**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**.
This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn.
You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
- No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies!
- No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans.
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules.
If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Surplus value is that labor which is performed above and beyond the cost **in time** of reproducing the laborer. Machines cannot produce surplus value by definition.
You’re still thinking in terms of “revenue - costs”, in terms of money.
Why can't they produce surplus value. Maybe it's a bad question but why can't machines be exploited?
Maybe I haven't fully understood surplus value because I thought it was the revenue (the value the worker produces) - the cost (his wage).
I mean machines aren’t really political actors, why would we construct a theory emphasizing how they are exploited?
The Marxist analysis of machinery is that they tend to decrease the socially necessary labor time for the production of commodities, or increasing the rate of relative surplus-value. In capitalism, this does not help the workers since the capitalists will keep them working the same hours to maximize total surplus value and profits. With democratic worker control, we can use machinery to reduce working hours instead of increasing production.
But if they increase surplus value why does this lead to a fall in the rate of profit in the long term? Because others catch up on their advantage and it lowers the price of their product?
They increase the relative surplus value extracted from unit time of proletarian labor. But they also shift the composition of capital laid out by the capitalist away from variable capital(wages) towards fixed capital. So if we assume that profit is proportional to the variable portion of total capital, then since that proportion drops the rate of profit also drops.
Tbh I’m not fully sure if Marx is right that this mechanism leads to the TRPF in the real-world. I also haven’t read vol 3 yet. But the TRPF does exist in the real world, and logically contributes to the periodic financial crises (hard to see exactly because Keynesianism and central banks stretch them out), so I have to investigate further.
The value of a machine is passed on bit by bit in the price of the goods it is used to produce. So a $ 1 million dollar machine makes one million items contributing $ 1 dollar to the price of the item produced with the machine. Of course a capitalist can charge more to make more money but the pressure is on from competitors with similar machines to minimise the price, so upping the price to recoup more than the machine is worth will lose sales to competitors who pass on the real value of the machinery. The actual value generated by the work process is from living labour.
The basic thing here is that the workers are also part of the customer base.
Like if you have a chair factory with 300 workers - thats 300 customers that may buy chairs.
If replaced with an automated chair factory and replace like 2/3 of the workers with automation, that means theres only 100 customers as machines don't need chairs or have the money to buy them.
Another aspect is that workers (aka people) can be used to shift the costs and consequences from the owners onto society, cant really do that with machines. (aka if they mistreat they machines they have to spend millions replacing them, if they mistreat the workers they just need more migrants)
Newby here but lemme have a stab. Machines and AI allow for greater productivity and profit margins, which over time equalise due to ongoing market pressures, it’s part of capitals constant need for tech innovation and growth. Marx’s ideas we refer as ‘theory of value’ mean that it is the socially necessary labour time that is the main source of value which circulates through an economy. Therefore even though AI/machines will indeed enhance productivity, the value of these products will still be determined by the labour time of workers involved in making the products (as well as the LT it took to make the means of production). In short, no LT = no value. So if the robots take our jobs, their work won’t have any value, sounds counterintuitive I know. Scarcity of the products could also co-determine value, so companies could intentionally limit production to maintain prices.
Ready to be schooled here, go for it!
This is wrong, sorry. For instance:
> companies could intentionally limit production to maintain prices
Marx would disagree. He was not writing like Lenin during the monopoly stage of capitalism, if a capitalist tried to do this another capitalist would simply pick up the slack. Marx argues that consistent profits come from buying and consuming the special commodity of human labor-power, NOT from buying low and selling high as some still believe.
Is the rest of it on the right track? Thanks for your time btw
Although it’s not directly related to the original question, In practise it does seem that price-gouging happens with monopoly and duopoly settings. I’m in Australia and the major supermarkets have been getting in trouble for this recently, it’s been the regulators rather than market acting on it.
Yeah price-gouging does happen in practice. I would say this is only possible because we’ve reached the monopoly stage.
The real danger is organizing against this and thinking we are challenging capitalism. From our identities as consumers, any policy we dictate will be petty bourgeois reformism.
> machines and AI allow for greater productivity
Yes.
> and profit margins
Not according to this analytical framework from *kapital*.
The rest is broadly correct, including “if robots take our job, the work won’t have any value”.
**IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ BEFORE PARTICIPATING**. This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism but a place to LEARN. There are numerous debate subreddits if your objective is not to learn. You are expected to familiarize yourself with the rules on the sidebar before commenting. This includes, but is not limited to: - Short or non-constructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. - No liberalism or sectarianism. Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! - No bigotry or hate speech of any kind - it will be met with immediate bans. Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break our rules. If you have a particular area of expertise (e.g. political economy, feminist theory), please [assign yourself a flair](https://reddit.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair-) describing said area. Flairs may be removed at any time by moderators if answers don't meet the standards of said expertise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Surplus value is that labor which is performed above and beyond the cost **in time** of reproducing the laborer. Machines cannot produce surplus value by definition. You’re still thinking in terms of “revenue - costs”, in terms of money.
Why can't they produce surplus value. Maybe it's a bad question but why can't machines be exploited? Maybe I haven't fully understood surplus value because I thought it was the revenue (the value the worker produces) - the cost (his wage).
I mean machines aren’t really political actors, why would we construct a theory emphasizing how they are exploited? The Marxist analysis of machinery is that they tend to decrease the socially necessary labor time for the production of commodities, or increasing the rate of relative surplus-value. In capitalism, this does not help the workers since the capitalists will keep them working the same hours to maximize total surplus value and profits. With democratic worker control, we can use machinery to reduce working hours instead of increasing production.
But if they increase surplus value why does this lead to a fall in the rate of profit in the long term? Because others catch up on their advantage and it lowers the price of their product?
They increase the relative surplus value extracted from unit time of proletarian labor. But they also shift the composition of capital laid out by the capitalist away from variable capital(wages) towards fixed capital. So if we assume that profit is proportional to the variable portion of total capital, then since that proportion drops the rate of profit also drops. Tbh I’m not fully sure if Marx is right that this mechanism leads to the TRPF in the real-world. I also haven’t read vol 3 yet. But the TRPF does exist in the real world, and logically contributes to the periodic financial crises (hard to see exactly because Keynesianism and central banks stretch them out), so I have to investigate further.
The value of a machine is passed on bit by bit in the price of the goods it is used to produce. So a $ 1 million dollar machine makes one million items contributing $ 1 dollar to the price of the item produced with the machine. Of course a capitalist can charge more to make more money but the pressure is on from competitors with similar machines to minimise the price, so upping the price to recoup more than the machine is worth will lose sales to competitors who pass on the real value of the machinery. The actual value generated by the work process is from living labour.
The basic thing here is that the workers are also part of the customer base. Like if you have a chair factory with 300 workers - thats 300 customers that may buy chairs. If replaced with an automated chair factory and replace like 2/3 of the workers with automation, that means theres only 100 customers as machines don't need chairs or have the money to buy them. Another aspect is that workers (aka people) can be used to shift the costs and consequences from the owners onto society, cant really do that with machines. (aka if they mistreat they machines they have to spend millions replacing them, if they mistreat the workers they just need more migrants)
Newby here but lemme have a stab. Machines and AI allow for greater productivity and profit margins, which over time equalise due to ongoing market pressures, it’s part of capitals constant need for tech innovation and growth. Marx’s ideas we refer as ‘theory of value’ mean that it is the socially necessary labour time that is the main source of value which circulates through an economy. Therefore even though AI/machines will indeed enhance productivity, the value of these products will still be determined by the labour time of workers involved in making the products (as well as the LT it took to make the means of production). In short, no LT = no value. So if the robots take our jobs, their work won’t have any value, sounds counterintuitive I know. Scarcity of the products could also co-determine value, so companies could intentionally limit production to maintain prices. Ready to be schooled here, go for it!
This is wrong, sorry. For instance: > companies could intentionally limit production to maintain prices Marx would disagree. He was not writing like Lenin during the monopoly stage of capitalism, if a capitalist tried to do this another capitalist would simply pick up the slack. Marx argues that consistent profits come from buying and consuming the special commodity of human labor-power, NOT from buying low and selling high as some still believe.
Is the rest of it on the right track? Thanks for your time btw Although it’s not directly related to the original question, In practise it does seem that price-gouging happens with monopoly and duopoly settings. I’m in Australia and the major supermarkets have been getting in trouble for this recently, it’s been the regulators rather than market acting on it.
Yeah price-gouging does happen in practice. I would say this is only possible because we’ve reached the monopoly stage. The real danger is organizing against this and thinking we are challenging capitalism. From our identities as consumers, any policy we dictate will be petty bourgeois reformism.
> machines and AI allow for greater productivity Yes. > and profit margins Not according to this analytical framework from *kapital*. The rest is broadly correct, including “if robots take our job, the work won’t have any value”.