The development of society has confirmed the entire falsity of the Marxist theory.
By the way, Marx himself recognized that the construction of communism according to his scheme is impossible in principle and his theory serves simply to deceive the proletariat.
It doesn't represent anything new or valuable. Basics of accounting and tax estimates and calculations of any social system. It has no social meaning, as Marx claimed. The creation of profit is the basis for the existence of any production. How it will be used is an individual issue and is not subject to public discussion. If the revolution in Russia had not been implemented, the whole of Marxism-Leninism would have been nothing new. It incorporated the teachings of its predecessors, the social Economists.The practice of the existence of a new socio – economic formation in Russia has provided a lot of food for scientists around the world, even more than purely Russian ones, bound by all sorts of prohibitions, which prevented the generalization of real experience and its collective discussion.
I can't argue with Max but I can answer that a private entrepreneur is ready to save on everything both in good and bad senses and there are dogmas in life and they should not be distorted they say competition is the engine of progress
What is surplus value? Let's say that an enterprise released a product and spent X rubles on its production. X includes the cost of raw materials, spending on workers ' and staff salaries, etc. Naturally, it does not make sense for an enterprise to sell goods at cost price, and it sets a trade mark-up of Y, selling the goods to intermediaries or directly to buyers at the price of X+Y. This Y is the surplus value. Intermediaries will also not sell the product at the price of X+Y, they will make another surcharge to earn money on the sale of the product.
Marx is an excellent economist who has revealed, from an economic point of view, commodity production and the laws of its development. His vision of the model of development and management of commodity production still confirms his correctness. If only commodity production, its very mechanism, and its production itself are changed, then perhaps the theory of surplus value will be changed. With respect.
The impossible is impossible. There is no alternative to it. Labor creates value. It was not possible to find another source of its origin, such a source does not exist in the nature of things. It is also the labor factor of that part of it that is created in excess of the exchange equivalent of labor – power-surplus value. This background information, what is controversial to announce a contest for different opinions? Where do they come from?
Evgeny Maksimovich Primakov in his book “Years in Big Politics” tried to” correct ” Karl Marx, academician Andrei Sakharov. and behind him, Professor V. D. Popov, in the monograph “The Future of Russia: Transition to a new formation” published this year, believes that the classics are corrected by “convergence” – all their attempts cause laughter. We can see what is happening in the United States and France – after leaving the political and economic scene of the Soviet Union, capitalism began to return very quickly to its primitive state, which once again confirms the correctness of Marx. I share the point of view of Alexander Myasnikov.
According to Marx, surplus value is withdrawn by the capitalist from the workers, which leads to crises of overproduction, since the remaining funds of the workers are not enough to purchase the products they have produced. For example, the workers produced $ 100 worth of oil, but the capitalist has withdrawn $ 50 and, accordingly, the workers can only buy oil with the remaining $ 50. The rest of the oil is superfluous. The workers can't buy it, and the capitalist won't eat that much. Accordingly, it is necessary to expand the sales market, i.e. to fight. And here Marx is doing well. Wars followed with enviable regularity. But the globe is finite. You can no longer expand. The market has become global. And here, according to Marx (or even a little earlier, in the most developed countries), the transition to communism and a planned economy should have taken place. However, this did not happen. At this point Marx was mistaken. The damned capitalists came up with the idea of giving workers loans with which they could buy the remaining oil. Moreover, if the credit burden becomes unbearable, then the bourgeoisie has a “Helicopter Money” project in stock, i.e., simply give the workers the necessary amount for purchasing the goods they produce without charge. It is strange that such simple solutions did not occur to Marx. Probably in his time, money was hoped for by some special property that did not allow them to be distributed so easily to the right and left. Somewhere there was information about the fetishism of money at that time. Capitalism got rid of these prejudices very quickly, unlike the former builders of communism in our country. Thus, I believe that Marx's theory is partially correct (before the formation of the global market), then it is not correct from the word at all.
The labor theory of value asserts that the source of the increase in its value, the main resultant factor of the nation's wealth, is labor. There is no other explanation for the fact that value increases in the process of labor. Because it can't be.
Yes, and immediately. The main source of overexploitation is bank loan interest, the so-called “interest rate”. Henry Ford wrote about this in his book “International Jewry”: “Why does Marx call me an exploiter, but Marx does not consider the banker who takes interest from both me and the worker an exploiter? Is it not because Marx is a Jew himself?” For information, at the end of his life, the bankers ruined the engineer, and the press declared him an anti-Semite.
The capitalist gets what he gets for giving the proletarian access to the material factors of production – this is how Marx puts it. But you can specify: and to non-material! Knowledge, “Guangxi”, permits, certificates, etc.
The right to “deny” the proletarian access to the factors of production is protected by the bourgeois State more strictly than the lives of entire groups of the bourgeois state's population… Operation or: just-nai…lovo! – it's more convenient for someone to call it.)))
No one has refuted and will not refute, firstly, it is impossible; secondly, it is pointless. Where wage labor is exploited, in all cases working time is divided into necessary and surplus, during which the necessary and surplus product are produced, the material equivalent of wages and surplus value – the value of unpaid labor of wage workers.
At least the price of gold is set not by this theory, but by historical agreement. Gold is worth much more than the labor invested in it. Hence the “gold rushes”, where gold is literally lying under your feet. And if we estimate the value of labor in terms of gold, it turns out to be absurd.
Karl Marx's theory of surplus value cannot be refuted, because it is elementary arithmetic. You produce a certain product, having spent a certain amount of A on everything, you have sold the product (or part of the product) for a total amount of B. The difference B=B-A is a profit if B is greater than A, or a loss if A is greater than B. The ratio of profit B to costs A is the efficiency of your enterprise.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted. This is like refuting the law of conservation of energy. But the conclusions that Marx himself and his followers drew are mostly incorrect.
Indeed, if there is no surplus value, that is, everything earned will be given to the worker, then where will the funds for the expansion and development of production, scientific research, and much more come from, without which society cannot not only develop, but even exist normally? That's the first thing. And the second conclusion that Marx drew was that the proletarian revolution was inevitable. However, never in history has a new OEF been created by one of the classes of the old OEF. Revolts of slaves and dependent (serf) peasants could lead at best only to a change of the ruling elite. That's all. This is exactly what happened as a result of the October Revolution in Russia. Surplus value has not disappeared, the relations of production have remained the same, except that the amount of demagoguery about the power of the working people has increased many times over. In reality, the OEF can change only when new classes mature in the depths of the old OEF, and new production relations develop to such an extent that the old ones will strongly interfere with them. But this is possible only at a new level of development of the means of production.
First of all, it is not a theory, but a law of capitalist economy that is studied in leading universities of the world
The point is not profitability, not the amount of surplus value, not the price of the commodity, but how this surplus value is distributed.
The result of this distribution is billionaires and beggars, either “to each according to his work” or “to each according to his needs”.
That is, the surplus value is created by the entire team of the enterprise, including the owner, but the owner divides it, leaving the team exactly as much as they are willing to work for, and takes the rest for himself.
It cannot be refuted. In any case, such a refutation will not have the status of a scientifically recognized one, since now economics is just graphs and formulas, and Marx's theory is all philosophy.
If we talk about the relationship between the worker and the capitalist in Marx's theory, then first of all, Marx argued that the transition in the capitalist economy did not make the ordinary worker more free, but on the contrary, made him even more dependent on the capitalist, since it deprived the employee of ownership of labor tools, and the free labor market is not free for workers, since in fact they have only two
Marx did not consider in his theory free workers – such as lawyers, notaries, doctors, in our time, even those who call themselves freelancers. Because, for him, they were petty bourgeois who were at the stage of transition to capitalists.
And it is precisely the struggle for the transfer of ownership of the instruments of production from the capitalists to the organized groups of working people that will make the latter truly free.
This is precisely the labor theory of Marx, and not the” vulgar Marxism ” to which Andrey Avramenko has descended.
And about life, which every day refutes Marx's theory of value-apparently you either did not read Capital or did not read it carefully, because according to Marx – what you are talking about is Merchant capital – which is based on the formula buy cheaper, sell more expensive, and Marx considered Industrial capital, which creates goods.
Similarly, Marx separated Industrial capital from agriculture, since the land cannot be considered as an instrument of production in its pure form, since it is capable of yielding crops even without the influence of the worker.
So to say that we go shopping and refute Marx's theory every day is like admitting that I haven't read Marx, but I still condemn it.
When reading the work “Critique of Political Economy” (Capital), the theory of value, as well as the theory of surplus value, was not found (in the sense of theory). The hypothesis that value (more precisely, utility), as a product produced by an economic organism, is measured by labor, is not true. Similarly, it has been found that surplus utility (rent according to Petty, surplus value according to Marx) cannot be reduced either to labor (see volume III of Capital, p.346, Selected Works) or to surplus labor.
The produced “utility” (utility is more correct than “cost”) is determined by the product of dimensionless factors, each of which is determined by the ratio of the current value of the factor to its maximum possible value.
Both hypotheses are refuted by my husband in the book “Theoretical economy – the dead end of the class approach”, Moscow, Economics, 2003, which presents the theory of value together with its surplus part, as a product of factors, with appropriate justifications.
At the same time, the THEORY of historical materialism developed by Marx and Engels is indeed a theory according to which feudalism is replaced by capitalism, which is replaced by communism – confirmed by historical events on the example of our country. At the same time, the USSR was dissolved because of the erroneous conclusions of Soviet ECONOMISTS (see the Novosibirsk Manifesto, in which the unprofitability of agriculture is explained by the failure of socialism), who advised Gorbachev in 1983 to replace socialism with capitalism through the privatization of enterprises created by the Soviet people. The spouse explained that the unprofitability of agriculture is observed all over the world and it is explained by farming according to the recommendations of agricultural scientists harmful to fertility.
Nobody has refuted the theory of surplus value. That is, they tried to refute the ruling communist parties in different countries, but they also failed. For example, the sale of bread at prices below prime cost made agriculture in the USSR unprofitable. The government tried to compensate for the losses by selling vodka made from the same bread, resulting in drinking and degradation of the population. Wherever you throw it, there's a wedge everywhere.
Personally, I've never heard of such a rebuttal, but I made it myself, about twenty years ago, in the early 2000s. I had a paper on this topic: “Working on mistakes” – it was rejected in both Izm magazine and Sovremennik magazine. And the last obvious clerics, idealists-answered me. Briefly expressing a big “Ugh!” to my ideas. The believers proved to have more decency than the materialist socialists. They were rejected out of hand. So it was not I who refuted the theory of surplus value, but scientific and technological progress, the energies of nature harnessed to machines. This dramatically reduced the number of workers and allowed them to increase their wages. The capitalists had to do this not out of humanity, but because of the overproduction crises that followed the NTP due to overstocking of markets. The capitalists then firmly understood that they had to pay the workers enough – so that the turnover was there, goods were bought up and capital grew richer without downtime. I do not know today's statistics for Russia, but in the thirties, Americans had more cars per capita than we have, say in the 70s.
Yes. This is the theory of the optimum of social development (TOR) – – http://www.ros-optimum.ru (view it a week later , with technical updates still in progress). Surplus value arises mainly from the exploitation of knowledge accumulated by mankind (the negentropic effect). A vivid example is automated manufacturing. Profit-materializes surplus value. Both are the result of an unconscious convention, an agreement of many people about the usefulness of a product or service, and they are subject to manipulation, for example, through advertising, creating a deficit, etc. Money is a sign of the usefulness of a person's labor, an imperfect sign, since it is a sign of the value of a person's labor. there is an opportunity to deceive unenlightened people, to take away signs. Exploitation, at all times, was built on ignorance and deception. But there are times when deceivers will deceive themselves. In normal production, where people are employed, both employees and owners are interested in money, and they exchange it. In automated production , there are no employees (or very few), no buyers , and everyone is unemployed. Owners can exchange with the executors of their will, automatic machines, only machine oil…. Who needs them, the capitalists, to be so oiled?.. Marx has long been obsolete. Read the TORAH, I'll bet. Capitalists today are turning into the most backward, illiterate people. I feel sorry for them, but “Dura lex sed lex” — The law is harsh, but it is the law. The elites will be different.
Yes. It is refuted by the theory of the social optimum of development (see fig. http://www.ros-optimum.ru). Surplus value is produced by using (exploiting) the knowledge accumulated by mankind, and, today, to a minimal extent, the physical qualities of a person. This is clearly seen in the example of automated production facilities. This topic should not be confused with the distribution of profit arising from surplus value. It is still extremely unfair today. But the theory of optimal development (TOR), created at the Academy of Philosophy of Economics of Moscow State University, describes a modern model of harmonious development; it is known to the authorities, and, in fact, is already being implemented. Today it is clearly seen that property is not only not sacred, but also not permanently fixed, since the usefulness of human labor for others is sacred, not a ridiculous record on the carrier about the owner, which does not correspond to the laws of nature. The new value of our time is information and knowledge. It has anti-entropic properties and is even essentially divine (Pythagoras et al.). We still don't know how to deal with a new deity, and we run the risk of making another idol out of it – “digitalization”, “artificial intelligence”, “transhumanism”. But THOR-will help you understand and find ways out of the difficulties of time.
No. What would be the point of producing a product and selling it at the cost of its production costs? Without surplus value, neither a market economy (capitalism) nor a planned economy(socialism) can exist.
The discovery of the law of value does not belong to Marx, but to William Petty (1623-1687). Marx “simply” proved that this law does not contradict bourgeois reality, which neither A. Smith nor D. Ricardo could do.
The author's” arguments ” are broken down by Marx's theory, which the author does not know, and therefore claims that the law of value is daily refuted. Everything that is necessary to know in order to understand the validity of the law of value is exhaustively stated by Marx in The Critique of Political Economy, pp. 47-48. (SS, 2nd ed., vol. 13):
1) The Doctrine of wage labor (k.Marx);
2) The Doctrine of Capital (the Study of capital) (K. Marx);
3) The Doctrine of Competition (k.Marx);
4) The doctrine of land rent (k.Marx).
After studying these teachings, the author will be ashamed of his ignorance, trying to “evaluate” the genius of Marx.
Marx borrowed the hypothesis of surplus value from the physiocrats. The failure of the surplus value hypothesis was proved by Abbot Ferdinando Galiani.
Marx borrowed the hypothesis of surplus value from the physiocrats. The failure of the surplus value hypothesis was proved by Abbot Ferdinando Galiani.
K. Marx (at least in the published version) has only a clumsy attempt to combine wages with the doctrine of the British moralizers and the labor basis of value. If we assume that labor creates value, and even then not everyone, but only those who produce things, and again not every one – there is a terrible windfall of children's reasoning on the subject of where labor is “kosher” in the sense of creating value, and where it is not-then labor cannot have a price, and therefore wages cannot exist. In the doctrine. But it still exists.
So K. Marx, having accepted without criticism the doctrine of the British imperialists, colonialists-moralizers (and where would he go if he lived in London on British money), and tries to pull an owl on the globe: they say that wages are fictitious, in fact, they sell slave skins on the labor market-I'm sorry, it was he who mixed up the epochs, and I'm just quoting his own scribble-workers ' skins intended for tanning.
The boy's excuse that the candy jumped into his mouth by itself.
As in our country, as in Europe, as in many other countries, VAT – value added tax-is successfully operating in the economy. Is this not a demonstration of the practical efficiency of the principles of Marx's theory?
I don't think so, since I don't know anything about it. In addition, the world lives according to the laws described by Marx in Capital. And many do not even realize that they are slowly going to collapse, although this may be their goal.
If you observe how the capitalist world is currently in a fever, then you have not refuted it. And those harbingers (increased production of weapons and withdrawal from nuclear weapons treaties, etc.) of the coming war, in general, prove that Marx was right, the time has come for the redistribution of markets….
The definition of surplus value cannot be refuted. As in mathematics, one cannot refute any initially established axioms – for example, PARALLEL LINES. Whether they can be used in modern practice is another matter. The answer is NO. I won't even try to explain a modern approach to the problem. The main thing to understand is that today the PRICE is considered only as a tool for adjusting the ratio of supply and demand. Basis of reasoning
the relationship between DESIRES and OPPORTUNITIES. For example, at most, in this market, people need 10 tons of potatoes, and 5 tons are offered. So the relative consumption is exactly 0.5. Or there is one painting by Repin, and the maximum you can sell is 10. Relative consumption, 0.1, Then sellers can manipulate the price to bring demand to supply. So the cost of a product is determined by relative demand. It, in turn, is determined by physical needs, fashion, and advertising. If we investigate further, the price is also limited (when supply exceeds demand-overproduction). In conclusion, we can say that theories are developing and we need to follow and take them into account,
Yes, this is not a theory, but a consequence of the 1st Law of Economics and Ecology “Living things can develop if and only if the cost of acquisition is less than the acquired one, i.e. if its efficiency is >1.0.” can't. How min. you need 700. Will you give it to me?
What did Marx write about ? All 4 volumes of Capital can be reduced to one : make more work, and pay less . Under one pretext or another . No one has refuted this , and no one can …
Marx's theory of surplus value does not exist. There is his hypothesis that ” surplus value is created by surplus labor.” And Marx told us about this on p. 383, Vol. 25, Part II, in item 2 (here the manuscript ends). Since there is no theory, there can be no refutation of it. In volume 4 of Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, Marx criticizes the theories (in fact, hypotheses) of surplus value of various economists, showing in a very witty way that these are not theories.
Meanwhile , a theory has been created, which is tested by practice, about the creation of value in the economic organism (correctly-utility, otherwise confusion). It is created by the interaction (product) of dimensionless factors, each of which represents the ratio of the current value of the factor to its maximum value. Published in the book “Theoretical economy – the dead end of the class approach”, Moscow, Economics, 2003. It is very simply verified in agricultural production. Who created it? My spouse.
Life! Life refutes and confirms Marx every minute.
Surplus value, if without Jewish-Plebeian-proletarian extremism , is the monetary equivalent of that part of the surplus product that a particular society, at a particular stage of its historical development, considers possible to provide for the management of a person or group independent of the state. Surplus product – that part of the whole product of an individual's labor activity, whose monetary equivalent is the difference between the value of the whole product of labor and the value of the labor force necessary for the production of this product, formed in the considered space-time localization.
It is obvious that from the very beginning of the appearance of the surplus product in the history of mankind, as a result of the development of productive forces, the appropriation of the entire volume of production costs by one person occurred only in the form of local exceptions.
In general, there is no theory at all. Surplus value is what the capitalist puts in his pocket without paying the worker extra for the fruits of his labor. Karl Marx saw this as the main injustice-and predicted the collapse of capitalism because of this underpayment. However, the most difficult question is not this, but how to evaluate the organizational activities of capitalists. In any case, collective labor is the responsibility of the capitalist for organizational matters, and the direct creation of the product of labor is the responsibility of the workers. The injustice here is that only the capitalist has the right to distribute profits. And this is already close to slavery in its own way. This is partially corrected by the corporatization of property by all employees of capitalist enterprises. Why partly – because the capitalist still has more money to buy shares. Only the solidarity of workers, but not of one enterprise, but of entire industries, can change this a little.
The meaning of surplus value according to Marx is that only as a result of the labor of an employee creates some profit, which is appropriated by the owner (“Robbing surplus value by the hand caught red-handed” according to Mayakovsky). Capitalists, on the other hand, claimed that their wealth was derived from their enterprise. There's nothing to argue about: both sides are right. If a capitalist gave every penny to an employee without leaving a share of the profit, then why should he organize a business and invest money in it? Equating entrepreneurial talent with the usual work of a manager is also not fair. We have a lot of examples when a talented entrepreneur works wonders using quite ordinary employees.
It is impossible to refute the truth, so none of Marx's subversives have succeeded so far and will not succeed in the future. Brevity is the sister of talent, so you don't need a lot of words.
Yes. Among the most convincing is the theory of optimal social development. The first publications were made in the 80s of the last century – “On the socio-psychological aspects of the production of surplus value”. The work was published at the University of Marxism-Leninism under the Vologda Regional Party Committee. It received the highest rating, but was not intended for popularization. It was noted that the simplified understanding of capitalist exploitation of workers almost reduces it to the use of human physical capabilities. This is clearly not the case, otherwise the surplus product produced by the horse will be greater (if you plow the land, harnessing a person to the plow). It was noted that the main source of surplus value is the anti-entropic qualities of knowledge accumulated by mankind; in this respect, a person is superior to other, physical forces. This is especially evident today, when there are more and more automata factories, and artificial intelligence shows more and more opportunities. Nor is the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat correct. It was also criticized by G. V. Plekhanov. There is a simple, striking contradiction. To give the palm of the highest consciousness to an uneducated person (an indispensable condition of that time, in order to meet the concept of “proletariat”) is strange; it is even more strange if this good person, having received a higher education, ceases to be”advanced”… The theory of the state's demise is also not correct. It is enough to recall the” polity ” of Aristotle. For a detailed description of the theory of the optimal development of society, see http://www.ros-optimum.ru
Marx has a “theory of labor value”, not a” theory of surplus value”
Marx argued in his theory that all the material goods of mankind are created by the physical and mental labor of people. That's why it's called the labor theory of value.
Not only the theory of surplus value, but Marxism in general, was refuted by the Marxists. Not all those who called themselves Marxists, seeking power, were Marxists, but some adventurers believed in Marxism. Salvador Allende was apparently an honest and sincere politician, and it was through Marxism that he led the country to collapse. Lenin, I think, simply believed in his own lies that he was a Marxist. Although this is also an example.
Let's take surplus value as an example of a book. We have 2 books in the same covers, binding, with the same number of pages. That is, production costs are the same. The author of the first one is a little-known author who published it with his own money, with a circulation of 100 copies. The second book is written by Stephen King (a new novel) and has a circulation of 200,000 copies. Stephen King did not take his fee from the publisher (for some reason unknown to us). I have a question – how much will the first and second books cost? From the point of view of the rate of surplus value, it seems that they should cost the same. Not in real life. What's the difference? In the brand value. Attention question? Are there any brand concepts in the writings of old Marx? Or the concept of copyright? Now the question of the correctness of the theory of surplus value is not entirely correct to put. It already has a much smaller impact on the selling price. You can also use program replication as an example. There, as such, there is no surplus value in replication at all, moreover, many programs are distributed free of charge. In return, consumers become customers and consume related services or watch ads. So now it is not quite correct to reduce everything to surplus value.
Marxism has long ceased to be refuted: it's like arguing with a multiplication table. They are actively trying to hush it up. In particular, this activity reached the point that it was necessary to collapse the USSR for this purpose. Marx's theory is the gravedigger of capitalism and the West in general.
No one denied it. Most critics of Marx do not know his theory even in the volume of a 4-hour course. But at the same time, they spend years of their lives refuting Marx . Can I trust people for whom 4 hours is more than a year?
Everything that is created by man is created by his labor (physically or intellectually). Therefore, the theory that explains the value of labor items is based on labor valuation. Another assessment is not valid. And if the value of bread in a bad harvest year is higher than in a year of abundance, then this only indicates the reasonableness of social relations in the country, and not the failure of the theory. In the USSR, bread during the war and after it cost the same. (Of course, as productivity increases, the price drops.) And note that the country hasn't gone broke. On the basis of Marxism, the USSR was built and was great, and in Putin's market the country is in a pipe.
Marx correctly built the theory at the micro level of a separate manufactory, at the level of pre-shipment production, with the division of operations into simplest ones, and the possibility of timing these operations. But for something more complex, this theory no longer works, because it contains a lot of simplifications that generally do not allow applying the theory to economics. This is exactly what the Soviet Union faced, trying to live according to Marxism, and dividing the production and non-production spheres. How, for example, can you evaluate the work of a teacher, doctor, agronomist, or architect, even if they work in the manufacturing sector? Yes, in general, when their work hours are increased, a better product is obtained in larger quantities; but this relationship is not linear at all, it is ambiguous, and it depends much more on other factors than the amount of labor. Remember: in the USSR, there was a cargo transport (which was part of the production sector – and it was relatively good with it) – and a passenger transport, which was part of the non – production sector-and everything was much worse with it. And the reason for this was a typical problem of the entire non-manufacturing sector – the inability to adequately quantify the participation of this sector in total GDP without using a market economy. (A doctor is not a pin flexor on a conveyor belt!) As soon as the state undertook to evaluate the work of everything that did not fit into the standard of factories/collective farms, the result was a Soviet service multiplied by working time. (“Here, fatigue is considered the measure of work”). This was one of the reasons that ruined the country, by the way.
The second problem of Marx's theory is that he immediately denied talents. For him, employees are interchangeable cogs; entrepreneurs are all standard. This is the cost of the time when the employee received the necessary qualifications in the simplest operation in a week or two – but this could no longer be ignored by communism in the twentieth century. Although even in the nineteenth century, there was already an understanding that an entrepreneur is different from an entrepreneur. A clear embodiment of this flaw in Marx's theory was the massive collapse of production after the collapse of the USSR, when most of the privatized (!) industry was closed by the new owners in a couple of years, and entire technological lines were commissioned for chermet. For Marx, having an entrepreneurial margin was exploitation, but in reality it turned out that not everyone can be an entrepreneur, that this requires talent (not to mention everything else), and that talent (suddenly!) it should be rewarded with this very margin. Exactly the same thing happens and has happened in the field of art: it's not enough to write a song, a book, or a picture – you need to make sure that your product is liked and bought. The classics of socialist realism in bookstores were not needed by anyone, and Angelique and Dumas were swept away in any circulation.
These are the two main problems of Marx's theory: the immeasurability of immaterial work and the negation of the product distinction for talents. There were other problems, but they affected the viability and applicability of the theory much less. All this was enough for the mass of the people to reject the official ideology at the domestic level by the end of the 80s, and the country collapsed.
Yes, even if we limit ourselves to the Marxist theory of profit, there is, for example, the famous “transformation problem”, which, at least as far as I know, has not yet received a final and unambiguous solution. In addition, the Marxist theory of “the tendency of the rate of profit to decline” raises big questions.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted because it is not falsifiable (it has no criteria for refutation)
Marx said: X units of commodity A are exchanged for Y units of commodity B because there is the same amount of labor in both cases.
How to measure – yes horseradish knows. In the nineteenth century, it might still have been possible to estimate how many man-hours it would take to make bread and how many it would take to make shoes. Now-you'll get fucked up.
Further, in Volume 3 of Capital, Marx describes that price differs from value because the rate of profit (profitability in modern terms) tends to equalize (arbitrage in modern terms). That is, the relationship between price and labor costs is even more complex.
Marx is usually criticized as follows:
they say that the consumer does not care how much labor the manufacturer spent, the consumer is guided by marginal utility and rarity
if one employee is bad and has to work on a task for a long time, this is not a reason to pay more, but rather the opposite (the buyer will go to the one who asks for less, and the labor-intensive manufacturer will go bankrupt).
This can be answered by:
consumer propensities determine the slope, etc., of the demand curve, not the price
the cost is determined not by the actual cost per unit of product, but by the average necessary expenses.
So it is that the util (units of utility), that “socially necessary labor costs” no one has ever seen and is not guided by them when calculating prices.
At the same time, calculations based on the Leontiev input-output model show that equilibrium prices are proportional to labor costs (see Gevorgyan and Malykhin, “CLASSICAL MARXIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND MODERN MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS”).
Personally, my opinion is that the product costs a person only labor, and if everything was made by machines or everything grew on trees, then everything would be free (adjusted for rarity)
And more than once.
The development of society has confirmed the entire falsity of the Marxist theory.
By the way, Marx himself recognized that the construction of communism according to his scheme is impossible in principle and his theory serves simply to deceive the proletariat.
It doesn't represent anything new or valuable. Basics of accounting and tax estimates and calculations of any social system. It has no social meaning, as Marx claimed. The creation of profit is the basis for the existence of any production. How it will be used is an individual issue and is not subject to public discussion. If the revolution in Russia had not been implemented, the whole of Marxism-Leninism would have been nothing new. It incorporated the teachings of its predecessors, the social Economists.The practice of the existence of a new socio – economic formation in Russia has provided a lot of food for scientists around the world, even more than purely Russian ones, bound by all sorts of prohibitions, which prevented the generalization of real experience and its collective discussion.
I can't argue with Max but I can answer that a private entrepreneur is ready to save on everything both in good and bad senses and there are dogmas in life and they should not be distorted they say competition is the engine of progress
What is surplus value? Let's say that an enterprise released a product and spent X rubles on its production. X includes the cost of raw materials, spending on workers ' and staff salaries, etc. Naturally, it does not make sense for an enterprise to sell goods at cost price, and it sets a trade mark-up of Y, selling the goods to intermediaries or directly to buyers at the price of X+Y. This Y is the surplus value. Intermediaries will also not sell the product at the price of X+Y, they will make another surcharge to earn money on the sale of the product.
Marx is an excellent economist who has revealed, from an economic point of view, commodity production and the laws of its development. His vision of the model of development and management of commodity production still confirms his correctness. If only commodity production, its very mechanism, and its production itself are changed, then perhaps the theory of surplus value will be changed. With respect.
The impossible is impossible. There is no alternative to it. Labor creates value. It was not possible to find another source of its origin, such a source does not exist in the nature of things. It is also the labor factor of that part of it that is created in excess of the exchange equivalent of labor – power-surplus value. This background information, what is controversial to announce a contest for different opinions? Where do they come from?
Evgeny Maksimovich Primakov in his book “Years in Big Politics” tried to” correct ” Karl Marx, academician Andrei Sakharov. and behind him, Professor V. D. Popov, in the monograph “The Future of Russia: Transition to a new formation” published this year, believes that the classics are corrected by “convergence” – all their attempts cause laughter. We can see what is happening in the United States and France – after leaving the political and economic scene of the Soviet Union, capitalism began to return very quickly to its primitive state, which once again confirms the correctness of Marx. I share the point of view of Alexander Myasnikov.
According to Marx, surplus value is withdrawn by the capitalist from the workers, which leads to crises of overproduction, since the remaining funds of the workers are not enough to purchase the products they have produced. For example, the workers produced $ 100 worth of oil, but the capitalist has withdrawn $ 50 and, accordingly, the workers can only buy oil with the remaining $ 50. The rest of the oil is superfluous. The workers can't buy it, and the capitalist won't eat that much. Accordingly, it is necessary to expand the sales market, i.e. to fight. And here Marx is doing well. Wars followed with enviable regularity. But the globe is finite. You can no longer expand. The market has become global. And here, according to Marx (or even a little earlier, in the most developed countries), the transition to communism and a planned economy should have taken place. However, this did not happen. At this point Marx was mistaken. The damned capitalists came up with the idea of giving workers loans with which they could buy the remaining oil. Moreover, if the credit burden becomes unbearable, then the bourgeoisie has a “Helicopter Money” project in stock, i.e., simply give the workers the necessary amount for purchasing the goods they produce without charge. It is strange that such simple solutions did not occur to Marx. Probably in his time, money was hoped for by some special property that did not allow them to be distributed so easily to the right and left. Somewhere there was information about the fetishism of money at that time. Capitalism got rid of these prejudices very quickly, unlike the former builders of communism in our country. Thus, I believe that Marx's theory is partially correct (before the formation of the global market), then it is not correct from the word at all.
The labor theory of value asserts that the source of the increase in its value, the main resultant factor of the nation's wealth, is labor. There is no other explanation for the fact that value increases in the process of labor. Because it can't be.
Yes, and immediately. The main source of overexploitation is bank loan interest, the so-called “interest rate”. Henry Ford wrote about this in his book “International Jewry”: “Why does Marx call me an exploiter, but Marx does not consider the banker who takes interest from both me and the worker an exploiter? Is it not because Marx is a Jew himself?” For information, at the end of his life, the bankers ruined the engineer, and the press declared him an anti-Semite.
The capitalist gets what he gets for giving the proletarian access to the material factors of production – this is how Marx puts it. But you can specify: and to non-material! Knowledge, “Guangxi”, permits, certificates, etc.
The right to “deny” the proletarian access to the factors of production is protected by the bourgeois State more strictly than the lives of entire groups of the bourgeois state's population… Operation or: just-nai…lovo! – it's more convenient for someone to call it.)))
No one has refuted and will not refute, firstly, it is impossible; secondly, it is pointless. Where wage labor is exploited, in all cases working time is divided into necessary and surplus, during which the necessary and surplus product are produced, the material equivalent of wages and surplus value – the value of unpaid labor of wage workers.
At least the price of gold is set not by this theory, but by historical agreement. Gold is worth much more than the labor invested in it. Hence the “gold rushes”, where gold is literally lying under your feet. And if we estimate the value of labor in terms of gold, it turns out to be absurd.
Karl Marx's theory of surplus value cannot be refuted, because it is elementary arithmetic. You produce a certain product, having spent a certain amount of A on everything, you have sold the product (or part of the product) for a total amount of B. The difference B=B-A is a profit if B is greater than A, or a loss if A is greater than B. The ratio of profit B to costs A is the efficiency of your enterprise.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted. This is like refuting the law of conservation of energy. But the conclusions that Marx himself and his followers drew are mostly incorrect.
Indeed, if there is no surplus value, that is, everything earned will be given to the worker, then where will the funds for the expansion and development of production, scientific research, and much more come from, without which society cannot not only develop, but even exist normally? That's the first thing. And the second conclusion that Marx drew was that the proletarian revolution was inevitable. However, never in history has a new OEF been created by one of the classes of the old OEF. Revolts of slaves and dependent (serf) peasants could lead at best only to a change of the ruling elite. That's all. This is exactly what happened as a result of the October Revolution in Russia. Surplus value has not disappeared, the relations of production have remained the same, except that the amount of demagoguery about the power of the working people has increased many times over. In reality, the OEF can change only when new classes mature in the depths of the old OEF, and new production relations develop to such an extent that the old ones will strongly interfere with them. But this is possible only at a new level of development of the means of production.
First of all, it is not a theory, but a law of capitalist economy that is studied in leading universities of the world
The point is not profitability, not the amount of surplus value, not the price of the commodity, but how this surplus value is distributed.
The result of this distribution is billionaires and beggars, either “to each according to his work” or “to each according to his needs”.
That is, the surplus value is created by the entire team of the enterprise, including the owner, but the owner divides it, leaving the team exactly as much as they are willing to work for, and takes the rest for himself.
It cannot be refuted. In any case, such a refutation will not have the status of a scientifically recognized one, since now economics is just graphs and formulas, and Marx's theory is all philosophy.
If we talk about the relationship between the worker and the capitalist in Marx's theory, then first of all, Marx argued that the transition in the capitalist economy did not make the ordinary worker more free, but on the contrary, made him even more dependent on the capitalist, since it deprived the employee of ownership of labor tools, and the free labor market is not free for workers, since in fact they have only two
Marx did not consider in his theory free workers – such as lawyers, notaries, doctors, in our time, even those who call themselves freelancers. Because, for him, they were petty bourgeois who were at the stage of transition to capitalists.
And it is precisely the struggle for the transfer of ownership of the instruments of production from the capitalists to the organized groups of working people that will make the latter truly free.
This is precisely the labor theory of Marx, and not the” vulgar Marxism ” to which Andrey Avramenko has descended.
And about life, which every day refutes Marx's theory of value-apparently you either did not read Capital or did not read it carefully, because according to Marx – what you are talking about is Merchant capital – which is based on the formula buy cheaper, sell more expensive, and Marx considered Industrial capital, which creates goods.
Similarly, Marx separated Industrial capital from agriculture, since the land cannot be considered as an instrument of production in its pure form, since it is capable of yielding crops even without the influence of the worker.
So to say that we go shopping and refute Marx's theory every day is like admitting that I haven't read Marx, but I still condemn it.
When reading the work “Critique of Political Economy” (Capital), the theory of value, as well as the theory of surplus value, was not found (in the sense of theory). The hypothesis that value (more precisely, utility), as a product produced by an economic organism, is measured by labor, is not true. Similarly, it has been found that surplus utility (rent according to Petty, surplus value according to Marx) cannot be reduced either to labor (see volume III of Capital, p.346, Selected Works) or to surplus labor.
The produced “utility” (utility is more correct than “cost”) is determined by the product of dimensionless factors, each of which is determined by the ratio of the current value of the factor to its maximum possible value.
Both hypotheses are refuted by my husband in the book “Theoretical economy – the dead end of the class approach”, Moscow, Economics, 2003, which presents the theory of value together with its surplus part, as a product of factors, with appropriate justifications.
At the same time, the THEORY of historical materialism developed by Marx and Engels is indeed a theory according to which feudalism is replaced by capitalism, which is replaced by communism – confirmed by historical events on the example of our country. At the same time, the USSR was dissolved because of the erroneous conclusions of Soviet ECONOMISTS (see the Novosibirsk Manifesto, in which the unprofitability of agriculture is explained by the failure of socialism), who advised Gorbachev in 1983 to replace socialism with capitalism through the privatization of enterprises created by the Soviet people. The spouse explained that the unprofitability of agriculture is observed all over the world and it is explained by farming according to the recommendations of agricultural scientists harmful to fertility.
The engine of progress in all its manifestations is creativity (as a general need and ability of a person), and not money, which is only a means.
“The ghost of communism roamed Europe 500 years ago”, “Communism is possible” there are such articles on the Channel “Haymaker” (Yandex Zen)
Nobody has refuted the theory of surplus value. That is, they tried to refute the ruling communist parties in different countries, but they also failed. For example, the sale of bread at prices below prime cost made agriculture in the USSR unprofitable. The government tried to compensate for the losses by selling vodka made from the same bread, resulting in drinking and degradation of the population. Wherever you throw it, there's a wedge everywhere.
Personally, I've never heard of such a rebuttal, but I made it myself, about twenty years ago, in the early 2000s. I had a paper on this topic: “Working on mistakes” – it was rejected in both Izm magazine and Sovremennik magazine. And the last obvious clerics, idealists-answered me. Briefly expressing a big “Ugh!” to my ideas. The believers proved to have more decency than the materialist socialists. They were rejected out of hand. So it was not I who refuted the theory of surplus value, but scientific and technological progress, the energies of nature harnessed to machines. This dramatically reduced the number of workers and allowed them to increase their wages. The capitalists had to do this not out of humanity, but because of the overproduction crises that followed the NTP due to overstocking of markets. The capitalists then firmly understood that they had to pay the workers enough – so that the turnover was there, goods were bought up and capital grew richer without downtime. I do not know today's statistics for Russia, but in the thirties, Americans had more cars per capita than we have, say in the 70s.
Yes. This is the theory of the optimum of social development (TOR) – – http://www.ros-optimum.ru (view it a week later , with technical updates still in progress). Surplus value arises mainly from the exploitation of knowledge accumulated by mankind (the negentropic effect). A vivid example is automated manufacturing. Profit-materializes surplus value. Both are the result of an unconscious convention, an agreement of many people about the usefulness of a product or service, and they are subject to manipulation, for example, through advertising, creating a deficit, etc. Money is a sign of the usefulness of a person's labor, an imperfect sign, since it is a sign of the value of a person's labor. there is an opportunity to deceive unenlightened people, to take away signs. Exploitation, at all times, was built on ignorance and deception. But there are times when deceivers will deceive themselves. In normal production, where people are employed, both employees and owners are interested in money, and they exchange it. In automated production , there are no employees (or very few), no buyers , and everyone is unemployed. Owners can exchange with the executors of their will, automatic machines, only machine oil…. Who needs them, the capitalists, to be so oiled?.. Marx has long been obsolete. Read the TORAH, I'll bet. Capitalists today are turning into the most backward, illiterate people. I feel sorry for them, but “Dura lex sed lex” — The law is harsh, but it is the law. The elites will be different.
Yes. It is refuted by the theory of the social optimum of development (see fig. http://www.ros-optimum.ru). Surplus value is produced by using (exploiting) the knowledge accumulated by mankind, and, today, to a minimal extent, the physical qualities of a person. This is clearly seen in the example of automated production facilities. This topic should not be confused with the distribution of profit arising from surplus value. It is still extremely unfair today. But the theory of optimal development (TOR), created at the Academy of Philosophy of Economics of Moscow State University, describes a modern model of harmonious development; it is known to the authorities, and, in fact, is already being implemented. Today it is clearly seen that property is not only not sacred, but also not permanently fixed, since the usefulness of human labor for others is sacred, not a ridiculous record on the carrier about the owner, which does not correspond to the laws of nature. The new value of our time is information and knowledge. It has anti-entropic properties and is even essentially divine (Pythagoras et al.). We still don't know how to deal with a new deity, and we run the risk of making another idol out of it – “digitalization”, “artificial intelligence”, “transhumanism”. But THOR-will help you understand and find ways out of the difficulties of time.
No. What would be the point of producing a product and selling it at the cost of its production costs? Without surplus value, neither a market economy (capitalism) nor a planned economy(socialism) can exist.
The discovery of the law of value does not belong to Marx, but to William Petty (1623-1687). Marx “simply” proved that this law does not contradict bourgeois reality, which neither A. Smith nor D. Ricardo could do.
The author's” arguments ” are broken down by Marx's theory, which the author does not know, and therefore claims that the law of value is daily refuted. Everything that is necessary to know in order to understand the validity of the law of value is exhaustively stated by Marx in The Critique of Political Economy, pp. 47-48. (SS, 2nd ed., vol. 13):
1) The Doctrine of wage labor (k.Marx);
2) The Doctrine of Capital (the Study of capital) (K. Marx);
3) The Doctrine of Competition (k.Marx);
4) The doctrine of land rent (k.Marx).
After studying these teachings, the author will be ashamed of his ignorance, trying to “evaluate” the genius of Marx.
Marx borrowed the hypothesis of surplus value from the physiocrats. The failure of the surplus value hypothesis was proved by Abbot Ferdinando Galiani.
Marx borrowed the hypothesis of surplus value from the physiocrats. The failure of the surplus value hypothesis was proved by Abbot Ferdinando Galiani.
It is impossible to refute what is not there.
K. Marx (at least in the published version) has only a clumsy attempt to combine wages with the doctrine of the British moralizers and the labor basis of value. If we assume that labor creates value, and even then not everyone, but only those who produce things, and again not every one – there is a terrible windfall of children's reasoning on the subject of where labor is “kosher” in the sense of creating value, and where it is not-then labor cannot have a price, and therefore wages cannot exist. In the doctrine. But it still exists.
So K. Marx, having accepted without criticism the doctrine of the British imperialists, colonialists-moralizers (and where would he go if he lived in London on British money), and tries to pull an owl on the globe: they say that wages are fictitious, in fact, they sell slave skins on the labor market-I'm sorry, it was he who mixed up the epochs, and I'm just quoting his own scribble-workers ' skins intended for tanning.
The boy's excuse that the candy jumped into his mouth by itself.
As in our country, as in Europe, as in many other countries, VAT – value added tax-is successfully operating in the economy. Is this not a demonstration of the practical efficiency of the principles of Marx's theory?
I don't think so, since I don't know anything about it. In addition, the world lives according to the laws described by Marx in Capital. And many do not even realize that they are slowly going to collapse, although this may be their goal.
If you observe how the capitalist world is currently in a fever, then you have not refuted it. And those harbingers (increased production of weapons and withdrawal from nuclear weapons treaties, etc.) of the coming war, in general, prove that Marx was right, the time has come for the redistribution of markets….
The definition of surplus value cannot be refuted. As in mathematics, one cannot refute any initially established axioms – for example, PARALLEL LINES. Whether they can be used in modern practice is another matter. The answer is NO. I won't even try to explain a modern approach to the problem. The main thing to understand is that today the PRICE is considered only as a tool for adjusting the ratio of supply and demand. Basis of reasoning
the relationship between DESIRES and OPPORTUNITIES. For example, at most, in this market, people need 10 tons of potatoes, and 5 tons are offered. So the relative consumption is exactly 0.5. Or there is one painting by Repin, and the maximum you can sell is 10. Relative consumption, 0.1, Then sellers can manipulate the price to bring demand to supply. So the cost of a product is determined by relative demand. It, in turn, is determined by physical needs, fashion, and advertising. If we investigate further, the price is also limited (when supply exceeds demand-overproduction). In conclusion, we can say that theories are developing and we need to follow and take them into account,
Yes, this is not a theory, but a consequence of the 1st Law of Economics and Ecology “Living things can develop if and only if the cost of acquisition is less than the acquired one, i.e. if its efficiency is >1.0.” can't. How min. you need 700. Will you give it to me?
What did Marx write about ? All 4 volumes of Capital can be reduced to one : make more work, and pay less . Under one pretext or another . No one has refuted this , and no one can …
Marx's theory of surplus value does not exist. There is his hypothesis that ” surplus value is created by surplus labor.” And Marx told us about this on p. 383, Vol. 25, Part II, in item 2 (here the manuscript ends). Since there is no theory, there can be no refutation of it. In volume 4 of Capital, Theories of Surplus Value, Marx criticizes the theories (in fact, hypotheses) of surplus value of various economists, showing in a very witty way that these are not theories.
Meanwhile , a theory has been created, which is tested by practice, about the creation of value in the economic organism (correctly-utility, otherwise confusion). It is created by the interaction (product) of dimensionless factors, each of which represents the ratio of the current value of the factor to its maximum value. Published in the book “Theoretical economy – the dead end of the class approach”, Moscow, Economics, 2003. It is very simply verified in agricultural production. Who created it? My spouse.
Life! Life refutes and confirms Marx every minute.
Surplus value, if without Jewish-Plebeian-proletarian extremism , is the monetary equivalent of that part of the surplus product that a particular society, at a particular stage of its historical development, considers possible to provide for the management of a person or group independent of the state. Surplus product – that part of the whole product of an individual's labor activity, whose monetary equivalent is the difference between the value of the whole product of labor and the value of the labor force necessary for the production of this product, formed in the considered space-time localization.
It is obvious that from the very beginning of the appearance of the surplus product in the history of mankind, as a result of the development of productive forces, the appropriation of the entire volume of production costs by one person occurred only in the form of local exceptions.
In general, there is no theory at all. Surplus value is what the capitalist puts in his pocket without paying the worker extra for the fruits of his labor. Karl Marx saw this as the main injustice-and predicted the collapse of capitalism because of this underpayment. However, the most difficult question is not this, but how to evaluate the organizational activities of capitalists. In any case, collective labor is the responsibility of the capitalist for organizational matters, and the direct creation of the product of labor is the responsibility of the workers. The injustice here is that only the capitalist has the right to distribute profits. And this is already close to slavery in its own way. This is partially corrected by the corporatization of property by all employees of capitalist enterprises. Why partly – because the capitalist still has more money to buy shares. Only the solidarity of workers, but not of one enterprise, but of entire industries, can change this a little.
The meaning of surplus value according to Marx is that only as a result of the labor of an employee creates some profit, which is appropriated by the owner (“Robbing surplus value by the hand caught red-handed” according to Mayakovsky). Capitalists, on the other hand, claimed that their wealth was derived from their enterprise. There's nothing to argue about: both sides are right. If a capitalist gave every penny to an employee without leaving a share of the profit, then why should he organize a business and invest money in it? Equating entrepreneurial talent with the usual work of a manager is also not fair. We have a lot of examples when a talented entrepreneur works wonders using quite ordinary employees.
It is impossible to refute the truth, so none of Marx's subversives have succeeded so far and will not succeed in the future. Brevity is the sister of talent, so you don't need a lot of words.
Yes. Among the most convincing is the theory of optimal social development. The first publications were made in the 80s of the last century – “On the socio-psychological aspects of the production of surplus value”. The work was published at the University of Marxism-Leninism under the Vologda Regional Party Committee. It received the highest rating, but was not intended for popularization. It was noted that the simplified understanding of capitalist exploitation of workers almost reduces it to the use of human physical capabilities. This is clearly not the case, otherwise the surplus product produced by the horse will be greater (if you plow the land, harnessing a person to the plow). It was noted that the main source of surplus value is the anti-entropic qualities of knowledge accumulated by mankind; in this respect, a person is superior to other, physical forces. This is especially evident today, when there are more and more automata factories, and artificial intelligence shows more and more opportunities. Nor is the Marxist conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat correct. It was also criticized by G. V. Plekhanov. There is a simple, striking contradiction. To give the palm of the highest consciousness to an uneducated person (an indispensable condition of that time, in order to meet the concept of “proletariat”) is strange; it is even more strange if this good person, having received a higher education, ceases to be”advanced”… The theory of the state's demise is also not correct. It is enough to recall the” polity ” of Aristotle. For a detailed description of the theory of the optimal development of society, see http://www.ros-optimum.ru
Marx has a “theory of labor value”, not a” theory of surplus value”
Marx argued in his theory that all the material goods of mankind are created by the physical and mental labor of people. That's why it's called the labor theory of value.
Not only the theory of surplus value, but Marxism in general, was refuted by the Marxists. Not all those who called themselves Marxists, seeking power, were Marxists, but some adventurers believed in Marxism. Salvador Allende was apparently an honest and sincere politician, and it was through Marxism that he led the country to collapse. Lenin, I think, simply believed in his own lies that he was a Marxist. Although this is also an example.
Let's take surplus value as an example of a book.
We have 2 books in the same covers, binding, with the same number of pages.
That is, production costs are the same.
The author of the first one is a little-known author who published it with his own money, with a circulation of 100 copies.
The second book is written by Stephen King (a new novel) and has a circulation of 200,000 copies. Stephen King did not take his fee from the publisher (for some reason unknown to us).
I have a question – how much will the first and second books cost?
From the point of view of the rate of surplus value, it seems that they should cost the same.
Not in real life.
What's the difference?
In the brand value.
Attention question?
Are there any brand concepts in the writings of old Marx?
Or the concept of copyright?
Now the question of the correctness of the theory of surplus value is not entirely correct to put. It already has a much smaller impact on the selling price.
You can also use program replication as an example. There, as such, there is no surplus value in replication at all, moreover, many programs are distributed free of charge. In return, consumers become customers and consume related services or watch ads.
So now it is not quite correct to reduce everything to surplus value.
Marxism has long ceased to be refuted: it's like arguing with a multiplication table. They are actively trying to hush it up. In particular, this activity reached the point that it was necessary to collapse the USSR for this purpose. Marx's theory is the gravedigger of capitalism and the West in general.
No one denied it. Most critics of Marx do not know his theory even in the volume of a 4-hour course. But at the same time, they spend years of their lives refuting Marx . Can I trust people for whom 4 hours is more than a year?
Everything that is created by man is created by his labor (physically or intellectually). Therefore, the theory that explains the value of labor items is based on labor valuation. Another assessment is not valid. And if the value of bread in a bad harvest year is higher than in a year of abundance, then this only indicates the reasonableness of social relations in the country, and not the failure of the theory. In the USSR, bread during the war and after it cost the same. (Of course, as productivity increases, the price drops.) And note that the country hasn't gone broke. On the basis of Marxism, the USSR was built and was great, and in Putin's market the country is in a pipe.
Marx correctly built the theory at the micro level of a separate manufactory, at the level of pre-shipment production, with the division of operations into simplest ones, and the possibility of timing these operations. But for something more complex, this theory no longer works, because it contains a lot of simplifications that generally do not allow applying the theory to economics. This is exactly what the Soviet Union faced, trying to live according to Marxism, and dividing the production and non-production spheres. How, for example, can you evaluate the work of a teacher, doctor, agronomist, or architect, even if they work in the manufacturing sector? Yes, in general, when their work hours are increased, a better product is obtained in larger quantities; but this relationship is not linear at all, it is ambiguous, and it depends much more on other factors than the amount of labor. Remember: in the USSR, there was a cargo transport (which was part of the production sector – and it was relatively good with it) – and a passenger transport, which was part of the non – production sector-and everything was much worse with it. And the reason for this was a typical problem of the entire non-manufacturing sector – the inability to adequately quantify the participation of this sector in total GDP without using a market economy. (A doctor is not a pin flexor on a conveyor belt!) As soon as the state undertook to evaluate the work of everything that did not fit into the standard of factories/collective farms, the result was a Soviet service multiplied by working time. (“Here, fatigue is considered the measure of work”). This was one of the reasons that ruined the country, by the way.
The second problem of Marx's theory is that he immediately denied talents. For him, employees are interchangeable cogs; entrepreneurs are all standard. This is the cost of the time when the employee received the necessary qualifications in the simplest operation in a week or two – but this could no longer be ignored by communism in the twentieth century. Although even in the nineteenth century, there was already an understanding that an entrepreneur is different from an entrepreneur. A clear embodiment of this flaw in Marx's theory was the massive collapse of production after the collapse of the USSR, when most of the privatized (!) industry was closed by the new owners in a couple of years, and entire technological lines were commissioned for chermet. For Marx, having an entrepreneurial margin was exploitation, but in reality it turned out that not everyone can be an entrepreneur, that this requires talent (not to mention everything else), and that talent (suddenly!) it should be rewarded with this very margin. Exactly the same thing happens and has happened in the field of art: it's not enough to write a song, a book, or a picture – you need to make sure that your product is liked and bought. The classics of socialist realism in bookstores were not needed by anyone, and Angelique and Dumas were swept away in any circulation.
These are the two main problems of Marx's theory: the immeasurability of immaterial work and the negation of the product distinction for talents. There were other problems, but they affected the viability and applicability of the theory much less. All this was enough for the mass of the people to reject the official ideology at the domestic level by the end of the 80s, and the country collapsed.
Yes, even if we limit ourselves to the Marxist theory of profit, there is, for example, the famous “transformation problem”, which, at least as far as I know, has not yet received a final and unambiguous solution. In addition, the Marxist theory of “the tendency of the rate of profit to decline” raises big questions.
The theory of surplus value cannot be refuted because it is not falsifiable (it has no criteria for refutation)
Marx said: X units of commodity A are exchanged for Y units of commodity B because there is the same amount of labor in both cases.
How to measure – yes horseradish knows. In the nineteenth century, it might still have been possible to estimate how many man-hours it would take to make bread and how many it would take to make shoes. Now-you'll get fucked up.
Further, in Volume 3 of Capital, Marx describes that price differs from value because the rate of profit (profitability in modern terms) tends to equalize (arbitrage in modern terms). That is, the relationship between price and labor costs is even more complex.
Marx is usually criticized as follows:
they say that the consumer does not care how much labor the manufacturer spent, the consumer is guided by marginal utility and rarity
if one employee is bad and has to work on a task for a long time, this is not a reason to pay more, but rather the opposite (the buyer will go to the one who asks for less, and the labor-intensive manufacturer will go bankrupt).
This can be answered by:
consumer propensities determine the slope, etc., of the demand curve, not the price
the cost is determined not by the actual cost per unit of product, but by the average necessary expenses.
So it is that the util (units of utility), that “socially necessary labor costs” no one has ever seen and is not guided by them when calculating prices.
At the same time, calculations based on the Leontiev input-output model show that equilibrium prices are proportional to labor costs (see Gevorgyan and Malykhin, “CLASSICAL MARXIAN POLITICAL ECONOMY AND MODERN MATHEMATICAL CONSTRUCTIONS”).
Personally, my opinion is that the product costs a person only labor, and if everything was made by machines or everything grew on trees, then everything would be free (adjusted for rarity)