Current location - Quotes Website - Excellent quotations - Interpretation of Das Kapital (IV): Why is the income of capital higher than that of labor? -Surplus value
Interpretation of Das Kapital (IV): Why is the income of capital higher than that of labor? -Surplus value
Key concepts:

The value of labor force-the value of labor force is determined by the labor time necessary for the production and reproduction of labor force. It can be attributed to the value of a certain number of means of subsistence.

Surplus value-the balance formed by the product value exceeding the consumed product forming factors, that is, the value of production materials and labor force.

Constant capital-the part of capital that is transformed into means of production, that is, raw materials, auxiliary materials and labor materials, does not change its value in the production process. Marx called it constant capital part, referred to as constant capital.

Variable capital-the part of capital transformed into labor force changes its value in the production process, and this part of capital is constantly transformed from unchangeable to variable. Marx called it variable capital part, or variable capital for short.

Surplus value rate-the relative amount of surplus value, that is, the ratio of variable capital value proliferation. It is determined by the ratio of surplus value to variable capital. Marx called the relative value multiplication of this variable capital or the relative amount of surplus value the surplus value rate.

Necessary labor time and necessary labor-use newly created value to compensate the value of variable capital, that is, reproduction labor value. Marx called part of the reproduction of the working day necessary labor time, and called the labor spent in this part of the time necessary labor.

Surplus labor time and surplus labor-the time that workers work outside the necessary labor boundaries does not form any value to workers, but it forms surplus value during this period. Marx called this part of the working day surplus labor time and the labor consumed during this period surplus labor. Surplus labor is not a unique phenomenon of capitalism, but only under the capitalist mode of production can surplus labor be expressed as surplus value.

Surplus products-those products that represent surplus value are called surplus products.

Absolute surplus value-the surplus value generated by extending the working day is called absolute surplus value.

Relative surplus value-the surplus value produced by shortening the necessary labor time and changing the proportion of the two components of the working day accordingly is called relative surplus value.

I. Production of Surplus Value

There are many rich people in this world, and some people's wealth is simply unimaginable. At the same time, there are more poor people. For example, in China, the Gini coefficient published by the National Bureau of Statistics and some research institutions has already far exceeded the international warning line of 0.4. In the past ten years, the gap between the rich and the poor in most countries in the world has been expanding rapidly. According to the "20 16 Global Wealth Report" published by Credit Suisse Banking Research Institute, the richest people in the world account for 10%, and control 86% of the global wealth. About 73% of the world's bottom population only owns 2.4% of global wealth. According to the official statistics of India, a quarter of Indians, about 250 million people, live on less than 1 USD per day. According to the "20 10 Wealth Report" released by Citibank Private Bank in March 20 10, the number of millionaires in China ranked fourth in the world in 2009; In June of the same year, the research report of Boston Consulting Group pointed out that in 2009, the number of millionaires in China increased by 3 1%, ranking fourth in the world. From 2065438 to 2006, among the richest people with net assets exceeding 50 million US dollars, China has already ranked second in the world.

If you look at those rich people, you will find that they have different ways to get rich, such as doing business, mining, real estate speculation, patents, securities investment and so on. Of course, there are also people who rely on corruption, but absolutely none of them rely on wages.

Then I met an old question, why is the income of capital higher than that of labor? This chapter does not consider income such as land rent for the time being. Here, we only consider capital and labor.

There are many economic viewpoints about capitalist income, and economists have racked their brains to defend the high income of capitalists. There is a very old saying that the income of capitalists is actually a kind of salary, which is the labor income of capitalists managing enterprises. This statement seems to make sense. Usually, capitalists have made great efforts to maintain the operation of enterprises, which is really hard. But Adam Smith has pointed out that this statement is not correct: there is no difference between managing two million assets and managing one million assets, but the former generally earns twice as much as the latter. In other words, the income of a capitalist is directly proportional to the amount of capital he owns or manages, and has nothing to do with the amount of labor he pays. Moreover, if the capitalist's income is the labor income of the management enterprise, then the salary is too high and completely out of proportion to the normal labor income.

The second argument is that the capitalist gains income because he does not squander or consume his capital, but uses it for production; He should be compensated for this. This statement is also untenable. As Marx said, what capitalists get by doing this is not regret, but goods. He also said that the theory of abstinence is to "replace the category of economics with flattery." There is no reason to think that capitalists will get such a big return because of "abstinence", and income will never be generated automatically just because of "abstinence". Many ordinary people have been frugal all their lives, and their "abstinence" has not been rewarded. Moreover, capitalists are not always "abstinent" and are also very extravagant. For example, China has become the second largest consumer of luxury goods in the world, buying a large number of expensive sports cars, yachts, watches, jewelry, high-end clothing and so on every year.

The third argument is that the capitalist takes risks, and his reward is compensation for the risks he takes. But workers usually work for their bosses before they get paid, and they also risk not getting paid. There are indeed many people who don't get paid. Even in prosperous times, it is very common that migrant workers are owed wages, which has always been the main content of labor disputes. So, why didn't the workers get compensation? The capitalist is not particularly adventurous. He is willing to take risks mostly because he sees the hope of profit. Capitalists do not gain profits by taking risks, but take risks in pursuit of profits. It's just that some capitalists have a greater risk preference and some have a smaller risk preference. It's like gambling: a gambler gambles at a great risk of losing everything, of course, because he believes he can make a lot of money.

In addition, risk itself cannot create any wealth. In economics, risk is only uncertainty. In investment science, the arithmetic average of various possible returns (including losses) of an investment is called expected return, and the standard deviation of distribution is called risk. Obviously, no matter how much risk you take, the final average income will not be affected. Whether the actual income is higher or lower than the average income is entirely accidental.

According to the value theory of microeconomics, there are four factors of production, namely, labor, capital, land and entrepreneurial talent. These four factors of production contribute to commodity production respectively, so as to obtain their own income, namely wages, interest, land rent and profits. This statement seems reasonable, but it is actually untenable. It is not the factors of production that get income, but the owners of the factors of production; The factors of production always exist, but they are possessed in different ways. Moreover, according to the calculation of some economists, if other factors of production are not considered, the contribution of capital is one quarter and that of labor is three quarters in the production function. In fact, the share of labor is far from so much. For example, in China's GDP, the remuneration of workers (including the remuneration paid to the bourgeoisie) only accounts for about 40% of the total income. If calculated according to the total social value (GDP is the value-added part), the remuneration of workers is only16.5% (input-output table of China in 2065, 438+02).

The real process of capitalist production is that society is divided into two opposing classes, one of which is divorced from self.

I work by myself and have no other means to make a living. This class has personal freedom, in Marx's words, "freedom has nothing" and has become a working class who lives by selling labor. Another class has mastered the means of production and is called the bourgeoisie. In history, the separation of labor and means of production was achieved through violence. This process is called "primitive accumulation of capital" by Marx, and the most typical one is the "enclosure movement" that happened in Britain. Marx said it was "primitive accumulation of capital" because "this accumulation is not the result of capitalist mode of production, but its starting point." At the same time, Marx pointed out that violence against the poor played an important role in the process of "primitive accumulation". Now some people emphasize that "primitive accumulation" liberates productive forces is social progress. In fact, it is nothing more than using this excuse to defend the violence in the process of "primitive accumulation". Marx did not say that the consequence of "primitive accumulation" was not progress. Marx just pointed out that the so-called legend of bourgeois diligence is untrue.

The working class, also known as the proletariat, should actually be the proletariat. The word proletariat comes from ancient Rome and refers to a lower class in ancient Rome. This class has no property and lives on social relief, but they are free men. 19th century, often used to describe workers at that time, because workers were also free men and had no property. The difference is that, as the French economist sismondi once pointed out, the ancient proletariat lived by society, while the modern society lived by the proletariat.

When workers and capitalists meet in the labor market and negotiate certain conditions, workers are hired by capitalists, and capitalists pay workers wages. Marx said that in the labor market, "only freedom, equality, ownership and bentham dominate." Freedom! Because the buyers and sellers of labor and other commodities only rely on their own free will. They signed the contract as free and legally equal persons. The contract is the final result of their will being legally expressed. Equality! Because they only have relations with each other as commodity possessors and exchange equivalents with equivalents. Ownership! Because everyone only controls their own things. Bentham! Because both sides only care about themselves. "

Bentham is a British philosopher and one of the representatives of utilitarian philosophy. The utility theory in economics has a certain theoretical connection with him. Marx gave him a low evaluation, calling him "the originator of mediocrity", "/kloc-a boring, pedantic and boastful saint of the bourgeoisie in the 9th century" and "a genius among bourgeois fools". Capitalists and workers, after reaching a deal in the trading market, came to the factory and started the consumption process of labor, that is, the production process of goods. As we introduced in the second chapter, the value of a commodity depends on the socially necessary labor time required to produce it. In the process of capitalist commodity production, raw materials are made into new commodities through labor, and the value of raw materials is transferred to new commodities. The value of labor tools, machines, equipment, factories, etc. It is transferred to new commodities in the form of depreciation, because they have a long life and are not consumed at one time. In addition, there is a newly added labor force. Workers' labor constitutes a part of the value of new commodities, so the total value of new commodities is higher than that of raw materials and labor tools, which is the source of capitalist profits.

But not all the newly generated value belongs to capitalists. Part of the newly generated value is used to pay the value of labor. Capitalists buy labor, and the value of this commodity is equal to the value of the goods needed for the production and reproduction of labor. The value of labor force is less than the newly created value of the labor process using labor force. If the value of labor is higher than the value created by using it, it is a loss-making business, and no one will do it.

Therefore, in the production process, the newly created labor value is divided into two parts: one part is used to pay the labor value, which is expressed as wages; What remains is what Marx called surplus value. Profit, land rent, interest and so on all come from surplus value.

The concept of surplus value is very important, which is Marx's most important economic discovery. Before Marx, economists were always confused by various concrete forms of surplus value, such as interest, profit, land rent and so on. So they are always confused when explaining all kinds of income. Marx pointed out that interest, profit and land rent all come from surplus value, so we should first study the law of surplus value, and then we can correctly explain the law of interest, profit and land rent.

Of all the capitalists' capital, the part used to pay for the means of production such as raw materials, auxiliary materials and labor materials is called constant capital by Marx, because this part of capital does not change its value in the production process. The part of capital used to buy labor will bring new value in the production process because labor will create new value, which Marx called variable capital. Marx said, "From the perspective of labor process, these two components of capital are regarded as objective factors and subjective factors, and are divided into means of production and labor; From the perspective of the process of value proliferation, it is divided into constant capital and variable capital. " In other words, the division of constant capital and variable capital is based on the different roles of capital in value proliferation from the perspective of value proliferation. The distinction between constant capital and variable capital was put forward by Marx. Before Marx, economists only distinguished between fixed capital and circulating capital. The division of constant capital and variable capital scientifically explains the source of surplus value and plays a decisive role in the formation theory of average profit rate. As for the difference between fixed capital and current capital, it will be mentioned in later chapters, which is of great significance to understand the economic cycle.

Second, the surplus value rate.

Because workers sell their labor, they get only the value of labor, and obviously they will not get rich by wages. Under different social conditions, the wage level will be different. Now the living conditions of workers in developed countries are not as miserable as in19th century. But even so, workers in developed countries can only guarantee themselves a decent life. In the event of an economic crisis, their lives will still be seriously affected. For example, in the subprime financial crisis, the unemployment rate in the United States was as high as 10.2% in June 2009, and it still hovered around10/year. A large number of Americans have lost their homes and are burdened with heavy credit card debts. In developing countries, the living standard of workers is still very low. For example, in 20 15 years, the average monthly salary of employees in urban units nationwide was only 5 170 yuan, while the average monthly salary of employees in urban private units was only 3,299 yuan. Although there are some high-paying jobs, these jobs account for a small proportion of total employment and have high requirements for practitioners. When the economy is depressed, many people think about saving, saying that China people save too much and should spend more. As long as China people spend more, they can stimulate domestic demand and promote economic growth. However, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of the People's Bank of China, once said that the savings of China residents are actually relatively stable. In recent years, savings in China have grown rapidly, mainly because of the increase in corporate savings. In the "Empirical Analysis of the Impact of Income Gap on Consumer Demand in Zhejiang Province" released by Zhejiang Investigation Corps of National Bureau of Statistics on June 5438+February, 2008, it is simply stated that "the widening income gap of Zhejiang residents in recent years is an important reason for the lack of consumer demand." "Important reason" is actually an official euphemism, but it should actually be "main reason". In fact, even in economically developed areas, the income of ordinary workers is actually not high. We will discuss this in detail in Chapter 24.

Marx used the letter C for constant capital value, the letter V for variable capital value and the letter M for surplus value. M/v, that is, the ratio of surplus value to variable capital, is called surplus value rate. In the daily labor of workers, the part of labor time used to produce their own wages is called necessary labor time by Marx; The labor time of producing surplus value is called surplus labor time by Marx. Because value is labor time, surplus value rate is equal to surplus labor/necessary labor. Surplus labor has always existed, and the land rent paid by farmers to landlords is also surplus labor, but only under the capitalist mode of production can surplus labor become surplus value. Under the capitalist system, the surplus value rate reflects the degree of social affluence. The higher the rate of surplus value, the more surplus labor or surplus products, and the richer the people with surplus value. Marx said, "the degree of wealth is not calculated by the absolute quantity of products, but by the relative quantity of surplus products." The rapid expansion of the gap between the rich and the poor in modern society reflects the improvement of the surplus value rate.

The rate of surplus value fundamentally reflects the degree of exploitation of capitalists. What are the ratios of wages and surplus value to new value respectively? This is really a difficult question to answer, because in capitalist society, people try to avoid topics related to exploitation, so there is a lack of statistical data in this area. However, we can make a rough estimate with some data. According to China's input-output table for 20 12 years, if the total output value is 100%, then the material input accounts for 66.5% and the added value accounts for 33.5%. Of this 33.5%, 16.5% is used to compensate employees, and the remaining 17% forms profits, taxes, depreciation and so on. In other words, the surplus value rate is103% (17%/16.5%). If the percentage of surplus value, constant capital and variable capital is calculated, it is only 20.5%( 17%/83%), which is the profit rate. In later chapters, we will introduce the relationship between surplus value rate and profit rate.

What needs to be explained here is that the surplus value rate of different industries is not necessarily the same. In this 20 12 input-output table, the surplus value rates of different economic sectors range from 14.9% to 2024%. Because different industries have different production conditions, different labor intensities and different capital structures.

Three, absolute surplus value and relative surplus value

Marx put forward the concepts of absolute surplus value and relative surplus value when analyzing surplus value. The so-called absolute surplus value is to extend the working hours of workers under the premise of constant wages, thus increasing the amount of surplus value. In Britain in the19th century, the longest working hours of workers once reached 20 hours a day, so that the British Daily Telegraph reported in June 1860+ 10/7 that "if a city holds a public meeting, it is required to limit the working hours of men to/kloc-0. Since the UK 10 Working Hours Act 1850, many countries have enacted a series of labor legislation to restrict the working day. After the long-term struggle of the working class in Europe and America, the current 8-hour working system was established. After the founding of the Soviet Union, the 7-hour working system was implemented in the 1920s, and later France also implemented the 7-hour working system. But now the 7-hour working day in France exists in name only. Since the 1980s, the Japanese government has implemented a training system for people from developing countries to learn technology. However, in recent years, there have been many cases in which trainees from China accused employees of exploitation. According to a survey by Japan's International Research Cooperation Agency, the death rate of foreign trainees in Japan due to brain and heart diseases is twice that of Japanese of the same age. On June 22nd, 2009, three trainees from China, accompanied by representatives of the Japan Foreign Trainee Lawyers Association, accused the Japanese company that hired them of exploiting the labor force at a press conference. A trainee said that he was forced to work overtime 120 hours every month, but his salary was less than 8,000 yuan. The accommodation arranged by the company was actually a container. The company also suddenly fired him at the end of last year. Another student said that he was told that he was a carpenter in Japan, but in fact he was engaged in asbestos removal, which was very harmful to his health.

China works 8 hours a day. In fact, many units are from 8: 30 am to 5: 30 pm, or from 9 am to 6 pm. Nine hours, actually. Lunch and rest time should have been included in the 8-hour working hours. We also know that, especially in factories that employ a large number of migrant workers, the working hours of workers are particularly long and the working environment is particularly bad. In some sweatshops, it is common to work for more than ten hours every day. According to the "Report on Monitoring and Investigating Migrant Workers in 2009" issued by the Rural Department of the National Bureau of Statistics, the average migrant workers employed in 2009 worked 26 days a month and 58.4 hours a week. This is roughly equivalent to weekly rest 1 day, and the average working time per day exceeds 9.7 hours. Among them, 89.8% work more than 44 hours a week as stipulated in the labor law. The investigation report of 20 16 shows that the situation has improved. The average working hours of migrant workers are 24.9 days per month and 8.5 hours per day. However, 64.4% of migrant workers work more than 8 hours a day and 78.4% work more than 44 hours a week, which is still very high. In 2009, the average working time was the longest for migrant workers in accommodation and catering industry. They work more than 60 hours a week, but the average monthly income is only 1264 yuan, which is the lowest among several industries that employ migrant workers. The report of 20 16 does not have this figure.

Relative surplus value refers to increasing surplus value by increasing labor intensity and improving work efficiency, shortening necessary labor time and prolonging surplus labor time under the premise of unchanged working days. In the third chapter, about the division of labor, we have mentioned how the division of labor and machines can improve work efficiency. In fact, the method is not only through strengthening the division of labor and improving equipment. Give a recent example. After the American financial crisis broke out, there were a lot of layoffs. On June 4th, 2009, the US Department of Labor reported that the productivity increased by 65,438+0.6% in the first quarter. The report of the Ministry of Labor also mentioned that the working hours of workers were reduced by 9 percentage points, while the output was only reduced by 7.6 percentage points. This shows that although during the economic crisis, the layoffs of American enterprises are still too high, the employees who are still employed have to finish more work. In fact, throughout 2009, labor productivity in the United States increased by 2.5% and working hours decreased by 5. 1%. The income of workers has not increased with the improvement of labor productivity, but the employment cost in the United States has fallen sharply. So, as you can see, even in the economic crisis, capitalists can still make a lot of money.

Fourth, class struggle.

The newly generated value in the production process is divided into wages and surplus value, so it is obvious that if the total amount remains unchanged, which one will increase and the other will decrease. Therefore, the fundamental interests of the working class and the bourgeoisie are antagonistic and irreconcilable. This is the economic basis of class struggle. Now when it comes to opposition and struggle, some people are nervous. In fact, there are contradictions and struggles everywhere in the world. Class struggle is also a very common thing, and it is not worth making a fuss at all. Each of us demands a raise, benefits and a better working environment. And our bosses are also trying to find ways not to raise wages or raise wages less, assigning us more and more tasks and indicators, video recording in the workplace, sometimes telephone recording, restricting internet access, and of course prohibiting office romance. All these, in the final analysis, are manifestations of class struggle. Sometimes, class struggle is violent and deadly, and even develops into large-scale social violence. However, in most cases, although there is no such violence, class struggle still permeates daily life, even in the most ordinary trivial matters. Basically, it is the opposition of interests between different classes.

This three-dimensional is reflected in all aspects, economy, politics and ideology. In April 2009, it was reported that the unemployment rate in France exceeded 8%, reaching the highest level in two years. In the first two months of 2009 alone, nearly 654.38+700,000 people were unemployed. At the same time, what makes the French angry is that there are reports that company executives receive huge bonuses and former executives receive high severance pay. Therefore, in the past few weeks, disgruntled workers detained company directors after layoffs in six companies across France. These executives were not held in the Bastille, but in hotels below four stars. The process of kidnapping the boss was polite. An employee involved in the kidnapping said that the situation was not so bad and the bosses ate well. According to the survey results of polling agency IFOP, about one-third of the respondents support the action of "kidnapping the boss", and 65% of them understand it. Only 7% of French people condemn this behavior. Kidnapping is very effective. In most cases, companies agree to renegotiate workers' wages or increase the severance pay of laid-off employees. This behavior even spread to other countries. In Belgium, on April 9, 2009, angry employees of Fiat Automobile Company detained three company executives in their offices and demanded renegotiation of the proposed layoffs.

In the United States, workers occupied factories, and then a massive "Occupy Wall Street" movement broke out. The movement swept across the United States, and conflicts broke out between the police and the people in some cities.

Some people always want to erase class opposition and struggle. They insist that the interests of the boss and employees are the same. In fact, I know many bosses, big and small, but none of them think so. The bosses are very honest. They all think that they are supporting employees and employees are taking advantage. When most enterprises achieve the goal of reducing costs, the first thing they think of is to freeze or even reduce the wage level, or to reduce the total wage through layoffs.

Because of the opposition of interests, in the event of a crisis, one party will try to pass on the loss to the other. This is a struggle in itself. In developed countries, all kinds of complicated struggles among governments, capitalists and workers around pension and medical insurance, deficit reduction and job creation are fundamentally class struggles.

According to Marx's idea, class struggle is the main driving force for the development of class society. The capitalist mode of production has eliminated all kinds of complicated social classes in the past and divided society into three classes: landlords, capitalists and workers. At the same time, the inherent contradiction of capitalist mode of production makes it a direct social task to completely eliminate class differences and class struggles. The working class must shoulder the historical responsibility of eliminating the capitalist mode of production. Marx said: "The proletariat is nothing if it is not revolutionary." The historical responsibility of the working class to eliminate the capitalist mode of production is realized through class struggle. The class consciousness of the working class is also formed through class struggle. Lenin quoted a sentence, "Behind every strike is the hydra of the socialist revolution."

Marx said, "As the unity of labor process and value formation process, the production process is a commodity production process; As the unity of labor process and value multiplication process, production process is a capitalist production process and a capitalist form of commodity production. " The theory of surplus value is the core of Marxist economics. Only by grasping this core tightly can we understand the essence of Marxist economics and master other related contents. Economics is not just a technical science, its core is practical interests. In fact, economists before Marx have realized the existence of surplus value in one way or another and explained it more or less. However, only Marx scientifically explained the specific process of surplus value for the first time. Engels once cited an example in the history of chemistry to illustrate Marx's contribution. Before lavoisier, some chemists had actually separated oxygen from the air, but they didn't know what they got, and they were still using the popular phlogiston to explain it. Only lavoisier really realized that this gas can't be explained by phlogiston. On the contrary, this gas completely refuted the phlogiston theory and triggered a revolution in chemical theory.

The essence of capital is to pursue surplus value. The essence of capital is the production relationship between capitalists and workers. "The secret of self-proliferation of capital comes down to the domination of capital over a certain amount of unpaid labor of others." (Marx) This point will be explained in the next chapter "Wages".

Summary:

The theory of surplus value is Marx's most important theoretical contribution, which Engels called Marx's two scientific discoveries together with historical materialism. If the theory of labor value is the basis of Marxist economics, then the theory of surplus value is the core of Marxist economics. Marx's theory of capital is based on the theory of surplus value. Therefore, we must deeply understand the theory of surplus value. For this part, please refer to Volume I, Chapter III, Chapter IV and Chapter V, Production of Absolute Surplus Value and Relative Surplus Value.