Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
For example, Fukuyama refuted it in the 90s. He was very active in refuting, refuting, refuting, and as a result, he recently said in an interview that he had revised his views and Marx, it turns out, was ”largely right.” Well, at least he was smart enough to reconsider the basis of his judgments when it turned out that none of his predictions (from the “end of history” to the election of Clinton and the change of power in the PRC) came true.
The theory of surplus value is not a mathematical theorem that can be true or false, but simply a system of views that is convenient in certain cases (for describing macroeconomic processes), and inconvenient in others (for managing an estate a la Adam Smith, or for counting tea bags, as they say here). This is similar to how liquid molecules perform chaotic Brownian motion at the microscale (if they are not in a state of superfluidity), but in general, the liquid flows in an orderly manner through a pipe, and these descriptions of the situation do not contradict each other.
It came to the point that Karl Marx was credited with creating not only the theory of surplus value, but also the labor theory of value, which was founded by his predecessors (W. Petty, A. Smith, and D. Ricardo), and which he only improved. Only people who are far from science can” refute ” scientific theories. The appearance of “new theories” does not mean the refutation of old ones, but only their development, since each theory relates to certain conditions of their creation and develops in relation to new conditions. Therefore, it would be correct to ask: “Has anyone developed the theory of surplus value since Marx?”
Marx's theory implicitly implies that a worker must work for a particular Capitalist, and that the latter is underpaid because he is greedy. The idea is taken from life, because this is often how it turns out. And the question is whether this is fair or not. The answer is no, not fair. It would be fair to take everything away from the Capitalist and work for himself. The result of justice is well known – anarchy and misery for all. Or state-owned Capitalism, when the Capitalist-the Father of the nation-is the Master.
An interesting limit case is already close. No one has to work because robots do everything. Communism. It is intuitively clear that something will go wrong.
The theory of surplus value is “refuted” by those who either do not understand this theory or have not read Karl Marx's Das Kapital. The truth of this theory is confirmed by the practice of the existing capitalist mode of production and socio-political formations: “capitalism” (bourgeoisism) and socialism, moreover, they are, respectively, based on the production and distribution of surplus value. Surplus value and profit are one and the same thing, only it is distributed in different socio – political formations in different ways: either in favor of only the private owner-the “capitalist” (bourgeois), or under socialism in favor of the working people. In the market, it is redistributed in order to obtain superprofits. Trade capital is not added capital (value), but reallocated capital in the form of excess profits. Neither ” capitalism “(bourgeoisism) nor socialism refutes the theory of surplus value.
It is pointless to refute any philosophical abstraction, especially if it is logically internally consistent. Yes, alternative theories were created, for example, the theory of marginal value, but these theories-models are side-by-side and do not refute each other, but complement each other, and the situation is similar in historical science, where there are both formational (Marx) and civilizational (Toynbee) theories.
Attempts at “refutation” from a concrete and practical point of view are incorrect, since Marx considered an exclusively ideal situation, abstracting from any particular and specific varieties introduced by concreteness. We can adhere to or ignore its essential analysis, but we cannot refute it.
No, no one has refuted it, they usually just prefer to proceed from other positions and ignore the Marxian model. Although it is implicitly used when assessing the competitiveness of economies by labor costs per unit of production.
In order to refute the theory of surplus value, as well as many other economic theories, it is necessary to do only one thing: to create an economic theory that will have 100% predictability. Or in other words: the application of this supertheory should always be fully confirmed by practice.
On the other hand, Marx quite accurately identified the patterns. And this allowed the owners to raise their profits. Here, for example, is the statement that the rate of profit in the production of goods should fall. Yes, but Gabor's Siberian Dumplings are not the same product as Feint's Siberian Dumplings. Well, if consumption decreases (the rate of profit depends on it) these dumplings, you can always release some “Extra-Siberian dumplings”, for example. In general, Marx's theory was applied by owners in practice to increase profits, is this not a recognition of his genius?
no one has refuted and will not refute the theory of surplus value,because it is correct. There have been many attempts,and there will be even more, due to attempts to obtain political and / or populist dividends. For example, the fool Chubais abolished communism altogether, as if it were in his power. Various examples and tricks that seem to refute Marx's political economic theory,such as the value of Facebook, Microsoft, Google,etc., which do not have a real material component,like the dollar itself,are simply an agreement within a part of society. Such as the cost of a painting. Malevich's “Black Square” has a huge value,but only until the moment when the stability of capitalism is not disrupted by cataclysms and there is nothing to eat. Then the stock exchange's paintings and papers will be worth no more than old newspapers. But bread meat and an iron shovel will only increase their value.
The “theory of surplus value” has nothing to do with the real price of a commodity or with real money. This is a kind of “spherical horse..”, which requires a “vacuum” to work.
If we consider a natural resource to be infinite, the price of money to be constant, and the influence of scientific and technological progress to be 0, then the value of the commodity will be described by” Marxian ” formulas. But such “assumptions” were observed, except that in the Stone Age. And in the Stone Age, money hadn't been invented yet.
Further, Marx, on the basis of his formulas (describing the “instantaneous” state of the market), tries to move on to the theoretical justification of the “fair”, in his opinion, distribution of profit received from the sale of manufactured goods. But this is again a ” spherical horse..” The profit was received not only from the actions of the employee, but also from the actions of the employer, reseller, and other participants in the “chain”. And the” labor ” of each of them has its own nature, and its own “value”. How do I determine how old someone is?
Finally, Marx contrasts the ” working class “and the” capitalists”, casually” brushing together ” finance capital and the owners of the means of production. Their interests do not coincide, but often they are opposite. The result is that the declared ” class struggle “” reduces “the banker and the industrialist to one”camp”. Forcing the latter to submit to the interests of the former. Thanks to Marx, we have “capitalist imperialism” in its purest form.
Well, the attempt of Marxists to build a POLITICAL system based on Marx's ECONOMIC constructions is a separate “song” that deserves a separate analysis.
First, you need to prove it until it is proven – there is nothing to refute!
It doesn't sound like a theory at all. Well, at least the work of a capitalist would be evaluated (as it should be, as the market value of such labor), they would take into account the risks, they would estimate the expectation of profit, taking into account the fact that 9 out of 10 startups fail.
In fact, instead of theory, there is only superficial arithmetic that does not take into account dozens of factors.
Is it possible not to recognize the law of universal gravitation?Yes, you can,but only a brick that will fall on the head of such a Protestant did not suspect that he was acting illegally!Attempts to refute Marxism are not new and have been repeated over the past 150 years.Even during Marx's lifetime, a certain Eugene Duhring was one of the first to do this,but was ridiculed and refuted by Engels in his work “Anti-Duhring”, which it would be useful to read for all those who overthrow the political economy of capitalism, which lives according to its laws and will also die according to its laws!
There is nothing to refute in this insinuation. Marx simply identified prayer with labor and derived the elixir from divine grace … everything that exists. Surplus value . The question of its fair and objective redistribution remained. In this regard, the Wachowski sisters ' film Jupiter is a very vivid illustration of Marx . Only there the elixir of existence is driven straight out of people (harvest), but in reality the bourgeoisie provide people with work and squeeze the fruits of their labor from people . And consequently, in order to correct everything, a revolution is needed , in order to demolish the class that is parasitic on other people's labor and give the working people a direct access to the steam of grace that is smoking from their labor …..and then we'll heal. in short, all this Marxist political economy is bullshit.
Author of the anthrpopological study From Evolution to modification Grigory Vasiliev
Denied it! And none other than Stalin! At the expense of the mandatory tax from the personal plot of a collective farmer, in 1946 the state bought milk for 25 kopecks per liter, and in gostorgovle a liter of milk cost 5 rubles. That is, 20 times more expensive. In 1947, the state bought a kilogram of butter for 4.5 rubles, and sold it to the urban population for 66 rubles – 15 times more expensive… THIS is OVEREXPLOITATION!
Marx gave a clear account of his predecessors ' views on the labor theory of value. The main creators of this theory, as we know, were Adam Smith and David Ricordo. There is nothing to refute in this part. But their predecessors failed to answer the main question of the theory of labor value-what is value, i.e., what is the substance (primary basis) of value. Marx should have given this answer. But I couldn't. I got confused myself , confused my supporters , confused my critics, and confused everyone. And in the end (for those who read Capital carefully), he admits that he does not know what value is.(seekleimenov.info). So there is nothing to refute here either.
well, if we speak from the standpoint of science (and Marx claims to be scientific!), then there is no need to refute the hypothesis. To begin with, proponents of the hypothesis must prove it by experience or observation!
So far, something is not working out for them, so there is nothing to refute.
If we proceed from the ideal model considered by Marx, then it is internally consistent, i.e. within the framework of this model itself, Marx is irrefutable.
It is possible to prove the inconsistency and incorrectness of this model itself, but even anti-Marxists prefer to create alternative models rather than prove the inconsistency of the Marxist one. They create alternative theories that can replace / supplement, but not refute, Karl Marx's Das Kapital.
From Popper's point of view, Karl Marx's theory is unscientific (although the criteria for scientific validity are quite ambiguous); then, if we refer Karl Marx's political economy theory to the category of philosophical concepts, then it is not verifiable at all like any humanitarian theory. Anyone has the right to adhere to it, or combine it with others, or completely ignore it, but cannot refute it.
From my point of view, Marx's political economy theory belongs more to the philosophical-categorical field of knowledge than to applied economics, since it is based on purely philosophical categories: productive forces and production relations, which should be considered as ideally limiting, and not specifically applied concepts. Based on the ultimate categorical concept of social production of life, he considers labor itself not in the plane of its productivity or unproductivity, but in concreteness and abstractness. The process of alienating the product of social production from its producer, leaving behind it only a single abstract characteristic: socially necessary costs for its production, turning it from a product of social production into a commodity with a certain exchange value, essentially disavowed the mechanism of the notorious “economic phlogiston” and “self-growth” of value. it is the absolute transparency of this model, which does not allow for the spectacular removal of rabbits from hats, that is so attractive and equally unacceptable for economists.
Ultimately, the only thing that Marx's theory refutes is the commodity-money relations of production. From the point of view of “Capital”, they are unacceptable as such and deserve only their denial/removal, and not improvement or regulation.
A person is worth as much as he will agree to work for. The unit of measurement is LABOR, no matter who, when, or where. It can also be measured in grams of gold produced by a prospector in one month (172 hours) = 31.0135 gr. or 0.18 gr. / hour. Last 10 days Date Course
19.06.20 1733,70 https://yandex.ru/news/quotes/10.html = 55.9 / gr. 1.18 gr. / hr = $10 / hr x Last 10 days Date Rate
19.06.20 69,6180 https://yandex.ru/news/quotes/1.html = 696 руб./час. The employer, to pay this SALARY, needs to SELL the LABOR of a prospector = 31.0135 gr. GOLD AT LEAST 1.5 times more expensive to COMPENSATE for THE COSTS of CONSUMABLES, TAX PAYMENT, HOUSING, and TREATMENT OF PROSPECTORS. Surplus value cannot be less than PROFITABILITY. Profitability = ((Price of goods or services – Cost price) / Cost price)) * 100% https://businessmens.ru/article/rentabel-nost—chto-eto-formuly-i-primery-raschetov (1,5 – 1) : 1 х 100 % = 50%. If THE PRODUCT PRICE is 150 more than THE COST PRICE % Then it is a NORMAL distribution, for ONE cycle. The prospector SHOULD get 31.0135 x 1.5 = 46.52 gr. / month of GOLD.
Boehm-Bawerk denied it. We have published his book A Critique of Marx's Theory. You can read it and get acquainted with his reasoning. The book is difficult, but not so difficult that you can't understand it.
Where this law is not known or naively misunderstood there is a small percentage of the very well off and rich and the vast majority of the poor and poverty. And where it is taken into account, millionaires do not leave their savings to children, but rather spend them on charity and socially important projects for development. This is under capitallism. Under socialism, surplus value is allocated in a planned manner to socially important, scientifically based development projects.
More Mendeleevs! He immediately pointed out that com. Marx, measuring value by the amount of time spent, does not see the difference between the work of a mare or, even worse, a gelding and a man. For man is not an animal, and has intelligence. Not tangible assets, so to speak. This includes education, intelligence, the ability to super-exploit yourself, and even a love of work. I assure you, neither the mare nor the gelding even think about the latter, and they work because they beat and feed. “Intangible assets” are property that can neither be nationalized nor socialized. In 17, Comrade Lenin nationalized factories, buildings , structures, stocks, and products, and put workers in charge of controlling production and distribution. As a result. Stalin had to hire Americans to build factories and organize production for industrialization. Those, by the way, were surprised to note the Bolshevik “machine fetishism”. How is it , the plant is built, the equipment is delivered, the workers are supplied, but the products are not. Everything was blamed on sabotage. It took three years to establish a stable output at Stalingrad Tractor Plant. From what has been said, we can conclude that Marx is a crook. His whole theory of value is for the organization of the class struggle. And in fact, the struggle of fools with smart ones. On purpose, I don't say who is stupid, who is smart. Those who destroyed the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union and so guess!
It's impossible.
For surplus value –
all the material wealth of humanity .
More precisely, what was left of that value, minus what was squandered by the ruling classes and their lackeys
As life in the United States shows, most of the GDP is created in the service sector, while the country lives at the expense of other countries, printing dollars.
This can't go on indefinitely, and Americans will be left in poverty.
No one has refuted the theory of surplus value, and no one will ever be able to refute it with any sophisticated verbiage. A cut diamond is raised in price by the surplus value created by the work of the gem-cutter. Nuts in the forest can be eaten for free, but the nuts collected and delivered to the market have a cost. The products produced in a robotic factory also have a surplus value, because both the plant and the robots are created and maintained by humans. And any product includes many components, during the production of which there was also a surplus value.
If we understand it as a record of the fact that in communities that are at the stage of mass division of labor, people who create the material conditions (products in the form of goods) for the continuation (reproduction) of the existence of this community can create such goods in a normal (non-destroying) working period systematically more than is necessary for the reproduction of themselves and their families, then The fact that the corresponding surplus of goods, both in kind and in form (value), can and should be placed at the disposal of a special part of the members of the community is a condition of extended reproduction, which Weber perfectly showed in ” Economy and Society… Sociology ” – the interests of individual members of the socialist collective in how to use the surplus product cannot always coincide, and this prevents the use of the surplus product for the development of their common production. And surplus value is only a form of surplus product. Conclusion: at a certain stage of community development, TPS is true.
I have developed and published a “Complex Factor Theory of Value” (CFTC) , which differs from Marx's Labor Theory of Value.
The difference is fundamentally that Marx considered value created, determined by one factor, namely, the amount of abstract labor expended or socially necessary time of abstract labor (abstract time),
and in the CFTC developed by me, the cost of goods is created and determined by several factors, for example, the labor factor and the benefit factor.
The cost of goods is an abstract qualitative, but objective complex parameter, which is what makes the exchanged goods comparable at the time of the transaction, determining the ratio of the quantities of goods exchanged or the price of goods when buying and selling.
Given the above, I give the answer to the question asked :
SURPLUS VALUE exists as a term in the sum of the terms, which is the value of the commodity
O. Boehm-Bawerk refuted the theory of surplus value in his work “Towards the completion of the Marxist System”. Only Marxists pretend that no refutations exist.
Who can refute the axiom-there is no crime that the owner of the means of production will not commit for the sake of a good profit, unless Russian corruption is of a different nature.
It is precisely for this reason that our foreign oligarchs and their hangers-on from among the intelligentsia and journalism hate Karl Marx so much for this postulate, and they are ready to lie even to their own father and all their ancestors for the sake of thirty pieces of silver, that they built the mighty USSR, now plundered by the oligarchs!
The labor theory of value was not challenged until Marxism emerged.
They tried to refute it through the theory of utility, but having brought the latter to the level of the theory of supply and demand, they only developed it, showing its feasibility in the same form under certain conditions. The conditions are as follows: competitiveness, equilibrium, resource productivity, social nature of production and consumption, the basic limitation of the labor factor only. For example, the TTC is not performed at rates of change in the economy that exceed the rate of equilibrium establishment.
Some questions, as they say, “depending on how you look”. For example, resource limitations as a cost factor can be considered as the need to spend an increasing amount of labor to extract it. The “crooked” nature of supply and demand as a mathematical refinement and development of the verbal formulations of Marx and Smith.
The question of the root cause of value can be considered scholastic, and the ethical significance of TTS-in general, value-dogmatic.
There are conclusions of the TTS from the theory of factors of production, provided that labor is a factor, and other factors are created by labor.
TTS, believing that the concept of value is not identical with the concept of good, and proving that the good not created by labor has no value, tries to replace with logic and actually prove the value statement that only value that rewards for labor, and not for possession, is fair.
The refutation of the theory of surplus value proceeds in several ways.
Refutation of the labor theory itself, but it is difficult.
The division of the concepts of labor and commodity labor power is considered hypocritical, since in any labor contract there is an assumption about the nature of labor, and not only the offer of ability to work, and in addition, the very conclusion of the proportionality of the relations of exchange and labor costs in the TCS comes from the assumption of equal limitations and value of labor for its owners.
Doubts about the possibility of an objective determination of the cost of means of reproduction of goods labor, the dependence of wage requirements on the usual level of remuneration, on internal claims and market conditions.
Doubt about the possibility of determining the amount of labor costs, skilled labor. If it is based on its effectiveness, then this is no longer the TTC, not the determination of cost by labor costs, but the determination of labor costs by the cost of the product.
The production significance of” exploitative ” incomes as necessary institutional factors and institutionalized labor.
Finally, the general increase in wages as a refutation of Marxism.
In general, the theory of surplus value is successfully refuted, and the labor theory of value is not refuted by anyone.
Marxism, among others, fell victim to a belief in the logical conditionality of value propositions and a fear of them in themselves.
And what's terrible just to say. It is not good for the rich to be content, while the suffering one is poor, no matter what. That's the whole truth. Without any theories.
It is precisely the theory of surplus value, i.e., the measure of the exploitation of labour-power, that no one has refuted. Even in the Soviet Union, it worked. The only exploiter was the socialist State represented by the Council of Ministers. (I emphasize socialist, not popular)
Who can refute it? What is the surplus value of a commodity? This is the planned profit, which is included in the total cost of the product. Plus money not paid extra to the workers for their work, by the owner of the means of production and appropriated by them as additional profit. For example: the final product costs-1000 rubles. The cost of labor in this amount is, for example, 15%, i.e.-150 rubles. But the employer estimates the work of the worker at 130 rubles. and that's it! And 20p. he takes it for himself! It's even cooler here in Russia. It is not enough that the owner took these 20 rubles from you. It is also from your 130 rubles. pays the state income tax + various social benefits, including pension contributions. And it remains for the employee to earn 60-70 rubles in salary. Something like that. Oh! We have more than that. Then the employee (hm, by the way, and the employer himself) goes to the store and, buying something, pays this very value added tax (VAT). Just like that! Of course, this is all roughly described, but the essence is the same. Any enterprise, under capitalism, is created for the sake of making a profit from the operation of this enterprise. If your business is operating at a loss, then it is simply going bankrupt. Well, how can this be refuted?
The theory of surplus value is correct – because it is obvious. And surplus value appeared as soon as trade appeared. And it will continue to exist as long as commodity exchange remains the main tool for increasing prosperity in any society. And surplus value can disappear only with the disappearance of the exchange of commodities.
The theory of surplus value is Marx's usual nonsense. Marx asserts that surplus value is created by the workers. In fact, the capitalist receives it from the proceeds when he sells products above the cost price, according to demand, trade rules, etc. And the salary of workers is included in the cost of production, which includes a lot of things, except for the salary of workers. But Marx rolled out his nonsense into several volumes.
Theories are created not to be refuted, but to be proved. Evolutionists, for example, put life proving the theory of evolution.
Marx, on the other hand, was more fortunate – his theories were adopted by some people who commit social upheavals, which are accompanied by a harsh suppression of those who disagree with both the coup and the theory taken as the basis or justification for this coup. Marxists have saved many innocent lives today by putting unproven theories into practice.
So, where Marxists are in power, try to refute their theories – I wouldn't recommend that. And where they do not exist, these theories are of little interest to anyone, except for some theorists, who for the most part do not particularly seek evidence – there is no need.
Of course not – it's like turning down the Pythagorean theorem)))
On the other hand, very few people know what the theory of surplus value consists of. And yet it is very simple, and consists in the fact that human labor power has a unique property: the property of creating in the process of its use – that is, in the process of labor – in the process of combining with the material factors of production when they are transformed into new things – a value greater than it has itself.
That is, when an employee who spends an amount X on the maintenance of his family (which is the cost of his labor power – that is, the cost of producing it) makes a box out of boards worth Y and nails worth Z, then the boards and nails transfer their value to the value of the box in an unchanged amount – and the labor force adds to the value of the box, in addition to its original cost, also some additional value. If this were not the case, if people in the process of labor did not increase social wealth, did not create more than they consumed – both personally (the cost of labor) and in production (the cost of material factors) – then we would still live in goods…
Let's say an employee needs 1,000 rubles a day for a normal life. Now it doesn't matter how this amount is determined – let's assume that it is sufficient, and no one disputes this – it is considered sufficient by both the worker and the capitalist. The capitalist pays a worker 1,000 rubles – for the whole day. 30 thousand rubles a month-12 times a year – a total of 360 thousand rubles. By paying for life throughout the year – including vacations and weekends. For this sum, the worker sold the capitalist his labor-power for the whole year. At the same time, they agreed that the duration of the working day will be 8 hours, there will be 2 days off in Brussels plus public holidays, and a month of vacation. That is, the employee is required to work 1,800 hours during the year – all the rest of almost 7,000 hours the employee can rest, raise children,and do their own household. It turns out that for every hour of work – paid 200 rubles. And at the same time, the labor force has been fully paid for the entire year, because the worker's needs have been met. The productivity of the worker's labor has nothing to do with the value of his labor power – it is determined by the needs of the worker and nothing else!
If the capitalist is intelligent, he will arrange things in such a way that for every hour of his labor the worker will produce goods whose value will exceed the capitalist's expenses – including the purchase of labor power. And then the capitalist will have surplus value. And if the capitalist is stupid , then he will not be able to set up the business in this way, and he will receive a loss. In neither case is the worker in any way harmed , for he receives the full value of his commodity – slave power – just as the suppliers of planks and nails receive the full value for their commodity.
What Marx's Das Kapital is REALLY about is that it is not at all devoted to discussing how the capitalist deceives the worker, but rather to explaining that the capitalist DOES NOT deceive or steal from the worker. To expose the MYTH of utopian socialists that the capitalist gets along at the expense of allegedly incomplete wages.
no, no one can refute this in principle.
But this law is not complete, so under monopolism, one without the laws of sociology, for example, Nietzsche, may fail badly.
it is considered in sufficient detail in studopedia-Fundamental Laws of Economics. – Studopedia
studopedia.ru›14_82626…zakoni-ekonomiki.html
I denied it. I have an article on this topic, where I use a simple example to prove its falsity. In a nutshell, Marx's key mistake is to say that labor is a special commodity that creates value. In fact, labor does not create any value. It only affects the product's cost price. An employee's salary is not a part of the cost of the product, but the actual cost of its services in these specific conditions. It is a part of the cost of goods along with the cost of raw materials, rent, electricity, etc., i.e. all that is necessary for the production of goods, and the real value of goods is formed in the market as a result of the struggle of supply and demand. Therefore, there is no surplus value. And profit ( or loss)is a reward (or punishment) of an entrepreneur for the loyalty of his commercial and managerial decisions. This is in short.
The theory of surplus value is a typical example of Marx's delirium. According to Marx, surplus value is created by the labor of the workers. In fact, it is obtained from revenue when the capitalist sells his products in accordance with demand, trade rules, contractual obligations, etc. At the same time, no one in the market is interested in who and how much labor was spent on the production of goods. The main thing is its consumer properties. And there may be no surplus value at all, the capitalist may not sell anything at all, and the workers have already received their wages.
The so-called “theory of surplus value” is a typical example of Marx's delirium. According to Marx, the capitalist makes a profit by underpaying the workers ' wages. It is not difficult to realize that the capitalist does not get any profit from this. Even if everyone works for it for free. The capitalist receives profit from the proceeds when he sells his products in accordance with demand, trade rules, contractual obligations, etc. At the same time, there may be no profit at all, and the capitalist may not sell his products at all, but the workers have already received their wages. But Marx inflated his nonsense by as much as three volumes of Das Kapital. And the real value of a product depends not on the amount of labor invested in it, but on the demand for this product.
The theory of surplus value is Marx's obvious nonsense. According to Marx, surplus value is created by the workers. In fact, the capitalist receives it from the proceeds when he sells his goods in accordance with demand, trading rules, etc. At the same time, there may be no surplus value at all, and the workers have already received their wages.
In the opinion of ordinary people, no, they did not refute it. And they will never be refuted, because to part with Marx means for them to lose permission to kill and rob the hated rich. That's all, pull this chair out from under Marx and he will go into oblivion as unnecessary, along with his philosophy. By itself, Marx would be no more known to the Russian philistine than Bakunin, Proudhon, Saint-Simon, and other trash who doesn't know anything about economics. If Lenin had not used Marx as a banner and accidentally came to power a hundred years ago, this resource might not have asked a single question containing this surname.
The theory of surplus value is Marx's nonsense. And the nonsense is quite obvious. According to Marx, the worker creates surplus value by working, and the capitalist underpays his salary. In fact, the capitalist receives surplus value from the proceeds when he sells his products in accordance with demand, trade rules, etc. At the same time, there may be no surplus value, the capitalist may go bankrupt, but the workers have received their wages. By the way, workers are not the only participants in production. But Marx wrote his own nonsense for as many as 3 volumes of Das Kapital.
No one will be able to abolish the theory of surplus value, because the whole business is standing on it and getting stronger.The amount of surplus value is another matter.The amount of surplus value is regulated by the level of greed and greed of the business.
Theories in formal sciences, such as mathematics, are proved and refuted.
In the sciences that describe reality, theories gradually become overgrown with limits of applicability: in such cases, they give the right result,and then you need to use something else.
The theory of surplus value describes some of the patterns of capitalism a century and a half ago, when the labor market was oversaturated in almost all segments and the price of labor was close to cost. When mechanization was rather primitive and human labor could ( with some stretch) be considered the only source of new value. When there were no trade unions that tried to set monopolistically high prices for certain types of labor.
The theory of surplus value has not been refuted. It simply doesn't apply to the modern economy.
No, I didn't refute it.
There are other theories of cost, for example: cost is a dual estimate in the linear production problem of maximizing the production functional under existing resource constraints (see the linear programming problem). A similar approach can be applied to non-linear economic growth problems, where the cost will also reflect resource constraints. (see the Von Neumann ray)
However, these two theories do not contradict each other. They are dual. There is a correspondence between them. It's just that when solving one problem, it's more convenient to use some methods, while when solving another, it's more convenient to use other methods. Any restriction on resources is associated with labor costs. If there is no need for labor to obtain a resource, then the cost of this resource will be “0”, both in the dual problem and in the labor theory of value. For example, air in the general sense ( not some particularly purified for the production of semiconductors or pharmaceuticals).
Gentlemen, there is such a science: “Mathematical Economics”. Get acquainted, plz. Much will become clear.
According to the theory of value: go to the economic department of your production company and ask for a calculation for products – there the labor theory of value is directly used.
If anyone is interested, I can sketch a diagram of how this is done.
The theory of surplus value is one example of Marx's nonsense.Marx argues that the capitalist makes a profit by underpaying workers ' wages. In fact, the capitalist makes a profit from the proceeds when he sells his products according to demand, trade rules, contractual obligations, etc. At the same time, there may be no profit at all, and the capitalist may not sell anything at all, and the workers have already received their wages. But Marx inflated his obvious nonsense into several volumes of Das Kapital.
The very concept of “theory” implies that it has answered questions and reconciled contradictions. Therefore, it is impossible to refute the theory, since this will automatically refute the facts and actually existing phenomena of the surrounding life, which served as the basis of this theory. But the theory can be supplemented when new facts or phenomena are discovered. The theory of surplus-value is obviously not refuted at the present time, but new facts have emerged that do not have a generally accepted explanation from the standpoint of this theory. I will cite two facts: the first is the function of money as a commodity, which Marx did not consider, and the second is the possibility of the existence of surplus value in the form of an abstraction, without reference to a specific subject of production relations. But there are additions to Marx's theory, and they can be found if desired.
Marx's theory of surplus value is called a theory because in order to develop it, Marx simplified the problem of the emergence and growth of capital that he analyzed. And here are the assumptions he made. 1) Labor of the same qualification costs the same and its value is equal to the cost of its reproduction. 2) labor items are equally available to all producers.3) The means of production are also available for all but special cases, which Marx considered separately. 4) There are no trade barriers and everything is regulated through the market. 5) the trade attractiveness of goods is the same and there is a steady demand. In fact, these conditions are never fully met, which raises doubts about the correctness of the theory of value. But you shouldn't doubt it. Just as any object in accordance with Newton's law can move infinitely rectilinearly and evenly, so the theory of value works under all the above assumptions.
Marx's theory of surplus value has been supplemented so much that it is strange, to put it mildly, to use it now to describe economic processes. The main additions are related to the value of intangible assets (brand, technology, inventions, integrity), the operation of financial instruments and risk assessment.
Marx's theory is still taught in the history of economics course at every decent university in the world, much as astronomers study Copernicus or engine specialists study steam engines.
Read the book “Mistakes of Marxism and millions of innocent victims”. It examines for the first time the types of labor of the worker and capitalist, as well as the distribution of surplus value between them.
How can you refute a proven theory? It's probably about something else. Marx's theory is based on postulates, the number and meaning of which was sufficient for the time of the theory's creation, but later factors unknown to Marx were discovered, because they did not exist then. One factor is the commodity function of money, when money itself acts as a commodity. This is about the 70s of the 20th century. Another factor is investment through financial markets, when surplus value is not generated directly in the process of production, but appears only as a result of changes in quotations for the corresponding financial instrument. And today the most reliable and profitable investment is an investment in labor resources selectively, in accordance with the normalized indicator of the same Marx surplus value. Here is an example – China, the last 20 years. Who can say that those who invested all this time in the skills of Chinese workers were wrong?
No.
They chose to just ignore it.
The closest thing to refuting Schumpeter's critique. However, it goes within the framework of the theory of maximum utility, and it is refuted by Kahneman and Tversky.
There is no point in refuting Marx's theory of surplus value. Just as it makes no sense to refute Isaac Newton's theory of universal gravitation. To develop his theory, Marx made serious simplifications. He suggested that the producers are equal and are in the same conditions. He assumed that labor has the same value everywhere. He suggested that financial capital lends to the producer regardless of its location, nationality, geographical and climatic conditions. He assumed that the price of goods is the same for all manufacturers, except in some cases.( for example, when using new technology, it is possible to either make an additional profit, or reduce the price of goods from a manufacturer that has applied new technologies . )of course, the fulfillment of all these conditions is impossible in reality. Especially when monopolistic capital dominates. So sometimes it seems that the theory of surplus value is wrong. But this is a big mistake. In reality, when Marx's conditions are met in society, his theory of surplus value works
The whole world lives on surplus value. It cannot be refuted as quantum electrodynamics, which is proven by time and practice. A capitalist sells a box of matches for 1 ruble the cost of producing a box is 80 kopecks. 20 kopecks net profit,that's what surplus value is.This money is used to fatten the capitalist.
Each product contains 5 types of labor: 1) To analyze the need for this product; 2) To organize its release; 3) Work on its production (this is what workers do); 4) Work on the sale of goods or services; 5) Past work. Marx considered only two types of labor – past and living labor. It is better to talk not about refuting Marx's theory, but about its development and refinement. This is written in the book “Mistakes of Marxism and millions of innocent victims”.
You must realize that Marxists were afraid of overproduction crises. And so, they created enterprises for the sake of work, so that everyone was busy with work. And to keep everything under control. And they wanted to become bosses, over a herd of workers. Do you think Trotsky and Lenin served the working people? Hehe. They took revenge on their abusers. The bourgeoisie.
But it turned out that the rich are needed. Because the poor have no money. And the Bolsheviks built a world of scarcity. A world of queues and empty counters. The world of communal apartments and family hostels. Eh!
No one can abolish Marx's theory of labor and surplus value, since this is a natural Law of Nature. By and large, WAGES and PROFITS are the NATIONAL INCOME. In fairness, PROFIT should be divided at PARITY between PRESENT LABOR and PAST LABOR (CAPITAL).
I've never had a chance to argue with a man who claims that Zeus fires lightning from the sky. Most likely, none of my interlocutors simply did not see him in person. The mailbox hasn't been shown for a long time. Except for children in cartoons.
Marx worked in developed Europe. And he analyzed the most advanced production methods. And there would be no point in anything else. Now at the cutting edge of technology, everything has changed fundamentally. For one “producer of material values”, there are almost a dozen members of society who are not directly employed in production. And this is more than normal. Moreover, among these “non-producers” a significant percentage of those who are engaged in the development of scientific and technological potential. There are also quite a few intellectual property guards. There are a lot of direct distributors of products. In addition to just sellers and intermediaries. Advertisement. Transport, customs, economic unions, and sanctions … One printing press (money) for the whole world. Non-refundable cancellation of the gold equivalent. Values are scaled completely differently. Derevoids and bitcoins. Artists and events that advertise well. Banks that finance production and transfer money from it to various “projects”. Marx could not have imagined that there would be such expenses for the army, medicine, and education… Technological progress has become multi-layered. Something is already bringing a new product, something will bring it closer “by the end of the week”, and something just has to be done as a safety net. Not to mention building empty cities in the world's most populous country. Isn't it scary to lose the race? In the nineties and noughties, experienced Western businessmen “lured” specialists from the most promising areas from Russia. They lured me away, gave me a very godly salary, and ….. they put me on the bench. This is much cheaper than, God forbid, fighting a likely competitor in 10 years. So they think ahead even further than politicians. And where to go? Everything can change in politics. In technology , nothing will change. In the sense of a general race.
Simply put, the very structure of production, economy, and society has changed. You should read Marx. As warlords, you need to study the history of different battles. However, soldiers must be trained with rocket launchers. If possible, without using commands like ” bite, mound, light the wicks …”
No. They use other names, the concepts of “theory”, and talk about the “inapplicability” of Marx's theory in modern economics. But if you pranalyze what the difference between price and cost consists of and how and to whom it goes, then in principle nothing has changed since the time of Markch.
Surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker in excess of the value of his labor power and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. Should I refute this? Where, then, does the capitalist make a profit?
Oh, these Germans! They love certainties and are tied up in them. When the goal is capital(the goal, not the means), what is the point of production? There are many other ways (including the destruction of production) to achieve capital, for example. When the goal is capital, not improving the existence of the population.
No. This is the only sane theory that explains the origin of wealth: from the exploitation of workers ' labor. There would be no exploitation – there would be no wealth and the owner of fixed assets would receive as an employee + depreciation of his fixed assets. But this is not observed under capitalism, and there is a brazen appropriation of labor results under the guise of” compensation for entrepreneurial risks “and”bonuses for initiative”.
There is nothing by itself, everything is in the context of the circumstances of being and the vector of dreams-the path where the heart calls. In the USSR, the country's economic strategy was to evenly distribute production and goods over the entire area (not ideal, and with responses that were skewed to Western “storefronts of capitalism” such as Germany). Regarding this approach, the labor theory of value is correct, because we put the interest of the entire people at the forefront (and we must remember that economics is not physics. Economics is a mathematical apparatus for calculating the dressing of a globe in an owl and the imperative-through which hole to do it. The imperative is a dream, either we are all like this together, or we are so clear, and the suckers in zindan roar.) In the modern world, the labor theory does not work, because now there is a capitalist monopolist who can produce goods in Bangladesh for a penny, and then sell them at a dumping price. With this approach, none of the participants in the process will have any idea about the interest of a person in Bangladesh, even the residents of Bangladesh themselves, because they have accepted the slave fate. Therefore, when there are those who are ready to work for pennies because of hunger, the labor theory of value does not roll. You can't build a civilization in Zindan.
No, of course not. Just as no one has ever refuted Euclidean geometry. Supplemented-yes, and Lenin, and Stalin, and Mao, and Marcuse, but to refute what is confirmed every day…
The theory of surplus value is Marx's delirium Marx denies the obvious facts and paints a fantastic picture of production. In reality, production is done like this. The capitalist buys materials, hires workers and other specialists, buys machine tools, and so on. All this is included in the cost of production, which also includes the salary of workers. No surplus value is produced in production. Surplus value is obtained when the capitalist sells products according to the rules of trade, demand, obligations, etc. above the cost price. But Marx rolled out his nonsense into three volumes of Das Kapital.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted if it is a scientific refutation. But state propaganda and idle journalists can refute anything, however and at any time. you only need to meet two conditions: a good fee and the Fas team. In raising this question yourself, you are conducting a kind of sociological investigation into the extent to which the ideas of Marx's theory of commodity production and surplus value are still tenacious in our society. Such intelligence is a necessary condition for the peaceful suppression of Marxist thought, Marxists, and the communist movement. I am convinced that this is a wasted effort. What grows naturally, no herbicides or pesticides can be destroyed.
How can we refute Marx's theory of surplus value? It has always existed, since the beginning of agriculture: I planted 1 grain, collected 10, five grains were used for food while I worked. So, 6 grains is the value, the remaining 4 grains are surplus value, only in natural form (we will not dig it out, because we also need to store the grains, sort them out, and leave the grain for planting, etc.). Marx did a good job, formulated (although, to be honest, it's clumsy).
No, no one denied it.
The bourgeoisie is challenged, claiming that they are thrifty, and the workers (labourers) are extravagant.
Therefore, the bourgeoisie is rich, but the working people are not.
No one denied it. The theory of Marx and his predecessors is “tied” to the ” cap ” production of the 19th century. It can be refuted by the time when there is no commodity-money exchange and the commodity – labor force. Theoretically, the TPN is refuted by our ancestors by in-kind exchange and future communism.
Let's answer simply and in a proletarian way: “Not hua.” There are only attempts to revise it, and all this ends in schizophrenia or outright anti-Marxist propaganda with a departure from logic.
After many years of thinking about the concept of “surplus value”, I came to this conclusion.
Let's say there is a “bourgeois” who created a corporation with a million employees (this is real). Let's say he pays $ 5,000 to each of them (not bad). Let's assume that its EXPLOITATION of its employees amounts to deducting ONE dollar a month from each employee in its favor (this is implausible, but it is acceptable).
You'll scream: “What kind of exploitation is this?!! I want (!!!!!) to be exploited like this !!!!!”
And here we come to the most IMPORTANT POINT of MARX's work.
In a month, each employee has $ 5,000, and “bourgeois” – ONE MILLION dollars.
And that's where it all starts. For this MILLION a month, he has the opportunity: through “independent” media, through “incorruptible” state authorities, through “incorruptible-honest” people's deputies-legislators, to COMPLETELY SUBORDINATE the BEHAVIOR and WILL of each of his million employees and all together, because the probability that a million of his employees WILL DEVELOP a SINGLE POSITION on defending their INTERESTS is NEGLIGIBLE.
Therefore, the protection of INTERESTS has historically been carried out by small ORGANIZED groups – PARTIES, which again makes this practice VULNERABLE, because even an active and IDEOLOGICAL person is WEAK against the almost infinite variety of methods of INTIMIDATION, BRIBERY, and MORAL CORRUPTION.
In history, it was possible to protect the interests of the People only once and then NOT FOR a LONG TIME only thanks to the phenomenal human qualities of LENIN and STALIN.
That is, the theory of SURPLUS VALUE and its (value)PRIVATE-PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT (!!!) it works properly and gives precise targeting – what and how to reform the economy for the liberation of Humanity.
The theory of surplus value is an example of Marx's delirium. In reality, production is based on this. The entrepreneur decides to produce something. It buys equipment, technology, and hires employees, as well as workers. All these expenses are included in the cost of production. If there are more expenses for some production participants, the cost price will be higher.If it is less, the cost price will be lower. And the capitalist gets surplus value when he sells products above the cost price in accordance with demand, trade rules, contractual obligations, and so on. But Marx is driving his own nonsense. According to it, the workers create some mystical surplus value and social utility.
The theory of surplus value is Marx's nonsense. He denies the obvious facts. Production is organized in such a way that the workers ' wages are included in the cost of production, and the capitalist receives surplus value when he sells products above cost. Of course, he may not sell anything and get nothing, but the workers have already received their wages.
The theory of surplus value is Marx's fairy tales that have nothing to do with reality. According to Marx, the worker creates surplus value. In fact, workers ' salaries are production costs. In addition to the salary of workers, there are many other items: purchase of equipment, payment for security, logistics, purchase of a license, organization of sales, etc. All this is included in the cost of production, and the capitalist gets surplus value when he sells products higher than the cost price. Moreover, he may not sell anything at all, and get no surplus value, but the workers have absolutely nothing to do with it. They have already received their salary.
Despite the presence of millions of capitalists, Marx did not consider the types of their labor: analysis of needs for goods (services), organization of their production, management of production and sales. Any product (and labor, too) is sold at a profit. But Marx incorrectly believed that only the capitalist has a profit. All this is described in the book “Mistakes of Marxism and millions of innocent victims”.
The theory of surplus value is a model of Marx's delirium. Marx denies the obvious facts. That the wages of the workers are included in the cost price of the commodity, and that the capitalist gets surplus value when he sells the commodity above the cost price. If the salary of workers is higher, the cost of goods will be higher.Lower salary, lower production cost. But the capitalist does not get any surplus value from this.
Refuting the nonsense of a “smart” but ignorant mind is not a serious task.
There is a Canon of MAINTAINING BALANCE, which determines the AMAZING HARMONY and BEAUTY of the UNIVERSE.
The rest is from the Evil One!
Nobel laureates in “economics” – like uncut dogs!
And the “economy” (which is NOT and CANNOT BE!!!) “on the drum” all the theories of the winners!
Whatever THE OWNER of THE MAMMON wants, it will happen, because “economy” is a “gymnastics” of the MIND!
You don't need to be an economist to think logically and understand that this theory is not true. As for the refutations of economists, the theory of surplus value was refuted by representatives of the Austrian School of economics such as Eugen Boehm-Bawerk, Ludwig Mises and Friedrich Hayek.
No one has refuted Marx's theory, just as one cannot refute Newton's laws. Try to refute the laws of gravity, it will be worse for you. Therefore, no one will ever be able to refute what is impossible. If you meet a person who has refuted the theory of surplus value, it means that they do not understand what they are talking about, or they are refuting what they themselves understand by it.
The theory of surplus value, as well as the labor theory of value, reflect the fundamental processes of production and distribution – this is a deeper, essential level of knowledge, and the listed facts are appearances at the empirical level in the processes of exchange. And the theory of” marginal utility ” does not refute it, because it describes phenomena in the processes of exchange and consumption.
With the advent of the stock exchange, one of the most important means of removing rents from the entire monetary circulation of the global financial system, Marx's theory became significantly more complicated. But in general, this is a fundamental law.
Let the author, pencil in hand, work through chapter three of the first volume of capital. It will become clear to him why the possibility of a quantitative discrepancy between price and value lies in the very form of price with the nonexistent converse provisions about the inevitability of being an indicator of value.This form of value allows the value rule to work its way through the chaotic chaos of commodity exchange only as a blindly valid law of averages.
I didn't refute it, moreover, and we didn't intend to, this is an obvious thing (and rather factual), there is even such a turn of speech as “selling a product with a higher surplus value”, for example, selling gasoline instead of oil. Another thing is that since the time of Marx, economic science has made great strides forward, and in Marx's interpretation this “theory” sounds somewhat primitive. It is more correct to ask whether the “theory of surplus value” has lost its relevance today. And immediately a spoiler – yes, it has lost and can no longer serve as an unconditional basis for class struggle. But on the other hand, it still played a role in the formation of social relations and the fair distribution of labor results. For example, trade unions in Germany assess the income of enterprises, demand and seek higher wages.
The author apparently wanted to refute Marx's theory, but only presented his examples, showing at the same time that he did not understand the theory at all. Paintings by famous artists are MORE EXPENSIVE than the same paintings of unknown people because the famous one spent MORE TIME on training, honing their skills, making useful acquaintances, and so on. They are more expensive because the skill is HIGHER. It's the same with chocolate. Chocolate, to the author's surprise, does not appear out of thin air in the factory. You need to grow a “Cocoa” plant. In order to grow it, you need a suitable climate, soil, and care. The greater this contribution of labor, the better the results obtained. They still need to be delivered somehow, which also requires the WORK of pilots, sailors, and truckers. And only then, depending on the initial cost that was invested for the cultivation and delivery of raw materials, with the help of those who develop recipes and workers, chocolate is produced. LEARN MATCHMAKING, COMRADES!
I know, but I won't tell you. Ask Putin and he will say something. Quite, poor, confused in national projects. This is his game. Moved it to 2030. Some will live, and some will not….
“We are not alive as a single Popper” –
Eugen Boehm-Bawerk: A Critique of Marx's Theory.
The work is available in Russian translation, and in several editions at once.
(And for the current time, you can safely get acquainted)
How to refute Newton's law.No one will ever sell a product without making a profit.Otherwise, it is terrible to say COMMUNISM.Fight on, the person is boiling with passions and not perfect,you have a chance to prove that the apple will not fall to the ground if you want it.The law is only a law when it is effective regardless of who the judges,prosecutors,lawyers are and the people agree with their decision.This is where Rome stood.Something like that.Good luck storytellers.
Without any moronic Russophobe Marx, even according to the laws of Khmmurapi, a product costs as much as the buyer is willing to pay for it. The unintelligent are destined for the fate of the USSR, which lived all the years according to the laws of Gosplan and “developed socialism” in conditions of an endless shortage of everything and everything and the famine that loomed in the late 80's with the introduction of meager coupons/cards for food, soap and powder in peacetime.
Marx did not take into account the work of inventors, scientists, engineers, and organizers of production, as well as the capitalists themselves. According to Marx, the field is plowed not by the peasant, but by the horse.
Perhaps Marx's laws of value are a special case of more universal laws, operating in an era when people consume mostly the same interchangeable goods from decade to decade and are almost always forced to look more at prices than at quality. As Newton's mechanics is a special case of Einstein's mechanics for low velocities. Or like the laws of thermodynamics, which do not apply if there are two molecules in the vessel, and not 2 billion. Think of liquid crystal monitors that were sold at many times the cost of production for the first few years, and none of the competing manufacturers lowered their prices until the market was full. What market share does Marx's “wine and cloth” currently have, and what is the share of new, unique and designer goods? Their life cycle is shorter than the time it takes to equalize the price, cost, and profit indicators.
First, this theory is not Marx's at all.
Maprx slyamzil it (and appropriated it) at David Ricardo's.
Secondly, there is no need to refute it because of its complete political and economic indifference.
In fact, the only thing that Marx “supplemented” Ricardo with was the conclusion about the” injustice of appropriating surplus value ” by the capitalist.
This Marxian “supplement” also does not require any refutation, since
a) it is not PROVED by Marx))))
b) simple common sense indicates its falsity. The capitalist still works hard!
Engels (from The Revolution in Hungary): “In the next world War, not only reactionary classes and dynasties will DISAPPEAR from the face of the earth, but ENTIRE REACTIONARY PEOPLES WILL ALSO DISAPPEAR. AND THIS WILL ALSO BE PROGRESS.”
Engels (from the article “Democratic Pan-Slavism”): “To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood addressed to us on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply : HATRED OF THE RUSSIANS was and still is the FIRST REVOLUTIONARY PASSION of the Germans ; since the revolution, hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to this, and only by means of the MOST RESOLUTE TERRORISM AGAINST THESE SLAVIC PEOPLES can we, together with the Poles and Magyars, We now KNOW WHERE THE ENEMIES OF THE REVOLUTION ARE CONCENTRATED : IN RUSSIA and in THE Slavic regions of Austria; AND NO PHRASES OR REFERENCES TO THE UNCERTAIN DEMOCRATIC FUTURE OF THESE COUNTRIES WILL PREVENT US FROM TREATING OUR ENEMIES AS ENEMIES.”
Marx (from the work “Exposing the diplomatic History of the XVIII century”): “Muscovy was brought up and raised in a terrible and vile school of Mongol slavery. It was only strengthened by becoming a virtuosa in the art of slavery. Even after its liberation, Muscovy continued to play its traditional role of slave-turned-master. Subsequently, Peter the Great combined the political skills of the Mongol slave with the proud aspirations of the Mongol ruler, whom Genghis Khan bequeathed to carry out his plan to conquer the world… Just as it did with the Golden Horde, Russia is now doing business with the West. To become the ruler of the Mongols, Muscovy had to be Tartarized. To become the master of the West, it must become civilized… remaining a Slave, that is, giving the Russians that external touch of civilization that would prepare them for the perception of the technology of Western peoples, without infecting them with the ideas of the latter”
Engels (C) 1866 : “As for Russia, it can only be mentioned as the owner of an enormous amount of stolen property, which it will have to give back on the day of reckoning”
Engels (on Napoleon's march on Moscow in 1812) : “Cossacks, Bashkirs and other robber rabble defeated the republic, the heiress of the Great French Revolution.”
Commodity exchange was born in humanity in the early Neolithic era, and these social relations were built exclusively intuitively and arbitrarily. Despite the fact that capitalism itself also developed spontaneously, for its expanded mode of production of goods and services, such forms of market regulation were decidedly inadequate. At the same time, the nature of capitalism itself remained intricate even for the state apparatus!!! It was only in the second half of the 18th century that the Scot Adam Smith laid the foundations of political economy developed by the Englishman David Ricardo. Symbolically, the German Marx wrote the main work of his life “Capital” also in the Foggy Albion!!! So, if we compare capitalism to lever scales, then surplus value in them will play the role of a central support (balance), around which the yoke rotates, the position of the shoulders of which will symbolize the efficiency of production( business), indicating the state of the ratio between the values of profit and loss of the entrepreneur. Only here are people who in political economy are “not in the tooth with their foot”, they begin simpering to replace the categories, on the one hand, of surplus value and conjuncture, and on the other, objective factors of the market economy with subjective ones, and, without making any mistakes, publicly get their finger in the sky!!! Essno, to keep track of the thoughts of Jewish authors who are in the habit of writing their thoughts in sentences in whole paragraphs is extremely difficult-tested on the works of Karl Heinrichovich Marx himself, as well as Sigismund Shlomo Freud, the only way to master the material for average minds, which includes your humble servant – thoughtful study!!!
As far as I know, no one has refuted Marx's theory of surplus value (although no one has proved it). Because, strictly speaking, the concept of “proof” was formed in mathematics and there is no need to try to “prove” everything in the world. In the same mathematics (with the exception of classical geometry), there are enough theorems that either have not been proved to this day, or have weak, indirect proofs. Economics is not math! We still need to prove that it is independent
science, not a mixture of mathematics, psychiatry, ideology (any). In short, the so-called “golden billion” concept is the best proof of Marx's correctness.
The Austrian School of Economics, marginalists refuted Marx's theory of labor value in their works, deriving the theory of marginal utility. The entire mainstream economy is built on the development of ideas of marginalism. Neuroeconomics, behaviorism in economics-the ideas for which Nobel prizes are currently awarded are based on marginalism and the theory of marginal utility.
The refutation of the theory in the Russian version is laid down in the translation itself from German to Russian – the Germans use a different word for” value”, close to the word”value”. And so it turns out outright nonsense and nonsense when the question of consumer value is considered. Air has a huge consumer value, but it has no cost)))
what is Marx's theory-confused books(not for nothing did even the Bolsheviks hesitate to publish them)-the main thing in his theory is to set whole classes against each other ,cause confusion, arrange a revolution and seize power all over the world
Yes. A book called Economics of Innovative Development. And this can be understood by anyone without a specialized economic education.
Depends on what you mean by this theory?! If the mathematical apparatus is on paper, then it is perfect and formal, like all toretic ones. If we talk about practical everyday things, then nothing like this really exists, so there is nothing to refute.
Everything depends on the people themselves, and people depend on good or bad heredity.
According to theory, Marx himself had a good inheritance, but according to practice, it was not very good. This is an indicator that he himself refuted his own theory…
I refuted, it does not exist, what Marx wrote, anyone who knows logic can refute it just by carefully reading the definition of what exactly Marx calls surplus value, and when you understand this, you will be able to answer why he did it.
In the 90s, I asked my philosophy professor – what do they read to students? – Professor, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences (still in the USSR) answered-Yes, nothing complicated. Previously, we read the solution to the problem, but now we read the statement. Marx's theory cannot be refuted, because it is not a theory, but a systematization of the views of intelligent people on socio-political trends. He also earned his living as a journalist. His Das Kapital is an overview of the economic theories that took place at that time. Look at volume 4, where he collected the material, but did not have time to complete it. It's been a long time. Something is forgotten, something is lost. But the essence of such a phenomenon as capitalism has not changed. Only some corners have become sharper, and others have grown fat and do not stick out so much. It is not without reason that another well-known political journalist, a follower of Marx, singled out imperialism as the last stage of capitalism. By the way, no one refuted this conclusion either. Maybe the terminology has changed over the years. These are social sciences. They change simultaneously with the society, the object of their consideration. This is not physics, where matter is not deep enough, as physicists understand it. Dialectic, however!
some may have tried to reject Marx's theory of surplus value, but that's why it's a theory.
But, practice-its main law that capital(ist) will commit a crime for its own profit, confirms it completely.
Corruption rules the ball everywhere and everywhere.
The only way to destroy it is to deprive the capitalist of the right to own the means of production. apparently, this theory does not differ from practice.
It is impossible to refute it, because there are no conclusions. There is not a single conclusion in “Capital”that can be used to improve the functioning of the system that was studied in this work, called capitalist. The conclusion was made in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” – this system cannot be repaired, it must be destroyed. In this work, there is not a single conclusion that can be used to build a new economy. Therefore, this work is only three volumes of scientology.
No, I didn't refute it, because you can't refute the TRUTH, just as you can't refute the fact that two times two equals four in the decimal system. And those who try to refute this truth are cheaters and scammers.
Suha, my friend, theory is everywhere, and the tree of life is luxuriantly green. There is no economy, only the deliberate manipulation of commodity-money relations by a certain group of people in the world. I would call them evaluators.
No, no one has refuted it yet, moreover, most of us, to the best of our abilities, participate in creating surplus value in our workplaces. Surplus value is expressed in very different ways, but most often in the high remuneration of our managers. Part of the surplus value goes to the expansion or modernization of production. Some part settles in banks and offshore companies, the other part goes to the maintenance of country villas, dachas and mistresses. Private planes, yachts and motor vehicles are another very attractive appearance of this substance. And corruption? Alas, gentlemen, no one wants to spend their money on these disgusting bribes and bribing officials. On the other hand, surplus value is our unpaid labor, our low salaries, and our unpaid bonuses. It was for the sake of increasing the surplus value of production that the largest corporations began to open in Southeast Asia and South America at the end of the twentieth century and, often, leave the United States and Europe. With this particular tool of production in mind, our citizens open their own businesses, sometimes risking their property and savings. So, gentlemen, surplus value is no longer a theory, but a fact of our life, such as entropy or gravity. But surplus value is not only a tool of the entrepreneur (like the banker's interest rate), but also a measure of his decency in relation to the employees he employs and an indicator of his enterprise in relations with competitors. Thus, surplus value is the quintessence of capitalism, it is what creates CAPITAL.
Regarding the comments that supposedly surplus value does not exist . And what do you call the profit over the cost price? If I bake bread that costs me 15 rubles per piece , and sell for 30, and what is it called?
No, because Marx's labor theory consists of two parts, which few people think about at all.
The first well-known one from the seller is T-D-T”, everything is clear here you sell goods more expensive , you can still produce goods of higher value.
But there is also the second part of D-T-D” , this is actually the dialectic, the same product, but from the buyer's side.
You get paid , you buy a product, and you get paid again ( for work).
Actually, the combination of these two formulas shows the balance of production and consumption of goods.However, it is important to understand that these formulas work simultaneously.
Any distortion of the equilibrium of these formulas, which inevitably arise as a result of production, and lead to all sorts of crises.
In the initial formula of his commodity-money-commodity theory, Marx, as the hireling and maintenance man of a large bank capital, allowed deliberate forgery, exposing the entrepreneur-producer as the main exploiter. Whereas, the real formula credit-commodity-credit, immediately indicates the final beneficiary and the main exploiter-bank capital. And the conflict provoked by Marx, between the more and less exploited classes, did the bankers good.
In my opinion, Marx's theory of surplus value cannot be refuted as 2X2=4. Because the surplus value of a commodity is created by all labor, that is, under any structure of society. The question is how this surplus value is distributed-either to all workers according to their labor, or skewed to the owner's pocket. Through the distribution of surplus value, Marx revealed the main essence of private production – the exploitation of wage labor. And the price of goods should not be confused with labor costs for its production, it is determined by demand.
Dear author,
You shouldn't be going into the wilderness like that.You view Marx's writings through the lens of today.But if Marx had written them today,he would have written them differently.I want to say that the works of Karl Marx are a lump of their time. The question is different.Why the manufacturer gets rich,but the worker gets fat with hunger.Yes, because he, a worker, is not paid extra,they take away the money he earns. It is this contradiction that permeates Marx's work. And you're telling us all about advertising, marketing, and salesmanship. And where does this money go ? For the benefit of society ? No. They, this selected money, go to enrich the manufacturer. And that's not fair.This is what Marx's writings are about. And if this is unfair, then the worker will try to correct it as soon as the opportunity arises. That's all the Capital.You are somewhat cunningly manipulating – they say that if the theory of surplus value is refuted, then all the works of Marx are wrong.But this is not the case at all.
Look at how many years have passed, how they try to refute it out of their skin,but everything does not work out. So it's a pretty solid theory. Capital !
When we were teaching scientific communism, it was called the law of value in our classes. It revealed the essence of capitalist exploitation.
Price = Cost + Profit;
Profit=Unpaid Work Of The Employee.
The capitalist underpays the employee, but takes the money for himself. It is pointless to refute this, just some people have forgotten, others are too shy to remember. Unpaid salaries are now called business.
I don't know, but the bourgeoisie, they cheat and rob the workers every day. Marx was for the workers and peasants, and in this he is right forever. And if there are errors in his theory (which happens in any useful theory), then they must be found and corrected. To understand that there is a robbery going on, you don't need to have a theory, you can just work in workshops and in the fields. The rest of the froth of brands, marketing, and capitalization rests on the deception, ignorance, and violence of the ruling class.
all this capital is complete nonsense and refuted by life . in more than one country in the world, communism did not lead to the happiness of the people . always communism – slavery and poverty
no.there are already neo-Marxists, and all of them are not from Russia.The theory is supplemented and expanded taking into account scientific and technological progress and globalization.No one can refute the essence, as long as the main value of life is time
Does anyone deny it at all? Whether it's retail, product margins, or the desire of companies to monopolize – all of this is missing? Exactly like the stratification of society/social inequality, as a result of which a huge part of the benefits belongs to a small number of people… is this also missing?
If not bragging, then I wrote the universal formula for evolution (economic, social, technical, technological, demographic, biological) back in 1988, at the end of the Soviet Union. This formula includes, as a special case, Marx's theory.
There were attempts. However, all working-class theories, without exception, directly or indirectly use the theory of surplus value (even such as the economic applications of game theory). A further development of Marx's theory was the Leontief matrix (Intersectoral Balance). Another thing is the conclusion made by Marx that European capitalism will become obsolete as soon as expansion into new markets ceases. In addition, Marx identified a special type-the Eastern mode of production, which “does not fit” into the framework of standard capitalism.
It's a bad question, and the answers are often even worse! And what, and who does not understand that the entire chain from the producer to the final seller sits only on the fact that the initial ( consider purchasing) value turns ( with an increase) into the final price, at which everyone HAS the same surplus value. On this and live and live. Otherwise ( at a loss to your beloved!) no one moved a finger. Someone else ( well, very smart and advanced!) trying to denounce Marx and his theory of surplus value ( which is what capitalism is based on!)
No. No one can refute this theory of Marx, because it reveals the fundamental principle of capitalism – the appropriation by capital of surplus value, which is part of the unpaid labor of workers. Without this, capitalism cannot exist. And all attempts to refute the theory of surplus value are either the stupidity or lies of the lackeys of capital
This theory, described by Marx, was simply outdated and no one was going to refute it. Marx describes surplus value as unpaid labor, in excess of the value of labor power that is appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist.Never having worked( Engels supported him), he had no idea about the problems of an entrepreneur. Without working himself, he knows nothing about the taxes that the capitalist pays to the state and its organs. In developed countries. in some countries, it collectively reaches 70%. Today, at the expense of this money, there is medicine, social services. insurance, maintenance of the poor( in the US, 30% of African families). , army, pension provision, and so on. Today, Marx's works are so outdated that no one considers them except for primitive Marxist trends.
The theory is correct, but it should be slightly modified. What is called surplus value is rent on property. Rent arises when another person uses the property. In monetary terms, this is the difference between the cost of protecting property by the state and the cost of the owner himself.
The theory of surplus value is correct. Even when robots will work everywhere, they will first have the work of living people, and then still the work of engineers and specialists. In this case, the theory is distorted by the fact that for such industrial power there is no object of application on Earth, so in the future, a negligible part of the population will be engaged in productive work. It creates the illusion that profit is made only by investment, without living labor. But if you go out into Space with unlimited resources and production volumes , the classical theory of surplus value will once again be indisputable. That is, today this theory outwardly stops working only because of the achievement of the earth's limit of economic growth.
.
This is not Marx's mistake. The mistake is that he postulated workers ' self-government. Self-government did not work out, it turned out to be a tyrannical regime. Why? Marx believed that the workers would work just as well as for the capitalist. We add the advantages of a planned economy, minus military spending and parasitic consumption – we get the economic superiority of communism over capitalism. In fact, neither the top “workers” – leaders and the state apparatus, nor ordinary hard workers showed any effective work. Especially the higher ones… genetics, cybernetics… And how many smaller-caliber punctures there were. As a result, the lack of natural incentives to work had to be replaced by state coercion.
.
Therefore, the theory of surplus value is correct, and the political conclusions drawn from it are not correct.
What do I foresee? In the organization of production, we cannot escape capitalism. Production will be capitalist. But the immensely inflated consumption can only be restrained by socialist distribution. Therefore, the distribution will be socialist. And those who want to have more than a minimum ration of food, treatment, entertainment, they must climb up, strain and learn, compete and create.
.
Is it reasonable to contain ballast? If they are your people, then yes. This is a reserve of genes, insurance against degeneration. This is a national culture. It is a constant source of capable and ambitious people.
In short, failed people are also needed. At least as a scarecrow and breathing in the back competitors for the beaten up. But, as the revolt in the United States shows, they still need to be occupied with some semblance of meaningful activity.
All the writings of Karl Marx, nothing more than near-scientific gibberish, the whole provocative plan of which is to push all of humanity into a class confrontation.
Introduced by Marx for exploitative economic formations, it is irrefutable. A, for the socialist – there is another concept-surplus product.
Surplus value is related to the relations of exchange of goods with the participation of the monetary equivalent in a situation where labor power also acts as a commodity.
The surplus product expresses the measure of the social fund of consumption, and labor power as a commodity appears only in the form of the wages of the worker in a socialist enterprise.
Not being an expert in economic theory, I can only express my opinion.
Perhaps all the representatives of the entrepreneurial class were aware of the existence of a certain surplus between the labor spent and the work done. Ricardo spoke with complete certainty about its mandatory availability. Marx essentially only explained the exploitative, predatory nature of ” entrepreneurial income.”
He investigated its genesis, form of receipt and distribution among the organizers of ” business.”And, in my opinion, deliberately confused the whole picture. From my point of view, the long-term extraction of surplus product in favor of individual, advanced enterprising individuals is impossible without the presence of state or pseudo-state institutions. I.e., this requires the presence of power, as a system of violence, separated from the individual, first of all from the individual worker who produces the surplus product. For example, we can point out the existence in primitive, communal societies of all kinds of male military and paramilitary mystical orders and secret obshchesv whose task in general is to seize and maintain power in the tribe and state. Creation of modern international companies ' own armies and departments that duplicate the tasks of state and national institutions-in the same line.
The amount of surplus product taken from the employee has always been regulated and regulated by the government, regardless of its form and origin. She also distributes it. Ultimately, the correlation between what was withdrawn and what was left of the employee, as well as the distribution of what was withdrawn, depends on the independence of the government from society, its “strength” and the ability in one way or another to dampen the discontent of the producing, tax-paying segments of the population.
The symbiote of the state and the private owner that exists in modern society has placed the extraction of surplus product on a scientific, systematic basis. The goal is to increase the profit received, increase the profitability of a particular sector of the economy. There are plenty of examples. This is also a company with ozone holes and global warming, as a result of which humanity has thrown away more than two trillion dollars. But chemical corporations received over $ 200bn in net profit. Yes, twice so much put in the pocket of state officials. Military company in the Middle East: the negligible cost of oil production is offset many times over by the huge government costs of maintaining peace through military means.
The main difficulty for entrepreneurs to make super-profits is not in obtaining an additional surplus product, but in redistributing it in their own favor. It is no secret that the surplus value in the pillar of the US capital economy, as a result of the bloody uncompromising struggle of all employees, is distributed as 6 to 4 in favor of employees. And after the second redistribution, the ratio is even: 6 to 4 in favor of the entrepreneur.
The main claims against Marx were made and are still being made in the field of calculating the ratio of the cost of labor, depending on the level of qualification of the employee. This is probably his weakest point. The idea of mental labor as multiplied simple, physical, especially in the field of calculating multiplication coefficients, he could not quite logically justify. However, history has shown that this phenomenon takes place. Mental work, properly organized and stimulated, is indeed many times more productive than physical work. It also generates a large share of surplus value. But the predominance of intellectual labor objectively undermines the foundations of the existence of modern human society, as a society that is essentially a crowd-elite society. Hence the desire to restrain the spread of higher education among the mass of the population, both directly and by profaning it, what Lenin called obrazovschina.
I'll make a conclusion:
– a person, labor, society, surplus product is a system that has always existed and will continue to exist forever;
– surplus value is a transitory, temporary form of surplus product;
“ispolzovanie service of her Majesty exchange value” in modern society is becoming more complicated, artificially drawn, that society is reborn into socialism(but not Marx, who built more than 70years);
-as humanity remains the technological basis of(large-scale machine production at the ever-increasing shortage of resources) comparison in terms of cost and usage for this market mechanisms inevitably, i.e. it will be the dominant form exist, all the same capitalism as the most suited for the extraction of surplus value.
I am a progressive person, so I trust science, and it gives such a highly eloquent answer to the question posed: in the foyer of the economics department, whether at Cambridge or Oxford University, there are only portraits of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, there is enough room for refuters of the “theory of surplus value”, it's a small matter – to achieve recognition not in tabloid publics, but in academic circles!!! In Russia, capitalism has an exceptionally hypertrophied appearance, precisely because of the desire to grab astronomically unjustified surplus value (navar, kalym, margin) the next day after the enterprise establishment, while in countries with a centuries-old bourgeois history, “exploiters” have long performed a social function, successfully helping the state, whose profits fluctuate on the verge of profitability, and huge capitals are earned through breakthrough technologies, and not by pulling the veins out of their own fellow citizens!!!
No, Marx has found a foundation that no one can change. And you can dance from it as you like. For example, under production today, many people consider the assignment of goods (at the price that they received) and the accrual of interest for resale. Previously, this was punishable by law, but now it is the basis of our economy. Therefore, cheap goods in stores vary in price at times
Nobel Laureate (2017) Richard Thaler explained the assessment of added value by the irrationality of consumers. He threw Marxism into the dustbin
I didn't refute it, but I used it and added it. Please see the book “ECONOMICS from the point of view of a physicist” on the website http://praksism.info/ . Using the methods of natural sciences, the author came to the conclusions of Marxism – in some introductory cases, and to the conclusions of the theory of marginal utility – in others.
Those who want to refute the theory of surplus value have always been and will always be, but such a goal is not achievable…
As for the labor theory of value, it is an old childish mistake to confuse value and price. The price is determined by the balance of preferences of two people: the buyer and the seller. This is the enduring value of the market (where this balance is achieved, ideally, of course). So, the cost of labor, the price, conditionally, from the market, and also the mechanism of correlation of these two entities (quantities) that is objectively formed in society.
It is not a question of whether Marx's theory of surplus value is correct or not. The economy of the future should be based primarily on energy redundancy (overproduction). When, for example, the efficiency of the same aircraft is no longer crucial and you can fly at hypersonic speed, and during construction you can use quadrocopters instead of a crane. Market mechanisms in overproduction do not work and will fade into the background, along with the theory of surplus value. Since Tsiolkovsky still associated the development of civilization with energy, it is difficult to understand the silence of the Communists.
No, Karl Marx said: “labor is the source of all wealth and all culture” By labor, Marx meant precisely productive labor, as a source of surplus value. for example, he did not consider, for example, the work of drawing paintings by painters. In our time, he would not consider show business, the work of makeup artists, etc. difficult.. Marx considered the” labor ” of stock market speculators, such as his friend, colleague, and sponsor Friedrich Engels, to be only a form of redistribution of surplus value.
Whether there is life on Mars, whether there is no life on Mars-even scientists do not know this-said the Lecturer from “Carnoval Night” Do not break spears about surplus value. Here I know for example that the cost of 1 liter of alcohol in the USSR was a penny, and a liter of vodka cost 3.62+3.62 or 4.12+4.12! So IT was, is, and will continue to be even under communism, otherwise what shishas will production develop for, pay taxes (and what about without them:army, science, healthcare, education, other non-productive sectors of the economy, roads, rivers, ponds and lakes, forests, space flights, etc.) Here I personally, having grown strawberries, will sell them much more expensive than I spent-this will be surplus value, without any philosophical casuistry.
To begin with, Marx has no theory. Any theory begins with the definition of terms. You will not find in Marx a definition of “surplus value, “” consumer value,”” exchange value,”or simply” value.” Although already in the first chapter of Capital, he juggles them like a magician.
If you look at what he writes from the point of view of formal logic, then Marx's “theory” is just a collection of crackling phrases unrelated to the meaning.
That is why it is so popular with “pique vests” – you can pretend that you understand something, say “smart” words…
And you can even “challenge”, argue with your opponent.
But there's really nothing to argue about. There is no theory as such.
There are mantras repeated many times. Everyone perceives them in their own way and believes in what they have come up with for themselves.
Marx's theory is a plagiarism of Biblical usury, the secular execution of which is a predatory bank loan interest.
If we dig even deeper, we will unearth the natural needs of any living organism, including humans as animals: food, sex, defense and dominance in the first three – the best food, the best partner, the best home. They are dictated by the instinct of self-preservation, first as in an animal, and then, after the appearance in a highly developed animal-a humanoid-of such qualities as conscience, justice, a sense of proportion, reasonable sufficiency, etc. – as in a reasonable, active, humane, spiritual person.
Man is material, and like any matter consists of their material and field principles. Materialism and Marxism-Leninism prevail in the material beginning, while Spirituality, the moral code, and the rational sufficiency characteristic of a community living in harmony, harmony, and love prevail in the field beginning.
Dialectically speaking, Marxism and love are two sides of the same coin. If there is no measure, balance, or harmony between Marxism and love, then society falls into fascism and Satanism. The highest sin of a person as a carrier of material-field categories is greed, envy, lies and pride. Marx did not catch up with the essence of spiritual man when he called religion the opium of the people. This is his ideological terrorist attack-a global level of significance, which cost the lives of many millions of lives. But, for all sorts of revolutions and evolutions, you have to pay…
The labor theory of value is not exactly wrong, but rather incomplete. The question is discussed in more detail in the article “History of the analysis of the theory of the price of production by K. Marx in economic literature (1894-1957)” Communists, of course, do not read anything except their “correct, because correct” books, so quote from the study: “The results obtained in the works of Bortkiewicz-Winternitz-Seton turned out to be discouraging, because they showed that the system of price equations can include only one of Marx's macroconditions, and it does not matter which one. Consequently, the other macro condition will not be met, which casts doubt on the entire transformation procedure proposed by Marx. Indeed, if the sum of values is not equal to the sum of prices, then this means that at least part of the value of goods available in the economy did not arise as a result of the redistribution of value and is not of a value nature. The latter raises questions about the meaning of using the category of value in economic analysis.
Failure to meet Marx's other macro-condition-equality between total profit and total surplus value-will indicate that profit has an unearned source. Such a result would contradict the Marxist theory of surplus value. In any choice of the invariance condition, we will have to sacrifice one of the essential components of Marx's doctrine.
The conclusions obtained by the researchers and summarized by Seton were a dividing line in the study of the problem of converting labor values into production prices. Throughout the entire period under review, from the publication of volume III of Das Kapital in 1894 to the publication of Seton's article in 1957, researchers ' efforts were aimed at reconstructing the mechanism of converting values into prices as accurately as possible, without changing the meaning and meaning of Marx's concepts and concepts. Scientists have tried to understand whether the mechanism of transformation exists in the form in which it was formulated by Marx. A positive result would mean that Marx's theory can be developed based on the original Marxian concepts and concepts. However, the result was negative. The latter meant that a radical rethinking of the fundamentals of the theory was necessary.
No, this theory cannot be refuted: it reveals the internal (essential) contradiction of the capitalist way of organizing society. This is a contradiction between the social nature of the production of goods and services and the private form of appropriation of profit resulting from this production. In the social sphere, this is a contradiction between labor and capital.
Such a contradiction can only be resolved by abolishing private property, which is the basis of the capitalist mode of production, and moving to social appropriation and distribution of the product (profit) on the basis of public ownership of the means of production. This type of society is a socialist one.
Do religious dogmas require refutation? Marx's religious teaching is omnipotent, because it is religious.
The surplus product is an artificial, stilted construction of Marx, invented only to justify the dogma of the coming proletarian violent revolution.
Engels (from The Revolution in Hungary): “In the next world War, not only reactionary classes and dynasties will DISAPPEAR from the face of the earth, but ENTIRE REACTIONARY PEOPLES WILL ALSO DISAPPEAR. AND THIS WILL ALSO BE PROGRESS.”
Engels (from the article “Democratic Pan-Slavism”): “To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood addressed to us on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply : HATRED OF THE RUSSIANS was and still is the FIRST REVOLUTIONARY PASSION of the Germans ; since the revolution, hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to this, and only by means of the MOST RESOLUTE TERRORISM AGAINST THESE SLAVIC PEOPLES can we, together with the Poles and Magyars, We now KNOW WHERE THE ENEMIES OF THE REVOLUTION ARE CONCENTRATED : IN RUSSIA and in THE Slavic regions of Austria; AND NO PHRASES OR REFERENCES TO THE UNCERTAIN DEMOCRATIC FUTURE OF THESE COUNTRIES WILL PREVENT US FROM TREATING OUR ENEMIES AS ENEMIES.”
Marx (from the work “Exposing the diplomatic History of the XVIII century”): “Muscovy was brought up and raised in a terrible and vile school of Mongol slavery. It was only strengthened by becoming a virtuosa in the art of slavery. Even after its liberation, Muscovy continued to play its traditional role of slave-turned-master. Subsequently, Peter the Great combined the political skills of the Mongol slave with the proud aspirations of the Mongol ruler, whom Genghis Khan bequeathed to carry out his plan to conquer the world… Just as it did with the Golden Horde, Russia is now doing business with the West. To become the ruler of the Mongols, Muscovy had to be Tartarized. To become the master of the West, it must become civilized… remaining a Slave, that is, giving the Russians that external touch of civilization that would prepare them for the perception of the technology of Western peoples, without infecting them with the ideas of the latter”
Engels (C) 1866 : “As for Russia, it can only be mentioned as the owner of an enormous amount of stolen property, which it will have to give back on the day of reckoning”
Engels (on Napoleon's march on Moscow in 1812) : “Cossacks, Bashkirs and other robber rabble defeated the republic, the heiress of the Great French Revolution.”
Surplus value is the unpaid labor of the worker with the automation of production, there will be nothing to appropriate, hence socialism is inevitable! Until today, absolutely no one in the whole world has refuted the scientific theory of the genius Karl Marx 100 times!!! Stalin saved humanity from slavery by defeating the fascist exploiters, and yet Stalin misunderstood Lenin how the Communist Party should be organized (((this is the reason why the Communist Party turned out to be, for example. in our country 19000000 all sorts of Chubais and what could they do good???))) in which society can develop only and only in geometric progression!!! To this day, everywhere and everywhere the so-called Communist Parties are nothing but a first disaster for the development of all the peoples of the world. Everywhere and everywhere in all countries the Communist parties must be organized EXACTLY STRICTLY as Lenin teaches!!! So all of humanity will finally begin to live, and not survive forever. Under socialism, socially useful work is inexhaustible for any number of people on our beautiful planet Earth! but this automation throws the capitalist system right into the dustbin of history! But at what price? – so far, it's clearly seen as shitty, to put it mildly.
I refuted, the added value is the accumulation of trust, and not the appropriation of someone else's labor, if you lose trust, then there is a loss of capital, no matter how you assign someone else's labor, in general, property is a constant vote of society that something should belong exclusively to you
All Marxism is based on simple sophistry. He says: the capitalist buys the raw materials and labor of the worker, and the result is a commodity. But he sells it for more than the sum of the costs of raw materials and labor. So he doesn't pay the worker extra.
This sophism is based on the fact that any product has a certain definite, objective value. But this is not the case. The value of goods is given by people, and since all people are different, they evaluate goods differently. It is thanks to this that a mutually beneficial exchange becomes possible. For example, if you exchange an apartment for an “equivalent” one (as they say in ads), but this does not mean that you want to get an apartment of the same value as you give it away – this is pointless! You want to move to an apartment that is closer to work, to your parents, to the forest, lake, etc. For you, this apartment is more valuable than the one you give away. So does the person you change with. As a result, each of you receives an apartment of greater value than you give away.
It's the same with the worker. The capitalist builds a factory, buys equipment, and organizes production. And hires a worker to perform simple technological operations. Since they are simple, the worker does not appreciate them very much, and since the capitalist offers him a good payment for this, he considers such a transaction profitable and agrees. And where else can he get such a payment for a simple job? The capitalist agrees to this deal, because if he pays the worker's salary, he will earn even more. So this deal is beneficial for both. Then what the hell is Marx doing here if everyone is happy?
And you don't need to refute it. It wasn't Marx's idea, but Adam Smith's. As a tool for solving specific tactical tasks of the manufacturer. As a strategic method, it is unacceptable, since it does not have a zero reference point. But the Bolsheviks and proletarians were completely illiterate in economics.
The key idea of Marx is that surplus value is produced exclusively by the worker, and the capitalist only appropriates it (part of it). This is the whole “theory”. That is, the fact that the capitalist makes a profit and gives the worker “only a salary” – this fact Marx considers exploitation, and hence all his other ideas. The paradox is that, on the one hand, there is not much to refute here, since it is obvious stupidity. On the other hand, this stupidity somehow still catches the audience.
The simple fact is that not a single Marxist economist has ever received the Nobel Prize. This is how the scientific community has evaluated this theory, including the theory of surplus value. It is also legally untenable: you can not assign what belongs to no one. More precisely, it cannot be a crime for which it is necessary and possible to destroy an entire class. In fact, the source of profit is the knowledge and foresight of the entrepreneur. It is the workers who live at his expense.
Yes, Karl Marx's theory of surplus value has been refuted.
We present this refutation here.
Karl Marx took up the development of his theory, intervening in the dispute between different theorists on the question: where — in production or in exchange? — there is an increase in the cost of the product in comparison with the amount of costs for its receipt.
They say, is this increase due to the active merchant, who creates profit through non-equivalent exchange, or is it due to the producer, who has increased the value of goods within his production?
Marx replies that value is created in production, and by labor at that, but in exchange value only manifests itself.
This response contains two errors at once.
First mistake: the very immersion in this argument is a mistake: Marx does not notice the falsity of the question. It does not take into account the fact that the increase in value does not arise and is not created either in exchange or in production — it precedes both of them as the cause that generates them.
Really.
What drives merchants to exchange and producers to produce?
The answer is obvious: the reason for both is the objective difference in the cost of purchased factors and goods sold, which is revealed before making decisions about the exchange or the start of production.
In other words, the increase in value is detected (or recognized) by the merchant, manufacturer, or business designer as a fact of reality. (including the projected reality), on which you can make a profit if you manage to squeeze your costs into the difference in the cost of costs and results set by the market.
That is, neither exchange nor production is the cause of an increase in value, but, on the contrary, an increase in value is the cause preceding the acts of exchange or production and, consequently, giving rise to these acts!
In other words, the nature of value does not lie in production or exchange, but on the side of the cause that precedes and gives rise to both production and exchange.
Marx's second mistake: choosing one of the disputing parties as his ideological position.
Marx chose production, and within it he chose labor, and not human labor in general, but the labor of an employee.
But the employee does not produce value, but only costs.
The goal-setting of these costs does not belong to him, but to the capitalist, who daily solves the problem of how to squeeze the cost of producing a commodity into the value gain set in advance by the market.
The market is a space in which the permitted value increases dictated to both producers and merchants are objectively positioned. The limits of these permitted increments are identified and used by them.
The nature of the increase in value lies in the objective goals of the economy, which are the cause that generates both production and exchange. These goals are limited to the reproduction of people in the format of specific cultures.
With the upheavals in these cultures, all the differences in value in the market are also overturned, sending entire sectors of the economy into oblivion.
By discussing the surplus value allegedly squeezed out of the workers by the capitalists, Marx betrays the class roots of his teaching — the illusions of the administration of capitalist enterprises.
The truth is that it is not labor that creates an increase in value and surplus value, but, on the contrary, an increase in value generates labor – forces it to be realized, and moreover in the most expedient form. Labor, on the other hand, does not generate value, but only costs that must be squeezed into pre-set values.
From the outset, the obvious conclusion is that of all the types of labor in capitalist enterprises, only one makes a profit – the labor of the administration, which buys, regulates and controls labor, restricts the working conditions of workers and haggles for the prices of the purchased factors of production.
Further. When Marx asserts that commodities are all “crystallizations” of abstract labor measured by time, he rejects the fact that the labor of the cotton grower, weaver, tailor, etc., which he identifies as the substance of the value of commodities, is not the labor of proletarians at all, but of specialized private traders who bring their products to market.
Private labor is the unity of mental and physical labor, that is, free labor-for oneself, as the owner, and hired labor – not for oneself, but for the owner.
Turning to the consideration of the “production of value” within enterprises, Marx makes a logical substitution: instead of the labor of private owners (cotton growers, weavers, tailors, etc.), which he declares to be the substance of value, Marx further considers the labor of hired workers only.
This substitution adds to the incorrectness of the “production of value” thesis.
No matter how much labor is invested in the production of a product, the product can have zero value, for example, due to the excess of its quantity.
Further. A whole layer of fundamental errors was made by Marx in his judgments about the equivalence of exchanges in the market and conclusions drawn from them.
He does not examine the equivalence of exchanges thesis, but only uses it to enter into arguments about the “production of value” by labor. They say that to understand how it increases in production, let's assume that the exchanges are equivalent — then, of course, there is no place to increase value except in production.
At the same time, Marx is captivated by the idea that equivalence precedes exchange, that there is a substance that makes goods comparable, and that the question of the production of this substance (value) is correct.
But the real dialectic is that exchange, as an impulse of motion, is possible only by virtue of the presence of a difference in certain potentials that cause this impulse.
That is, an exchange occurs only if it is an exchange of non-equivalents.
None of the parties to the transaction, if both parties are sane and independent in their decisions, will not go to the exchange, if this exchange does not give her a win, or at least does not relieve her of some burden.
It is precisely the non-equivalence that each side recognizes in its own favor, and only the non-equivalence, that is the cause and condition of the exchange.
It is precisely because of the non-equivalence of the exchange, with its mutual good faith, that both parties benefit. Society as a whole benefits doubly from such an exchange: correct statistics will show the real increase in the national wealth of society, as the sum of the increases in the wealth of both participants in the transaction: each gave less valuable, received more valuable.
But Marx does not see the real increase in social wealth from exchange and shifts his attention to the interior of enterprises, generating voluminous volumes of reasoning about the production of value and surplus value there.
These volumes of reasoning are built on the assumption that exchanges in the market are exchanges of equivalents, so that there is no place for value to grow except in production.
But Marx never examines either this assumption or the genesis of the facts of equivalence of exchange. It simply assumes that the reason for the comparability of goods in exchanges is the “crystallized” labor in them.
It turns out that both the theory of value and the theory of surplus value are based on the fictional phenomenon of “equivalence” of exchanges.
These theories are presented by Marxists as a theoretical bomb in the hands of the revolutionary movement. The most amazing thing is the fact that this bomb actually worked and put under the Marxist banner, in the 20th century, a third of the world's population!
Why did this “bomb” go off? Yes, because Marxism expressed the ideology of a really powerful class in capitalist society – not the proletariat, but the class that commands the proletariat on a daily basis, considers it its resource, dreams of centralized accounting, control and planning, and seeks to impose its dreams on all mankind.
It was Marx's theoretical errors, including the false theory of value and the theory of surplus value derived from it, which formed the basis for the methodology of planning the national economy of the USSR, that programmed the collapse of the USSR.
This collapse could have been avoided if Marxism had been applied not as a dogma, but as Stalin and Beria used it.
Unfortunately, Stalin and Beria were killed, narrow-minded people like Khrushchev came to power, the leadership of the USSR lost its ideological core and led it to collapse.
A refutation of Marx's theory of value is given in section 3 of the Manifesto of the Renewed USSR. (Click on the link).
As for the theory of surplus value, I will give its refutation in a publication with a preliminary title.”What is profit and why is it destructive for any economy?”
Subscribe to the channelRussian Global Project and keep up to date with publications on this topic.
The Soviet Union denied it. The state was socialist, that is, not capitalist at all, and all goods were sold to the people not at cost, but above. That is, the exploitation of labor took place, although the system was not capitalist.
It is not entirely clear what exactly needs to be refuted. The vast majority of Marx's apologists present the Theory of Surplus Value in this spirit : the capitalist sold so many goods at such and such a price and received such and such an income. At the same time, he spent so much on the workers ' wage fund. Everything that is the difference between his income and the social security fund is usually presented as surplus value. You might think that in addition to the payroll fund, there are no other costs at the enterprise and there is no need to pay taxes or update fixed assets.
Marx did not have a “theory of surplus value” (there were several theories explaining value and surplus value, and Marx argued with them). Marx has the so-called ” labor theory of value “and, accordingly, as a derivative -” labor theory of surplus value “(although the latter name is usually not used, and Marx also spoke only of the”labor theory of value”). It is based on sophistical subterfuges, for which Marx introduces the concepts of ” concrete labor “and” abstract labor “and the division between them in relation to the role in”value creation”. But the main core of sophism (and the whole theory) Marx had a logically incorrect separation of” value “(the basis of the price of a commodity) from” use value “(the” utility ” of a commodity). From the fact that an equally useful piece of bread (which has an unchangeable “use value”) can be expensive today and cheap tomorrow, Marx draws the completely unjustified logical conclusion that value has nothing to do with use value. As a result, this leads to many absurdities (such as the need to assert that the more mechanized and automated the work of a worker is, the more this worker is “exploited”). Marx's followers tried to forget about such absurd consequences of the” labor theory “as soon as possible, turning the conversation to all sorts of” ulcers of capitalism”,” social injustice”, etc.This has nothing to do with scientific understanding, but it was very useful for remaking an erroneous theory into an” ideology ” and achieving certain goals. By the way, if anyone really wants to read a logical critique of Marxist views and a serious alternative theory (in which the laws of economics are considered in relation to the laws of biological evolution, and all together – as a manifestation of the fundamental laws of physics), there is a book “Soviet super-ochlocracy and post-Soviet ochlocracy”. It has been freely available on the site since last year https://sites.google.com/site/avluslogos/
And more than once.
The development of society has confirmed the entire falsity of the Marxist theory.
By the way, Marx himself recognized that the construction of communism according to his scheme is impossible in principle and his theory serves simply to deceive the proletariat.
It doesn't represent anything new or valuable. Basics of accounting and tax estimates and calculations of any social system. It has no social meaning, as Marx claimed. The creation of profit is the basis for the existence of any production. How it will be used is an individual issue and is not subject to public discussion. If the revolution in Russia had not been implemented, the whole of Marxism-Leninism would have been nothing new. It incorporated the teachings of its predecessors, the social Economists.The practice of the existence of a new socio – economic formation in Russia has provided a lot of food for scientists around the world, even more than purely Russian ones, bound by all sorts of prohibitions, which prevented the generalization of real experience and its collective discussion.
I can't argue with Max but I can answer that a private entrepreneur is ready to save on everything both in good and bad senses and there are dogmas in life and they should not be distorted they say competition is the engine of progress
What is surplus value? Let's say that an enterprise released a product and spent X rubles on its production. X includes the cost of raw materials, spending on workers ' and staff salaries, etc. Naturally, it does not make sense for an enterprise to sell goods at cost price, and it sets a trade mark-up of Y, selling the goods to intermediaries or directly to buyers at the price of X+Y. This Y is the surplus value. Intermediaries will also not sell the product at the price of X+Y, they will make another surcharge to earn money on the sale of the product.
Marx is an excellent economist who has revealed, from an economic point of view, commodity production and the laws of its development. His vision of the model of development and management of commodity production still confirms his correctness. If only commodity production, its very mechanism, and its production itself are changed, then perhaps the theory of surplus value will be changed. With respect.
The impossible is impossible. There is no alternative to it. Labor creates value. It was not possible to find another source of its origin, such a source does not exist in the nature of things. It is also the labor factor of that part of it that is created in excess of the exchange equivalent of labor – power-surplus value. This background information, what is controversial to announce a contest for different opinions? Where do they come from?
Evgeny Maksimovich Primakov in his book “Years in Big Politics” tried to” correct ” Karl Marx, academician Andrei Sakharov. and behind him, Professor V. D. Popov, in the monograph “The Future of Russia: Transition to a new formation” published this year, believes that the classics are corrected by “convergence” – all their attempts cause laughter. We can see what is happening in the United States and France – after leaving the political and economic scene of the Soviet Union, capitalism began to return very quickly to its primitive state, which once again confirms the correctness of Marx. I share the point of view of Alexander Myasnikov.
According to Marx, surplus value is withdrawn by the capitalist from the workers, which leads to crises of overproduction, since the remaining funds of the workers are not enough to purchase the products they have produced. For example, the workers produced $ 100 worth of oil, but the capitalist has withdrawn $ 50 and, accordingly, the workers can only buy oil with the remaining $ 50. The rest of the oil is superfluous. The workers can't buy it, and the capitalist won't eat that much. Accordingly, it is necessary to expand the sales market, i.e. to fight. And here Marx is doing well. Wars followed with enviable regularity. But the globe is finite. You can no longer expand. The market has become global. And here, according to Marx (or even a little earlier, in the most developed countries), the transition to communism and a planned economy should have taken place. However, this did not happen. At this point Marx was mistaken. The damned capitalists came up with the idea of giving workers loans with which they could buy the remaining oil. Moreover, if the credit burden becomes unbearable, then the bourgeoisie has a “Helicopter Money” project in stock, i.e., simply give the workers the necessary amount for purchasing the goods they produce without charge. It is strange that such simple solutions did not occur to Marx. Probably in his time, money was hoped for by some special property that did not allow them to be distributed so easily to the right and left. Somewhere there was information about the fetishism of money at that time. Capitalism got rid of these prejudices very quickly, unlike the former builders of communism in our country. Thus, I believe that Marx's theory is partially correct (before the formation of the global market), then it is not correct from the word at all.
The labor theory of value asserts that the source of the increase in its value, the main resultant factor of the nation's wealth, is labor. There is no other explanation for the fact that value increases in the process of labor. Because it can't be.
Yes, and immediately. The main source of overexploitation is bank loan interest, the so-called “interest rate”. Henry Ford wrote about this in his book “International Jewry”: “Why does Marx call me an exploiter, but Marx does not consider the banker who takes interest from both me and the worker an exploiter? Is it not because Marx is a Jew himself?” For information, at the end of his life, the bankers ruined the engineer, and the press declared him an anti-Semite.
The capitalist gets what he gets for giving the proletarian access to the material factors of production – this is how Marx puts it. But you can specify: and to non-material! Knowledge, “Guangxi”, permits, certificates, etc.
The right to “deny” the proletarian access to the factors of production is protected by the bourgeois State more strictly than the lives of entire groups of the bourgeois state's population… Operation or: just-nai…lovo! – it's more convenient for someone to call it.)))
No one has refuted and will not refute, firstly, it is impossible; secondly, it is pointless. Where wage labor is exploited, in all cases working time is divided into necessary and surplus, during which the necessary and surplus product are produced, the material equivalent of wages and surplus value – the value of unpaid labor of wage workers.
At least the price of gold is set not by this theory, but by historical agreement. Gold is worth much more than the labor invested in it. Hence the “gold rushes”, where gold is literally lying under your feet. And if we estimate the value of labor in terms of gold, it turns out to be absurd.
Karl Marx's theory of surplus value cannot be refuted, because it is elementary arithmetic. You produce a certain product, having spent a certain amount of A on everything, you have sold the product (or part of the product) for a total amount of B. The difference B=B-A is a profit if B is greater than A, or a loss if A is greater than B. The ratio of profit B to costs A is the efficiency of your enterprise.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted. This is like refuting the law of conservation of energy. But the conclusions that Marx himself and his followers drew are mostly incorrect.
Indeed, if there is no surplus value, that is, everything earned will be given to the worker, then where will the funds for the expansion and development of production, scientific research, and much more come from, without which society cannot not only develop, but even exist normally? That's the first thing. And the second conclusion that Marx drew was that the proletarian revolution was inevitable. However, never in history has a new OEF been created by one of the classes of the old OEF. Revolts of slaves and dependent (serf) peasants could lead at best only to a change of the ruling elite. That's all. This is exactly what happened as a result of the October Revolution in Russia. Surplus value has not disappeared, the relations of production have remained the same, except that the amount of demagoguery about the power of the working people has increased many times over. In reality, the OEF can change only when new classes mature in the depths of the old OEF, and new production relations develop to such an extent that the old ones will strongly interfere with them. But this is possible only at a new level of development of the means of production.
First of all, it is not a theory, but a law of capitalist economy that is studied in leading universities of the world
The point is not profitability, not the amount of surplus value, not the price of the commodity, but how this surplus value is distributed.
The result of this distribution is billionaires and beggars, either “to each according to his work” or “to each according to his needs”.
That is, the surplus value is created by the entire team of the enterprise, including the owner, but the owner divides it, leaving the team exactly as much as they are willing to work for, and takes the rest for himself.
It cannot be refuted. In any case, such a refutation will not have the status of a scientifically recognized one, since now economics is just graphs and formulas, and Marx's theory is all philosophy.
If we talk about the relationship between the worker and the capitalist in Marx's theory, then first of all, Marx argued that the transition in the capitalist economy did not make the ordinary worker more free, but on the contrary, made him even more dependent on the capitalist, since it deprived the employee of ownership of labor tools, and the free labor market is not free for workers, since in fact they have only two
Marx did not consider in his theory free workers – such as lawyers, notaries, doctors, in our time, even those who call themselves freelancers. Because, for him, they were petty bourgeois who were at the stage of transition to capitalists.
And it is precisely the struggle for the transfer of ownership of the instruments of production from the capitalists to the organized groups of working people that will make the latter truly free.
This is precisely the labor theory of Marx, and not the” vulgar Marxism ” to which Andrey Avramenko has descended.
And about life, which every day refutes Marx's theory of value-apparently you either did not read Capital or did not read it carefully, because according to Marx – what you are talking about is Merchant capital – which is based on the formula buy cheaper, sell more expensive, and Marx considered Industrial capital, which creates goods.
Similarly, Marx separated Industrial capital from agriculture, since the land cannot be considered as an instrument of production in its pure form, since it is capable of yielding crops even without the influence of the worker.
So to say that we go shopping and refute Marx's theory every day is like admitting that I haven't read Marx, but I still condemn it.
When reading the work “Critique of Political Economy” (Capital), the theory of value, as well as the theory of surplus value, was not found (in the sense of theory). The hypothesis that value (more precisely, utility), as a product produced by an economic organism, is measured by labor, is not true. Similarly, it has been found that surplus utility (rent according to Petty, surplus value according to Marx) cannot be reduced either to labor (see volume III of Capital, p.346, Selected Works) or to surplus labor.
The produced “utility” (utility is more correct than “cost”) is determined by the product of dimensionless factors, each of which is determined by the ratio of the current value of the factor to its maximum possible value.
Both hypotheses are refuted by my husband in the book “Theoretical economy – the dead end of the class approach”, Moscow, Economics, 2003, which presents the theory of value together with its surplus part, as a product of factors, with appropriate justifications.
At the same time, the THEORY of historical materialism developed by Marx and Engels is indeed a theory according to which feudalism is replaced by capitalism, which is replaced by communism – confirmed by historical events on the example of our country. At the same time, the USSR was dissolved because of the erroneous conclusions of Soviet ECONOMISTS (see the Novosibirsk Manifesto, in which the unprofitability of agriculture is explained by the failure of socialism), who advised Gorbachev in 1983 to replace socialism with capitalism through the privatization of enterprises created by the Soviet people. The spouse explained that the unprofitability of agriculture is observed all over the world and it is explained by farming according to the recommendations of agricultural scientists harmful to fertility.
The engine of progress in all its manifestations is creativity (as a general need and ability of a person), and not money, which is only a means.
“The ghost of communism roamed Europe 500 years ago”, “Communism is possible” there are such articles on the Channel “Haymaker” (Yandex Zen)
Nobody has refuted the theory of surplus value. That is, they tried to refute the ruling communist parties in different countries, but they also failed. For example, the sale of bread at prices below prime cost made agriculture in the USSR unprofitable. The government tried to compensate for the losses by selling vodka made from the same bread, resulting in drinking and degradation of the population. Wherever you throw it, there's a wedge everywhere.
Personally, I've never heard of such a rebuttal, but I made it myself, about twenty years ago, in the early 2000s. I had a paper on this topic: “Working on mistakes” – it was rejected in both Izm magazine and Sovremennik magazine. And the last obvious clerics, idealists-answered me. Briefly expressing a big “Ugh!” to my ideas. The believers proved to have more decency than the materialist socialists. They were rejected out of hand. So it was not I who refuted the theory of surplus value, but scientific and technological progress, the energies of nature harnessed to machines. This dramatically reduced the number of workers and allowed them to increase their wages. The capitalists had to do this not out of humanity, but because of the overproduction crises that followed the NTP due to overstocking of markets. The capitalists then firmly understood that they had to pay the workers enough – so that the turnover was there, goods were bought up and capital grew richer without downtime. I do not know today's statistics for Russia, but in the thirties, Americans had more cars per capita than we have, say in the 70s.
Yes. This is the theory of the optimum of social development (TOR) – – http://www.ros-optimum.ru (view it a week later , with technical updates still in progress). Surplus value arises mainly from the exploitation of knowledge accumulated by mankind (the negentropic effect). A vivid example is automated manufacturing. Profit-materializes surplus value. Both are the result of an unconscious convention, an agreement of many people about the usefulness of a product or service, and they are subject to manipulation, for example, through advertising, creating a deficit, etc. Money is a sign of the usefulness of a person's labor, an imperfect sign, since it is a sign of the value of a person's labor. there is an opportunity to deceive unenlightened people, to take away signs. Exploitation, at all times, was built on ignorance and deception. But there are times when deceivers will deceive themselves. In normal production, where people are employed, both employees and owners are interested in money, and they exchange it. In automated production , there are no employees (or very few), no buyers , and everyone is unemployed. Owners can exchange with the executors of their will, automatic machines, only machine oil…. Who needs them, the capitalists, to be so oiled?.. Marx has long been obsolete. Read the TORAH, I'll bet. Capitalists today are turning into the most backward, illiterate people. I feel sorry for them, but “Dura lex sed lex” — The law is harsh, but it is the law. The elites will be different.
Yes. It is refuted by the theory of the social optimum of development (see fig. http://www.ros-optimum.ru). Surplus value is produced by using (exploiting) the knowledge accumulated by mankind, and, today, to a minimal extent, the physical qualities of a person. This is clearly seen in the example of automated production facilities. This topic should not be confused with the distribution of profit arising from surplus value. It is still extremely unfair today. But the theory of optimal development (TOR), created at the Academy of Philosophy of Economics of Moscow State University, describes a modern model of harmonious development; it is known to the authorities, and, in fact, is already being implemented. Today it is clearly seen that property is not only not sacred, but also not permanently fixed, since the usefulness of human labor for others is sacred, not a ridiculous record on the carrier about the owner, which does not correspond to the laws of nature. The new value of our time is information and knowledge. It has anti-entropic properties and is even essentially divine (Pythagoras et al.). We still don't know how to deal with a new deity, and we run the risk of making another idol out of it – “digitalization”, “artificial intelligence”, “transhumanism”. But THOR-will help you understand and find ways out of the difficulties of time.
No. What would be the point of producing a product and selling it at the cost of its production costs? Without surplus value, neither a market economy (capitalism) nor a planned economy(socialism) can exist.
The discovery of the law of value does not belong to Marx, but to William Petty (1623-1687). Marx “simply” proved that this law does not contradict bourgeois reality, which neither A. Smith nor D. Ricardo could do.
The author's” arguments ” are broken down by Marx's theory, which the author does not know, and therefore claims that the law of value is daily refuted. Everything that is necessary to know in order to understand the validity of the law of value is exhaustively stated by Marx in The Critique of Political Economy, pp. 47-48. (SS, 2nd ed., vol. 13):
1) The Doctrine of wage labor (k.Marx);
2) The Doctrine of Capital (the Study of capital) (K. Marx);
3) The Doctrine of Competition (k.Marx);
4) The doctrine of land rent (k.Marx).
After studying these teachings, the author will be ashamed of his ignorance, trying to “evaluate” the genius of Marx.
Marx borrowed the hypothesis of surplus value from the physiocrats. The failure of the surplus value hypothesis was proved by Abbot Ferdinando Galiani.
Marx borrowed the hypothesis of surplus value from the physiocrats. The failure of the surplus value hypothesis was proved by Abbot Ferdinando Galiani.
It is impossible to refute what is not there.
K. Marx (at least in the published version) has only a clumsy attempt to combine wages with the doctrine of the British moralizers and the labor basis of value. If we assume that labor creates value, and even then not everyone, but only those who produce things, and again not every one – there is a terrible windfall of children's reasoning on the subject of where labor is “kosher” in the sense of creating value, and where it is not-then labor cannot have a price, and therefore wages cannot exist. In the doctrine. But it still exists.
So K. Marx, having accepted without criticism the doctrine of the British imperialists, colonialists-moralizers (and where would he go if he lived in London on British money), and tries to pull an owl on the globe: they say that wages are fictitious, in fact, they sell slave skins on the labor market-I'm sorry, it was he who mixed up the epochs, and I'm just quoting his own scribble-workers ' skins intended for tanning.
The boy's excuse that the candy jumped into his mouth by itself.
As in our country, as in Europe, as in many other countries, VAT – value added tax-is successfully operating in the economy. Is this not a demonstration of the practical efficiency of the principles of Marx's theory?
I don't think so, since I don't know anything about it. In addition, the world lives according to the laws described by Marx in Capital. And many do not even realize that they are slowly going to collapse, although this may be their goal.
If you observe how the capitalist world is currently in a fever, then you have not refuted it. And those harbingers (increased production of weapons and withdrawal from nuclear weapons treaties, etc.) of the coming war, in general, prove that Marx was right, the time has come for the redistribution of markets….
The definition of surplus value cannot be refuted. As in mathematics, one cannot refute any initially established axioms – for example, PARALLEL LINES. Whether they can be used in modern practice is another matter. The answer is NO. I won't even try to explain a modern approach to the problem. The main thing to understand is that today the PRICE is considered only as a tool for adjusting the ratio of supply and demand. Basis of reasoning
the relationship between DESIRES and OPPORTUNITIES. For example, at most, in this market, people need 10 tons of potatoes, and 5 tons are offered. So the relative consumption is exactly 0.5. Or there is one painting by Repin, and the maximum you can sell is 10. Relative consumption, 0.1, Then sellers can manipulate the price to bring demand to supply. So the cost of a product is determined by relative demand. It, in turn, is determined by physical needs, fashion, and advertising. If we investigate further, the price is also limited (when supply exceeds demand-overproduction). In conclusion, we can say that theories are developing and we need to follow and take them into account,
Yes, this is not a theory, but a consequence of the 1st Law of Economics and Ecology “Living things can develop if and only if the cost of acquisition is less than the acquired one, i.e. if its efficiency is >1.0.” can't. How min. you need 700. Will you give it to me?
What did Marx write about ? All 4 volumes of Capital can be reduced to one : make more work, and pay less . Under one pretext or another . No one has refuted this , and no one can …
Marx's theory of surplus value does not exist. There is his hypothesis that ” surplus value is created by surplus labor.” And Marx told us about this on p. 383, Vol. 25, Part II, in item 2 (here the manuscript ends). Since there is no theory, there can be no refutation of it. In volume 4 of Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, Marx criticizes the theories (in fact, hypotheses) of surplus value of various economists, showing in a very witty way that these are not theories.
Meanwhile , a theory has been created, which is tested by practice, about the creation of value in the economic organism (correctly-utility, otherwise confusion). It is created by the interaction (product) of dimensionless factors, each of which represents the ratio of the current value of the factor to its maximum value. Published in the book “Theoretical economy – the dead end of the class approach”, Moscow, Economics, 2003. It is very simply verified in agricultural production. Who created it? My spouse.
Life! Life refutes and confirms Marx every minute.
Surplus value, if without Jewish-Plebeian-proletarian extremism , is the monetary equivalent of that part of the surplus product that a particular society, at a particular stage of its historical development, considers possible to provide for the management of a person or group independent of the state. Surplus product – that part of the whole product of an individual's labor activity, whose monetary equivalent is the difference between the value of the whole product of labor and the value of the labor force necessary for the production of this product, formed in the considered space-time localization.
It is obvious that from the very beginning of the appearance of the surplus product in the history of mankind, as a result of the development of productive forces, the appropriation of the entire volume of production costs by one person occurred only in the form of local exceptions.
In general, there is no theory at all. Surplus value is what the capitalist puts in his pocket without paying the worker extra for the fruits of his labor. Karl Marx saw this as the main injustice-and predicted the collapse of capitalism because of this underpayment. However, the most difficult question is not this, but how to evaluate the organizational activities of capitalists. In any case, collective labor is the responsibility of the capitalist for organizational matters, and the direct creation of the product of labor is the responsibility of the workers. The injustice here is that only the capitalist has the right to distribute profits. And this is already close to slavery in its own way. This is partially corrected by the corporatization of property by all employees of capitalist enterprises. Why partly – because the capitalist still has more money to buy shares. Only the solidarity of workers, but not of one enterprise, but of entire industries, can change this a little.
The meaning of surplus value according to Marx is that only as a result of the labor of an employee creates some profit, which is appropriated by the owner (“Robbing surplus value by the hand caught red-handed” according to Mayakovsky). Capitalists, on the other hand, claimed that their wealth was derived from their enterprise. There's nothing to argue about: both sides are right. If a capitalist gave every penny to an employee without leaving a share of the profit, then why should he organize a business and invest money in it? Equating entrepreneurial talent with the usual work of a manager is also not fair. We have a lot of examples when a talented entrepreneur works wonders using quite ordinary employees.
It is impossible to refute the truth, so none of Marx's subversives have succeeded so far and will not succeed in the future. Brevity is the sister of talent, so you don't need a lot of words.
Yes. Among the most convincing is the theory of optimal social development. The first publications were made in the 80s of the last century – “On the socio-psychological aspects of the production of surplus value”. The work was published at the University of Marxism-Leninism under the Vologda Regional Party Committee. It received the highest rating, but was not intended for popularization. It was noted that the simplified understanding of capitalist exploitation of workers almost reduces it to the use of human physical capabilities. This is clearly not the case, otherwise the surplus product produced by the horse will be greater (if you plow the land, harnessing a person to the plow). It was noted that the main source of surplus value is the anti-entropic qualities of knowledge accumulated by mankind; in this respect, a person is superior to other, physical forces. This is especially evident today, when there are more and more automata factories, and artificial intelligence shows more and more opportunities. Nor is the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat correct. It was also criticized by G. V. Plekhanov. There is a simple, striking contradiction. To give the palm of the highest consciousness to an uneducated person (an indispensable condition of that time, in order to meet the concept of “proletariat”) is strange; it is even more strange if this good person, having received a higher education, ceases to be”advanced”… The theory of the state's demise is also not correct. It is enough to recall the” polity ” of Aristotle. For a detailed description of the theory of the optimal development of society, see http://www.ros-optimum.ru
Marx has a “theory of labor value”, not a” theory of surplus value”
Marx argued in his theory that all the material goods of mankind are created by the physical and mental labor of people. That's why it's called the labor theory of value.
Not only the theory of surplus value, but Marxism in general, was refuted by the Marxists. Not all those who called themselves Marxists, seeking power, were Marxists, but some adventurers believed in Marxism. Salvador Allende was apparently an honest and sincere politician, and it was through Marxism that he led the country to collapse. Lenin, I think, simply believed in his own lies that he was a Marxist. Although this is also an example.
Let's take surplus value as an example of a book.
We have 2 books in the same covers, binding, with the same number of pages.
That is, production costs are the same.
The author of the first one is a little-known author who published it with his own money, with a circulation of 100 copies.
The second book is written by Stephen King (a new novel) and has a circulation of 200,000 copies. Stephen King did not take his fee from the publisher (for some reason unknown to us).
I have a question – how much will the first and second books cost?
From the point of view of the rate of surplus value, it seems that they should cost the same.
Not in real life.
What's the difference?
In the brand value.
Attention question?
Are there any brand concepts in the writings of old Marx?
Or the concept of copyright?
Now the question of the correctness of the theory of surplus value is not entirely correct to put. It already has a much smaller impact on the selling price.
You can also use program replication as an example. There, as such, there is no surplus value in replication at all, moreover, many programs are distributed free of charge. In return, consumers become customers and consume related services or watch ads.
So now it is not quite correct to reduce everything to surplus value.
Marxism has long ceased to be refuted: it's like arguing with a multiplication table. They are actively trying to hush it up. In particular, this activity reached the point that it was necessary to collapse the USSR for this purpose. Marx's theory is the gravedigger of capitalism and the West in general.
No one denied it. Most critics of Marx do not know his theory even in the volume of a 4-hour course. But at the same time, they spend years of their lives refuting Marx . Can I trust people for whom 4 hours is more than a year?
Everything that is created by man is created by his labor (physically or intellectually). Therefore, the theory that explains the value of labor items is based on labor valuation. Another assessment is not valid. And if the value of bread in a bad harvest year is higher than in a year of abundance, then this only indicates the reasonableness of social relations in the country, and not the failure of the theory. In the USSR, bread during the war and after it cost the same. (Of course, as productivity increases, the price drops.) And note that the country hasn't gone broke. On the basis of Marxism, the USSR was built and was great, and in Putin's market the country is in a pipe.
Marx correctly built the theory at the micro level of a separate manufactory, at the level of pre-shipment production, with the division of operations into simplest ones, and the possibility of timing these operations. But for something more complex, this theory no longer works, because it contains a lot of simplifications that generally do not allow applying the theory to economics. This is exactly what the Soviet Union faced, trying to live according to Marxism, and dividing the production and non-production spheres. How, for example, can you evaluate the work of a teacher, doctor, agronomist, or architect, even if they work in the manufacturing sector? Yes, in general, when their work hours are increased, a better product is obtained in larger quantities; but this relationship is not linear at all, it is ambiguous, and it depends much more on other factors than the amount of labor. Remember: in the USSR, there was a cargo transport (which was part of the production sector – and it was relatively good with it) – and a passenger transport, which was part of the non – production sector-and everything was much worse with it. And the reason for this was a typical problem of the entire non-manufacturing sector – the inability to adequately quantify the participation of this sector in total GDP without using a market economy. (A doctor is not a pin flexor on a conveyor belt!) As soon as the state undertook to evaluate the work of everything that did not fit into the standard of factories/collective farms, the result was a Soviet service multiplied by working time. (“Here, fatigue is considered the measure of work”). This was one of the reasons that ruined the country, by the way.
The second problem of Marx's theory is that he immediately denied talents. For him, employees are interchangeable cogs; entrepreneurs are all standard. This is the cost of the time when the employee received the necessary qualifications in the simplest operation in a week or two – but this could no longer be ignored by communism in the twentieth century. Although even in the nineteenth century, there was already an understanding that an entrepreneur is different from an entrepreneur. A clear embodiment of this flaw in Marx's theory was the massive collapse of production after the collapse of the USSR, when most of the privatized (!) industry was closed by the new owners in a couple of years, and entire technological lines were commissioned for chermet. For Marx, having an entrepreneurial margin was exploitation, but in reality it turned out that not everyone can be an entrepreneur, that this requires talent (not to mention everything else), and that talent (suddenly!) it should be rewarded with this very margin. Exactly the same thing happens and has happened in the field of art: it's not enough to write a song, a book, or a picture – you need to make sure that your product is liked and bought. The classics of socialist realism in bookstores were not needed by anyone, and Angelique and Dumas were swept away in any circulation.
These are the two main problems of Marx's theory: the immeasurability of immaterial work and the negation of the product distinction for talents. There were other problems, but they affected the viability and applicability of the theory much less. All this was enough for the mass of the people to reject the official ideology at the domestic level by the end of the 80s, and the country collapsed.
Yes, even if we limit ourselves to the Marxist theory of profit, there is, for example, the famous “transformation problem”, which, at least as far as I know, has not yet received a final and unambiguous solution. In addition, the Marxist theory of “the tendency of the rate of profit to decline” raises big questions.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted because it is not falsifiable (it has no criteria for refutation)
Marx said: X units of commodity A are exchanged for Y units of commodity B because there is the same amount of labor in both cases.
How to measure – yes horseradish knows. In the nineteenth century, it might still have been possible to estimate how many man-hours it would take to make bread and how many it would take to make shoes. Now-you'll get fucked up.
Further, in Volume 3 of Capital, Marx describes that price differs from value because the rate of profit (profitability in modern terms) tends to equalize (arbitrage in modern terms). That is, the relationship between price and labor costs is even more complex.
Marx is usually criticized as follows:
they say that the consumer does not care how much labor the manufacturer spent, the consumer is guided by marginal utility and rarity
if one employee is bad and has to work on a task for a long time, this is not a reason to pay more, but rather the opposite (the buyer will go to the one who asks for less, and the labor-intensive manufacturer will go bankrupt).
This can be answered by:
consumer propensities determine the slope, etc., of the demand curve, not the price
the cost is determined not by the actual cost per unit of product, but by the average necessary expenses.
So it is that the util (units of utility), that “socially necessary labor costs” no one has ever seen and is not guided by them when calculating prices.
At the same time, calculations based on the Leontiev input-output model show that equilibrium prices are proportional to labor costs (see Gevorgyan and Malykhin, “CLASSICAL MARXIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND MODERN MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS”).
Personally, my opinion is that the product costs a person only labor, and if everything was made by machines or everything grew on trees, then everything would be free (adjusted for rarity)
Life every day refutes Marx's labor theory of value (it is mostly known by this name).
It is refuted in stores, agricultural markets, bazaars, auctions, and online ad sites – People participate in sales, are attracted by discounts in the price, and trade on the markets and on the Internet, knocking down or raising the price until they finally agree on it.
A kilogram of potatoes from the same field, which took the same amount of labor to grow, will be sold at different points of sale at different prices. Moreover, even at the same point during the day, its price will change, usually falling by the end of the day. �
An apartment of the same size, design and quality of building materials in the capital will be several times more expensive than a similar apartment in the province. Even within the same city, identical apartments will vary in price depending on the area. They may also differ within the same house. Workdays have nothing to do with it.
Why would a Repin painting be several times more expensive than a similarly-sized painting by an obscure artist exhibiting on the Krymsky Val embankment in Moscow? After all, both artists spent approximately equal time and effort on writing. Because it's not the work that matters.
A ton of limestone extracted for the production of cement will be many, many times cheaper than a kilogram of diamonds for the production of diamonds, although in both cases we are talking about rocks compressed by nature over thousands of years, the extraction of which does not differ much in the effort spent.
When you buy chocolates in the store, you are not interested in the number of labor days or labor hours spent on their production – you want sweets for tea. Or maybe you change your mind at the last minute and take a cake – all that matters is how you imagine your evening with sweets.
A company may make the wrong decision –and this, by the way, happens regularly-to produce a product with a lot of working time and other costs, and find that no one needs this product or very few people need it. So what? No amount of work will save you.
The Coca-Cola brand's valuation has doubled in 12 years – from $41 billion in 2006 to $79 billion in 2018. And what does this have to do with working days in an almost fully automated production facility? You can start imitating Coca-Cola, start producing a similar product, and spend about the same amount of labor, but sales will most likely not go up unless you set the price 3-4 times lower, but then you will have to suffer losses. Despite the labor days spent, such a product will not be of value to customers.
In numerous daily purchase and sale operations, both personal and corporate, we regularly encounter a suggestion: buy not one piece, but two, not 1 ton, but 5, not 100 packages, but 300 and the price will be lower. How so, if the number of working days in each unit is the same?
Why is Krasny Oktyabr tastier – and more expensive – than Babaevsky? Because the quality of chocolate is better, and not the number of working days is different – it is about the same.
Why is even a small Mercedes more expensive than a Lada? After all, labor-days for one” Merc ” takes exactly no more.
The answer to these and thousands of similar questions for any product group is the same: the labor spent on the production of a particular product does not play a special role in the price of the product. The price of a product is not determined by the amount of labor expended – it occupies a relatively small place in the price of the product. Although there are exceptions: the lawyer's fee is almost entirely made up of the lawyer's salary, as well as, for example, the fee of a tutor at home.
A product (or service) represents a certain value for us, for which we are willing to pay and exchange what we currently need the least (the corresponding amount of money) for what we need the most (this product or service). There is always not enough money for everything, so we choose. And we are not interested in any other people's work.
By making similar choices every day, we distribute cash flow and reward those industries and companies that provide us with the necessary values, and ignore others that are most likely to become unprofitable, although they may have the quantity and quality of labor no worse than in successful enterprises.
The price of a product or service does not consist of working days-it is formed in the buyer's head.
Let's look at this topic from the other side – from the production side, from the inside.
The employee is offered compensation for work – salary. A contract is concluded that determines the amount of salary, working conditions, recreation, and so on. If you believe Marx, then there is still a certain amount associated with this s/pl, which the employer allegedly appropriates for himself. But this means that the employer must somehow take this amount into account, fix it somewhere, otherwise he will not know how much to add to himself later. Records should be kept, but nothing like this exists at any enterprise in the world, at any place of work. How do employers not get confused? Yes, in no way, because there is no such accounting item, and there are no mythical labor costs that this accounting should reflect. All labor costs are reflected in the salary.
Zpl is taken into account in the cost of any product or service, taxes and deductions to state funds are paid from it.
Neither Marx nor any of his followers were ever able to calculate the percentage of the second part of the salary allegedly retained by the entrepreneur. But this should not be difficult, since we are talking about numbers. Marx, on the other hand, is a materialist, and he speaks of material expenditures, but he cannot calculate them. Why did these costs turn out to be illusory? Because they don't exist in nature.
Marx and his associates were never able to calculate the “fair” remuneration – the amount needed to “restore the labor force”, although we are also talking about very specific things and figures, for example, 2 coats for 2 years, 1 hat for 3 years, 2 pairs of shoes for 1 year, 1 umbrella for 3 years, 2 tomatoes a day, half a loaf of bread a day, 1 entrecote a day, 1/17 tube of toothpaste a day, 2 tea bags a day, 2 liters of water a day, 100 rubles/day for travel, etc.
How many rolls of toilet paper are there? What if the employee is a vegetarian and doesn't eat meat? And the car? What if the umbrella breaks in 3 days? And if you want leaf tea instead of tea bags? What if the child suddenly demanded a toy? And if the wife demands a fur coat? And what about those who do not have a wife and children – they should receive less family money? But after all, their labor costs are the same as those with a family.
Marx does not answer these questions, does not calculate anything, and does not even want to attempt to show what it might look like.
Marx simply states: stolen, but doesn't bother to prove it.
Marx did not invent the theory of labor value himself – he borrowed it from A. Smith. This mistake is excusable for the Scot, who came to this conclusion, which is far from the most important in his reasoning, against the background of a still predominantly agricultural economy, when many, especially on farms, worked for themselves. In addition, his father raised him in the Calvinist spirit, when work is given special importance. Smith didn't even bother to prove the theory. But Smith's theory didn't get him very far, whereas Marx 100 years later, when the economy had already changed, when justifications for price, as well as supply and demand, appeared, deduced from the obviously false theory the need for revolution and social violence in general, which in Russia turned into mass repressions, fought against the class enemies identified by Marx.