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 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!
The world is awash with newfangled economic theories, but as life shows, surplus value determines everything. what is available in the country-salaries, pensions, expenses for education, medicine and defense. Small and medium-sized enterprises mainly speculate by reselling goods obtained somewhere in the form of surplus value and thus take away part of the money received by people who created surplus value.
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.
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.
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?
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?