Talk:Surplus value

Morality and power of surplus value

This section is horrendously biased and unless it is fixed I'm deleting it. --124.180.33.98 (talk) 11:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The section is still there, and still seems inappropriate, so I'm not sure whether it was "fixed," or whether the person lost interest. Thurow even has his own article, with plenty of room to include his views on value, which could always be linked to this article.

This surplus value article, higher up, already has an "interpretations" section (and "different conceptions!"), although the person(s) doing the interpreting are not specified. If this page is going to evolve into a valuable resource for explaining surplus value as rooted in Marx, it seems sensible to make very clear when the article is using a neutral attempt to explain the theory in Marx's own words (with the assistance of citations that are in the same spirit), and then have a very clear transition to a section or sections that briefly mention alternative interpretations of surplus value, and link to relevant author pages.

In short, different POVs need to be clearly delineated:

• Marx's concept of surplus value in his own words
• Others' attempts to clarify what Marx meant
• Derivations of Marx's surplus value by others that keep a significant amount of Marx's original concept
• Alternative conceptions of surplus value by others that differ significantly from Marx's original concept

--76.115.3.200 (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Quick Note on Latest Changes:

I am probably not qualified to write this article, which deserves a great deal of care and thought as it is one of the cornerstones to Marxist theory. Sadly, this was lacking here (by no means an accusation, just an observation). Beginning with an intentional distortion by the first author, in his or her capacity of a troll. It then underwent several revisions, which while removing the obvious troll distortions, were all nonetheless inherently flawed. With my changes it remains a substub, I am hopeful that an economist or economic historian (which I am not) picks this up further. The changes I made are as follows:

• Surplus value is extracted, not confiscated. Confiscation, as it is commonly understood, is very different from this extraction to which Marx subscribes.

• It is unpaid labour, not profit. Marx does address (conventionally acknowledged) 'forms of profit' (i.e. buying cheap - selling dear, etc.) and how these stand in relation to surplus value.

• It is extracted from the worker -by- the capitalist, not some non-entity.

• Minor: Omt. 'Marxism' as it is already wiki-redir. by 'Marxist economics,' added LtoV and Das Kapital (the most narrowly relevant WP entries that I could find/immediately think of); added references noting works by Marx especially pertinent to surplus value.

As stated, I am hopeful that this article will be seriously contributed to by experts in the field. Surplus value is a concept that immeasurably influenced the lives of hunreds of million of people (USSR, PRoC, etc.) as it was a central consideration in the economic planning, policy, etc. (and, of course, the academic discipline of economics) in those countries. El_C

Expansion and Merge with S-v

I suppose that at this point, it would be prudent of me to attempt an explanation of what it is beyond a single-sentence — involving a very brief exposition of absolute and relative surplus value. Also, merged with 'S-v' (redirected into 'S v'), while significantly editing and revising, and heavily rewording considerable portions of the former's content. As well, added image. No economic history however; as mentioned, my familiarity with that area of the topic is highly lacking. El_C

'Marxist economics' versus 'Marxism'

Thanks for your contributions, Mihnea Tudoreanu. I want to make it clear that I agree with you supplanting Marxist economics with Marxism. I kept the term from the earlier versions. Stating Marxism rather than redirecting to it via Marxist economics is, in fact, as a superior approach. Best regards, El_C

Pre-marxist

Should some mention be made of pre-MArxist use of surplius values? Adam Smith etc --Jacobin1949 (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Puzzled by Crit section

I am slightly puzzled over the criticism section, particularly the opening paragraph described as the primary critique of Marx's theory of surplus value, and on that basis wonder if the (also uncited) criticism is simply mis-described.

Firstly, the para doesn't actually mention surplus value once, but is presented as a rejection of (the classical and Marxist theory of) labour value altogether (which I was given to understanding was a central contention of the Austrian school, although I may have that wrong); secondly, that rejection appears to be based on a very simple misunderstanding of Marx's conception of value, and pretty much asserts that within a Marxist critique the notion of zero value is inconceivable, and the whole is compounded by simple differences of terminology. As I say, I am concerned that it is a result of mis-explanation in an uncited passage.

(Briefly, the actual value form the passage is referring to is exchange value, here called 'subjective' - in other words market-determined and variable - and a determinant of whether labour is 'productive' or 'destructive'; For Marx exchange value was indeed the ultimate value of a commodity, only measured in the act of exchange, relative to another commodity in barter and to the abstract money form - ie. price - in monetary markets and thus to all other commodites; the principle determinant of exchange value, distinct from the fixed labour value of a given commodity once manufactured, is use value, variable and market-determined; clearly within this framework it is perfectly conceivable that a commodity be produced with zero use, and thus exchange, value relative to a given market - coals to Newcastle, umbrellas to Arabs. . . The labour contained within the commodity and thus its labour value, being fixed, has gone nowhere; meanwhile, being variable, it is impossible to state that the commodity has zero absolute use value for a given other market. In order for a commodity to realise an exchange value it must possess a use value, an abstraction, with human labour considered the source of all use values: use value is precisely what labour produces in addition to the quantity of labour expended. Since the values, though interdependent, are distinct, it is perfectly possible to reckon the expenditure of a fixed quantity of labour on a product with correspinding labour value but zero use value, or the same on a product with abstract use value which fails to realise an exchange value within a given market. Marx does not make any subtle distinctions of qualitative labour - 'productive' or 'destructive', or anything else - labour being considered homogenous as labour value, but does make the socio-political distinction between socially necessary labour and its converse.) LSmok3 ^Talk 10:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I honestly believe that this section shows a great deal of slant towards defending Marxism and attacking the "neoliberal paradigms" which incidentally are the standard textbook theories taught in most universities over the world. This seriously needs to be reviewed for references and tone. 141.218.227.221 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Where is the criticism section ? This article really needs one. Marxist ecomomics in general and surplus value in general are hardly accepted scientific truth and some objective summary of the critics views is sorely needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.231.184 (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason you don't find much criticism on pages advocating Marxian economics is because it is already so widely rejected that it appears to be a waste of time to criticise such a fringe system of beliefs. Thus the pages are mainly edited by a handful of hard core Marxists and they will destroy anything remotely resembling criticism. The best you can hope for is a link to main stream economics where the experts in the field will keep the page representative of the current human understanding of economics rather than attempting to rewrite what used to be a debate a century ago.

Several articles?

Perhaps we should opt for an article on "Surplus value (Marxism)" and another article "Surplus value (Islam)"? Or should the Islamic criticism be included in the current article? User: Jurriaan 20:30 1 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.136.223.40 (talk)

Relation to taxation

This section seems to be a criticism of Mandel's theories that includes no citations and is not labeled as a criticism section, nor does it address the question of the Theory of Surplus Value as it relates to taxation (instead only including criticism of Mandel's lack of addressing the issue). — Preceding unsigned comment added by KurtFF8 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Concept of Surplus Value Did Not Originate with Marx

The concept dates at least to the time of the Medieval Schoolmen and their discussions concerning "Just Price" and further developed by the French Physiocrats. In fact the history of the concept was the subject of Marx's "Theories of Surplus Value". Generating a surplus, deciding what do with it and who should get, is what economies do and have done since. From the time of exist was the But even before the concept of surplus value was formalized explicitly,