Talk:Surplus value/Archives/2012

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)

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)