot buy any of the surpluses. Capital in all these countries has already consumed all it is able according to its nature. And still remain the surpluses. They cannot dispose of these surpluses to one another. How are they going to get rid of them?'
Suppose the United States disposes of its surplus to a country with undeveloped resources like, say, Brazil. Remember this surplus is over and above trade, which articles of trade have been consumed. What, then, does the United States get in return from Brazil?'
`From Brazil the United States, in return for her surplus, gets bonds and securities. And what does that mean? It means that the United States is coming to own railroads in Brazil, factories, mines, and lands in Brazil.
When Brazil, under the capitalist system, has developed her resources, she will herself have an unconsumed surplus. Can she get rid of this surplus to the United States? No, because the United States has herself a surplus. Can the United States do what she previously did--get rid of her surplus to Brazil? No, for Brazil now has a surplus, too.
`What happens? The United States and Brazil must both seek out other countries with undeveloped resources, in order to unload the surpluses on them. But by the very process of unloading the surpluses, the resources of those countries are in turn developed. Soon they have surpluses, and are seeking other countries on which to unload. Now, gentlemen, follow me. The planet is only so large. There are only so many countries in the world.
"The resistance against being guided by something that is unintelligible to them (the common intellectual) is, I think, quite understandable in an intellectual. Go back to the origin of it all: Descartes of course explicitly argued only that we should not believe anything which we did not understand. But his followers immediately applied it to we should not accept any rules which we did not understand. And the intellectual has very strongly feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense. And to him the rules he's required to obey are unintelligible and therefore nonsense. He defines rational almost as intelligible, and anything which is not intelligible to him is automatically irrational, and he's opposed to it." -Hayek (youtu.be/9KER-KYK0-0@ 1:37)
