Kolibri [she/her]

Death to America

amerikkka

  • 0 Posts
  • 9 Comments
Joined 11 months ago
Cake day: November 28th, 2023
  • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.nettomarxism@hexbear.net•The difference between profit and surplus value?English
    4·
    2 days ago

    Chapter 13 answer that I think? If I remember and understood Marx right, but one of the things that affects the rate of profit is average organic composition of capital, mainly constant capital to variable capital, of a total capital. A thing to keep in mind is Marx refers to the total social capital, or capital as a whole. But anyways if there more constant to variable, profit starts to fall, and then capitalists need more variable capital/workers/or other ways of exploiting labor power, to keep the same rate of profit or to increase it. Since surplus value is factored into the rate of profit. Since rate of profit is surplus value over the total capital. Or as Marx puts it

    The proportion of this surplus to the total capital is therefore expressed by the fraction s/C, in which C stands for total capital. We thus obtain the rate of profit s/C=s/(c+v), as distinct from the rate of surplus-value s/v.

    But you get a lot of dynamics going on like the more developed capitalism is in a country is, the lesser the rate of profit I think due to more constant capital? but in countries where capitalism is less developed, the higher the rate of profit, due to more variable capital.

    Also with the your original question of profit and surplus value, if it helps more, there this from chapter 2 from vol 3

    spoiler tagging since I don't want quotes to take up the whole page

    If, as Hegel would put it, the surplus therefore re-reflects itself in itself out of the rate of profit, or, put differently, the surplus is more closely characterised by the rate of profit, it appears as a surplus produced by capital above its own value over a year, or in a given period of circulation.

    Although the rate of profit thus differs numerically from the rate of surplus-value, while surplus-value and profit are actually the same thing and numerically equal, profit is nevertheless a converted form of surplus-value, a form in which its origin and the secret of its existence are obscured and extinguished. In effect, profit is the form in which surplus-value presents itself to the view, and must initially be stripped by analysis to disclose the latter. In surplus-value, the relation between capital and labour is laid bare; in the relation of capital to profit, i.e., of capital to surplus-value that appears on the one hand as an excess over the cost-price of commodities realised in the process of circulation and, on the other, as a surplus more closely determined by its relation to the total capital, the capital appears as a relation to itself, a relation in which it, as the original sum of value, is distinguished from a new value which it generated. One is conscious that capital generates this new value by its movement in the processes of production and circulation. But the way in which this occurs is cloaked in mystery and appears to originate from hidden qualities inherent in capital itself.

    Also to just Just to quote some parts from vol 3, mainly chapter 13 that might also help?

    spoiler

    […]This mode of production produces a progressive relative decrease of the variable capital as compared to the constant capital, and consequently a continuously rising organic composition of the total capital. The immediate result of this is that the rate of surplus-value, at the same, or even a rising, degree of labour exploitation, is represented by a continually falling general rate of profit. (We shall see later [Present edition: Ch. XIV. — Ed.] why this fall does not manifest itself in an absolute form, but rather as a tendency toward a progressive fall.) The progressive tendency of the general rate of profit to fall is, therefore, just an expression peculiar to the capitalist mode of production of the progressive development of the social productivity of labour. This does not mean to say that the rate of profit may not fall temporarily for other reasons. But proceeding from the nature of the capitalist mode of production, it is thereby proved logical necessity that in its development the general average rate of surplus-value must express itself in a falling general rate of profit. Since the mass of the employed living labour is continually on the decline as compared to the mass of materialised labour set in motion by it, i.e., to the productively consumed means of production, it follows that the portion of living labour, unpaid and congealed in surplus-value, must also be continually on the decrease compared to the amount of value represented by the invested total capital. Since the ratio of the mass of surplus-value to the value of the invested total capital forms the rate of profit, this rate must constantly fall.

    Even if the exploited mass of the working population were to remain constant, and only the length and intensity of the working-day were to increase, the mass of the invested capital would have to increase, since it would have to be greater in order to employ the same mass of labour under the old conditions of exploitation after the composition of capital changes.

    Since the development of the productiveness and the correspondingly higher composition of capital sets in motion an ever-increasing quantity of means of production through a constantly decreasing quantity of labour, every aliquot part of the total product, i.e., every single commodity, or each particular lot of commodities in the total mass of products, absorbs less living labour, and also contains less materialised labour, both in the depreciation of the fixed capital applied and in the raw and auxiliary materials consumed. Hence every single commodity contains a smaller sum of labour materialised in means of production and of labour newly added during production. This causes the price of the individual commodity to fall. But the mass of profits contained in the individual commodities may nevertheless increase if the rate of the absolute or relative surplus-value grows. The commodity contains less newly added labour, but its unpaid portion grows in relation to its paid portion. However, this is the case only within certain limits. With the absolute amount of living labour newly incorporated in individual commodities decreasing enormously as production develops, the absolute mass of unpaid labour contained in them will likewise decrease, however much it may have grown as compared to the paid portion. The mass of profit on each individual commodity will shrink considerably with the development of the productiveness of labour, in spite of a growth in the rate of surplus-value. And this reduction, just as the fall in the rate of profit, is only delayed by the cheapening of the elements of constant capital and by the other circumstances set forth in the first part of this book, which increase the rate of profit at a given, or even falling, rate of surplus-value.

    To add Marx also goes into counteracting the tendency of the rate of profit to fall here in chapter 14 one of them increasing the exploitation of labor. If you check out those chapters and I think chapter 15 to, Marx has examples in them, but in chapter 13 and 14 he tries to give examples.

  • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.nettomarxism@hexbear.net•The difference between profit and surplus value?English
    14·
    2 days ago

    Marx talks more about profit and surplus value in Vol 3, but to cite a part from chapter 1, vol 3

    In its assumed capacity of offspring of the aggregate advanced capital, surplus-value takes the converted form of profit. Hence, a certain value is capital when it is invested with a view to producing profit [4], or, there is profit because a certain value was employed as capital. Suppose profit is p. Then the formula C = c + v + s = k + s turns into the formula C = k + p, or the value of a commodity = cost-price + profit.

    The profit, such as it is represented here, is thus the same as surplus-value, only in a mystified form that is nonetheless a necessary outgrowth of the capitalist mode of production. The genesis of the mutation of values that occurs in the course of the production process, must be transferred from the variable portion of the capital to the total capital, because there is no apparent distinction between constant and variable capital in the assumed formation of the cost-price. Because at one pole the price of labour-power assumes the transmuted form of wages, surplus-value appears at the opposite pole in the transmuted form of profit.

    However, at the same time, it is a little more complicated? profit is not exactly the same as surplus value since in part one and part two of Vol 3, Marx goes into this more. ProleWiki also has something on this to https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Surplus-value#Profit_is_not_surplus-value.

    but you also have the rate of profit with the rate of surplus value that does weird things. Where the rate of profit can fall, but the rate of surplus value can remain the same, along with the general rate of profit affecting things as a whole.

    But from chapter 3 of vol 3

    Here, as at the close of the preceding chapter, and generally in this entire first part, we presume the amount of profit falling to a given capital to be equal to the total amount of surplus-value produced by means of this capital during a certain period of circulation. We thus leave aside for the present the fact that, on the one hand, this surplus-value may be broken up into various sub-forms, such as interest on capital, ground-rent, taxes, etc., and that, on the other, it is not, as a rule, identical with profit as appropriated by virtue of a general rate of profit, which will be discussed in the second part.

  • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.nettoGenZhou@lemmygrad.ml•Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question" | GenZedong/GenZhou Reading Group (Juche 113, Week 23-24)English
    6·
    5 months ago

    That was really interesting to read, thanks for sharing that! I still have to process some of it but some of the things Stalin said is pretty interesting. Going to what Lenin said. He sort of reminded me of like, why English is widely used in the “business” world? Especially due to american imperialism/british colonialism. Mainly this part form Lenin reminded me of that.

    Unity and unimpeded development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its various classes and, lastly, for the establishment of a close connection between the market and each and every proprietor, big or little, and between seller and buyer.

    Going to Stalin, I really like Stalin talking about base and superstructure. I think near the end this was extremely interesting. Mainly these two parts

    The formula given by Stalin in his pamphlet, in the part where it speaks of the crossing of languages, refers to the epoch prior to the victory of socialism on a world scale, when the exploiting classes are the dominant power in the world; when national and colonial oppression remains in force; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nations are consolidated by differences between states; when, as yet there is no national equality of rights; when the crossing of languages takes place as a struggle for the domination of one of the languages; when the conditions necessary for the peaceful and friendly co-operation of nations and languages are as yet lacking; when it is not the co-operation and mutual enrichment of languages that are on the order of the day, but the assimilation of some and the victory of other languages. It is clear that in such conditions there can be only victorious and defeated languages. It is precisely these conditions that Stalin’s formula has in view when it says that the crossing, say, of two languages, results not in the formation of a new language, but in the victory of one of the languages and the defeat of the other.

    As regards the other formula by Stalin, taken from his speech at the Sixteenth Party Congress, in the part that touches on the merging of languages into one common language, it has in view another epoch, namely, the epoch after the victory of socialism on a world scale, when world imperialism no longer exists; when the exploiting classes are overthrown and national and colonial oppression is eradicated; when national isolation and mutual distrust among nations is replaced by mutual confidence and rapprochement between nations; when national equality has been put into practice; when the policy of suppressing and assimilating languages is abolished; when the co-operation of nations has been established, and it is possible for national languages freely to enrich one another through their co-operation. It is clear that in these conditions there can be no question of the suppression and defeat of some languages, and the victory of others. Here we shall have not two languages, one of which is to suffer defeat, while the other is to emerge from the struggle victorious, but hundreds of national languages, out of which, as a result of a prolonged economic, political and cultural co operation of nations, there will first appear most enriched unified zonal languages, and subsequently the zonal languages will merge into a single international language, which, of course, will be neither German, nor Russian, nor English, but a new language that has absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages.

    Consequently, the two different formulas correspond to two different epochs in the development of society, and precisely because they correspond to them, both formulas are correct – each for its epoch.

    In the first paragraph it sort of reminds me of like, when countries force others to adopt a single language of theirs? Like in that other article you linked that talked about frances former languages.

    Also, just like the other Oïl Languages, the Occitan and Franco-Provençal languages were forcefully repressed by the government, starting in the 1700s, and replaced by Modern French.

    But with the talk of like, one language being “victorious” over the “defeat” of the other. Mainly with one language trying to dominate others. It reminds me of a lot of force assimilation and genocide that happens. Like with what goes in the United States, like in the past with it’s boarding schools with forbidding indigenous people to speak their own language, but only English.

    Meanwhile for the other half of that. It’s interesting to think of an single international language arising one day that “of course, will be neither German, nor Russian, nor English, but a new language that has absorbed the best elements of the national and zonal languages.”

    Also Stalin reply to E. Krasheninnikova, reminds me a bit of that one saying, how language shapes how you think. And besides that, from earlier on this, these two parts were interesting as well

    In this respect language radically differs from the superstructure. Language is not a product of one or another base, old or new, within the given society, but of the whole course of the history of the society and of the history of the bases for many centuries. It was created not by some one class, but by the entire society, by all the classes of the society, by the efforts of hundreds of generations. It was created for the satisfaction of the needs not of one particular class, but of the entire society, of all the classes of the society. Precisely for this reason it was created as a single language for the society, common to all members of that society, as the common language of the whole people. Hence the functional role of language, as a means of intercourse between people, consists not in serving one class to the detriment of other classes, but in equally serving the entire society, all the classes of society. This in fact explains why a language may equally serve both the old, moribund system and the new, rising system; both the old base and the new base; both the exploiters and the exploited.

    Lastly, one other radical distinction between the superstructure and language. The superstructure is not directly connected with production, with man’s productive activity. It is connected with production only indirectly, through the economy, through the base. The superstructure therefore reflects changes in the level of development of the productive forces not immediately and not directly, but only after changes in the base, through the prism of the changes wrought in the base by the changes in production. This means that the sphere of action of the superstructure is narrow and restricted.

    Language, on the contrary, is connected with man’s productive activity directly, and not only with man’s productive activity, but with all his other activity in all his spheres of work, from production to the base, and from the base to the superstructure. For this reason language reflects changes in production immediately and directly, without waiting for changes in the base. For this reason the sphere of action of language, which embraces all fields of man’s activity, is far broader and more comprehensive than the sphere of action of the superstructure. More, it is practically unlimited.

    It is this that primarily explains why language, or rather its vocabulary, is in a state of almost constant change. The continuous development of industry and agriculture, of trade and transport, of technology and science, demands that language should replenish its vocabulary with new words and expressions needed for their functioning. And language, directly reflecting these needs, does replenish its vocabulary with new words, and perfects its grammatical system.

    And that part sort of reminds me of like. How some of the sciences were quick to use like computer metaphors for the human experience. Sorry hopefully I didn’t take too much space with the quotes. Anyways that was really interesting to read from Stalin.

  • Kolibri [she/her]@hexbear.nettoGenZhou@lemmygrad.ml•Stalin's "Marxism and the National Question" | GenZedong/GenZhou Reading Group (Juche 113, Week 23-24)English
    13·
    5 months ago

    I like how Stalin styled the first chapter when he was defining a nation. Hopefully it’s okay I comment on here since I saw this yesterday on hexbear.

    A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism.

    It’s interesting to read about that, especially since like. In our times nations are seen as if they always been a thing. Much like how people see capitalism always having existed. Meanwhile, these things haven’t always been around.

    The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of a different nationality. Hence its desire to secure its “own,” its “home” market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.

    I found this part pretty interesting, and it sort of reminded me of something else. Mainly from Vol 2 in Das Kapital/Capital, Ch 14 “The Time of Circulation”, where one of the things he talks about, the modes of transportation and communication, being developed more to affect time of selling. While that chapter was not about nationality. It just likely that also had a role with the development of nations to? Especially when Marx talks about like… I’ll just quote the relevant parts

    Putting it in spoiler tags since I don't want to take too much space

    […]The first to increase is the frequency with which the means of transportation function, for instance the number of railway trains, as existing places of production produce more, become greater centres of production. The development tends in the direction of the already existing market, that is to say, towards the great centres of production and population, towards ports of exports, etc. On the other hand these particularly great traffic facilities and the resultant acceleration of the capital turnover (since it is conditional on the time of circulation) give rise to quicker concentration of both the centres of production and the markets. Along with this concentration of masses of men and capital thus accelerated at certain points, there is the concentration of these masses of capital in the hands of a few. Simultaneously one may note again a shifting and relocation of places of production and of markets as a result of the changes in their relative positions caused by the transformations in transport facilities. A place of production which once had a special advantage by being located on some highway or canal may now find itself relegated to a single side-track, which runs trains only at a relatively long intervals, while another place, which formerly was remote from the main arteries of traffic, may now be situated at the junction of several railways. This second locality is on the upgrade, the former on the downgrade.[…]

    Whereas on the one hand the improvement of the means of transportation and communication brought about by the progress of capitalist production reduces the time of circulation of particular quantities of commodities, the same progress and the opportunities created by the development of transport and communication facilities make it imperative, conversely, to work for ever more remote markets, in a word — for the world-market.

    https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch14.htm

    Since I imagine that would in some way affect the development of Nations as well thanks to capitalism? Like with more reach like with trains. Also I got curious to Lenin writing on Self-Determination, and its a good read along with Stalin text. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/

    Especially chapter 8 of Lenin’s work. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch08.htm

    Also this part of chapter 1 from Lenin’s text was interesting as well.

    Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language, with all obstacles to the development of that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated. Therein is the economic foundation of national movements. Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unity and unimpeded development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its various classes and, lastly, for the establishment of a close connection between the market and each and every proprietor, big or little, and between seller and buyer.

    Anyways getting back to what Stalin wrote. The rest of it like with “cultural-national autonomy” sort of reminded me of color revolutions.