Talk:Surplus value/Archives/2013

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,

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.202.48.125 (talk) 15:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)