What Is Residual Value?

Marx, founder of surplus value theory and dialectical materialism.

[shèng yú jià zhí]

Engels's view

Engels pointed out: "Every worker employed by the capitalist does two kinds of labor. Part of his working time is used to repay the wages advanced to him by the capitalist. This part of the labor is called necessary labor by Marx. He must continue working, and during this time he produces surplus value for the capitalist. "

1. Production of surplus value

(1) Absolute surplus value production. The working day of a worker is the sum of working time and remaining working time. The necessary labor time remains the same. By extending the working day, the surplus labor time is increased and the surplus value produced is the absolute surplus value.

(2) Relative surplus value production. The development of capitalist production has undergone simple collaboration. The handicraft industry and the machine industry have increased labor productivity and expanded relative surplus value production.

Marx pointed out: "Like all other ways to develop labor productivity, the machine is to make goods cheaper, it is to shorten the part of the workday that the worker pays for himself, so as to extend the part of the workday he gives to the capitalist for free. The machine is the surplus of production Means of value. "

The transformation of production methods starts with labor data in the handicraft industry. All developed machines are composed of three essentially different parts: the engine, the transmission, and the machine tool work machine. The engine is the power of the entire mechanism; the transmission mechanism is composed of various accessories such as flywheels, shafts, gears, etc. It regulates labor, changes the form of movement when necessary, and distributes the movement to the machine. The functions of these two parts of the structure instead transmit the motion to the machine tool, so that the machine tool can grasp the object of labor and change it according to a certain purpose. This part of the machine, the machine tool, was the starting point of the industrial revolution of the eighteenth century. It was precisely the creation of the machine that made the revolution of the steam engine inevitable and caused the industrial revolution.

The material existence method of the labor data acquisition machine requires natural force to replace manpower and conscious application of natural science to replace the rules obtained from experience. In the machine system, large industries have completely objective production bodies. This body is ready-made The conditions of material production appear before the workers. Machines work only through direct socialization or shared labor. Therefore, the cooperative nature of the labor process is currently a technical necessity determined by the nature of the labor data itself. The integration of huge natural forces and natural science into the production process in large industries will inevitably greatly increase labor productivity.

2. Realization of surplus value

Surplus value must be created in production and can only be realized in the circulation process. Through capital circulation and turnover, realize the surplus value. The remaining part is turned into investment, capital accumulation, and expanded reproduction. ^[3]

Once abstract labor is identified as a historical entity relationship, class practice must be included and developed from it. The so-called "production mode itself has its own logic", but it does not refer to the historical production movement. The overall concept of production is a production movement viewed from a historical perspective, and as a result, it produces specific and specific social production relations entities. But this requires a dialectical separation between the theory of production methods and the theory of production relations. The failure of labor alienation theory to achieve this goal is a historical scientific framework dominated by philosophy. After 1847, Marx set about revising and discarding the theory of labor alienation: (1) the historical theory of labor was reduced to a certain theory of production methods, and (2) the surplus-value theory emerged from it as capital-centric Theory of production relations. The integration of the work of the above two theoretical systems underscores the prescriptiveness of history and ultimately drives out the presence of philosophy and ideology. ^[7]

In this regard, Engels actually made it clearer and clearer:

Among the many important discoveries that Marx made his name perpetual in the history of science, we can only talk about two points here. The first point is that he achieved change in the entire world view of history ... For the first time, history was placed on its true foundation; an obvious and previously completely ignored fact that people must first eat and drink To live, to wear, that is to say, you must first work, then you can fight for domination, engage in politics, religion, philosophy, etc.-this very obvious fact in history has finally been recognized ... Two important findings are a thorough clarification of the relationship between capital and labor ... both bourgeois economists and socialists have tried to provide scientifically-based answers to this question, but they have been futile in the end, until the end Marx answered. His answer is as follows ... The value of a commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor that is reflected in the production of the commodity and thus in its reproduction ... If a worker does 6 hours of work for this capitalist every day, then He completely compensated the capitalist's expenditures, that is, he compensated the 6-hour labor with 6-hour labor ... Thus, the worker who worked for the capitalist not only reproduced the value of his labor paid by the capitalist, but also It also produces surplus value. This surplus value is first occupied by the capitalist, and then distributed across the entire capitalist class according to certain economic laws. It forms the basis of land rent, profit, and capital accumulation. In short, the consumption or accumulation of the non-working class The foundation of all wealth. This also proves that modern capitalists, like slave owners or feudal masters exploiting unlawful labor, get rich by possessing unpaid labor of others, and all these forms of exploitation differ from each other only in possessing such unpaid labor. The way is different. In this way, the bourgeois nonsense of modern social systems such as fairness, justice, equality of rights, equality of obligations, and general harmony of interests has lost its last foothold, and modern bourgeois society is like the old one. The truth is as clear in all societies: it is also an insignificant and ever-decreasing minority that exploits the vast institutions of the vast majority. ^[8]

"Residual Value Theory"

basic introduction

Marx pointed out in the fourth volume of "Capital"-"Residual Value Theory" that the 18th century British bourgeois economist A. Smith played an important role in the formation and development of classical political economy. In him, "political economics has developed into a whole, and its scope has been formed to a certain extent" ^[9] . For the first time, Smith attributed value to general social labor, and from this point of view, profit and rent were regarded as a deduction of the value created by workers, and were held free by capitalists and landowners. This shows that he has recognized the true origin of surplus value. However, in Smith's theory of value and surplus value, there are both correct and erroneous views. Because Smith cannot distinguish between labor and labor, he cannot explain how profits are generated from the exchange of labor and capital on the basis of the law of value. He also proposed that the value is determined by income, that is, the three types of income: salary, profit, and rent. The source of income interprets profit and land rent as natural returns to capital and land. He also put forward the wrong dogma that the value of the total annual product of the society is composed of wages, profits, and land rent. In addition, Marx also studied Smith's theory of productive labor and non-productive labor. Smith correctly pointed out that under capitalist conditions, labor exchanged with capital is productive labor, and labor exchanged with income is non-productive labor. However, Smith used capital goods to distinguish between productive labor and non-productive labor. ^[4]

Tax principle

In this book, Marx analyzed in detail D. Ricardo's main economics book, "Political Economics and Principles of Taxation", and conducted in-depth research on Ricardo's land rent theory, cost-price theory, surplus value theory, profit theory, and accumulation theory. Research. Ricardo abandoned the self-contradictory interpretation of Smith's value theory, made a thorough statement and exerted the rule that value is determined by working time, and discussed the relationship between wages and profits, and the profit and rent on the basis of labor value theory. The opposition of ", reveals and illustrates the economic opposition between classes, ... in this way, in political economics, the roots of the historical struggle and historical development process have been captured and revealed." ^[10] Ricardo attaches great importance to the study of land rent and correctly links the theory of land rent with the theory of labor value. However, he mistakenly linked the generation of differential rent with the so-called "law of diminishing returns to land," and also believed that there was no absolute rent. Ricardo denies the existence of absolute rent. The fundamental reason is to mix production prices with value. He did not make a correct explanation of the conversion of profit to average profit and the conversion of value to production price, nor did he explain the fact that the same amount of capital obtains the same amount of profit based on the law of value. Marx, while analyzing in detail the erroneous views of Ricardo's land rent theory, also criticized the "new land rent theory" of German vulgar economist JK Lobeltus-Gattsov (1805-1875), and criticized Ricardo Use the law of decreasing land returns to explain the errors of the average profit rate trending downwards, and the mistake of denying that a general overproduction crisis is bound to occur under capitalist conditions.

Marx examined the historical process of the emergence of vulgar economics and the disintegration of classical economics in the 1830s and 1950s, and revealed the class nature of vulgar economics and its theoretical errors.

Marx first criticized the economic theory of TR Malthus, the founder of British vulgar political economy. Malthus seized the confusion caused by Ricardo's failure to correctly explain the "contradiction" between the exchange of labor and capital and the law of value, and the "contradiction" of the same amount of capital to obtain the same amount of profit and the law of value, attacking and attempting to overthrow Ricardo's theory of labor value. He believes that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor it can control or exchange, and the profit comes from the exchange of commodities. In order to realize profits, there must be buyers who are not sellers, that is, there must be all non-productive consumers, such as land owners, pensioners, priests, and their domestic servants and attendants. Marx pointed out that Malthus's value theory was openly defending the class interests of landowners and nobles.

Marx also critically analyzed the theories of R. Torrens (1780 ~ 1864), J. Mill, JR McCulloch, S. Bailey (1791 ~ 1870), JS Mill, etc., and profoundly revealed the classical The disintegration of the economic school and the formation and development of the vulgar economic school. Marx pointed out that the dissolution of the Ricardo School "is based on two points: (1) the exchange of capital and labor in accordance with the law of value. (2) the formation of general profit margins. Equalizing surplus value and profit. Do not understand value and costs Price relationship. " ^[11]

In the historical period when classical political economics disintegrated and vulgar political economics formed, there were also some utopian socialists who criticized capitalist production from the standpoint of the proletariat and based on Ricardo's doctrine. Ravenstone (? ~ 1830), T. Hodgkin (1787 ~ 1869) and others. They used Ricardo's value theory and surplus value theory to demonstrate the exploitation of the working class by the bourgeoisie and the irrationality of capitalist production. Marx affirmed the correct point in their theory, and also pointed out that they did not overcome the confusion in Ricardo's doctrine. In this period, although classical political economics was already in the process of disintegration, several economists still developed classical political economics on certain points. Marx analyzed the works of British economists G. Ramsay (1800 ~ 1871) and R. Jones (1790 ~ 1855) and Swiss economist A.-E. Scherbilier (1797 ~ 1869). They have made a certain contribution in distinguishing between constant and variable capital and in analyzing the role of capital organic composition.

limitation

I. Difficulties facing the theory of surplus value:

After all, the theory of surplus value was formed in the early growth stage of capitalism in the 19th century, and it inevitably has certain historical limitations. For more than 100 years, with the further development of world history, especially after the end of the Second World War, the historical limitations of surplus value theory have become increasingly apparent. As a socialist country guided by Marxist theory, with the deepening of the reform of the socialist market economy, China's perception of the historical limitations of the surplus value theory is even stronger. It can be said that the theory of surplus value is facing an increasingly serious dilemma.

The specific problems facing the theory of surplus value are:

(1) It is inconsistent with the current shortening of working hours. Since the end of the Second World War, world capitalism has entered a new stage of the development of international monopolies and global integration, especially the rapid development of multinational companies, the level of automation and socialization of enterprises has greatly improved, and forced workers to extend their working hours are no longer It is the main method for capitalists to get rich. The working hours of workers have generally been greatly shortened. Some countries have even begun to implement the 35-hour work week. The naked sense of coercion experienced by workers in the 19th century has been greatly weakened accordingly. Already. In this case, there is a clear difference between the theory of residual value and the actual facts. Of course, the theory of relative surplus value can barely make sense, but the problem is that once a theory is added with the word "relative", its persuasive power is greatly discounted and it is difficult to be accepted by the general public.

(2) It is difficult to reflect the increasing role of modern science and technology in social production. Since the beginning of the 20th century, the development of science and technology has been extremely rapid, and its role in social production has become increasingly huge, and it has become one of the leading factors in world economic growth. In China, after Deng Xiaoping's vigorous advocacy, the view that "science and technology are productivity" has long been well known and deeply rooted in the hearts of the people. However, according to the theory of surplus value, only the living labor of a worker can create new value. No matter how advanced the machine and equipment cannot create new value, this cannot reflect the role of science and technology. The role of science and technology can still be indirectly reflected only through the theory of relative surplus value, which virtually devalues the role of science and technology.

(3) It is difficult to fully reflect the role of various production factors. With the improvement of the socialization of production, the factors such as business management, land, capital and other factors of production play an increasing role in production, while the role of simple live labor has greatly decreased. However, according to the theory of surplus value, except for living labor, other factors of production cannot create new value, and profits, land rent, and interest are all exploited. This fundamentally denies the role of other factors of production in addition to living labor in the production process and contribution. This is not in line with the reality of the current world capitalist economy, nor is it conducive to the in-depth development of China's socialist market economy reform.

(4) It is difficult to correctly reflect the great value created by the tertiary industry personnel. According to the theory of surplus value, only the living labor of workers in the secondary industry can create new value, and other employees in the tertiary industry, such as the commercial and financial industries, cannot create new value. In the 19th century, the tertiary industry has just differentiated from the secondary industry, is still in its infancy, and is largely dependent on the secondary industry, which is undoubtedly quite correct. However, the tertiary industry has already grown and grown, and the proportion of tertiary industry in the national economy in many countries has surpassed that of the secondary industry. It is difficult for people to continue to adhere to the theory of surplus value.

(5) It is difficult to guide state-owned enterprises to improve their operation and management and increase economic benefits. One of the main goals of China's state-owned enterprise reform is to improve the economic benefits of enterprises, but how to improve it? The core indicator for measuring the economic efficiency of an enterprise is profit. To improve the economic efficiency of an enterprise, the most important thing is to increase the profit of the enterprise. According to the theory of surplus value, profit is the transformed form of surplus value, while surplus value is the result of forcing workers to work longer. In this way, in order to improve economic efficiency, enterprises can only force workers to extend their working hours. This kind of argument can barely work if it is used to accuse capitalists of exploiting workers. If it is used to guide the management of state-owned enterprises in China, it will not work immediately because our country is a socialist country and the people are the masters of the country. It is illegal for the owner of an enterprise to impose forced labor on workers, not only because it is unreasonable, but also unfounded by law.

(6) Microeconomic theory cannot be provided for the public ownership of enterprises. According to the theory of surplus value, surplus value is the new value created by workers in the surplus labor time, but it is not clear whether it was created by the collective labor of the workers or by the workers' individual labor? This makes it impossible to justify the existence of public ownership. This is indeed a major theoretical shortcoming of life and death for a socialist country that regards the public ownership of the means of production as the foundation of the nation.

Second, the root causes of errors in the theory of surplus value

As mentioned above, from today's perspective, the theory of surplus value is very imperfect, and there are many major flaws and mistakes. Analyze the root causes of these defects and mistakes, mainly including the following two: 1. The theory of mechanistic influence on surplus value was put forward by Marx in the middle of the 19th century. At that time, the dominance of scientific theory was mechanistic thinking method, that is to say that things were pieced together by parts, and each part was isolated. Marx opposed this view philosophically, advocating dialectical materialism, thinking that the world is universally connected. However, after all, mechanistic thoughts are so ingrained that it is difficult to eradicate them immediately. When analyzing and studying specific problems, Marx was unavoidably affected by the theory of machinery, and the theory of surplus value was a typical example. On the one hand, Marx saw that live labor must be combined with past labor to create new value, but on the other hand, he insisted that only live labor can create new value. Past labor only transferred the original value to new products. . 2. The influence of class nature In the mid-19th century, Marx created the theory of surplus value at a time when the European workers' movement was surging. The fierce class struggle does not allow the slightest obscurity and grayness. Everyone must clearly state their position, either on the side of workers or on the side of capitalists. Marx clearly stood on the working-class stand, trying to clarify the secrets of capitalist exploitation of workers, and to serve the liberation of the working class. This is the merit of Marxism and the fundamental reason for the widespread spread of Marxism in the world for more than 100 years; but at the same time, it must not only make Marxism have a deep class mark, but also show some class prejudice, making Marxist Scientificity is affected to some extent. In the theory of surplus value, Marx believes that only the living labor of industrial workers can create new value. No other production factor can create new value. Even the labor of commercial and bank employees cannot create new value. It can not be said that it is because of class influence. extreme.

Comment on "Staleness of Surplus Value" (excerpt)

The development of modern science and technology has reduced the demand for manual workers and increased the demand for mental workers in some production processes, for example, in some sophisticated electronics and chemical industries. In these places, it seems that the bourgeoisie relies on science, technology, and knowledge for profit, or exploits only a small part of the workers' surplus value. As a result, some people believe that Marx's theory of value and surplus value has not fully estimated (considered) the great role of science, technology, and knowledge in production. This view is wrong.

In value theory, Marx used the concept of "complex labor" to express the role of science, technology, and knowledge. Simple labor is "the cost of simple labor per average human body without any expertise", and "complex labor is just multiplied or not as simple as multiple labors. Therefore, a small amount of complicated labor equals a large amount of Simple labor. "Obviously, the opposite of labor with" no expertise "is labor with science, technology, and knowledge. Science, technology and knowledge are increasingly important factors of production. However, science, technology, and knowledge are not independent factors of production other than workers, workers, and labor materials. Without laborers (brain laborers are also laborers), science, technology, and knowledge cannot automatically produce and create value, and naturally cannot create profits. Moreover, separating science, technology, and knowledge from laborers, labor objects, and labor materials, machines are just a pile of steel, and labor objects can neither be recognized nor used by people; laborers can only be regarded as a group of animals, Neither social nor organized, it is impossible to work at all. Therefore, it is incorrect to treat science, technology, and knowledge as independent factors of production. Science, technology, and knowledge can only be embodied or materialized on workers, production tools, and labor objects in order to participate in production.

In the original and early stages of capitalist accumulation, due to the underdevelopment of science, technology, and knowledge, the bourgeoisie mainly exploited the absolute surplus-value method of prolonging working hours to exploit the proletariat. At that time, capitalists forced workers to work more than 12 hours a day, and some even reached 20 hours. It took a long struggle for the proletariat to secure the right to a 10-hour workday. With the rapid development of science, technology, and knowledge, and the growth of proletarian organizations, the bourgeoisie has gradually exploited the proletariat mainly by occupying relative surplus value. Therefore, the progress of science, technology, and knowledge has not changed the fact that capitalists exploit workers. What has changed is only the developed form of exploitation. Production in the form of relative surplus value is used instead of production in the form of absolute surplus value. Management, monitoring, and maintenance are used. Such auxiliary labor replaces productive labor in the original sense, making the occupation of surplus value more delicate and hidden. "The theory of obsolete surplus value" is fundamentally wrong. and many more. ^[12]