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.
Marx wrote the theory in a historical perspective and did not finish it. I didn't make any economic forecasts for the future.
You can easily refute anything – it is difficult to prove and simply impossible. If you don't like this theory, come up with another one. For example, “destruction and looting for the benefit of development”.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.