It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about. We have ways of calculating the costs for machine depreciation (so we can factor maintenance into surplus value), but it can get really difficult, or is sometime impossible, to calculate things like the value that a transport worker adds.
Meanwhile for commodity / direct producers, surplus value is an easy calculation: worker value added - wage paid.
There’s also the issue that transportation and point of sale workers are in different economic sectors, in many different countries, which has implications for their place in the class struggle. John Smith’s I imperialism in the 21st century gets into some of these.
I think one of the better explanations is to view production along the entire supply chain as the production of the commodity, not just in the moment of a factory. Socially necessary functions all require socially necessary labor, and this amalgum of socially necessary labor and raw materials forms the commodity. A commodity is not just a commodity in itself, it is a commodity that has been transported, advertised, and sold. It does get more complicated to calculate, but you can also break it down into its constituent elements.
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about.
Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.
Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
Not quite. Price fluctuates around value, profit can come from discrepancies between price and value, or from the raising of socially necessary labor time due to sudden events (like a factory blowing up) and thus the price of unsold commodities rises. Marx made it clear that supply and demand do cover each other as they pull towards one another, and thus there is a “value” they gravitate towards, but that profit can be made via avenues not related to surplus value (though not as a rule, always temporary).
As for the USSR, there was appropriated surplus, it was just redirected towards development by the working classes, and in the interests of the working classes. This is very much a surplus, even if it isn’t appropriated privately. This is important, because an individual worker will not be entitled to the “full value of their labor,” it is the working classes that will be, and thus can distribute from ability to need.
This isn’t correct. Production costs must be subtracted to calculate surplus value.
Surplus value is “worker value added”. To get worker value added, you must subtract out the cost of materials, etc.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
This is also incorrect. Socialism and the USSR has / had a surplus, its just that its directed and controlled by working-class political decision-making, and not by private capitalists. It may direct that surplus into defense, research, social services, etc. It has a different form than capitalist surplus value.
Apologies—it translates some of the economic terms differently than I intended, but I hope you’ll be able to make sense of it.
You are referring to the cost of goods sold (or production cost): This represents the sum of all expenses (materials, rent, salaries, logistics) incurred by a business to produce and sell its goods or services. This metric determines pricing strategies as well as the size of the final profit—which is calculated as the difference between total revenue and the cost of goods sold.
Added value is the difference between the price at which a company sells a finished product and the cost of all the materials and third-party services consumed in its creation.
Essentially, added value constitutes the profit earned by the business owner. This is under capitalism.
"Socialism and the USSR has / had a surplus, its just that its directed and controlled by working-class political decision-making, and not by private capitalists. "
Yes, that is exactly what I told you in my previous post—you just misunderstood me. Don’t forget, Comrade, that I am currently speaking in a non-native language; this is especially tricky when dealing with scientific and technical terminology, as Google Translate can sometimes produce awkward translations. My command of English is strictly conversational… and even then, I rely on a dictionary… :)
Yes, that is precisely what I meant to convey: in the USSR, there was no surplus value generated for a private capitalist. Surplus value did exist, but within a socialist context—it was allocated to social programs, salaries for doctors, teachers, civil servants, and the like. However, this was not the same kind of exploitative surplus value; consequently, comparable goods in the USSR cost several times less than they did in the West—particularly essential goods. And yes, the state regulated all of this.
You are, however, misunderstanding what “surplus” meant in the USSR. As you know, the USSR operated under a planned economy. A surplus was defined as whatever was produced in excess of the plan. It occurred when an enterprise operated more efficiently than projected, resulting in a “residual”—an excess. In fact, this is precisely what undermined the economy back then, because that scoundrel Khrushchev “reformed” the Stalin-era economic system—a move that subsequently led to a host of problems!
Incidentally, my mother graduated from the Kyiv University of Economics and worked as an economic engineer at an aircraft manufacturing plant during the 1970s. Her job involved managing the plant’s economic planning.
“Here’s some vids on this:”
That gave me a chuckle, Comrade!..)))
I hope you don’t mind that I read Platoshkin in the original?.. )))
By the way—in case you didn’t know—Putin nearly threw Platoshkin in prison for inciting the people to revolution. Platoshkin miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.
Platoshkin is a very bold character. However, I disagree with him on certain points.
Platoshkin is a diplomat; he worked in the West back during the Soviet era. He possesses a wealth of experience and knowledge—he is a professor, after all—but in my view, he goes a bit too far at times. Or, as you folks like to put it: idealism.
It’s an issue that Marxist economists debate about. We have ways of calculating the costs for machine depreciation (so we can factor maintenance into surplus value), but it can get really difficult, or is sometime impossible, to calculate things like the value that a transport worker adds.
Meanwhile for commodity / direct producers, surplus value is an easy calculation: worker value added - wage paid.
There’s also the issue that transportation and point of sale workers are in different economic sectors, in many different countries, which has implications for their place in the class struggle. John Smith’s I imperialism in the 21st century gets into some of these.
I think one of the better explanations is to view production along the entire supply chain as the production of the commodity, not just in the moment of a factory. Socially necessary functions all require socially necessary labor, and this amalgum of socially necessary labor and raw materials forms the commodity. A commodity is not just a commodity in itself, it is a commodity that has been transported, advertised, and sold. It does get more complicated to calculate, but you can also break it down into its constituent elements.
Comrade, surplus value has absolutely nothing to do with current production costs.
Surplus value is the capitalist’s profit—nothing more.
According to Marx, surplus value is the value created by the unpaid labor of a wage worker—over and above the value of their labor power—and appropriated gratuitously by the capitalist. It is the hidden source of all forms of unearned income: entrepreneurial profit, commercial markup, bank interest, and ground rent.
In the USSR, there was no surplus value whatsoever; any “surplus” consisted solely of taxes earmarked for social benefits and similar expenditures.
Consequently, goods in the USSR cost a mere fraction of what the very same goods cost in the West.
Surplus value is the very mechanism by which capitalists grow rich—it is money out of thin air.
Not quite. Price fluctuates around value, profit can come from discrepancies between price and value, or from the raising of socially necessary labor time due to sudden events (like a factory blowing up) and thus the price of unsold commodities rises. Marx made it clear that supply and demand do cover each other as they pull towards one another, and thus there is a “value” they gravitate towards, but that profit can be made via avenues not related to surplus value (though not as a rule, always temporary).
As for the USSR, there was appropriated surplus, it was just redirected towards development by the working classes, and in the interests of the working classes. This is very much a surplus, even if it isn’t appropriated privately. This is important, because an individual worker will not be entitled to the “full value of their labor,” it is the working classes that will be, and thus can distribute from ability to need.
This isn’t correct. Production costs must be subtracted to calculate surplus value.
Surplus value is “worker value added”. To get worker value added, you must subtract out the cost of materials, etc.
This is also incorrect. Socialism and the USSR has / had a surplus, its just that its directed and controlled by working-class political decision-making, and not by private capitalists. It may direct that surplus into defense, research, social services, etc. It has a different form than capitalist surplus value.
Here’s some vids on this:
Apologies—it translates some of the economic terms differently than I intended, but I hope you’ll be able to make sense of it.
You are referring to the cost of goods sold (or production cost): This represents the sum of all expenses (materials, rent, salaries, logistics) incurred by a business to produce and sell its goods or services. This metric determines pricing strategies as well as the size of the final profit—which is calculated as the difference between total revenue and the cost of goods sold.
Added value is the difference between the price at which a company sells a finished product and the cost of all the materials and third-party services consumed in its creation.
Essentially, added value constitutes the profit earned by the business owner. This is under capitalism.
"Socialism and the USSR has / had a surplus, its just that its directed and controlled by working-class political decision-making, and not by private capitalists. "
Yes, that is exactly what I told you in my previous post—you just misunderstood me. Don’t forget, Comrade, that I am currently speaking in a non-native language; this is especially tricky when dealing with scientific and technical terminology, as Google Translate can sometimes produce awkward translations. My command of English is strictly conversational… and even then, I rely on a dictionary… :)
Yes, that is precisely what I meant to convey: in the USSR, there was no surplus value generated for a private capitalist. Surplus value did exist, but within a socialist context—it was allocated to social programs, salaries for doctors, teachers, civil servants, and the like. However, this was not the same kind of exploitative surplus value; consequently, comparable goods in the USSR cost several times less than they did in the West—particularly essential goods. And yes, the state regulated all of this.
You are, however, misunderstanding what “surplus” meant in the USSR. As you know, the USSR operated under a planned economy. A surplus was defined as whatever was produced in excess of the plan. It occurred when an enterprise operated more efficiently than projected, resulting in a “residual”—an excess. In fact, this is precisely what undermined the economy back then, because that scoundrel Khrushchev “reformed” the Stalin-era economic system—a move that subsequently led to a host of problems!
Incidentally, my mother graduated from the Kyiv University of Economics and worked as an economic engineer at an aircraft manufacturing plant during the 1970s. Her job involved managing the plant’s economic planning.
“Here’s some vids on this:”
That gave me a chuckle, Comrade!..)))
I hope you don’t mind that I read Platoshkin in the original?.. )))
By the way—in case you didn’t know—Putin nearly threw Platoshkin in prison for inciting the people to revolution. Platoshkin miraculously got off with a suspended sentence.
Platoshkin is a very bold character. However, I disagree with him on certain points.
Platoshkin is a diplomat; he worked in the West back during the Soviet era. He possesses a wealth of experience and knowledge—he is a professor, after all—but in my view, he goes a bit too far at times. Or, as you folks like to put it: idealism.