Marxs Concept of Surplus Value and the Exploitation of Workers by Capitalists - Essay Example

Macro and Microeconomics Marx’s concept of surplus value and the exploitation of workers by capitalists Marx’s concept of surplus value is elaborated on the fundamental basis on which it relates to the theory, whereby various sources of Marxism are reviewed in order to understand his arguments. For instance, the analysis of "Manuscripts of 44" depicts the difference between the concepts of exploitation of workers by capitalists and Classical economists (Baronian, 25). Moreover, Marx considered exploitation of workers by capitalist as labor in the form of either social labor, which is a production activity or a living labor, through his critique of political economy. Marx also considered labor as a form of private property, classical economists, whereby considering the social labor as dead labor. Nevertheless, the main objective of the paper is to analyze various arguments by Marx concerning the concept of surplus value and exploitation of workers by capitalist, in order to determine how convincing they are. Marx redefined human being as a social being, who conceives the human generic life as a social activity of labor in a way that the concept of alienation is established with a certain meaning. On the other hand, there are consequences related to the difference of the definitions, role of the concepts of value as it is depicted in his works. The theory of labor value focuses on the scope of economic investigation, whereby even the historians of economic thought included Marx among classical economists. Therefore, Marx’s theories are depicted as radicalized versions of the classical theory of labor value. Marx’s concept of labor value has been inspired Neoclassical or NeoRicardian theory, which argues that labor is a unit of measure of commodities and capital, as he applies the argument to discuss the theory of capitalist exploitation (Skillman, 362). Moreover, the difference appears more relevant to remember, since the works various economists such as Torrens and Sraffa have embraced the knowledge of labor value. This is through the Ricardo’s theory, which serves as a unit of measure of capital and social products under assumptions. Moreover, the effort of assigning the role of measuring the distribution of the social products to the concept of value is a crucial role in Marx theoretical framework. The critical role refers to the specifically social and historically relative state of production mode, which depends on the exchange value. There are claims by Marx indicating that the classical economists identified labor as a source of value, and they considered the law of the capitalist mode of production to be natural and internal. This resulted to consideration of value form being quite indifferent or external to the nature of the commodity. There is a significant explanation of Marx perception concerning the inability to deduce more developed form of value such as money and capital or labor from economic classes. Therefore, there is a critical aspect of Marx methods, which depends on exposing the relative value of social labor in the contribution made in the first section of Book I of The Capital (Skillman, 309). Marx claimed that the reason why political economist fails to recognize the source of value in labor is due to exclusive concern on the question related to distribution of the social products, which relate to the magnitude of the value. Consequently, they consider the labor manifests in the value of commodity, hence making them unable to differentiate between labor producing use value and labor producing exchange value. Invocation of price value equivalence by Marx is considered as ideal case of the commodity exchange, which is appropriate based on pursuing the basic logic of capitalist exploitation and treatment of alternative circuit of capital that fails to account for a mode of production in which they operate. Moreover, Marx suggests that an imprecise conception of capital is a social relation of production, whereby three divergent circuits of capital that have served as means of capitalist exploitation. This is in the sense that is defined by Marx in volume one of Capital I, and the circuit of industrial capital, which is also analyzed in the same section of the book. In fact, Marx’s sense that is depicted in the case of usurer’s capital as it finances value production, instead of consumption and proto-industrial merchant’s capital, which is exemplified by eliminating the systems of production., hence definition of surplus value by Marx involves the capitalist allocation of newly established value, instead of redistribution of pre-existing value. Various sources are in consistent with Marx repeated characterization of the circuits related to capitalist exploitation without the mode of production according to the analysis. However, the analysis of antediluvian circuits of capital in Marx account of capitalist exploitation neglects the basic differentiation related to social relations of production within which the circuits are operated (Chattopadhyay, 218). In fact, Marx provides a description of the primitive circuits, which constitutes capital in a formal instead of real sense. Nonetheless, Marx offers a distinction of the capitalist mode of production expropriation of immediate producers, which results to a presupposition of exploitation through the circuits of capital. Finally, Marx arguments depends on either non sequitur or tautology, though there is a condition of price value equivalence, which does not follow from his conditions for existence of surplus value or the classical situation that entail exchange of commodities for a natural price. Moreover, the assessment stipulating capitalist exploitation is explained based on real social relations of capital, which is equivalent to positing a class to workers involved in production by selling their labor power. Therefore, Marx established this condition to derive a basis of value through a theoretic account in his book, thus associating basic logic problem with his arguments. In conclusion, the paper has explored the arguments by Marx concerning the concept of surplus value and exploitation of workers by capitalist, whereby his theoretical accounts are identified to be convincing. His arguments have been embraced by various economists and through an analysis of some of his works such as "The Capitalist" and "Manuscripts of 44"; the relevance of his argument can be identified in a broad perspective. Therefore, through analysis of his arguments the paper has established that his arguments concerning the concept of surplus value and exploitation of workers by capitalist are convincing. Works Cited Baronian, L. "The foundation of Marx's concept of value in the Manuscripts of 1844.” The Journal of Philosophical Economics 3(1), 2009: 25-43 Chattopadhyay, P. "Value and Exploitation: Marx's Problem and Skillman's Solution". Science & Society, 62(2), 1998, 218-40 Skillman, G. "Marx's value-theoretic account of capitalist exploitation: Non sequitur or tautology?" Science & Society. 63(3) 1999: 362-372 Skillman, G. "Ne Hic Saltaveris the Marxian Theory of Exploitation after Roemer.” Economics and Philosophy, 11(2) 1995, 309-31 Read More