In the 90s, I asked my philosophy professor – what do they read to students? – Professor, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences (still in the USSR) answered-Yes, nothing complicated. Previously, we read the solution to the problem, but now we read the statement. Marx's theory cannot be refuted, because it is not a theory, but a systematization of the views of intelligent people on socio-political trends. He also earned his living as a journalist. His Das Kapital is an overview of the economic theories that took place at that time. Look at volume 4, where he collected the material, but did not have time to complete it. It's been a long time. Something is forgotten, something is lost. But the essence of such a phenomenon as capitalism has not changed. Only some corners have become sharper, and others have grown fat and do not stick out so much. It is not without reason that another well-known political journalist, a follower of Marx, singled out imperialism as the last stage of capitalism. By the way, no one refuted this conclusion either. Maybe the terminology has changed over the years. These are social sciences. They change simultaneously with the society, the object of their consideration. This is not physics, where matter is not deep enough, as physicists understand it. Dialectic, however!
some may have tried to reject Marx's theory of surplus value, but that's why it's a theory.
But, practice-its main law that capital(ist) will commit a crime for its own profit, confirms it completely.
Corruption rules the ball everywhere and everywhere.
The only way to destroy it is to deprive the capitalist of the right to own the means of production. apparently, this theory does not differ from practice.
It is impossible to refute it, because there are no conclusions. There is not a single conclusion in “Capital”that can be used to improve the functioning of the system that was studied in this work, called capitalist. The conclusion was made in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” – this system cannot be repaired, it must be destroyed. In this work, there is not a single conclusion that can be used to build a new economy. Therefore, this work is only three volumes of scientology.
No, I didn't refute it, because you can't refute the TRUTH, just as you can't refute the fact that two times two equals four in the decimal system. And those who try to refute this truth are cheaters and scammers.
Suha, my friend, theory is everywhere, and the tree of life is luxuriantly green. There is no economy, only the deliberate manipulation of commodity-money relations by a certain group of people in the world. I would call them evaluators.
No, no one has refuted it yet, moreover, most of us, to the best of our abilities, participate in creating surplus value in our workplaces. Surplus value is expressed in very different ways, but most often in the high remuneration of our managers. Part of the surplus value goes to the expansion or modernization of production. Some part settles in banks and offshore companies, the other part goes to the maintenance of country villas, dachas and mistresses. Private planes, yachts and motor vehicles are another very attractive appearance of this substance. And corruption? Alas, gentlemen, no one wants to spend their money on these disgusting bribes and bribing officials. On the other hand, surplus value is our unpaid labor, our low salaries, and our unpaid bonuses. It was for the sake of increasing the surplus value of production that the largest corporations began to open in Southeast Asia and South America at the end of the twentieth century and, often, leave the United States and Europe. With this particular tool of production in mind, our citizens open their own businesses, sometimes risking their property and savings. So, gentlemen, surplus value is no longer a theory, but a fact of our life, such as entropy or gravity. But surplus value is not only a tool of the entrepreneur (like the banker's interest rate), but also a measure of his decency in relation to the employees he employs and an indicator of his enterprise in relations with competitors. Thus, surplus value is the quintessence of capitalism, it is what creates CAPITAL.
Regarding the comments that supposedly surplus value does not exist . And what do you call the profit over the cost price? If I bake bread that costs me 15 rubles per piece , and sell for 30, and what is it called?
No, because Marx's labor theory consists of two parts, which few people think about at all.
The first well-known one from the seller is T-D-T”, everything is clear here you sell goods more expensive , you can still produce goods of higher value.
But there is also the second part of D-T-D” , this is actually the dialectic, the same product, but from the buyer's side.
You get paid , you buy a product, and you get paid again ( for work).
Actually, the combination of these two formulas shows the balance of production and consumption of goods.However, it is important to understand that these formulas work simultaneously.
Any distortion of the equilibrium of these formulas, which inevitably arise as a result of production, and lead to all sorts of crises.
In the initial formula of his commodity-money-commodity theory, Marx, as the hireling and maintenance man of a large bank capital, allowed deliberate forgery, exposing the entrepreneur-producer as the main exploiter. Whereas, the real formula credit-commodity-credit, immediately indicates the final beneficiary and the main exploiter-bank capital. And the conflict provoked by Marx, between the more and less exploited classes, did the bankers good.
In my opinion, Marx's theory of surplus value cannot be refuted as 2X2=4. Because the surplus value of a commodity is created by all labor, that is, under any structure of society. The question is how this surplus value is distributed-either to all workers according to their labor, or skewed to the owner's pocket. Through the distribution of surplus value, Marx revealed the main essence of private production – the exploitation of wage labor. And the price of goods should not be confused with labor costs for its production, it is determined by demand.
You shouldn't be going into the wilderness like that.You view Marx's writings through the lens of today.But if Marx had written them today,he would have written them differently.I want to say that the works of Karl Marx are a lump of their time. The question is different.Why the manufacturer gets rich,but the worker gets fat with hunger.Yes, because he, a worker, is not paid extra,they take away the money he earns. It is this contradiction that permeates Marx's work. And you're telling us all about advertising, marketing, and salesmanship. And where does this money go ? For the benefit of society ? No. They, this selected money, go to enrich the manufacturer. And that's not fair.This is what Marx's writings are about. And if this is unfair, then the worker will try to correct it as soon as the opportunity arises. That's all the Capital.You are somewhat cunningly manipulating – they say that if the theory of surplus value is refuted, then all the works of Marx are wrong.But this is not the case at all.
Look at how many years have passed, how they try to refute it out of their skin,but everything does not work out. So it's a pretty solid theory. Capital !
When we were teaching scientific communism, it was called the law of value in our classes. It revealed the essence of capitalist exploitation.
Price = Cost + Profit;
Profit=Unpaid Work Of The Employee.
The capitalist underpays the employee, but takes the money for himself. It is pointless to refute this, just some people have forgotten, others are too shy to remember. Unpaid salaries are now called business.
I don't know, but the bourgeoisie, they cheat and rob the workers every day. Marx was for the workers and peasants, and in this he is right forever. And if there are errors in his theory (which happens in any useful theory), then they must be found and corrected. To understand that there is a robbery going on, you don't need to have a theory, you can just work in workshops and in the fields. The rest of the froth of brands, marketing, and capitalization rests on the deception, ignorance, and violence of the ruling class.
all this capital is complete nonsense and refuted by life . in more than one country in the world, communism did not lead to the happiness of the people . always communism – slavery and poverty
no.there are already neo-Marxists, and all of them are not from Russia.The theory is supplemented and expanded taking into account scientific and technological progress and globalization.No one can refute the essence, as long as the main value of life is time
Does anyone deny it at all? Whether it's retail, product margins, or the desire of companies to monopolize – all of this is missing? Exactly like the stratification of society/social inequality, as a result of which a huge part of the benefits belongs to a small number of people… is this also missing?
If not bragging, then I wrote the universal formula for evolution (economic, social, technical, technological, demographic, biological) back in 1988, at the end of the Soviet Union. This formula includes, as a special case, Marx's theory.
There were attempts. However, all working-class theories, without exception, directly or indirectly use the theory of surplus value (even such as the economic applications of game theory). A further development of Marx's theory was the Leontief matrix (Intersectoral Balance). Another thing is the conclusion made by Marx that European capitalism will become obsolete as soon as expansion into new markets ceases. In addition, Marx identified a special type-the Eastern mode of production, which “does not fit” into the framework of standard capitalism.
It's a bad question, and the answers are often even worse! And what, and who does not understand that the entire chain from the producer to the final seller sits only on the fact that the initial ( consider purchasing) value turns ( with an increase) into the final price, at which everyone HAS the same surplus value. On this and live and live. Otherwise ( at a loss to your beloved!) no one moved a finger. Someone else ( well, very smart and advanced!) trying to denounce Marx and his theory of surplus value ( which is what capitalism is based on!)
No. No one can refute this theory of Marx, because it reveals the fundamental principle of capitalism – the appropriation by capital of surplus value, which is part of the unpaid labor of workers. Without this, capitalism cannot exist. And all attempts to refute the theory of surplus value are either the stupidity or lies of the lackeys of capital
This theory, described by Marx, was simply outdated and no one was going to refute it. Marx describes surplus value as unpaid labor, in excess of the value of labor power that is appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist.Never having worked( Engels supported him), he had no idea about the problems of an entrepreneur. Without working himself, he knows nothing about the taxes that the capitalist pays to the state and its organs. In developed countries. in some countries, it collectively reaches 70%. Today, at the expense of this money, there is medicine, social services. insurance, maintenance of the poor( in the US, 30% of African families). , army, pension provision, and so on. Today, Marx's works are so outdated that no one considers them except for primitive Marxist trends.
The theory is correct, but it should be slightly modified. What is called surplus value is rent on property. Rent arises when another person uses the property. In monetary terms, this is the difference between the cost of protecting property by the state and the cost of the owner himself.
The theory of surplus value is correct. Even when robots will work everywhere, they will first have the work of living people, and then still the work of engineers and specialists. In this case, the theory is distorted by the fact that for such industrial power there is no object of application on Earth, so in the future, a negligible part of the population will be engaged in productive work. It creates the illusion that profit is made only by investment, without living labor. But if you go out into Space with unlimited resources and production volumes , the classical theory of surplus value will once again be indisputable. That is, today this theory outwardly stops working only because of the achievement of the earth's limit of economic growth.
.
This is not Marx's mistake. The mistake is that he postulated workers ' self-government. Self-government did not work out, it turned out to be a tyrannical regime. Why? Marx believed that the workers would work just as well as for the capitalist. We add the advantages of a planned economy, minus military spending and parasitic consumption – we get the economic superiority of communism over capitalism. In fact, neither the top “workers” – leaders and the state apparatus, nor ordinary hard workers showed any effective work. Especially the higher ones… genetics, cybernetics… And how many smaller-caliber punctures there were. As a result, the lack of natural incentives to work had to be replaced by state coercion.
.
Therefore, the theory of surplus value is correct, and the political conclusions drawn from it are not correct.
What do I foresee? In the organization of production, we cannot escape capitalism. Production will be capitalist. But the immensely inflated consumption can only be restrained by socialist distribution. Therefore, the distribution will be socialist. And those who want to have more than a minimum ration of food, treatment, entertainment, they must climb up, strain and learn, compete and create.
.
Is it reasonable to contain ballast? If they are your people, then yes. This is a reserve of genes, insurance against degeneration. This is a national culture. It is a constant source of capable and ambitious people.
In short, failed people are also needed. At least as a scarecrow and breathing in the back competitors for the beaten up. But, as the revolt in the United States shows, they still need to be occupied with some semblance of meaningful activity.
All the writings of Karl Marx, nothing more than near-scientific gibberish, the whole provocative plan of which is to push all of humanity into a class confrontation.
Introduced by Marx for exploitative economic formations, it is irrefutable. A, for the socialist – there is another concept-surplus product.
Surplus value is related to the relations of exchange of goods with the participation of the monetary equivalent in a situation where labor power also acts as a commodity.
The surplus product expresses the measure of the social fund of consumption, and labor power as a commodity appears only in the form of the wages of the worker in a socialist enterprise.
Not being an expert in economic theory, I can only express my opinion. Perhaps all the representatives of the entrepreneurial class were aware of the existence of a certain surplus between the labor spent and the work done. Ricardo spoke with complete certainty about its mandatory availability. Marx essentially only explained the exploitative, predatory nature of ” entrepreneurial income.” He investigated its genesis, form of receipt and distribution among the organizers of ” business.”And, in my opinion, deliberately confused the whole picture. From my point of view, the long-term extraction of surplus product in favor of individual, advanced enterprising individuals is impossible without the presence of state or pseudo-state institutions. I.e., this requires the presence of power, as a system of violence, separated from the individual, first of all from the individual worker who produces the surplus product. For example, we can point out the existence in primitive, communal societies of all kinds of male military and paramilitary mystical orders and secret obshchesv whose task in general is to seize and maintain power in the tribe and state. Creation of modern international companies ' own armies and departments that duplicate the tasks of state and national institutions-in the same line. The amount of surplus product taken from the employee has always been regulated and regulated by the government, regardless of its form and origin. She also distributes it. Ultimately, the correlation between what was withdrawn and what was left of the employee, as well as the distribution of what was withdrawn, depends on the independence of the government from society, its “strength” and the ability in one way or another to dampen the discontent of the producing, tax-paying segments of the population. The symbiote of the state and the private owner that exists in modern society has placed the extraction of surplus product on a scientific, systematic basis. The goal is to increase the profit received, increase the profitability of a particular sector of the economy. There are plenty of examples. This is also a company with ozone holes and global warming, as a result of which humanity has thrown away more than two trillion dollars. But chemical corporations received over $ 200bn in net profit. Yes, twice so much put in the pocket of state officials. Military company in the Middle East: the negligible cost of oil production is offset many times over by the huge government costs of maintaining peace through military means. The main difficulty for entrepreneurs to make super-profits is not in obtaining an additional surplus product, but in redistributing it in their own favor. It is no secret that the surplus value in the pillar of the US capital economy, as a result of the bloody uncompromising struggle of all employees, is distributed as 6 to 4 in favor of employees. And after the second redistribution, the ratio is even: 6 to 4 in favor of the entrepreneur. The main claims against Marx were made and are still being made in the field of calculating the ratio of the cost of labor, depending on the level of qualification of the employee. This is probably his weakest point. The idea of mental labor as multiplied simple, physical, especially in the field of calculating multiplication coefficients, he could not quite logically justify. However, history has shown that this phenomenon takes place. Mental work, properly organized and stimulated, is indeed many times more productive than physical work. It also generates a large share of surplus value. But the predominance of intellectual labor objectively undermines the foundations of the existence of modern human society, as a society that is essentially a crowd-elite society. Hence the desire to restrain the spread of higher education among the mass of the population, both directly and by profaning it, what Lenin called obrazovschina. I'll make a conclusion: – a person, labor, society, surplus product is a system that has always existed and will continue to exist forever; – surplus value is a transitory, temporary form of surplus product; “ispolzovanie service of her Majesty exchange value” in modern society is becoming more complicated, artificially drawn, that society is reborn into socialism(but not Marx, who built more than 70years); -as humanity remains the technological basis of(large-scale machine production at the ever-increasing shortage of resources) comparison in terms of cost and usage for this market mechanisms inevitably, i.e. it will be the dominant form exist, all the same capitalism as the most suited for the extraction of surplus value.
I am a progressive person, so I trust science, and it gives such a highly eloquent answer to the question posed: in the foyer of the economics department, whether at Cambridge or Oxford University, there are only portraits of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, there is enough room for refuters of the “theory of surplus value”, it's a small matter – to achieve recognition not in tabloid publics, but in academic circles!!! In Russia, capitalism has an exceptionally hypertrophied appearance, precisely because of the desire to grab astronomically unjustified surplus value (navar, kalym, margin) the next day after the enterprise establishment, while in countries with a centuries-old bourgeois history, “exploiters” have long performed a social function, successfully helping the state, whose profits fluctuate on the verge of profitability, and huge capitals are earned through breakthrough technologies, and not by pulling the veins out of their own fellow citizens!!!
No, Marx has found a foundation that no one can change. And you can dance from it as you like. For example, under production today, many people consider the assignment of goods (at the price that they received) and the accrual of interest for resale. Previously, this was punishable by law, but now it is the basis of our economy. Therefore, cheap goods in stores vary in price at times
I didn't refute it, but I used it and added it. Please see the book “ECONOMICS from the point of view of a physicist” on the website http://praksism.info/ . Using the methods of natural sciences, the author came to the conclusions of Marxism – in some introductory cases, and to the conclusions of the theory of marginal utility – in others.
Those who want to refute the theory of surplus value have always been and will always be, but such a goal is not achievable…
As for the labor theory of value, it is an old childish mistake to confuse value and price. The price is determined by the balance of preferences of two people: the buyer and the seller. This is the enduring value of the market (where this balance is achieved, ideally, of course). So, the cost of labor, the price, conditionally, from the market, and also the mechanism of correlation of these two entities (quantities) that is objectively formed in society.
It is not a question of whether Marx's theory of surplus value is correct or not. The economy of the future should be based primarily on energy redundancy (overproduction). When, for example, the efficiency of the same aircraft is no longer crucial and you can fly at hypersonic speed, and during construction you can use quadrocopters instead of a crane. Market mechanisms in overproduction do not work and will fade into the background, along with the theory of surplus value. Since Tsiolkovsky still associated the development of civilization with energy, it is difficult to understand the silence of the Communists.
No, Karl Marx said: “labor is the source of all wealth and all culture” By labor, Marx meant precisely productive labor, as a source of surplus value. for example, he did not consider, for example, the work of drawing paintings by painters. In our time, he would not consider show business, the work of makeup artists, etc. difficult.. Marx considered the” labor ” of stock market speculators, such as his friend, colleague, and sponsor Friedrich Engels, to be only a form of redistribution of surplus value.
Whether there is life on Mars, whether there is no life on Mars-even scientists do not know this-said the Lecturer from “Carnoval Night” Do not break spears about surplus value. Here I know for example that the cost of 1 liter of alcohol in the USSR was a penny, and a liter of vodka cost 3.62+3.62 or 4.12+4.12! So IT was, is, and will continue to be even under communism, otherwise what shishas will production develop for, pay taxes (and what about without them:army, science, healthcare, education, other non-productive sectors of the economy, roads, rivers, ponds and lakes, forests, space flights, etc.) Here I personally, having grown strawberries, will sell them much more expensive than I spent-this will be surplus value, without any philosophical casuistry.
To begin with, Marx has no theory. Any theory begins with the definition of terms. You will not find in Marx a definition of “surplus value, “” consumer value,”” exchange value,”or simply” value.” Although already in the first chapter of Capital, he juggles them like a magician. If you look at what he writes from the point of view of formal logic, then Marx's “theory” is just a collection of crackling phrases unrelated to the meaning. That is why it is so popular with “pique vests” – you can pretend that you understand something, say “smart” words… And you can even “challenge”, argue with your opponent. But there's really nothing to argue about. There is no theory as such. There are mantras repeated many times. Everyone perceives them in their own way and believes in what they have come up with for themselves.
Marx's theory is a plagiarism of Biblical usury, the secular execution of which is a predatory bank loan interest.
If we dig even deeper, we will unearth the natural needs of any living organism, including humans as animals: food, sex, defense and dominance in the first three – the best food, the best partner, the best home. They are dictated by the instinct of self-preservation, first as in an animal, and then, after the appearance in a highly developed animal-a humanoid-of such qualities as conscience, justice, a sense of proportion, reasonable sufficiency, etc. – as in a reasonable, active, humane, spiritual person.
Man is material, and like any matter consists of their material and field principles. Materialism and Marxism-Leninism prevail in the material beginning, while Spirituality, the moral code, and the rational sufficiency characteristic of a community living in harmony, harmony, and love prevail in the field beginning.
Dialectically speaking, Marxism and love are two sides of the same coin. If there is no measure, balance, or harmony between Marxism and love, then society falls into fascism and Satanism. The highest sin of a person as a carrier of material-field categories is greed, envy, lies and pride. Marx did not catch up with the essence of spiritual man when he called religion the opium of the people. This is his ideological terrorist attack-a global level of significance, which cost the lives of many millions of lives. But, for all sorts of revolutions and evolutions, you have to pay…
The labor theory of value is not exactly wrong, but rather incomplete. The question is discussed in more detail in the article “History of the analysis of the theory of the price of production by K. Marx in economic literature (1894-1957)” Communists, of course, do not read anything except their “correct, because correct” books, so quote from the study: “The results obtained in the works of Bortkiewicz-Winternitz-Seton turned out to be discouraging, because they showed that the system of price equations can include only one of Marx's macroconditions, and it does not matter which one. Consequently, the other macro condition will not be met, which casts doubt on the entire transformation procedure proposed by Marx. Indeed, if the sum of values is not equal to the sum of prices, then this means that at least part of the value of goods available in the economy did not arise as a result of the redistribution of value and is not of a value nature. The latter raises questions about the meaning of using the category of value in economic analysis.
Failure to meet Marx's other macro-condition-equality between total profit and total surplus value-will indicate that profit has an unearned source. Such a result would contradict the Marxist theory of surplus value. In any choice of the invariance condition, we will have to sacrifice one of the essential components of Marx's doctrine.
The conclusions obtained by the researchers and summarized by Seton were a dividing line in the study of the problem of converting labor values into production prices. Throughout the entire period under review, from the publication of volume III of Das Kapital in 1894 to the publication of Seton's article in 1957, researchers ' efforts were aimed at reconstructing the mechanism of converting values into prices as accurately as possible, without changing the meaning and meaning of Marx's concepts and concepts. Scientists have tried to understand whether the mechanism of transformation exists in the form in which it was formulated by Marx. A positive result would mean that Marx's theory can be developed based on the original Marxian concepts and concepts. However, the result was negative. The latter meant that a radical rethinking of the fundamentals of the theory was necessary.
No, this theory cannot be refuted: it reveals the internal (essential) contradiction of the capitalist way of organizing society. This is a contradiction between the social nature of the production of goods and services and the private form of appropriation of profit resulting from this production. In the social sphere, this is a contradiction between labor and capital.
Such a contradiction can only be resolved by abolishing private property, which is the basis of the capitalist mode of production, and moving to social appropriation and distribution of the product (profit) on the basis of public ownership of the means of production. This type of society is a socialist one.
Engels (from The Revolution in Hungary): “In the next world War, not only reactionary classes and dynasties will DISAPPEAR from the face of the earth, but ENTIRE REACTIONARY PEOPLES WILL ALSO DISAPPEAR. AND THIS WILL ALSO BE PROGRESS.” Engels (from the article “Democratic Pan-Slavism”): “To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood addressed to us on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply : HATRED OF THE RUSSIANS was and still is the FIRST REVOLUTIONARY PASSION of the Germans ; since the revolution, hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to this, and only by means of the MOST RESOLUTE TERRORISM AGAINST THESE SLAVIC PEOPLES can we, together with the Poles and Magyars, We now KNOW WHERE THE ENEMIES OF THE REVOLUTION ARE CONCENTRATED : IN RUSSIA and in THE Slavic regions of Austria; AND NO PHRASES OR REFERENCES TO THE UNCERTAIN DEMOCRATIC FUTURE OF THESE COUNTRIES WILL PREVENT US FROM TREATING OUR ENEMIES AS ENEMIES.” Marx (from the work “Exposing the diplomatic History of the XVIII century”): “Muscovy was brought up and raised in a terrible and vile school of Mongol slavery. It was only strengthened by becoming a virtuosa in the art of slavery. Even after its liberation, Muscovy continued to play its traditional role of slave-turned-master. Subsequently, Peter the Great combined the political skills of the Mongol slave with the proud aspirations of the Mongol ruler, whom Genghis Khan bequeathed to carry out his plan to conquer the world… Just as it did with the Golden Horde, Russia is now doing business with the West. To become the ruler of the Mongols, Muscovy had to be Tartarized. To become the master of the West, it must become civilized… remaining a Slave, that is, giving the Russians that external touch of civilization that would prepare them for the perception of the technology of Western peoples, without infecting them with the ideas of the latter”
Engels (C) 1866 : “As for Russia, it can only be mentioned as the owner of an enormous amount of stolen property, which it will have to give back on the day of reckoning” Engels (on Napoleon's march on Moscow in 1812) : “Cossacks, Bashkirs and other robber rabble defeated the republic, the heiress of the Great French Revolution.”
Surplus value is the unpaid labor of the worker with the automation of production, there will be nothing to appropriate, hence socialism is inevitable! Until today, absolutely no one in the whole world has refuted the scientific theory of the genius Karl Marx 100 times!!! Stalin saved humanity from slavery by defeating the fascist exploiters, and yet Stalin misunderstood Lenin how the Communist Party should be organized (((this is the reason why the Communist Party turned out to be, for example. in our country 19000000 all sorts of Chubais and what could they do good???))) in which society can develop only and only in geometric progression!!! To this day, everywhere and everywhere the so-called Communist Parties are nothing but a first disaster for the development of all the peoples of the world. Everywhere and everywhere in all countries the Communist parties must be organized EXACTLY STRICTLY as Lenin teaches!!! So all of humanity will finally begin to live, and not survive forever. Under socialism, socially useful work is inexhaustible for any number of people on our beautiful planet Earth! but this automation throws the capitalist system right into the dustbin of history! But at what price? – so far, it's clearly seen as shitty, to put it mildly.
I refuted, the added value is the accumulation of trust, and not the appropriation of someone else's labor, if you lose trust, then there is a loss of capital, no matter how you assign someone else's labor, in general, property is a constant vote of society that something should belong exclusively to you
All Marxism is based on simple sophistry. He says: the capitalist buys the raw materials and labor of the worker, and the result is a commodity. But he sells it for more than the sum of the costs of raw materials and labor. So he doesn't pay the worker extra.
This sophism is based on the fact that any product has a certain definite, objective value. But this is not the case. The value of goods is given by people, and since all people are different, they evaluate goods differently. It is thanks to this that a mutually beneficial exchange becomes possible. For example, if you exchange an apartment for an “equivalent” one (as they say in ads), but this does not mean that you want to get an apartment of the same value as you give it away – this is pointless! You want to move to an apartment that is closer to work, to your parents, to the forest, lake, etc. For you, this apartment is more valuable than the one you give away. So does the person you change with. As a result, each of you receives an apartment of greater value than you give away.
It's the same with the worker. The capitalist builds a factory, buys equipment, and organizes production. And hires a worker to perform simple technological operations. Since they are simple, the worker does not appreciate them very much, and since the capitalist offers him a good payment for this, he considers such a transaction profitable and agrees. And where else can he get such a payment for a simple job? The capitalist agrees to this deal, because if he pays the worker's salary, he will earn even more. So this deal is beneficial for both. Then what the hell is Marx doing here if everyone is happy?
And you don't need to refute it. It wasn't Marx's idea, but Adam Smith's. As a tool for solving specific tactical tasks of the manufacturer. As a strategic method, it is unacceptable, since it does not have a zero reference point. But the Bolsheviks and proletarians were completely illiterate in economics.
The key idea of Marx is that surplus value is produced exclusively by the worker, and the capitalist only appropriates it (part of it). This is the whole “theory”. That is, the fact that the capitalist makes a profit and gives the worker “only a salary” – this fact Marx considers exploitation, and hence all his other ideas. The paradox is that, on the one hand, there is not much to refute here, since it is obvious stupidity. On the other hand, this stupidity somehow still catches the audience.
The simple fact is that not a single Marxist economist has ever received the Nobel Prize. This is how the scientific community has evaluated this theory, including the theory of surplus value. It is also legally untenable: you can not assign what belongs to no one. More precisely, it cannot be a crime for which it is necessary and possible to destroy an entire class. In fact, the source of profit is the knowledge and foresight of the entrepreneur. It is the workers who live at his expense.
Yes, Karl Marx's theory of surplus value has been refuted.
We present this refutation here.
Karl Marx took up the development of his theory, intervening in the dispute between different theorists on the question: where — in production or in exchange? — there is an increase in the cost of the product in comparison with the amount of costs for its receipt.
They say, is this increase due to the active merchant, who creates profit through non-equivalent exchange, or is it due to the producer, who has increased the value of goods within his production?
Marx replies that value is created in production, and by labor at that, but in exchange value only manifests itself.
This response contains two errors at once.
First mistake: the very immersion in this argument is a mistake: Marx does not notice the falsity of the question. It does not take into account the fact that the increase in value does not arise and is not created either in exchange or in production — it precedes both of them as the cause that generates them.
Really.
What drives merchants to exchange and producers to produce?
The answer is obvious: the reason for both is the objective difference in the cost of purchased factors and goods sold, which is revealed before making decisions about the exchange or the start of production.
In other words, the increase in value is detected (or recognized) by the merchant, manufacturer, or business designer as a fact of reality. (including the projected reality), on which you can make a profit if you manage to squeeze your costs into the difference in the cost of costs and results set by the market.
That is, neither exchange nor production is the cause of an increase in value, but, on the contrary, an increase in value is the cause preceding the acts of exchange or production and, consequently, giving rise to these acts!
In other words, the nature of value does not lie in production or exchange, but on the side of the cause that precedes and gives rise to both production and exchange.
Marx's second mistake: choosing one of the disputing parties as his ideological position.
Marx chose production, and within it he chose labor, and not human labor in general, but the labor of an employee.
But the employee does not produce value, but only costs.
The goal-setting of these costs does not belong to him, but to the capitalist, who daily solves the problem of how to squeeze the cost of producing a commodity into the value gain set in advance by the market.
The market is a space in which the permitted value increases dictated to both producers and merchants are objectively positioned. The limits of these permitted increments are identified and used by them.
The nature of the increase in value lies in the objective goals of the economy, which are the cause that generates both production and exchange. These goals are limited to the reproduction of people in the format of specific cultures.
With the upheavals in these cultures, all the differences in value in the market are also overturned, sending entire sectors of the economy into oblivion.
By discussing the surplus value allegedly squeezed out of the workers by the capitalists, Marx betrays the class roots of his teaching — the illusions of the administration of capitalist enterprises.
The truth is that it is not labor that creates an increase in value and surplus value, but, on the contrary, an increase in value generates labor – forces it to be realized, and moreover in the most expedient form. Labor, on the other hand, does not generate value, but only costs that must be squeezed into pre-set values.
From the outset, the obvious conclusion is that of all the types of labor in capitalist enterprises, only one makes a profit – the labor of the administration, which buys, regulates and controls labor, restricts the working conditions of workers and haggles for the prices of the purchased factors of production.
Further. When Marx asserts that commodities are all “crystallizations” of abstract labor measured by time, he rejects the fact that the labor of the cotton grower, weaver, tailor, etc., which he identifies as the substance of the value of commodities, is not the labor of proletarians at all, but of specialized private traders who bring their products to market.
Private labor is the unity of mental and physical labor, that is, free labor-for oneself, as the owner, and hired labor – not for oneself, but for the owner.
Turning to the consideration of the “production of value” within enterprises, Marx makes a logical substitution: instead of the labor of private owners (cotton growers, weavers, tailors, etc.), which he declares to be the substance of value, Marx further considers the labor of hired workers only.
This substitution adds to the incorrectness of the “production of value” thesis.
No matter how much labor is invested in the production of a product, the product can have zero value, for example, due to the excess of its quantity.
Further. A whole layer of fundamental errors was made by Marx in his judgments about the equivalence of exchanges in the market and conclusions drawn from them.
He does not examine the equivalence of exchanges thesis, but only uses it to enter into arguments about the “production of value” by labor. They say that to understand how it increases in production, let's assume that the exchanges are equivalent — then, of course, there is no place to increase value except in production.
At the same time, Marx is captivated by the idea that equivalence precedes exchange, that there is a substance that makes goods comparable, and that the question of the production of this substance (value) is correct.
But the real dialectic is that exchange, as an impulse of motion, is possible only by virtue of the presence of a difference in certain potentials that cause this impulse.
That is, an exchange occurs only if it is an exchange of non-equivalents.
None of the parties to the transaction, if both parties are sane and independent in their decisions, will not go to the exchange, if this exchange does not give her a win, or at least does not relieve her of some burden.
It is precisely the non-equivalence that each side recognizes in its own favor, and only the non-equivalence, that is the cause and condition of the exchange.
It is precisely because of the non-equivalence of the exchange, with its mutual good faith, that both parties benefit. Society as a whole benefits doubly from such an exchange: correct statistics will show the real increase in the national wealth of society, as the sum of the increases in the wealth of both participants in the transaction: each gave less valuable, received more valuable.
But Marx does not see the real increase in social wealth from exchange and shifts his attention to the interior of enterprises, generating voluminous volumes of reasoning about the production of value and surplus value there.
These volumes of reasoning are built on the assumption that exchanges in the market are exchanges of equivalents, so that there is no place for value to grow except in production.
But Marx never examines either this assumption or the genesis of the facts of equivalence of exchange. It simply assumes that the reason for the comparability of goods in exchanges is the “crystallized” labor in them.
It turns out that both the theory of value and the theory of surplus value are based on the fictional phenomenon of “equivalence” of exchanges.
These theories are presented by Marxists as a theoretical bomb in the hands of the revolutionary movement. The most amazing thing is the fact that this bomb actually worked and put under the Marxist banner, in the 20th century, a third of the world's population!
Why did this “bomb” go off? Yes, because Marxism expressed the ideology of a really powerful class in capitalist society – not the proletariat, but the class that commands the proletariat on a daily basis, considers it its resource, dreams of centralized accounting, control and planning, and seeks to impose its dreams on all mankind.
It was Marx's theoretical errors, including the false theory of value and the theory of surplus value derived from it, which formed the basis for the methodology of planning the national economy of the USSR, that programmed the collapse of the USSR.
Unfortunately, Stalin and Beria were killed, narrow-minded people like Khrushchev came to power, the leadership of the USSR lost its ideological core and led it to collapse.
As for the theory of surplus value, I will give its refutation in a publication with a preliminary title.”What is profit and why is it destructive for any economy?”
Subscribe to the channelRussian Global Project and keep up to date with publications on this topic.
The Soviet Union denied it. The state was socialist, that is, not capitalist at all, and all goods were sold to the people not at cost, but above. That is, the exploitation of labor took place, although the system was not capitalist.
It is not entirely clear what exactly needs to be refuted. The vast majority of Marx's apologists present the Theory of Surplus Value in this spirit : the capitalist sold so many goods at such and such a price and received such and such an income. At the same time, he spent so much on the workers ' wage fund. Everything that is the difference between his income and the social security fund is usually presented as surplus value. You might think that in addition to the payroll fund, there are no other costs at the enterprise and there is no need to pay taxes or update fixed assets.
Marx did not have a “theory of surplus value” (there were several theories explaining value and surplus value, and Marx argued with them). Marx has the so-called ” labor theory of value “and, accordingly, as a derivative -” labor theory of surplus value “(although the latter name is usually not used, and Marx also spoke only of the”labor theory of value”). It is based on sophistical subterfuges, for which Marx introduces the concepts of ” concrete labor “and” abstract labor “and the division between them in relation to the role in”value creation”. But the main core of sophism (and the whole theory) Marx had a logically incorrect separation of” value “(the basis of the price of a commodity) from” use value “(the” utility ” of a commodity). From the fact that an equally useful piece of bread (which has an unchangeable “use value”) can be expensive today and cheap tomorrow, Marx draws the completely unjustified logical conclusion that value has nothing to do with use value. As a result, this leads to many absurdities (such as the need to assert that the more mechanized and automated the work of a worker is, the more this worker is “exploited”). Marx's followers tried to forget about such absurd consequences of the” labor theory “as soon as possible, turning the conversation to all sorts of” ulcers of capitalism”,” social injustice”, etc.This has nothing to do with scientific understanding, but it was very useful for remaking an erroneous theory into an” ideology ” and achieving certain goals. By the way, if anyone really wants to read a logical critique of Marxist views and a serious alternative theory (in which the laws of economics are considered in relation to the laws of biological evolution, and all together – as a manifestation of the fundamental laws of physics), there is a book “Soviet super-ochlocracy and post-Soviet ochlocracy”. It has been freely available on the site since last year https://sites.google.com/site/avluslogos/
In the 90s, I asked my philosophy professor – what do they read to students? – Professor, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences (still in the USSR) answered-Yes, nothing complicated. Previously, we read the solution to the problem, but now we read the statement. Marx's theory cannot be refuted, because it is not a theory, but a systematization of the views of intelligent people on socio-political trends. He also earned his living as a journalist. His Das Kapital is an overview of the economic theories that took place at that time. Look at volume 4, where he collected the material, but did not have time to complete it. It's been a long time. Something is forgotten, something is lost. But the essence of such a phenomenon as capitalism has not changed. Only some corners have become sharper, and others have grown fat and do not stick out so much. It is not without reason that another well-known political journalist, a follower of Marx, singled out imperialism as the last stage of capitalism. By the way, no one refuted this conclusion either. Maybe the terminology has changed over the years. These are social sciences. They change simultaneously with the society, the object of their consideration. This is not physics, where matter is not deep enough, as physicists understand it. Dialectic, however!
some may have tried to reject Marx's theory of surplus value, but that's why it's a theory.
But, practice-its main law that capital(ist) will commit a crime for its own profit, confirms it completely.
Corruption rules the ball everywhere and everywhere.
The only way to destroy it is to deprive the capitalist of the right to own the means of production. apparently, this theory does not differ from practice.
It is impossible to refute it, because there are no conclusions. There is not a single conclusion in “Capital”that can be used to improve the functioning of the system that was studied in this work, called capitalist. The conclusion was made in the “Manifesto of the Communist Party” – this system cannot be repaired, it must be destroyed. In this work, there is not a single conclusion that can be used to build a new economy. Therefore, this work is only three volumes of scientology.
No, I didn't refute it, because you can't refute the TRUTH, just as you can't refute the fact that two times two equals four in the decimal system. And those who try to refute this truth are cheaters and scammers.
Suha, my friend, theory is everywhere, and the tree of life is luxuriantly green. There is no economy, only the deliberate manipulation of commodity-money relations by a certain group of people in the world. I would call them evaluators.
No, no one has refuted it yet, moreover, most of us, to the best of our abilities, participate in creating surplus value in our workplaces. Surplus value is expressed in very different ways, but most often in the high remuneration of our managers. Part of the surplus value goes to the expansion or modernization of production. Some part settles in banks and offshore companies, the other part goes to the maintenance of country villas, dachas and mistresses. Private planes, yachts and motor vehicles are another very attractive appearance of this substance. And corruption? Alas, gentlemen, no one wants to spend their money on these disgusting bribes and bribing officials. On the other hand, surplus value is our unpaid labor, our low salaries, and our unpaid bonuses. It was for the sake of increasing the surplus value of production that the largest corporations began to open in Southeast Asia and South America at the end of the twentieth century and, often, leave the United States and Europe. With this particular tool of production in mind, our citizens open their own businesses, sometimes risking their property and savings. So, gentlemen, surplus value is no longer a theory, but a fact of our life, such as entropy or gravity. But surplus value is not only a tool of the entrepreneur (like the banker's interest rate), but also a measure of his decency in relation to the employees he employs and an indicator of his enterprise in relations with competitors. Thus, surplus value is the quintessence of capitalism, it is what creates CAPITAL.
Regarding the comments that supposedly surplus value does not exist . And what do you call the profit over the cost price? If I bake bread that costs me 15 rubles per piece , and sell for 30, and what is it called?
No, because Marx's labor theory consists of two parts, which few people think about at all.
The first well-known one from the seller is T-D-T”, everything is clear here you sell goods more expensive , you can still produce goods of higher value.
But there is also the second part of D-T-D” , this is actually the dialectic, the same product, but from the buyer's side.
You get paid , you buy a product, and you get paid again ( for work).
Actually, the combination of these two formulas shows the balance of production and consumption of goods.However, it is important to understand that these formulas work simultaneously.
Any distortion of the equilibrium of these formulas, which inevitably arise as a result of production, and lead to all sorts of crises.
In the initial formula of his commodity-money-commodity theory, Marx, as the hireling and maintenance man of a large bank capital, allowed deliberate forgery, exposing the entrepreneur-producer as the main exploiter. Whereas, the real formula credit-commodity-credit, immediately indicates the final beneficiary and the main exploiter-bank capital. And the conflict provoked by Marx, between the more and less exploited classes, did the bankers good.
In my opinion, Marx's theory of surplus value cannot be refuted as 2X2=4. Because the surplus value of a commodity is created by all labor, that is, under any structure of society. The question is how this surplus value is distributed-either to all workers according to their labor, or skewed to the owner's pocket. Through the distribution of surplus value, Marx revealed the main essence of private production – the exploitation of wage labor. And the price of goods should not be confused with labor costs for its production, it is determined by demand.
Dear author,
You shouldn't be going into the wilderness like that.You view Marx's writings through the lens of today.But if Marx had written them today,he would have written them differently.I want to say that the works of Karl Marx are a lump of their time. The question is different.Why the manufacturer gets rich,but the worker gets fat with hunger.Yes, because he, a worker, is not paid extra,they take away the money he earns. It is this contradiction that permeates Marx's work. And you're telling us all about advertising, marketing, and salesmanship. And where does this money go ? For the benefit of society ? No. They, this selected money, go to enrich the manufacturer. And that's not fair.This is what Marx's writings are about. And if this is unfair, then the worker will try to correct it as soon as the opportunity arises. That's all the Capital.You are somewhat cunningly manipulating – they say that if the theory of surplus value is refuted, then all the works of Marx are wrong.But this is not the case at all.
Look at how many years have passed, how they try to refute it out of their skin,but everything does not work out. So it's a pretty solid theory. Capital !
When we were teaching scientific communism, it was called the law of value in our classes. It revealed the essence of capitalist exploitation.
Price = Cost + Profit;
Profit=Unpaid Work Of The Employee.
The capitalist underpays the employee, but takes the money for himself. It is pointless to refute this, just some people have forgotten, others are too shy to remember. Unpaid salaries are now called business.
I don't know, but the bourgeoisie, they cheat and rob the workers every day. Marx was for the workers and peasants, and in this he is right forever. And if there are errors in his theory (which happens in any useful theory), then they must be found and corrected. To understand that there is a robbery going on, you don't need to have a theory, you can just work in workshops and in the fields. The rest of the froth of brands, marketing, and capitalization rests on the deception, ignorance, and violence of the ruling class.
all this capital is complete nonsense and refuted by life . in more than one country in the world, communism did not lead to the happiness of the people . always communism – slavery and poverty
no.there are already neo-Marxists, and all of them are not from Russia.The theory is supplemented and expanded taking into account scientific and technological progress and globalization.No one can refute the essence, as long as the main value of life is time
Does anyone deny it at all? Whether it's retail, product margins, or the desire of companies to monopolize – all of this is missing? Exactly like the stratification of society/social inequality, as a result of which a huge part of the benefits belongs to a small number of people… is this also missing?
If not bragging, then I wrote the universal formula for evolution (economic, social, technical, technological, demographic, biological) back in 1988, at the end of the Soviet Union. This formula includes, as a special case, Marx's theory.
There were attempts. However, all working-class theories, without exception, directly or indirectly use the theory of surplus value (even such as the economic applications of game theory). A further development of Marx's theory was the Leontief matrix (Intersectoral Balance). Another thing is the conclusion made by Marx that European capitalism will become obsolete as soon as expansion into new markets ceases. In addition, Marx identified a special type-the Eastern mode of production, which “does not fit” into the framework of standard capitalism.
It's a bad question, and the answers are often even worse! And what, and who does not understand that the entire chain from the producer to the final seller sits only on the fact that the initial ( consider purchasing) value turns ( with an increase) into the final price, at which everyone HAS the same surplus value. On this and live and live. Otherwise ( at a loss to your beloved!) no one moved a finger. Someone else ( well, very smart and advanced!) trying to denounce Marx and his theory of surplus value ( which is what capitalism is based on!)
No. No one can refute this theory of Marx, because it reveals the fundamental principle of capitalism – the appropriation by capital of surplus value, which is part of the unpaid labor of workers. Without this, capitalism cannot exist. And all attempts to refute the theory of surplus value are either the stupidity or lies of the lackeys of capital
This theory, described by Marx, was simply outdated and no one was going to refute it. Marx describes surplus value as unpaid labor, in excess of the value of labor power that is appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist.Never having worked( Engels supported him), he had no idea about the problems of an entrepreneur. Without working himself, he knows nothing about the taxes that the capitalist pays to the state and its organs. In developed countries. in some countries, it collectively reaches 70%. Today, at the expense of this money, there is medicine, social services. insurance, maintenance of the poor( in the US, 30% of African families). , army, pension provision, and so on. Today, Marx's works are so outdated that no one considers them except for primitive Marxist trends.
The theory is correct, but it should be slightly modified. What is called surplus value is rent on property. Rent arises when another person uses the property. In monetary terms, this is the difference between the cost of protecting property by the state and the cost of the owner himself.
The theory of surplus value is correct. Even when robots will work everywhere, they will first have the work of living people, and then still the work of engineers and specialists. In this case, the theory is distorted by the fact that for such industrial power there is no object of application on Earth, so in the future, a negligible part of the population will be engaged in productive work. It creates the illusion that profit is made only by investment, without living labor. But if you go out into Space with unlimited resources and production volumes , the classical theory of surplus value will once again be indisputable. That is, today this theory outwardly stops working only because of the achievement of the earth's limit of economic growth.
.
This is not Marx's mistake. The mistake is that he postulated workers ' self-government. Self-government did not work out, it turned out to be a tyrannical regime. Why? Marx believed that the workers would work just as well as for the capitalist. We add the advantages of a planned economy, minus military spending and parasitic consumption – we get the economic superiority of communism over capitalism. In fact, neither the top “workers” – leaders and the state apparatus, nor ordinary hard workers showed any effective work. Especially the higher ones… genetics, cybernetics… And how many smaller-caliber punctures there were. As a result, the lack of natural incentives to work had to be replaced by state coercion.
.
Therefore, the theory of surplus value is correct, and the political conclusions drawn from it are not correct.
What do I foresee? In the organization of production, we cannot escape capitalism. Production will be capitalist. But the immensely inflated consumption can only be restrained by socialist distribution. Therefore, the distribution will be socialist. And those who want to have more than a minimum ration of food, treatment, entertainment, they must climb up, strain and learn, compete and create.
.
Is it reasonable to contain ballast? If they are your people, then yes. This is a reserve of genes, insurance against degeneration. This is a national culture. It is a constant source of capable and ambitious people.
In short, failed people are also needed. At least as a scarecrow and breathing in the back competitors for the beaten up. But, as the revolt in the United States shows, they still need to be occupied with some semblance of meaningful activity.
All the writings of Karl Marx, nothing more than near-scientific gibberish, the whole provocative plan of which is to push all of humanity into a class confrontation.
Introduced by Marx for exploitative economic formations, it is irrefutable. A, for the socialist – there is another concept-surplus product.
Surplus value is related to the relations of exchange of goods with the participation of the monetary equivalent in a situation where labor power also acts as a commodity.
The surplus product expresses the measure of the social fund of consumption, and labor power as a commodity appears only in the form of the wages of the worker in a socialist enterprise.
Not being an expert in economic theory, I can only express my opinion.
Perhaps all the representatives of the entrepreneurial class were aware of the existence of a certain surplus between the labor spent and the work done. Ricardo spoke with complete certainty about its mandatory availability. Marx essentially only explained the exploitative, predatory nature of ” entrepreneurial income.”
He investigated its genesis, form of receipt and distribution among the organizers of ” business.”And, in my opinion, deliberately confused the whole picture. From my point of view, the long-term extraction of surplus product in favor of individual, advanced enterprising individuals is impossible without the presence of state or pseudo-state institutions. I.e., this requires the presence of power, as a system of violence, separated from the individual, first of all from the individual worker who produces the surplus product. For example, we can point out the existence in primitive, communal societies of all kinds of male military and paramilitary mystical orders and secret obshchesv whose task in general is to seize and maintain power in the tribe and state. Creation of modern international companies ' own armies and departments that duplicate the tasks of state and national institutions-in the same line.
The amount of surplus product taken from the employee has always been regulated and regulated by the government, regardless of its form and origin. She also distributes it. Ultimately, the correlation between what was withdrawn and what was left of the employee, as well as the distribution of what was withdrawn, depends on the independence of the government from society, its “strength” and the ability in one way or another to dampen the discontent of the producing, tax-paying segments of the population.
The symbiote of the state and the private owner that exists in modern society has placed the extraction of surplus product on a scientific, systematic basis. The goal is to increase the profit received, increase the profitability of a particular sector of the economy. There are plenty of examples. This is also a company with ozone holes and global warming, as a result of which humanity has thrown away more than two trillion dollars. But chemical corporations received over $ 200bn in net profit. Yes, twice so much put in the pocket of state officials. Military company in the Middle East: the negligible cost of oil production is offset many times over by the huge government costs of maintaining peace through military means.
The main difficulty for entrepreneurs to make super-profits is not in obtaining an additional surplus product, but in redistributing it in their own favor. It is no secret that the surplus value in the pillar of the US capital economy, as a result of the bloody uncompromising struggle of all employees, is distributed as 6 to 4 in favor of employees. And after the second redistribution, the ratio is even: 6 to 4 in favor of the entrepreneur.
The main claims against Marx were made and are still being made in the field of calculating the ratio of the cost of labor, depending on the level of qualification of the employee. This is probably his weakest point. The idea of mental labor as multiplied simple, physical, especially in the field of calculating multiplication coefficients, he could not quite logically justify. However, history has shown that this phenomenon takes place. Mental work, properly organized and stimulated, is indeed many times more productive than physical work. It also generates a large share of surplus value. But the predominance of intellectual labor objectively undermines the foundations of the existence of modern human society, as a society that is essentially a crowd-elite society. Hence the desire to restrain the spread of higher education among the mass of the population, both directly and by profaning it, what Lenin called obrazovschina.
I'll make a conclusion:
– a person, labor, society, surplus product is a system that has always existed and will continue to exist forever;
– surplus value is a transitory, temporary form of surplus product;
“ispolzovanie service of her Majesty exchange value” in modern society is becoming more complicated, artificially drawn, that society is reborn into socialism(but not Marx, who built more than 70years);
-as humanity remains the technological basis of(large-scale machine production at the ever-increasing shortage of resources) comparison in terms of cost and usage for this market mechanisms inevitably, i.e. it will be the dominant form exist, all the same capitalism as the most suited for the extraction of surplus value.
I am a progressive person, so I trust science, and it gives such a highly eloquent answer to the question posed: in the foyer of the economics department, whether at Cambridge or Oxford University, there are only portraits of Adam Smith, Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes, there is enough room for refuters of the “theory of surplus value”, it's a small matter – to achieve recognition not in tabloid publics, but in academic circles!!! In Russia, capitalism has an exceptionally hypertrophied appearance, precisely because of the desire to grab astronomically unjustified surplus value (navar, kalym, margin) the next day after the enterprise establishment, while in countries with a centuries-old bourgeois history, “exploiters” have long performed a social function, successfully helping the state, whose profits fluctuate on the verge of profitability, and huge capitals are earned through breakthrough technologies, and not by pulling the veins out of their own fellow citizens!!!
No, Marx has found a foundation that no one can change. And you can dance from it as you like. For example, under production today, many people consider the assignment of goods (at the price that they received) and the accrual of interest for resale. Previously, this was punishable by law, but now it is the basis of our economy. Therefore, cheap goods in stores vary in price at times
Nobel Laureate (2017) Richard Thaler explained the assessment of added value by the irrationality of consumers. He threw Marxism into the dustbin
I didn't refute it, but I used it and added it. Please see the book “ECONOMICS from the point of view of a physicist” on the website http://praksism.info/ . Using the methods of natural sciences, the author came to the conclusions of Marxism – in some introductory cases, and to the conclusions of the theory of marginal utility – in others.
Those who want to refute the theory of surplus value have always been and will always be, but such a goal is not achievable…
As for the labor theory of value, it is an old childish mistake to confuse value and price. The price is determined by the balance of preferences of two people: the buyer and the seller. This is the enduring value of the market (where this balance is achieved, ideally, of course). So, the cost of labor, the price, conditionally, from the market, and also the mechanism of correlation of these two entities (quantities) that is objectively formed in society.
It is not a question of whether Marx's theory of surplus value is correct or not. The economy of the future should be based primarily on energy redundancy (overproduction). When, for example, the efficiency of the same aircraft is no longer crucial and you can fly at hypersonic speed, and during construction you can use quadrocopters instead of a crane. Market mechanisms in overproduction do not work and will fade into the background, along with the theory of surplus value. Since Tsiolkovsky still associated the development of civilization with energy, it is difficult to understand the silence of the Communists.
No, Karl Marx said: “labor is the source of all wealth and all culture” By labor, Marx meant precisely productive labor, as a source of surplus value. for example, he did not consider, for example, the work of drawing paintings by painters. In our time, he would not consider show business, the work of makeup artists, etc. difficult.. Marx considered the” labor ” of stock market speculators, such as his friend, colleague, and sponsor Friedrich Engels, to be only a form of redistribution of surplus value.
Whether there is life on Mars, whether there is no life on Mars-even scientists do not know this-said the Lecturer from “Carnoval Night” Do not break spears about surplus value. Here I know for example that the cost of 1 liter of alcohol in the USSR was a penny, and a liter of vodka cost 3.62+3.62 or 4.12+4.12! So IT was, is, and will continue to be even under communism, otherwise what shishas will production develop for, pay taxes (and what about without them:army, science, healthcare, education, other non-productive sectors of the economy, roads, rivers, ponds and lakes, forests, space flights, etc.) Here I personally, having grown strawberries, will sell them much more expensive than I spent-this will be surplus value, without any philosophical casuistry.
To begin with, Marx has no theory. Any theory begins with the definition of terms. You will not find in Marx a definition of “surplus value, “” consumer value,”” exchange value,”or simply” value.” Although already in the first chapter of Capital, he juggles them like a magician.
If you look at what he writes from the point of view of formal logic, then Marx's “theory” is just a collection of crackling phrases unrelated to the meaning.
That is why it is so popular with “pique vests” – you can pretend that you understand something, say “smart” words…
And you can even “challenge”, argue with your opponent.
But there's really nothing to argue about. There is no theory as such.
There are mantras repeated many times. Everyone perceives them in their own way and believes in what they have come up with for themselves.
Marx's theory is a plagiarism of Biblical usury, the secular execution of which is a predatory bank loan interest.
If we dig even deeper, we will unearth the natural needs of any living organism, including humans as animals: food, sex, defense and dominance in the first three – the best food, the best partner, the best home. They are dictated by the instinct of self-preservation, first as in an animal, and then, after the appearance in a highly developed animal-a humanoid-of such qualities as conscience, justice, a sense of proportion, reasonable sufficiency, etc. – as in a reasonable, active, humane, spiritual person.
Man is material, and like any matter consists of their material and field principles. Materialism and Marxism-Leninism prevail in the material beginning, while Spirituality, the moral code, and the rational sufficiency characteristic of a community living in harmony, harmony, and love prevail in the field beginning.
Dialectically speaking, Marxism and love are two sides of the same coin. If there is no measure, balance, or harmony between Marxism and love, then society falls into fascism and Satanism. The highest sin of a person as a carrier of material-field categories is greed, envy, lies and pride. Marx did not catch up with the essence of spiritual man when he called religion the opium of the people. This is his ideological terrorist attack-a global level of significance, which cost the lives of many millions of lives. But, for all sorts of revolutions and evolutions, you have to pay…
The labor theory of value is not exactly wrong, but rather incomplete. The question is discussed in more detail in the article “History of the analysis of the theory of the price of production by K. Marx in economic literature (1894-1957)” Communists, of course, do not read anything except their “correct, because correct” books, so quote from the study: “The results obtained in the works of Bortkiewicz-Winternitz-Seton turned out to be discouraging, because they showed that the system of price equations can include only one of Marx's macroconditions, and it does not matter which one. Consequently, the other macro condition will not be met, which casts doubt on the entire transformation procedure proposed by Marx. Indeed, if the sum of values is not equal to the sum of prices, then this means that at least part of the value of goods available in the economy did not arise as a result of the redistribution of value and is not of a value nature. The latter raises questions about the meaning of using the category of value in economic analysis.
Failure to meet Marx's other macro-condition-equality between total profit and total surplus value-will indicate that profit has an unearned source. Such a result would contradict the Marxist theory of surplus value. In any choice of the invariance condition, we will have to sacrifice one of the essential components of Marx's doctrine.
The conclusions obtained by the researchers and summarized by Seton were a dividing line in the study of the problem of converting labor values into production prices. Throughout the entire period under review, from the publication of volume III of Das Kapital in 1894 to the publication of Seton's article in 1957, researchers ' efforts were aimed at reconstructing the mechanism of converting values into prices as accurately as possible, without changing the meaning and meaning of Marx's concepts and concepts. Scientists have tried to understand whether the mechanism of transformation exists in the form in which it was formulated by Marx. A positive result would mean that Marx's theory can be developed based on the original Marxian concepts and concepts. However, the result was negative. The latter meant that a radical rethinking of the fundamentals of the theory was necessary.
No, this theory cannot be refuted: it reveals the internal (essential) contradiction of the capitalist way of organizing society. This is a contradiction between the social nature of the production of goods and services and the private form of appropriation of profit resulting from this production. In the social sphere, this is a contradiction between labor and capital.
Such a contradiction can only be resolved by abolishing private property, which is the basis of the capitalist mode of production, and moving to social appropriation and distribution of the product (profit) on the basis of public ownership of the means of production. This type of society is a socialist one.
Do religious dogmas require refutation? Marx's religious teaching is omnipotent, because it is religious.
The surplus product is an artificial, stilted construction of Marx, invented only to justify the dogma of the coming proletarian violent revolution.
Engels (from The Revolution in Hungary): “In the next world War, not only reactionary classes and dynasties will DISAPPEAR from the face of the earth, but ENTIRE REACTIONARY PEOPLES WILL ALSO DISAPPEAR. AND THIS WILL ALSO BE PROGRESS.”
Engels (from the article “Democratic Pan-Slavism”): “To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood addressed to us on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply : HATRED OF THE RUSSIANS was and still is the FIRST REVOLUTIONARY PASSION of the Germans ; since the revolution, hatred of the Czechs and Croats has been added to this, and only by means of the MOST RESOLUTE TERRORISM AGAINST THESE SLAVIC PEOPLES can we, together with the Poles and Magyars, We now KNOW WHERE THE ENEMIES OF THE REVOLUTION ARE CONCENTRATED : IN RUSSIA and in THE Slavic regions of Austria; AND NO PHRASES OR REFERENCES TO THE UNCERTAIN DEMOCRATIC FUTURE OF THESE COUNTRIES WILL PREVENT US FROM TREATING OUR ENEMIES AS ENEMIES.”
Marx (from the work “Exposing the diplomatic History of the XVIII century”): “Muscovy was brought up and raised in a terrible and vile school of Mongol slavery. It was only strengthened by becoming a virtuosa in the art of slavery. Even after its liberation, Muscovy continued to play its traditional role of slave-turned-master. Subsequently, Peter the Great combined the political skills of the Mongol slave with the proud aspirations of the Mongol ruler, whom Genghis Khan bequeathed to carry out his plan to conquer the world… Just as it did with the Golden Horde, Russia is now doing business with the West. To become the ruler of the Mongols, Muscovy had to be Tartarized. To become the master of the West, it must become civilized… remaining a Slave, that is, giving the Russians that external touch of civilization that would prepare them for the perception of the technology of Western peoples, without infecting them with the ideas of the latter”
Engels (C) 1866 : “As for Russia, it can only be mentioned as the owner of an enormous amount of stolen property, which it will have to give back on the day of reckoning”
Engels (on Napoleon's march on Moscow in 1812) : “Cossacks, Bashkirs and other robber rabble defeated the republic, the heiress of the Great French Revolution.”
Surplus value is the unpaid labor of the worker with the automation of production, there will be nothing to appropriate, hence socialism is inevitable! Until today, absolutely no one in the whole world has refuted the scientific theory of the genius Karl Marx 100 times!!! Stalin saved humanity from slavery by defeating the fascist exploiters, and yet Stalin misunderstood Lenin how the Communist Party should be organized (((this is the reason why the Communist Party turned out to be, for example. in our country 19000000 all sorts of Chubais and what could they do good???))) in which society can develop only and only in geometric progression!!! To this day, everywhere and everywhere the so-called Communist Parties are nothing but a first disaster for the development of all the peoples of the world. Everywhere and everywhere in all countries the Communist parties must be organized EXACTLY STRICTLY as Lenin teaches!!! So all of humanity will finally begin to live, and not survive forever. Under socialism, socially useful work is inexhaustible for any number of people on our beautiful planet Earth! but this automation throws the capitalist system right into the dustbin of history! But at what price? – so far, it's clearly seen as shitty, to put it mildly.
I refuted, the added value is the accumulation of trust, and not the appropriation of someone else's labor, if you lose trust, then there is a loss of capital, no matter how you assign someone else's labor, in general, property is a constant vote of society that something should belong exclusively to you
All Marxism is based on simple sophistry. He says: the capitalist buys the raw materials and labor of the worker, and the result is a commodity. But he sells it for more than the sum of the costs of raw materials and labor. So he doesn't pay the worker extra.
This sophism is based on the fact that any product has a certain definite, objective value. But this is not the case. The value of goods is given by people, and since all people are different, they evaluate goods differently. It is thanks to this that a mutually beneficial exchange becomes possible. For example, if you exchange an apartment for an “equivalent” one (as they say in ads), but this does not mean that you want to get an apartment of the same value as you give it away – this is pointless! You want to move to an apartment that is closer to work, to your parents, to the forest, lake, etc. For you, this apartment is more valuable than the one you give away. So does the person you change with. As a result, each of you receives an apartment of greater value than you give away.
It's the same with the worker. The capitalist builds a factory, buys equipment, and organizes production. And hires a worker to perform simple technological operations. Since they are simple, the worker does not appreciate them very much, and since the capitalist offers him a good payment for this, he considers such a transaction profitable and agrees. And where else can he get such a payment for a simple job? The capitalist agrees to this deal, because if he pays the worker's salary, he will earn even more. So this deal is beneficial for both. Then what the hell is Marx doing here if everyone is happy?
And you don't need to refute it. It wasn't Marx's idea, but Adam Smith's. As a tool for solving specific tactical tasks of the manufacturer. As a strategic method, it is unacceptable, since it does not have a zero reference point. But the Bolsheviks and proletarians were completely illiterate in economics.
The key idea of Marx is that surplus value is produced exclusively by the worker, and the capitalist only appropriates it (part of it). This is the whole “theory”. That is, the fact that the capitalist makes a profit and gives the worker “only a salary” – this fact Marx considers exploitation, and hence all his other ideas. The paradox is that, on the one hand, there is not much to refute here, since it is obvious stupidity. On the other hand, this stupidity somehow still catches the audience.
The simple fact is that not a single Marxist economist has ever received the Nobel Prize. This is how the scientific community has evaluated this theory, including the theory of surplus value. It is also legally untenable: you can not assign what belongs to no one. More precisely, it cannot be a crime for which it is necessary and possible to destroy an entire class. In fact, the source of profit is the knowledge and foresight of the entrepreneur. It is the workers who live at his expense.
Yes, Karl Marx's theory of surplus value has been refuted.
We present this refutation here.
Karl Marx took up the development of his theory, intervening in the dispute between different theorists on the question: where — in production or in exchange? — there is an increase in the cost of the product in comparison with the amount of costs for its receipt.
They say, is this increase due to the active merchant, who creates profit through non-equivalent exchange, or is it due to the producer, who has increased the value of goods within his production?
Marx replies that value is created in production, and by labor at that, but in exchange value only manifests itself.
This response contains two errors at once.
First mistake: the very immersion in this argument is a mistake: Marx does not notice the falsity of the question. It does not take into account the fact that the increase in value does not arise and is not created either in exchange or in production — it precedes both of them as the cause that generates them.
Really.
What drives merchants to exchange and producers to produce?
The answer is obvious: the reason for both is the objective difference in the cost of purchased factors and goods sold, which is revealed before making decisions about the exchange or the start of production.
In other words, the increase in value is detected (or recognized) by the merchant, manufacturer, or business designer as a fact of reality. (including the projected reality), on which you can make a profit if you manage to squeeze your costs into the difference in the cost of costs and results set by the market.
That is, neither exchange nor production is the cause of an increase in value, but, on the contrary, an increase in value is the cause preceding the acts of exchange or production and, consequently, giving rise to these acts!
In other words, the nature of value does not lie in production or exchange, but on the side of the cause that precedes and gives rise to both production and exchange.
Marx's second mistake: choosing one of the disputing parties as his ideological position.
Marx chose production, and within it he chose labor, and not human labor in general, but the labor of an employee.
But the employee does not produce value, but only costs.
The goal-setting of these costs does not belong to him, but to the capitalist, who daily solves the problem of how to squeeze the cost of producing a commodity into the value gain set in advance by the market.
The market is a space in which the permitted value increases dictated to both producers and merchants are objectively positioned. The limits of these permitted increments are identified and used by them.
The nature of the increase in value lies in the objective goals of the economy, which are the cause that generates both production and exchange. These goals are limited to the reproduction of people in the format of specific cultures.
With the upheavals in these cultures, all the differences in value in the market are also overturned, sending entire sectors of the economy into oblivion.
By discussing the surplus value allegedly squeezed out of the workers by the capitalists, Marx betrays the class roots of his teaching — the illusions of the administration of capitalist enterprises.
The truth is that it is not labor that creates an increase in value and surplus value, but, on the contrary, an increase in value generates labor – forces it to be realized, and moreover in the most expedient form. Labor, on the other hand, does not generate value, but only costs that must be squeezed into pre-set values.
From the outset, the obvious conclusion is that of all the types of labor in capitalist enterprises, only one makes a profit – the labor of the administration, which buys, regulates and controls labor, restricts the working conditions of workers and haggles for the prices of the purchased factors of production.
Further. When Marx asserts that commodities are all “crystallizations” of abstract labor measured by time, he rejects the fact that the labor of the cotton grower, weaver, tailor, etc., which he identifies as the substance of the value of commodities, is not the labor of proletarians at all, but of specialized private traders who bring their products to market.
Private labor is the unity of mental and physical labor, that is, free labor-for oneself, as the owner, and hired labor – not for oneself, but for the owner.
Turning to the consideration of the “production of value” within enterprises, Marx makes a logical substitution: instead of the labor of private owners (cotton growers, weavers, tailors, etc.), which he declares to be the substance of value, Marx further considers the labor of hired workers only.
This substitution adds to the incorrectness of the “production of value” thesis.
No matter how much labor is invested in the production of a product, the product can have zero value, for example, due to the excess of its quantity.
Further. A whole layer of fundamental errors was made by Marx in his judgments about the equivalence of exchanges in the market and conclusions drawn from them.
He does not examine the equivalence of exchanges thesis, but only uses it to enter into arguments about the “production of value” by labor. They say that to understand how it increases in production, let's assume that the exchanges are equivalent — then, of course, there is no place to increase value except in production.
At the same time, Marx is captivated by the idea that equivalence precedes exchange, that there is a substance that makes goods comparable, and that the question of the production of this substance (value) is correct.
But the real dialectic is that exchange, as an impulse of motion, is possible only by virtue of the presence of a difference in certain potentials that cause this impulse.
That is, an exchange occurs only if it is an exchange of non-equivalents.
None of the parties to the transaction, if both parties are sane and independent in their decisions, will not go to the exchange, if this exchange does not give her a win, or at least does not relieve her of some burden.
It is precisely the non-equivalence that each side recognizes in its own favor, and only the non-equivalence, that is the cause and condition of the exchange.
It is precisely because of the non-equivalence of the exchange, with its mutual good faith, that both parties benefit. Society as a whole benefits doubly from such an exchange: correct statistics will show the real increase in the national wealth of society, as the sum of the increases in the wealth of both participants in the transaction: each gave less valuable, received more valuable.
But Marx does not see the real increase in social wealth from exchange and shifts his attention to the interior of enterprises, generating voluminous volumes of reasoning about the production of value and surplus value there.
These volumes of reasoning are built on the assumption that exchanges in the market are exchanges of equivalents, so that there is no place for value to grow except in production.
But Marx never examines either this assumption or the genesis of the facts of equivalence of exchange. It simply assumes that the reason for the comparability of goods in exchanges is the “crystallized” labor in them.
It turns out that both the theory of value and the theory of surplus value are based on the fictional phenomenon of “equivalence” of exchanges.
These theories are presented by Marxists as a theoretical bomb in the hands of the revolutionary movement. The most amazing thing is the fact that this bomb actually worked and put under the Marxist banner, in the 20th century, a third of the world's population!
Why did this “bomb” go off? Yes, because Marxism expressed the ideology of a really powerful class in capitalist society – not the proletariat, but the class that commands the proletariat on a daily basis, considers it its resource, dreams of centralized accounting, control and planning, and seeks to impose its dreams on all mankind.
It was Marx's theoretical errors, including the false theory of value and the theory of surplus value derived from it, which formed the basis for the methodology of planning the national economy of the USSR, that programmed the collapse of the USSR.
This collapse could have been avoided if Marxism had been applied not as a dogma, but as Stalin and Beria used it.
Unfortunately, Stalin and Beria were killed, narrow-minded people like Khrushchev came to power, the leadership of the USSR lost its ideological core and led it to collapse.
A refutation of Marx's theory of value is given in section 3 of the Manifesto of the Renewed USSR. (Click on the link).
As for the theory of surplus value, I will give its refutation in a publication with a preliminary title.”What is profit and why is it destructive for any economy?”
Subscribe to the channelRussian Global Project and keep up to date with publications on this topic.
The Soviet Union denied it. The state was socialist, that is, not capitalist at all, and all goods were sold to the people not at cost, but above. That is, the exploitation of labor took place, although the system was not capitalist.
It is not entirely clear what exactly needs to be refuted. The vast majority of Marx's apologists present the Theory of Surplus Value in this spirit : the capitalist sold so many goods at such and such a price and received such and such an income. At the same time, he spent so much on the workers ' wage fund. Everything that is the difference between his income and the social security fund is usually presented as surplus value. You might think that in addition to the payroll fund, there are no other costs at the enterprise and there is no need to pay taxes or update fixed assets.
Marx did not have a “theory of surplus value” (there were several theories explaining value and surplus value, and Marx argued with them). Marx has the so-called ” labor theory of value “and, accordingly, as a derivative -” labor theory of surplus value “(although the latter name is usually not used, and Marx also spoke only of the”labor theory of value”). It is based on sophistical subterfuges, for which Marx introduces the concepts of ” concrete labor “and” abstract labor “and the division between them in relation to the role in”value creation”. But the main core of sophism (and the whole theory) Marx had a logically incorrect separation of” value “(the basis of the price of a commodity) from” use value “(the” utility ” of a commodity). From the fact that an equally useful piece of bread (which has an unchangeable “use value”) can be expensive today and cheap tomorrow, Marx draws the completely unjustified logical conclusion that value has nothing to do with use value. As a result, this leads to many absurdities (such as the need to assert that the more mechanized and automated the work of a worker is, the more this worker is “exploited”). Marx's followers tried to forget about such absurd consequences of the” labor theory “as soon as possible, turning the conversation to all sorts of” ulcers of capitalism”,” social injustice”, etc.This has nothing to do with scientific understanding, but it was very useful for remaking an erroneous theory into an” ideology ” and achieving certain goals. By the way, if anyone really wants to read a logical critique of Marxist views and a serious alternative theory (in which the laws of economics are considered in relation to the laws of biological evolution, and all together – as a manifestation of the fundamental laws of physics), there is a book “Soviet super-ochlocracy and post-Soviet ochlocracy”. It has been freely available on the site since last year https://sites.google.com/site/avluslogos/