Absolute Surplus Value

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.

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!

it's all a big capitalist conspiracy my comrade

>most productive labor does seem to be done by humans
Less and less of it is necessarily being done by humans, though. I don't know if we'll ever manage to completely take humans out of the loop, especially since the production costs of full automation are quite high, but machine learning is probably going to do the same thing to white-collar jobs that automation will do to the blue-collar ones.

>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.
Maybe. Can you hook up a donkey to do the same thing that a spinner does? In that case, is it by the donkey's agency that the loom is being spun?

I call myself more of a leftcom. We believe that revolution is inevitable among the working class. We don't see a need for intellectuals to be involved in the revolution until it is fully succeeded. Then we can make sure a stable functioning government is created to ensure that the needs of the worker is top priority.

>immanentizing the eschaton
any day now...

>what I don’t understand is why the exchange value of labor power is NECESSARILY less than the use value

it's because for the capitalist, the exchange value of labor power is the value of the commodities required to reproduce it for the following day, ie, to keep the laborer and his family fed, clothed, and sheltered so they can show up for work and sell their time again tomorrow.

relative surplus value occurs when production advances to such a point that the laborer requires 8 hours worth of commodities to sustain himself, but the capitalist is able to work him for 12, you have 4 hours worth of relative surplus value: its produced relative to the amount of time needed to reproduce the value of labor.

eventually this isnt enough, or the labor movement secures a limit to the working day, so instead capitalists invest in machinery that increases the rate at which commodities are produced. so the laborer still only requires 8 hours worth of commodities to live, but the machinery he uses enables to produce many times that. this is absolute surplus value because it is not connected to the length of the working day but the rate of production.

of course this increase in the rate of production also drives down the value of individual commodities and hence the value of the labor they sustain. thus marx: "to be more productive is not a piece of luck but a misfortune for the laborer." when absolute surplus value increases, he is more exploited than before, not better rewarded for his output.

>the success of the capitalist mode of production has been debunked

weird i havent seen that happen anywhere

>the labor required to produce the finished product from the materials itself bumps up value
Well, this is essentially what I was asking about. I understood that the exchange value of a worker’s labor power included whatever was required to sustain him (which is the case with every other commodity in the C-M-C process). But then there’s this (kind of rhetorical) sleight of hand: the surplus value isn’t directly attributed to anything, so it’s attributed to all that’s left over: labor. (Which is kinda what I was getting at here )

>The disparity appears when the worker produces more value than his labor-power is worth
Just to reiterate my question, how are we so sure that the worker is producing more than what his labor power is worth? Why can’t the increase in exchange value be explained by the specialization I mentioned in op?

>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.
Hm, I think this is what I was looking for in terms of an answer.

why not

>Just to reiterate my question, how are we so sure that the worker is producing more than what his labor power is worth?

becasue he's using an industrial oven to mass produce 6000 muffins a day when he only need to eat about 2 a day so he can show up and work the oven

I think the first half of this post might be above my paygrade, and I don't think I have enough intellectual-power to respond adequately. But I'm not sure how this post relates to your original point about the scientific definition of work
However:
>Can you hook up a donkey to do the same thing that a spinner does?
I would like an answer to this question.
>I call myself more of a leftcom.
How comfy is your armchair?

Well, I confess that I haven't made it to part 4 of Capital. Maybe I should have sat on this post for a few days.
>so the laborer still only requires 8 hours worth of commodities to live, but the machinery he uses enables to produce many times that.
Wouldn't this mean that the capitalist no longer needs the worker's surplus labor?
>of course this increase in the rate of production also drives down the value of individual commodities and hence the value of the labor they sustain
But all this does is lower the exchange value of the worker's labor; it doesn't increase the rate of exploitation.
No spoilers, please.

>>so the laborer still only requires 8 hours worth of commodities to live, but the machinery he uses enables to produce many times that.
>Wouldn't this mean that the capitalist no longer needs the worker's surplus labor?

no, it means that almost the whole of the laborer's product, which the capitalist, in order to maintain his capital, appropriates, is surplus, meaning it is value in excess of what the laborer is paid for his time at the loom or whatever.

>Be reminded of the definition of work in physics
Don't do this. Only hacks make pseudoscientific analogies like this.

seconded. marxism is ruined when dialectics pretends to be natural, positive science. cf. engels, lenin, and stalin.

And Marx, although he avoided an outright statement in print of the dialectic in nature. He still claimed to be scientific.

not a positive science but a critical, negative one. remember, capital is a critique of political economy. it assumes a scientific discipline backed by empirical research is already on its way to truth about the world, but that its theory contains contradictions that prevent it from seeing the reality of the matter at hand. this is why it is a critical science.

You're assuming there is a "reality" to be seen in the first place. What if this reality has no place for an autonomous subject?

its hard to answer these objections because they dont really refer to each other meaningfully. one says something about the existence of the real world outside of some black box container space you havent explained; the other seems to deny individual autonomy. im not sure what the thread binding them is supposed to be. but in the case of the former, it would be incumbent on you to deny empirical experience, and in the latter the absolute autonomy of the subject is not necessarily guaranteed under a marxist theory of ideology