English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The book doesn't really give me much information on this phrase. Karl Marx uses so many different terms and euphemisms when describing the Capitalist system that it's impossible to tell what he's trying to get at. Valorization is another example.

2007-01-01 13:26:25 · 2 answers · asked by Daphne 1 in Social Science Economics

2 answers

Marx is referring to profit.

For example, assume a shoe manufacturer buys rubber and cloth, and pays someone to turn it into a shoe.

Total cost is $30/shoe, and he sells it for $40/shoe.

The $10 is what Marx refers to as "surplus value". He thinks this is evil.

Marx, for some strange reason, has absolutely no concept of risk. He finds it evil that the shoemaker makes $10 per shoe, but he doesn't consider that the shoemaker could easily be losing $10/shoe.

In other words, business ownership means nothing to him, which is why his theories make sense to him.

2007-01-01 14:05:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If you are employed to do a certain work and are getting paid for it, there are two different perspectives for that compensation.

From your point of view, you are getting paid for the effort you are putting in. From your employers view, you are being paid for the amount of service or goods you produced. Interesting thing is that these is a different valuation for the same amount of this work from each side.

You might be thinking that your time/effort is worth $10 and agreed to do that work when the employer was willing to pay you $10. However, from the work you did, your employer might be generating $15 worth of value. That difference of $5 is the "Surplus value".

See if the term now makes sense in the way its used in your book.

2007-01-01 13:42:45 · answer #2 · answered by K2 2 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers