Hey Veeky Forums, I have a question about the production of absolute surplus value in Capital; there’s something I think I’m missing here.
Just to make sure I haven’t totally misunderstood the argument, let me summarize my brainlet understanding of it so far. The exchange value of a commodity ends up being greater than the sum of the exchange values of the commodities and instruments of labor that go into its production. Assuming all raw materials were purchased at fair prices, the disparity must be accounted for in the amount paid for the labor the capitalist consumes.
Marx sets this conclusion up earlier by asserting that labor is the only commodity whose consumption (as a use value) creates value, which seems plausible as he defines value as having something to do with socially necessary labor time; what I don’t understand is why the exchange value of labor power is NECESSARILY less than the use value (in the sense that the consumption of labor generates a greater exchange value).
I think the classical economists would just respond by saying that the exchange value of the finished product is greater because the specialization involved in the production process makes it far cheaper and more efficient for a consumer to purchase the commodity than to purchase all the raw materials and then produce the commodity himself. Even if the value (as in socially necessary labor time) has increased, that doesn’t mean the worker is being cheated. So what am I missing?
Also, Marxism general, I guess.
Absolute Surplus Value
OP here, I've come a bit closer to answering my own question. I think one of the cruxes of my misunderstanding has to do with the exchange value of labor not being what labor is "worth".
It's obvious that the laborer adds some kind of value to the process. Steel > iron + carbon; the disparity is labor. What wasn't clear to me is that a workers wage includes ONLY its exchange value (the amount required for the workers subsistence) rather than his exchange value + whatever he added to the value of the finished product. But, when considering the C-M-C process, it seems that commodities are usually only bought for what is required to produce them, so a worker being paid only what's required for his subsistence wouldn't be anything out of the ordinary. So perhaps the worker is being shafted because he's being treated like commodity in a C-M-C process even though he's engaging in a M-C-M process.
But I'm still not entirely clear on what to do about the specialization aspect I mentioned in OP. It seems like there are two competing theories each of which adequately explain the same datum (a commodity being sold for more than the worth of the sum of its parts).
This is pretty much correct, but a question just popped into my head - why does this labor have to be necessarily human or socially necessary? Be reminded of the definition of work in physics - the transfer of energy by force. Couldn't this surplus value be accounted by the energy needed to make the process of production happen (whether this energy is mediated via a worker working for wages or a machine that increases his productivity or renders him redundant in the process) rather than socially needed labor?
I don't particularly care to defend Marx's theory of value, but I have read Capital vol 1 somewhat recently.
>The exchange value of a commodity ends up being greater than the sum of the exchange values of the commodities and instruments of labor that go into its production. Assuming all raw materials were purchased at fair prices, the disparity must be accounted for in the amount paid for the labor the capitalist consumes.
Since socially necessary labor-time determines value, you don't even need to point to the cost of labor-power in particular to explain the increase. The labor required to produce the finished product from the materials itself bumps up value, let alone all the labor required to reproduce the worker's labor-power.
>what I don’t understand is why the exchange value of labor power is NECESSARILY less than the use value
I'm not sure if this makes sense given Marx's conception of "use-value," which is an object that can satisfy some need. The disparity appears when the worker produces more value than his labor-power is worth. Also, the value of labor-power is not *necessarily* less than the value the worker produces (this depends on how much/long the worker works), but the capitalist will make sure that the worker works enough to produce surplus value.
>What wasn't clear to me is that a workers wage includes ONLY its exchange value
This is just a consequence of the labor theory of value, applied to labor-power itself. Assuming a free/fair market, the average price of labor-power fits its value, and its value is determined by the socially necessary labor-time to reproduce it (labor-power). Labor-power is then used to produce more value than that of the labor-power bought. That's just what surplus value is for Marx. And for Marx, that's where the exploitation happens -- in the extraction of surplus value by the capitalist via the surplus labor of the worker. There's a whole bunch of dispute among Marxists on what it is about the extraction of surplus value/labor that makes it exploitative/bad (e.g., must it be coerced? etc.), but it's a clusterfuck and I wouldn't bother.
>why does this labor have to be necessarily human or socially necessary?
Well, besides bitcoin mining, most productive labor does seem to be done by humans. Even more so 150 years ago. As for “socially necessary”, I’ve taken that to be a basic, perhaps irreducible, element of Marx’s definition of value. Like when Euclid says “a point is that which has no part”.
>Couldn't this surplus value be accounted by the energy needed to make the process of production happen (whether this energy is mediated via a worker working for wages or a machine that increases his productivity or renders him redundant in the process) rather than socially needed labor?
That may be the case. But who is exerting the energy? When a worker spins a loom, is it the loom that transfers energy via force? No, of course not. It’s the spinner.
why bother understanding a debunked theory op
>Also, Marxism general, I guess.
I'm very glad that some people can have an intelligent discussion about marxist theory and not have some /pol/lack freak out.
I really wonder at this point if some 50% of /pol/'s population isn't some flavor of shill, raider or underpaid intelligence agency intern getting paid to monitor Veeky Forums.
hey comrade why don't you share your wife with me? let me seize the means of production!