Is surplus value, - theft or not?

[Janoah]

The "red terror" is based on Marx's formula of surplus value, this formula also justified the revolution against the bourgeoisie, "exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class", "robbing the stolen".
According to Marx's formula, surplus value is the value that the capitalist steals from the worker.
But it seems to me that this statement of Marx is wrong.
Surplus value is the required cost for the efficiency of reproduction, including costs for innovation, improvement and development of production, and social programs for workers.
The correctness of my opinion is confirmed by the fact that under socialism there is also surplus value, which goes towards the same needs as under capitalism, but after it has been socialized by the state.
Thus, the surplus value of a commodity is not the cost of the workers' labor to produce this commodity, but the cost of improving reproduction, etc., so that the commodity is in demand, which is paid by the buyer, just as he pays for the cost of materials, depreciation of the means of production, the wages of workers.

Ownership of the means of production has long been a means of exploitation of labor, oppression, from slavery to capitalism.
At the same time, slavery was justified according to Marx, with that low level of productivity, slavery was necessary for the development of productive forces and culture.
Marx believed that with a sufficient level of productive forces, the need for ownership of the means of production would disappear, and thus exploitation and oppression would cease.
But under socialism, oppression can be, and usually is, even greater than under capitalism, through the repressive methods of the state.
While labor productivity under socialism is usually significantly lower than under capitalism.
Thus, there are no prerequisites for socialism, since Marx's formula of surplus value is erroneous, and ownership of the means of production is always necessary to increase the efficiency of production.

This is due to human nature, not everyone is suited to doing business, although they can earn good money as employees of successful businessmen, who are the foundation of the country's overall well-being.
And the absence of oppression depends on the moral climate, as it is said in the Tanakh,
"Do not oppress the widow, orphan, sojourner, or poor. And let none of you contemplate evil deeds in your hearts against his brother."
(Zechariah 7, 10)

[Immanuel Can]

...under socialism there is also surplus value, which goes towards the same needs as under capitalism, but after it has been socialized by the state.

Don't forget the Party's cut, though. Because it goes through their hands, they get to pick all the plumbs off the top. And it's the crumbs that get to the proles at the bottom.

But under socialism, oppression can be, and usually is, even greater than under capitalism, through the repressive methods of the state.

Yes, in every single historical case.

While labor productivity under socialism is usually significantly lower than under capitalism.

Again, yes, in every case. If you give a man a limited income, he has no incentive to make the world a better place...for himself, his family or his society. Since he can't improve himself, he doesn't. He just takes whatever he's given.

And the absence of oppression depends on the moral climate, as it is said in the Tanakh,
"Do not oppress the widow, orphan, sojourner, or poor. And let none of you contemplate evil deeds in your hearts against his brother."
(Zechariah 7, 10)

Right. And there are no mere political solutions to moral problems. Moral problems have to be solved by a change in that "human nature" you're talking about. You can have the greatest political plan in history; but if the people within it are corrupt and selfish, it's going down anyway. That, the Tanakh also says. "This people honours Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me." (Is. 29:31)

[promethean75]

"But it seems to me that this statement of Marx is wrong.
Surplus value is the required cost for the efficiency of reproduction, including costs for innovation, improvement and development of production, and social programs for workers"

Ah, this one again. It's an amateur mistake... don't sweat it.

If those costs you mention at any point become less than the amount of profit generated by the business owner from exploiting workers, he can no longer plead "but i spent all this money starting the business, buying the coke machines, having the new friers put in, a new HVAC system, updated seating, etc" because those things have loooong been paid for by now.

It's okay when a student or armchair rightwinger intellectual tries it... but when a business owner tries it, it's especially sickening, and you wanna shoot em right there on the spot. A parasite with the audacity to see if it can still get away with pretending to have worked to establish his business and to keep it going. Lolz.

Guess what would happen if you pressed a button and Musk disintegrated where he stood. Nope. Close though. Things would actually get better. That's how critically important a capitalist is to the chain of production.

That last bit wad sarcasm, btw. Kay just makin' sure.

[promethean75]

What i say will hit home harder if you've ever actually produced something your boss had absolutely no hand in making. I did this daily for twenty years. Myself and four other men would build entire houses, during which we might see the boss pull up in a truck once in a while, if at all. And yet, three-quarters of the money made from that house we five built went into the pocket of this phantom in the white truck.

When you do this, if you have, you find something so immediately absurd that only a philosophy could talk you out of believing it so. You would need to be spun by a sophist to think anything more about it. And believe you me they are everywhere.

You might say there are three kinds of intellectuals. Marxists, anarchists, and those clowns who have never had a real job.

[promethean75]

And now that we mention it, the history of the world, the entirety of its meaning and significance, the only thing making it worth living, is the eternal war between the last type and the Marxists and Anarchists.

Indeed, it has sadly been nothing but this. Two species engaged in battle over property and the privilege not to have to labor. A parasite class and a laboring class... their conflicts being the thing out of which the process of all philosophy develops, unfolds, and evolves. All philosophy as a tool and means to gain the upper hand in this historical battle.

Then there are active and passive expressions of these two opposing philosophies. The passive expression accounts for the vast majority of each. For example, on the right, you will have conservatives who aren't practicing parasites. Ideologues who identify with the parasite's philosophy for some personal reasons, usually emotional. Their conservatism is passive. They are like pets. Inconsequential and almost redundant. You could plop them down into 1970 communist vietnam, and they'd live no differently. The same passive banal lives they'd live anywhere else. That's how important it is that they live in a free market society (sarcasm there again... just makin' sure).

On the left, you have the same. These are the Marxists and Anarchists who only 'talk a big game' but are involved in no revolutionary activity. But this is not contemptuous because such activity, if genuine, is dangerous, and one can't condemn a man for not wanting to put himself in harms way. We still rank a passive Marxist and Anarchist. Even the mere mention, merely posting a party slogan or two, draws attention to this greatest problem in history and its causes. And what if among the readers of that quote is a real thinker who becomes an active Marxist or Anarchist on account of that? This is enough to justify and count as important even passive Marxism and Anarchism.

[Immanuel Can]

...the business owner from exploiting workers...

You never did explain when "exploiting" really happens.

You sought a job. You were offered one, at a prescribed wage that compensated the labour described in a contract. You accepted it, and you freely signed the contract. You could have taken other jobs -- and could even now do so instantly. You shopped your labour for all it was worth, and agreed to your wage, your benefits and your duties.

Exactly when did your boss start exploiting you? How did he do it? What prevented you from leaving, when he started it? Why haven't you reported him for his unfair labour practices? When will you be shopping your labour somewhere else, for a price you think is fair?

[promethean75]

Exploiting is everywhere and part of nature. You exploited a pig this morning when you had those sausage patties.

The exploitation these Marxists guys are talking about is the instance of giving someone in exchange for their labor something of less value than that labor. Example. I pay you a dollar to make me a burger. I then sell that burger for two dollars. The value of the burger is two dollars, while the payment for the labor is only half of that. That's what they mean in the most basic sense. It's just an emo word for 'he didn't give me all the money'.

The Marxist aks the worker, "Why would you let that happen? Property is not a right. It's an institution made by collective agreement or it's obtained by force. Why do you let institution x (capitalism) exist? You could topple it and redefine property rights altogether."

'Course then the conservatards come along and start hollerin' god given rights and immoral this and immoral that... lotta noise, really. Just tryna keep a salespitch that'll stop the commies from taken their factories over. IC will be here directly to give himself and you all a demonstration.

[Immanuel Can]

Exploiting is everywhere and part of nature.

Yeah, sure: you're vegan.

I mean YOU. Tell me how YOU are being exploited.

You sought the job.
You signed the contract.
You are paid what you signed for.
You can leave anytime, with no penalty.

How are you being exploited? And why don't you just leave, if you feel that way?

[promethean75]

I'm exploited even under contract. The nature of the contract involves exploitation.

But exploitation isn't the problem simpliciter. I'd be getting a wage that's less than the value of the thing i make in a marxist economy, too. Still a wage worker, etc.

It's the total effects of the rearrangement that are responsible for giving the worker more access to the fruits of his labor and giving his dollar greater spending power. The whole economy is changed... so while you may still be making ten dollars an hour in uncle Marx's corner store, that ten dollars'll getcha a lot more, and things, at the same time, are much less expensive. The sum total effects of the arrangement translate to bigger payoffs for laborer.

You think I'm just being crude when i say parasite, but that's exactly the bio-economo-functional role of the capitalist in all this. A guy holding a philosophically empty property deed up in front of himself, trying to stop you from taking the factory you built for him from him.

He's a superadvanced specialized bipedal extragastronomic tapeworm with nice clothes on. Pretty much it. Nobody needz em.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm exploited even under contract.

So you sought out that job, signed for it, took the pay for it, and now do it and stay in it, though you could leave anytime?

I've found your exploiter.

It's you.

[promethean75]

Oh, and you're talking to someone who has a couple wild cards, too, IC. I've had employers under contract break their contracts, and the State does not obligate them to pay me. But worse, i am charged to lose in court; i had to pay fees so i could go to court and lose my case against my employer. You'd need a royal straight flush to win this hand. Contracts mean diddly squat.

P.s. I eat meatz... relax I'm not with the animals rights group.

[Immanuel Can]

I've had employers under contract break their contracts, and the State does not obligate them to pay me.

So did you leave? You should have...instantly...or you're exploiting yourself. And you don't need any help from the State: you are a free individual. Sue for the back wages, if you think you can get them. There are labour laws, and plenty of lawyers ready to help you out, because they win if you win. But if you stay where you are exploited, then you are choosing your own exploitation.

And are you now finally in a job where you have accepted what you're worth, or are you still exploiting yourself by refusing to take a job that's worth what you can produce?

[promethean75]

"So you sought out that job, signed for it, took the pay for it, and now do it and stay in it, though you could leave anytime?"

When i was a wage earner, yup. If i quit, I'd just end up finding another job just like it. These capitalists come in droves. They operate like three quarters of the employment market.

What you wanna do is imply the question, "Why is that struggle any of capitalist x's business? He offered you a wage. You quit. That concluded his official business with you and any obligation to you." See, i even said that better than you.

And you can totally do this. At the same time, however, the wage earner can raise a complaint about the entire capitalist class and make your capitalist immediately related and relevant to capitalist x. It's not that capitalist x has anything to do with the business of capitalist y but that the wage earners have made capitalists in general a single category, and so they're all the same.

When i quit working for you and get another job, i go right back to working for you. That's how the wage earner sees it. IBM is just microsoft with a different name. Hardees just McDonald's.

[promethean75]

Marxist society would make it very significantly better for the lower lumpenproletariat class, very moderately better for the middle working class and very slightly worse for the capitalist class.

When you punch these numbers in, you find adequate justification for a Marxist society unless you are a heartless oligarch who would use a picture of John Stuart Mill as a dartboard.

[Immanuel Can]

"So you sought out that job, signed for it, took the pay for it, and now do it and stay in it, though you could leave anytime?"

When i was a wage earner, yup. If i quit, I'd just end up finding another job just like it.

Why? Did you undersell yourself? Did you refuse to make yourself suitable for a better job? You should quit the Hardees, and work for an IBM. They pay much better, for much more valuable labour.

...the wage earner can raise a complaint about the entire capitalist class...

What's the basis of the complaint? He chose his own career. He chose his own education. He chose his own job and his own contract. And he stays by choice. Where are the grounds for his complaint?

He's really complaining against himself, though he does not know it. He's saying, "I feel worth more than the price I set and accepted for my own labour." But he's wrong, of course; the value of any work is variable, according to how much education, how much financial investment and risk, how much danger, how much knowledge and training and specialization, how much responsibility, and how much skill is attached to that job. That is why some are paid more than others. That is why IBM pays more than Hardees.

So again, how are you exploited? How did you come to be exploited? Why did you let yourself be? And why blame somebody else for what you did to yourself?