#variable capital

[yngwrthr]

And this is the fundamentally new element in Marx: that he attempts to combine the historical conception that Jones counterposes to Ricardo’s “abstract method” with the latter, and in that way complete it and revolutionize it. Nowhere did [Jones] try to go beyond historical description to theoretical comprehension. That is precisely Marx’s achievement: that he placed recognition of the historical and social character of economic categories at the service of transforming [economic] theory… The realization that economic relations are social relations led him to discover the fetishism of the concepts of commodity, money and capital. Labor appeared to him in its [historical] determination as wage-labor in its socially necessary form; the economic production process [appeared to him] in its double form as the labor process and the valorization (exploitation) process, the commodity as use value and as value. Capital is no longer a material stock [of goods], but the social relationship in which wage-labor is in opposition to the monopoly of the means of production. The workers sells his labor power; the product belongs to the capitalists, on whom the surplus labor devolves. The magnitude of the surplus labor, i.e. the surplus value, is determined by the division of newly created value between workers and capitalists, i.e. by the amount of wages of variable capital. The distinction between variable and constant capital is thereby given, and in the development of this ratio of the organic composition of capital Marx found capitalism’s most important law of motion… The competition between capitalists for spheres of investment brings about equalization of the different rates of profit into the average profit rate, which determines the transformation of values into prices of production. The historical-social view of economic categories destroyed their fetish character and led to solution of the problems upon which Ricardo and his followers foundered. The economic theory of scientific Marxism grew out of the specifically Marxist union of the “inductive method” of Jones and the abstract method of Ricardo.

Rudolf Hilferding, The Prehistory of Marxian Economics, 1911-1912, in Responses to Marx’s Capital: From Rudolf Hilferding to Isaak Illich Rubin, ed. by Richard Day and Daniel Gaido, Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2017, pp. 322-323.

[rotenotes]

Reading Marx's Capital (profit vs. surplus value)

Marx's Capital TOC (https://rotenotes.neocities.org/) Reading Marx’s Capital | social and political theory

[translate in english and expand on "η υπεραξία και το κερδος δεν απλα οικονομικο-φιλοσοφικες εννοιες' εχουν και μαθηματικη σχεση μεταξυ τους…. κερδος = υπεραξία / μεταβλητο κεφαλαιο(μισθοι που αγοραζουν δημιουργουσα αξια αρα και υπεραξια ζωντανη εργατικη ικανοτητα ή δυναμη) και σταθερο κεφαλαιο (αντικειμενοποιημενη/νεκρη εργασια)" ChatGPT

The term "η υπεραξία και το κέρδος δεν απλά είναι οικονομικο-φιλοσοφικές έννοιες" translates to "surplus value and profit are not just economic-philosophical concepts."

The statement goes on to establish a mathematical relationship between these concepts: "κέρδος = υπεραξία / μεταβλητό κεφάλαιο (μισθοί που αγοράζουν δημιουργούν δημιουργική αξία, άρα και υπεραξία, ζωντανή εργατική ικανότητα ή δύναμη) και σταθερό κεφάλαιο (αντικειμενοποιημένη/νεκρή εργασία)."

In English, this can be expanded as follows:

"The concepts of surplus value and profit extend beyond mere economic and philosophical notions. They can be understood through a mathematical relationship: profit equals surplus value divided by variable capital (wages that purchase productive labor, hence generating surplus value from living labor power or capability), and constant capital (objectified/dead labor)."

This statement highlights the interconnectedness of economic and philosophical ideas with mathematical formulations, emphasizing the intricate relationship between labor, value creation, and profitability. It underscores the importance of recognizing the mathematical underpinnings of economic concepts for a more comprehensive understanding of their implications.]

[translate in english and write an essay in english for "στον 1ο τομο του Κεφαλαιου αντικειμενο ειναι η παραγωγη υπεραξιας . στο 2ο τομο ειναι η πραγματοποίση της υπεραξίας στην κυκλοφορια (των εμπορευματων). στον 3ο τομο ειναι η κατανομη της υπεραξίας: σε (βιομηχανικο/εμπορικο) κερδος, σε τοκο (επι καποιου κεφαλαιου: παραγωγικου (profit of enterprise) η/και χρηματικου: interest), σε γαιοπροσοδο (rent) ….πριν απο αυτο βρισκεται η μετατροπη της υπεραξίας σε κερδος και των αξιων σε τιμες παραγωγης (prices of production): μεσω αυτης της μετατροπης κρυβεται η εκμεταλλευτικη σχεση, γιατι ετσι το κερδος φαινεται να προκύπτει τοσο απο το μεταβλητο οσο και απο το σταθερο κεφαλαιο, κατι που παιρνει την πιο μυστικοποιμενη μορφη της υπεραξίας στον τοκο (interest: Χ-Χ' με Χ'>Χ) (οπου η διαμεσολαβηση απο την παραγωγικη εργασια [Εργατικη δύναμη/Μεσα παραγωγης / Εμπορευματων] στη διαδικασια αξιοποιησης του κεφαλαιου εχει χαθει)" ChatGPT

Title: Marx's Analysis of Surplus Value and Capital Circulation

In the first volume of "Capital," Karl Marx delves into the fundamental concept of surplus value production. He meticulously dissects the process through which capital accumulates, revealing the intricate dynamics underlying capitalist economies. Moving forward to the second volume, Marx shifts his focus towards the realization of surplus value within the sphere of circulation, predominantly within the realm of commodities.

The third volume marks a crucial juncture in Marx's exploration, as it centers on the distribution of surplus value. This distribution occurs across various channels, including industrial and commercial profits, interest on capital (both productive, categorized as profit of enterprise, and monetary, recognized as interest), and land rent. These distinct avenues elucidate the multifaceted nature of surplus value's dispersion within the capitalist system.

Preceding this comprehensive analysis is the transformation of surplus value into profit and the conversion of values into production prices. Concealed within this transformation lies the exploitative relationship inherent in capitalist production. This transformation is pivotal in understanding the obscured form of surplus value, particularly in relation to interest.

Interest, represented as (Χ-Χ' with Χ'>Χ), encapsulates a critical aspect of this process. It signifies a departure from the direct involvement of productive labor (Labor Power / Means of Production / Commodities) in the capital utilization process. This shift highlights the evolution from a labor-centric production model to a more financially driven system.

Marx's exposition on these intricate stages provides a profound insight into the inner workings of capitalist economies. The transformation of surplus value into profit, and subsequently into interest, exemplifies the nuanced dynamics of exploitation within this economic framework. By unraveling these layers, Marx sheds light on the mechanisms that perpetuate the accumulation of capital and the perpetuation of class-based disparities.

In conclusion, Marx's trilogy of "Capital" offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the generation, realization, and distribution of surplus value within capitalist economies. The conversion of surplus value into profit and production prices unveils the veiled dimensions of exploitation, with interest serving as a critical intermediary. Through this meticulous analysis, Marx provides invaluable insights into the functioning of capitalist systems, contributing significantly to economic and philosophical discourse.]

[cryptomnesis]

The labor required to produce horses and machines is an accurately known quantity, while that required to maintain the women of the surplus population is below all calculation.

Karl Marx, Capital (1867)

[dropouthangoutspaceout]

We should point out before moving on that in each of these forms of immaterial labor, cooperation is completely inherent in the labor itself. Immaterial labor immediately involves social interaction and cooperation. In other words, the cooperative aspect of immaterial labor is not imposed or organized from the outside, as it was in previous forms of labor, but rather, cooperation is completely immanent to the laboring activity itself. This fact calls into question the old notion (common to classical and Marxian political economics) by which labor power is conceived as "variable capital," that is, a force that is activated and made coherent only by capital, because the cooperative powers of labor power (particularly immaterial labor power) afford labor the possibility of valorizing itself. Brains and bodies still need others to produce value, but the others they need are not necessarily provided by capital and its capacities to orchestrate production. Today productivity, wealth and the creation of social surpluses take the form of cooperative interactivity through linguistic, communicational, and affective networks. In the expression of its own creative energies, immaterial labor thus seems to provide the potential for a kind of spontaneous and elementary communism.

Hardt & Negri - Empire