Surplus value and maintenance

In "Towards a New Socialism", Cockshott speaks in the first chapter about surplus value and describes it with a graph detailing wages/profits in the UK during the early 80s. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I haven't yet read him even mention costs of actually maintaining of a particular business. I imagine if you took those things into account the "actual profits," while not negligible, would be a lot less. How would this even work in a socialist economy ?

I'll keep reading of course but this is an area of interest for me and if anyone has any input, that would be great

Attached: title.gif (286x212, 46.26K)

Other urls found in this thread:–Kruger_effect

What are these actual costs of running a business? Suppose the business has to pay rent. Do you think paying rent is part of actual costs? Surely there is work in creating and maintaining a building, but rent pays for more than that. Indeed, even land with nothing on it is worth something in the market. You can't get a proper view of exploitation by analysing the costs of a business in isolation from everything else, exploitation is something done by the collective of capitalists and landlords to the collective of workers.

That is overhead, which is paid with capital. I cannot recall off-hand how Cockshott explained it.

You have stumbled upon one of the contradictions of capital that have become startlingly apparent in this century: the falling rate of profit. Systemically, it requires an ever-increasing amount of capital to generate the same return on investment. This results in generally lower profit margins for businesses that are unable to compensate by way of economics of scale. Currently, owing to the falling rate of profit, business expenses are high enough that so-called entrepreneuers are at an insurmountable disadvantage when in competition with established businesses with enormous reserves of capital to invest.

Attached: 1200px-Wal-Mart_in_Madison_Heights.jpg (1200x900, 268.8K)

Thank you for responding. Is there any kind of list of such contradictions that I can read and investigate ?

Here is a short list intended for a lecture that I borrowed. It is not an exhaustive list, but theorists tend to disagree about others.

• Large-scale production based on alienated labor: production is on a massive scale, yet workers have no control over what is produced and to what ends it is used.
• Capital-labor relationship: capitalist profts are based on the exploitation of the working class. Capitalists need workers to create their profts so workers have power too.
• Competition between capitalist states: Capitalist production is organized on the basis of competition between rival capitals. Historically this has created imperialist wars between capitalist states.
• Competition turns into monopoly: market imperatives force capitalists to maximize profts by cutting costs and increasing productivity. Free market competition turns into monopoly as unsuccessful businesses are swallowed up by successful ones.
• Crises of overproduction: economic booms lead to overproduction, commodities go unsold, production is reduced with workers losing their jobs, there is even less purchasing power, and a vicious cycle ensues leading to a recession.
• Responses to the crisis can exacerbate the problem: public spending may lead to infation and a decrease in real wages. Capitalists may buy up surpluses for their own consumption but it means that they are not reinvesting in production.
• The tendency of the rate of proft to fall: Investment in means of production is often in labor saving technology but surplus value creation is based on the exploitation of workers. Investing in new technology which enables it produce more efciently and sell more cheaply thus, at least temporarily, stealing a march on its rivals. But once the use of the new technology is generalized the temporary advantage is wiped out and the overall rate of proft is reduced.

Some of these are fatal contradictions (eg. the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and the relationship between labor and capital) while others are merely unpleasant aspects of the system that get resolved internally by means of war or state suppression of dissent.

Anywhere else I would assume you're just having a giggle, but every single point of yours is just flat out wrong.
That isn't a contradiction.
No, they're based on selling a desirable good or service to those who want it.
The need for land and resources exists under every system that could possibly exist.
Being "swallowed up" usually means that government regulations have made the cost of running a business prohibitively expensive. It's rather insane that the solution to "monopolies" is to simply give the "People's Working Party of People Workers" a monopoly on everything in the country.

It's not even worth continuing. Actually put some critical thinking into what you read, instead of taking the words of an unemployed idiot like Marx hundreds of years ago at face value.
For shits and giggles, you might even try applying for a manufacturing job. You don't have to actually take the job (since I know you people have some kind of phobia against actually working), but they generally will take you on a tour of the facility, so that you can learn how any sort of manufacturing process actually works.
That in itself would give you a more informed view than Marx ever had.

Attached: ze57a5qjriiy.jpg (569x465, 33.15K)

You got that right, at least.

i can't tell if this is ironic or not

very nice post, user.

I would add that the centralization of capital and mass production lead to its own peculiar contradictions which exacerbate the tendency to overproduce due to the inability to change production lines once the process has begun. This is why a lot of older car manufacturers suffered during the 2nd half of the 20th century. The Japanese attempted to solve this contradiction by developing methods of production that attempted to rationalize the process until circulation of goods was complete.

That's how profits are realized but not what profits are based on. Try again.
You missed the entire point. The engine of the capitalist mode of production requires profit which requires expansion. This can occur either intensively or extensively. For industrial capital to sustain continued growth means acquiring new sources of raw materials and even labor, which meant the incorporation of large territories into the global capitalist economy, which at many points required the integration of pre-capitalist economies by force. Once integration had occurred there was no point in maintaining large garrisons and imperial relationships since it proved cheaper to grant these territories independence with the knowledge that they would be driven by economic necessity to remain tied into the global market.
The centralization of capital into trusts and joint-stock companies does not require any government intervention. Modern industry's absorption of capital and labor previously dedicated to artisan production occurred due to market competition.
It's a logical consequence that the absorption of small-scale production by modern industry would be followed by the absorption of modern industry by a planned economy.
You probably shouldn't have even posted here, then.
The irony here is that the "idiot" Marx predicted a lot of trends that weren't fully evident until 50 or 100 years later. You haven't even reached the insights attained by people in the mid 19th century.
1. You're probably a 20 year old college student who never held a real job in his life.
2. Management typically doesn't give out free tours to every swinging dick who applies for a job, and even if they did learning the process takes much longer than a short tour.

Let's try that again. Productivity is high compared with 50 years ago, and 50 years ago was high compared to what had been 50 years ago, and we're talking about productivity in the broad sense of expanding the scope of what we can do with work and technology to modify what we find in nature. You agree with that? But this we in we can, humanity as whole, doesn't have this power by everybody having an equal say. Nor should it be that way, or should children have the same say as adults and should lay people have the same say as experts? But this difference in power of decision-making is virtually nowhere due to actual differences in skill and knowledge. Anecdotes that seem to support the meritocratic myth are blown out of proportion by vested interests. Decisions about the layout of cities and energy usage aren't made by experts either. The word of top mathematicians who work as climate scientists counts for virtually nothing compared to what big oil companies with billions to spare want from politicians.

Take a look at somebody who cleans the street. Let's make it easy for you, so let's say that person is not somebody who would have really flourished in a different society. Let's say he isn't even average, he's a bit dumb while still being a functional adult. You compare the current GDP of the nation he lives in to where it was 30 years ago, when his dad had the same job. Let's say the GDP quadrupled. Does this mean he can have the same standard of consumption as his dad while working only 1/4 of the time or work as long and get four times the stuff, does he have a choice to work half as much and get twice as much stuff as dad? If the answer is no (and it is no), then what's the point of that measure? It is not a useless measure for everybody, it is useful for a particular group (a minority) that has a particular view of the world as a consequence of how they "make" their living.

What the other guy means by contradiction here is the gap between what is going on in society currently, and what is technically possible in terms of quality of life right now. Not this memey luxury space communism bullshit, no technical miracles assumed. Assume zero technical inventions. What increase in quality of life could be like, if only the rules of society changed.–Kruger_effect

Attached: DpYFcKrWwAABF3a.png (500x514, 32.3K)

Let me guess, you think profits are based on the "exploitation" of the working class, because that's what your told, and can't possibly comprehend how a company could make more money that doesn't involve abusing people under their employ?
No, it requires revenue, which doesn't require "expansion", unless we're talking about non-renewable resources, which has nothing to do with capitalism or communism. Rest of that point discarded.
That wasn't what you originally wrote at all, so I'm not even sure what you're referring to. Just because McDonalds set up shop in town doesn't mean I wouldn't eat at my local restraunts, unless of course the government passed some prohibitively expensive legislation that only McDonalds could afford, and the local businesses could not.
Which has always turned out awful, because monopolies are bad. A lot of government legislation in capitalist countries prevents monopolies from occurring, because monopolies are bad, and competition is good.
You should probably stop regurgitation Marx then, and actually try thinking for yourself. If that's too much effort for you, at least let someone smarter than that retard Marx do your thinking for you.
Tell me more about how industrialized first world countries came to accept communism, and would spread it to third world shitholes, which have consistently been the ones to adopt (and then abandon) communism. For bonus points, tell me more about how "communism is inevitable", when every single communist or socialist state has either already failed, or is in the process of failing.
Like I said, it would be a good experience for you to at least see it yourself. It will probably blow your mind that any sort of manufacturing process isn't "WORKER PUSHES BUTTON THAT SPITS OUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR PORKY".

Attached: 35.png (300x300, 95.7K)

Well, I'll at least give you the bare minimum amount of props in order to explain the same Marxist bullshit in your own words.

Now that very much depends. I've worked directly under both owners and managers before, and if they're not good at their jobs, you'll either find that they eventually get removed, or the company goes out of business. This is especially true of anyone who's responsibility it is to run a business, whether it's an owner, CEO, etc, because according to the average Zig Forums moron, they think these people do literally nothing, which explains why Zig Forums isn't very good at business.

There are multiple problems with your next paragraph. Not only is GDP not a reliant predictor of quality of life, ala the broken window fallacy. It also leaves out every possible change that could have occurred in 30 years.
Here's a much more straightforward example.

Again, you need to actually rub your two braincells together and try to understand the concept that realization of profit and the underlying basis of profit are two separate things.
It's not enough for a firm to have revenue in capitalism, you idiot. The quantity of revenue needs to be profitable. Which leads to the conclusions of my point above.
That was my first post in the thread, so I don't know what you're talking about. I mean, it should've been obvious I was a different user because I replied to the other one by saying "very nice post, user." Pay more attention.
"I will create a hypothetical anecdote to disprove a historical tendency."
Which basically concedes my point. The logical consequence of growth tendencies under capitalism is to favor increased centralization and coordination of production and circulation.
The idea that capitalism will give way to socialism is a long-term prediction, and some Marxists believe that it's not an inevitability, only something that will happen if capitalism continues to develop along its current path. Or it could collapse into barbarism or nuclear war or whatever.
Communism is not a program that countries can simply adopt and implement. Places like the Russian Empire did not even possess the material basis for socialism when the Bolsheviks took power and the problems created by attempting to bridge the distance between semi-feudalism and socialism proved too much for them in the long run.
20th century socialist states have (mostly) been backwards state-capitalist countries that tried to develop their economies via state monopolies and bureaucratic planning. The one or two fairly developed countries that adopted socialist systems (maybe parts of Germany and Czechoslovakia) were handicapped by the the USSR's domination which, when not outright looting their country like in Germany, forced them to accept Soviet methods of economic organization. Anyway, there are capitalist countries right now that are doing terribly. Even strong capitalist countries suffer periodic crises and recessions every 7-10 years.
Dunning-Kruger user confirms he's a 20 year-old college student.
Also, if you want to read a good book about how modern manufacturers operate I'd recommend The Machine That Changed the World.

If you think people on this board are so dumb then feel free to fuck off.

Shucks howdy, please explain to me how "profit" and "making more than operation costs by selling a product or service" are such radically different concepts. Because it certainly sounds like your answer is "exploitation reee", which you're avoiding saying now that I've pointed out how stupid it is.
Nice weasel word, but you didn't even remotely come close to fooling me that time. All a business needs to stay in business is to make enough money to cover its operating costs. I'm beginning to think you don't actually know what "capitalism" is, but are working off loaded assumptions about what Marx believed capitalism to be.
Then my apologies. It's hard to keep track when everyone is anonymous.
It's a historical tendency due to government regulation. Replace any other small company with any other similar big company and the point still remains. In fact, now that people notice that every other chain of "home goods stores" have been gobbled up by Walmart, they're coming back in style because nobody wants to deal with soulless motorcart Walmart pantshitters.
Not even remotely. The communist solution to "monopolies are bad" isn't "bust up the monopoly", it's "monopolize absolutely everything under the NOT STATE because we call it the PEOPLE WORKER'S PARTY".
That has failed almost everywhere, and in the process of failing everywhere else.
So basically communism only works if capitalists do all the work first. This is why when capitalism create a post-scarcity technocratic utopia, communists will be placed on walled off reservations lands while we explore the cosmos.

Attached: capitalism.png (624x217, 9.66K)

this is prob the 5th time i've posted these pictures this week.

Attached: material conditions matter, libs.png (520x858 157.53 KB, 227.39K)

>I would have expected him…
That poster was not referring to the guy who had called you a case of Dunning-Kruger, he was referring to you.

Then they're both misusing that specific cognitive bias. I have the utmost confidence that if what he (apparently now, either of them) put critical thinking into what they're repeating from Karl Marx, they could see variety of flaws contained with Marxism themselves, not that I somehow possess some superior intellect.
It just becomes even more silly to name-drop the Dunning–Kruger effect without actually knowing what it means.


You clearly misunderstand.
I don't think that I'm significantly smarter or more stupid than the person I was responding to. Think of reality like it was some kind of >food analogy, like a multilayered cake. On the different levels, you have

We mock idealism, but holy fuck is this another level of stupid.

Could you please look up the definition of profit before making a thread like this? Thanks.

When it comes to Marx, you absolutely do not. Get that shit together before even attempting to claim otherwise.
Nobody else cares about your ridiculous subjective Marxist definitions of "profit". Try talking like a human being if you want anyone to honestly take you seriously.

You don't even know what people mean when they say "idealism" in regard to philosophy, do you? Everything that you have posted here so far is just you declaring that the opposition is stupid because you can't understand what they are talking about.

Like a chess-playing pigeon.

Attached: pigeon-chess.jpg (500x333, 115.54K)

I mean the literal dictionary definition of profit used in accounting and economics.

You seem to have conflated revenue and profit like some sort of economically illiterate retard.

Going by that definition, a producer who only finds a willing buyer by selling under production cost turns a profit. And somebody selling to someone who accidentally ordered something and who has no way of reversing that can't turn a profit by that act. That definition is in conflict with how people running a business talk about profit, whether they are crypto-Marxists or Scientologists or Elvis fans.

More practical definition: Profit is the part of monetary return that exceeds monetary investment.

Neither does half this board tbh. Same goes for utopian.

erry time

I said realization of profit and the underlying basis of profit. Learn to read.
The realization of profit happens in the sphere of circulation, i.e. when goods are being sold and distributed. The underlying basis of profit is exploitation which happens in the sphere of production, i.e. when workers provide unpaid labor above and beyond what it costs to pay for the value of their wages. When the other user said that profits are based on exploitation he was referring to what I just explained. Which is why your statement that "profits are based on selling a desirable good or service" is so idiotic.
You don't know what "weasel word" even means.
No one would invest in a business if all it did was break even.
Then you need to prove that government regulations killed the booming artisan-based car industry, locally owned retail stores, etc.
Yes it does. Because you admit that capitalist countries have often engaged in activity such as trust-busting to avoid the formation of monopolies. This implies that modern production has an inherent tendency to form monopolies. If that's the case, why would it be insane to let things take their natural course and then socialize ownership of production? This would be, instead, a logical consequence of the growth of modern production.
We have yet to see a modern capitalist country attempt to socialize production, so I don't know how you can say it has failed "almost everywhere."
Q: Is socialism/communism a political program that can be adopted by semi-feudal countries who can then harness the power of Marx?
A: No, socialism/communism emerges as a new mode of production when the productive forces of capitalism have outgrown the "capitalistic mode of using them."
Wow, so you're saying instead of studying a subject based on technical studies I should rearrange my life and get a job in the manufacturing industry. That is REALLY practical and useful advice.
Aren't you one of the autists from /liberty/ ? It kind of confirms to me though that many STEM graduates are just high functioning autists who have an aptitude for quantitative work but who can't even think clearly.

Again, since you think everyone on this board is so dumb, I invite you to fuck off and never come back.

That doesn't even respond to those guys. Is this one of those sophisticated shitposting robots that I have been hearing about?

I know what you are thinking: that a square piece of land of four times the area only needs two times the amount of fencing, that the surface of a big warehouse compared to a smaller one is an increase by a smaller factor than the increase in volume, and so on and so forth. You are brainwashed by fake geometry. Or as I call it: JEW-o-metry.

Subscribe to my newsletter Freedom-Math™ and get the information that the Jewish Communists who are the billionaires behind the mega-corporations, who are consumed by envy and hatred because they are too stupid to really succeed in life, and who are also antisemitic (sad!) don't want you to know.

As silly as this shitpost is, I cannot help but draw comparison to theoretical physics. It leads to all the same conclusions only without making any pretext whatsoever of rational thought.

Attached: 702_1433440838_albert-einstein.jpg (808x1024, 134.08K)

sciencedups btfo
based commie retard

I think that is supposed to be an insult, but it is difficult to decypher the New 4chan speak.

Attached: WhyCan'tTheRightMeme.png (894x823, 368.92K)

If you could stop repeating MARXIST BRAINWASHING for one second you'd realize that in socialism you can't even calculate how much fence is needed. It's literally impossible. Without market prices you can't know how much fence costs in the store, which means communism is IMPOSSIBLE.

Attached: 44221121.jpg (480x360, 110.16K)

Attached: f522fe9a454f0bb8d08bd917057265d5.jpeg (500x538 7.29 KB, 40.26K)

these marxists sure are stupid! how many times does the CIA have to overthrow socialist governments before they realize that socialism DOESN'T WORK

Can somebody explain to a brainlet like me the finer points of these three rebuttals:

Should I make a thread on /liberty/ about it?

you can find detailed models of these arguments throughout Rothbard's works, including
The Panic of 1819
For a New Liberty
Fiat Money and the Age of Consent

i'm so used to dumb libertarian shit i had to check that wasn't an actual book title rothbard wrote

Sure. Pic related.
Gee, that was fucking hard.

Attached: profit.png (618x186, 7.68K)

Notice how that definition makes the OP completely nonsensical?
If you don't, then you're not just economically illiterate but plain old illiterate as well.

Attached: utena.gif (500x375, 879.4K)


That quote seems to be pretty much in tune with the financial definition given by the communist in and it is at odds with the subjectivist take by the anti-communists. So you concede the points made in that post by the communist and agree that this measurable concept of profit is sensible and that the concept of subjective profit by the anti-communists ITT is impractical?

it's not just a matter of definition.

if profits form part of a surplus that results from a difference between gains and losses, it behooves us to ask about the substance of that surplus and how/why it arises.

there are two possibilities:
A. the surplus arises in circulation (in which case there is unequal exchange of value between buyers and sellers)
B. the surplus arises in production (in which case we assume that exchange of equivalents is generally the rule)

Looking only at the surface appearance of things it seems as though profits (and thus surplus) are generated in circulation when buyers provide sellers with money. This implies that there is an exchange of non-equivalents between buys and sellers. (I.e. profit could be assumed to arise from sellers "overcharging" relative to the value of a good.) But at the outset this leads us into difficulties if we imagine an economy exclusively dominated by buying and selling which lacks any sphere of production. Such an economy would only circulate goods but not create any. There would be no creation of wealth, nor value, nor surplus. Even in a financial sense, money would simply change hands but the sum would never increase.

Which leads us to profit somehow arising in the sphere of production. Based on surface appearances, the profit might arise by producing more stuff. Profit results from producing more goods which then increase the surplus. But if we assume that there is generally an exchange of equivalents, producing more goods would always result in a no-profit situation unless one could somehow produce goods for free or at reduced cost and then, as the capitalist, pocket the difference. So the question is, where does this difference come from within the sphere of production?

We are then left with:
Raw materials
Machinery / Means of Production

Profit couldn't, as a rule, arise from buying raw materials below value since that violates our general rule of exchange of equivalents. Machinery / Means of Production likewise must be assumed to be bought at their value. This leaves us with labor as our last option. But wouldn't it also violate the rule of exchange of equivalents to say that labor was paid less than its value? Yes, it would. Which is why it's important to understand exactly what is the value of labor and how does it tie in with the production process. If we assume that wages equal the value of labor, then we must draw two conclusions about the value of those wages:
1. They must be sufficient to reproduce that labor to continue production. (i.e. wages must be sufficient to pay for basic necessities and to keep workers from leaving.)
2. Wages can never equal or exceed the total value of goods produced. (Because this would then create a situation in which any profit, let alone surplus, becomes mathematically impossible.)

So now we are left with the conclusion that the combination of raw materials, machinery, and labor forms the basis of the surplus and thus profit. But labor, contrasted with materials and machinery, seems to alone possess a difference between the value it receives and the value it is capable of producing. Thus, Marx concludes that profit arises from this difference. Specifically, Marx drew the analogy to feudalism that serfs worked so many days for themselves and so many days for the feudal lord. Likewise, the wage-laborer works so many hours for himself (to create the value for his wages) and so many hours for the capitalist (to create the value of the surplus.)

This is the explanation for the theory of profit accrual via exploitation.

What a waste of a good effort post. Inb4 smug anime girl and nonsensical tangent that mischaracterizes the effort post

an effortpost is never a waste of time so long as people can gain something from it.

Attached: nixon.jpg (806x1024, 226.28K)