Surplus Value.

O oswgwhe Public Seen by 38

This began as the thread "The Sociology of Entrenched Systemic Patriarchy". My point was to have a discussion about patriarchy influencing our decision making process. Well on, in that thread, the discussion about internal patriarchy in our planning group, was occurring in the "Deactivate NatGat Planning Group" discussion.

I introduced some ideas about the difference betwween using a division sign correctly or incorrectly, within the context of multiplication addition and subtraction. I used the example of " s / v " (surplus value divided by value) and compared it to whether you started with a geotypal logical idea of " 1 / x " or of " x / 1 ". "Geotypal" is an terra-firma logical idea, like Jung's unconscious archetypal idea.

I also said, if properly used .....— because today mathematics is improperly used to to either out-and-out destroy things, or to confuse people as to what is the proper way for people to "create and destroy", since both seem inevitable —..... that there is an Indigenous equivalent to the division sign, which looks like this: ————, two circles connected by a line.

Here I will go through Part 3 of Volume 1, of Karl Marx's "Das Kapital", or merely "Capital" in English: "The Production of Absolute Surplus Value". Part 4 is titled "The Production of Relative Surplus Value". I'm trying to express the difference between absolute and relative Surplus Value, by comparing them to whether you begin with an absolute expression
" 1 / x " or a relative expression " x / 1 ".


NikiV Mon 15 Sep 2014 10:13PM

and the patriarchy lives on in their discussion never even bothering to integrate my little thought ...

hmmmmm ;-) they do that to me St the #NRC too. puts bottom lip out in a pout and picks up Vanity Fair, sighing, "more of the same" ...

"oswgwhe (Loomio)" wrote:

The whole world has turned socialistic since Marx wrote, and Women gained strength. Capitalism is a veneer. Its only the science that insures a power's success. The challenge is to see how Marx's physics and math improves our understanding. And its not the gobbly-gook math of academia and silicon valley, its the simple math of deciding between two numbers to begin an investigation and the easiest are 1 and x . Little beyond sums and differences, like counting from one to 10.

Reply to this email directly or view it on Loomio:

Change your email preferences:


oswgwhe Tue 16 Sep 2014 5:07PM

You can describe how people do things or you can speak generally. Either way you're concerned with their political-economic situation before all else. Before the concept of sv it was possible to imagine that things came from no where. and einsteinian physics suggests an explosion from chaos. Chaos itself seems little more than a convenient way to describe everything and nothing at the same time. However sv teaches that things come from labor and whether our theories of the universe are corect or not, is missing the point. The expression sv is little no more than ma which is Newton's "mass times acceleration". What kind of work could you do where you presumably produced something, however when you began your labor you had little else than your body?

Math proves things by saying a + b = c and if I take away b from c then I have a and so that simple action proves it.
Work + sv = production and if I take away sv from production then I have work and that simple action proves it.

The concept of Surplus Value is useful because it allows you to calculate as accurately as you need.

SV sounds like capital and exploitation and things done that are obvious, however the latter three can have wide interpretation, whereas the figure of value can be measured more precisely.


oswgwhe Wed 17 Sep 2014 3:38PM

The Planning Group is new to Loomio and it changes and this discussion of surplus value began in the "Sociology of .... " discussion and I moved it to this Surplus Value discussion. So here I want to repost what was posted by Dennis M Goldstein there, so that his inputs are part of this discussion.

Begin the reposts from the "Sociology.. discussion.

Hi, I am a new person to this blog. What I would have to say about Marxism generally is that it is about class struggle and the working class and poor or the working class and the masses of the people banding together to overcome their exploitation and oppression by the bourgeoisie or capitalist class (today the corporatocracy or corporate capitalist class) and transforming the capitalist system into its polar or dialectical opposite.

Our job as Marxists is to organize the working class and the poor and their class allies against their class enemies the corporate capitalist class or corporatocracy in a clear aim to transform the capitalist system moving toward socialism. The best contemporary article, in my opinion, in this aspect of things would be Samir Amin, Popular Movements Toward Socialism, Monthly Review, June 20014 at www.monthlyreview.org. Please refer to the article.
In re patriarchy you can, I would have to say, refer to Fredrich Engels, Origins of the Family, Property and the State as well as contemporary political theorist Silvia Federici, Revolution at Zero Point: Housework, Reproduction and Feminist Struggle. Also, The Making of Capitalist Patriarchy: Interview With Silvia Feferici. These can be found online.

“The theory of worldwide value is Amin’s signal economic contribution, summing up as it does the system of unequal exchange/imperial rent that divides the global North and the global South. Today the concentration and centralization of capital is manifested in the growth of international monopoly capital. Capital is more and more mobile (along with technology), as the giant firms become increasingly globalized and financialized. Nevertheless, nation-states divisions remain intact with governments promoting the interests of ‘their’ corporations over those of other countries, along with restrictions on the mobility of labor. The result is a system of unequal exchange, in which the difference in wages between labor in different nations is greater than the difference between productivities. This creates a system of ‘imperial rents’ accruing to the global corporations in the center–referred to less directly in mainstream economic circles as the ‘global labor arbitrage.’ (An analogous process affects natural resources, drawn from the global South.) All of this points to the superxploitation of labor in the periphery, which receives in wages less that the value oreceives in wages less that the value of labor power–a situation made possible also by the existence of a massive global reserve army located primarily in the periphery.. The fact that labor is rewarded differently in the center and in the periphery, and that this is related to the globalization of monopoly capital, constitutes the essence of the imperialist world system today. The existence of a lower rate of exploitation of labor in the North and a higher rate of exploitation of labor in the South constitutes the main obstacle to the unity of the international working class.”
John Bellamy Foster, “Samir Amin at 80; An Introduction and Tribute,” Monthly Review, October 2011, p. 3.

Samir Amin does not change the meaning of surplus value which is the theory behind capitalist exploitation of the working class, that is, the added value which the worker/employee creates is literally stolen away from them by the capitalist employer. Employers who pay a wage less than the value the worker has created and in the most exploitative situations a meager barely life sustaining wage. What Amin does is to update its application in the contemporary era of globalized capital. This is where the workers in the imperialist centers begin to share in the imperial rent and co-exploit the workers in the nations in the peripheries.

he mathematical formulas in re surplus value are not understandable, sir.
Also, for those who care about patriarchy it is a system that is connected to capital accumulation and class society. It requires class struggle against the corporate capitalist ruling class and the capitalist system. All men, most men do not benefit from patriarchy as a system of capital accumulation. Please refer to Fredrich Engels and Silvia Federici respectively for an in-depth understanding.

Tricia said: I believe in a classless society. No matter how the powers that be decide to divide and subtract, the state will continue to use and abuse their human commodities.
Dennis answered: Yes, from capitalism to socialism to communism. Dennis


oswgwhe Wed 17 Sep 2014 6:27PM

Dennis is right to bring Amir, and the description of world value is true to the letter and spirit of our enterprise. It needs to be described and people freely put their own spin on it and at the same time a scientific function of indeed how does the political-economy function is needed? The surplus value operates through expertise and technology through a New Business model already foreseen in the Benefit corporations through a management function and through the driving revolutionary Occupy Movement.