Karl Marx’s Grundrisse, Essay Example

“Equivalent for equivalent” requires a fair price paid for the means of production, a fair wage paid for labor, and a fair selling price for the commodity produced.  How, then, can capitalist production produce more value (surplus value) at the end of the process than the value invested to begin the process?  Begin your answer by explaining how “equivalent for equivalent” is measured in the purchase of labor power.

When a member of staff is placed to labor on a profitable basis, he at the outset generates a value equivalent to what it costs to employ him. Nevertheless, the moment this value has been produced, and the work goes on, he starts to valorize capital, that is to say augment its value. As a result, in general a member of staff labours a portion of the day for himself in the point of view of generating the equivalent of his income, and a portion of the day for the employer of his manual labor (Musto, 2008). Approximately, statistical data supposes that the relative amount is roughly 50/50; nevertheless, it can be there or thereabouts. By comparison, in the theory of management, analysts are tremendously conscious of activities that are value adding taking place when aspects of invention are withdrawn from the market in order to generate novel yields with them. That is to say, given that they intend to make the most of output, specifically to obtain as much labor and product out of the personnel as competently as achievable. Yet, given that perceptions of value development are founded on the relation involving costs of input and revenue of sales, exposed by accounts, the focal function of living work in preserving, transferring and generating value is still hidden. The formal story is that the production factors all insert value to the novel productivity. In a way this is factual, given that living labour preserves and shifts value from resources and equipment to the novel invention; and industrialist production could not take place if capitalists did not make capital available in return for proceeds. On the other hand, without the energetic subject of human, no novel value is generated at all, and capital properties lose significance (Musto, 2008). This turns out to be noticeable when employees go on strike.

Explain how the analysis presented in question #1 involves a hidden violation of the “equivalent for equivalent” requirement.

Surplus value generally is value in excess of the equivalent. By definition, the equivalent is simply the identity of value with itself. As a result, surplus value can by no means develop out of the equivalent; neither can it do so initially out of circulation; it has to take place from the process of production of capital itself. The issue can as well be expressed in this manner:  if the labor force requires just half a day of working for him to live an entire day, then, in order to keep alive as a labor force, he requires just to labor  half a day (Musto, 2008). The second half of the day of labour is labour that is forced; excess labour.  What seems like surplus value on the side of capital appears indistinguishably on the side of the worker as excess labour in surplus of his obligations as member of staff, for this reason, in surplus of his instant obligations for maintaining himself alive. The great chronological quality of capital is to generate this excess labour, excess labour from the point of view of sheer use value, sheer survival; and its chronological destiny is achieved as immediate as, on one face, there has been such a growth of requirements that surplus labour above and beyond requirement encompasses itself turn out to be a general requirement sprouting out of personal wants themselves (DeMartino, 2000). On the other face, when harsh discipline of capital, acting on generations that are succeeding has built up overall intensity as the common asset of the novel species and in conclusion, when the enlargement of the productive labour powers, which capital continually whips onward with its limitless mania for prosperity, and of the only situations in which this mania can be established, have flourished to the phase where the preservation and possession of overall wealth necessitate a reduced time of labour of society in general, and where the toiling community associates scientifically to the course of its progressive reproduction.

Using Gould’s analysis of domination, explain how the development of a capitalist economic system creates a situation in which labor is dominated by capital.

The assessment of the inversion of the property right is not the mere respect in which Marx might be said to disapprove of the capitalist system as unfair. In his assessment of exploitation and alienation, Marx goes further than what might be termed as an interior assessment of capitalism, in relation to its failure to go by it individual principles (Gould, 1978). One might interpret his analysis of exploitation and alienation as demonstrating the injustice of these interrelations in yet a wider point of view. In this point of view, these interrelations are unfair in that via them one entity deprives another of liberty. This is what Gould characterizes as domination. As a result, in exploitation and alienation, as means of domination, a number of entities control the direction and range of the activities of others by way of controlling the stipulations of their action. In this manner, a number of entities deprive others of the stipulations for the entire realization of their self-determination (Gould, 1978). It might as well be added that a society that is pre-capitalist ought to also be looked upon as unfair in as much as the societal interrelations that exemplify it as associations of domination.

Explain how, according to Marx, capitalism’s production of disposable time calls for a shift to humanistic communism.  Include in your answer a description of humanistic communism that distinguishes its presupposition from the presupposition of capitalism, distinguishes the way communism uses disposable time from the way capitalism uses it, and how communism restores the social dimension of species being that capitalism distorts.

The presupposition of excess capital 1 was the subsistence of values belonging to the industrialist and disposed by him into distribution, or more precisely, into the exchange with labour of living capacity. The presupposition of excess capital 2 is not anything more than the subsistence of excess capital 1. This is to say that, in other words, the assumption that the industrialists has by now appropriated labour that is alien devoid of exchange. This places him into a place where he is capable to start the course of action repeatedly. Actually, in order to generate surplus capital 2 he had to substitute a portion of the value of excess capital 1 in the manner of way of existence for labour of living capacity, however, the values he provided in that swap were not values which he initially placed into distribution out of his personal finances (Musto, 2008). They were somewhat objectified labour that was alien which he made appropriate devoid of providing whichever equal whatever, and which he presently re-substitutes for alien labour for living. In the similar manner, furthermore as the resource and so on in which this novel exertion discovers itself and in which it generates excess value have arrived into his hands devoid of exchange, by simple appropriation. Given that, excess capital 1 was generated by way of uncomplicated exchange amid labour that is objectified and labour of living, an exchange totally founded on the rules of the exchange of equals as calculated by the labour quantity or time of labour in them. In addition, the legal appearance of this exchange presumed not anything other than the right of property of each person over his individual goods and of open disposition over them. However, as much as the link of excess capital 2 and 1 is as a result, a repercussion of this initial connection (Musto, 2008).

Havel calls for a change in the way we define modern man.  How would the mutuality recommended by Gould change the way modern man is defined by neo-classical economics, capitalist production, and Marx’s humanistic communism?

Mutuality might be exemplified as the most built up form of reciprocity. It will be remembered that Marx talks about reciprocity as an element of the course of action of the progress of exchange in capitalism. Here it denotes the recognition by the exchangers of one another’s freedom and equality and of their general concern in the exchange, wherein all serve as a way for the other. Gould exemplified this as an instrumental and formal reciprocity. It was perceived that Marx assesses this reciprocity in exchange as masking the deeper interrelations of non-reciprocity in the production field. On the grounds of these exemplifications by Marx, Gould supposes that mutuality might be understood as a reciprocal social association that goes further than reciprocity that is instrumental. In addition, further than basically formal reciprocity (Musto, 2008). Mutuality goes further than reciprocity that is instrumental in that all do not take the other as mode merely, however, also as a conclusion in him. In addition, it goes further than the recognition by every of the other’s equivalent capacity for freedom even though it presumes this recognition.

Away from these, mutuality comprises in the cognizant recognition and regard by every agent for the personal variations and schemes of the other. Meaning, each regards and recognizes not just the others capacity for liberty, however, also the particular modes wherein the other the other is achieving this capacity; to be exact, the development of the other or his or her constructive liberty (Wilson, 1990). Additionally, mutuality is the dynamic association of improving the other by means of actions that are practical that aid the other to achieve his or her wants and objectives. Mutuality in this aspect of improvement as a result, adds in to the development of others in their positive liberty. Given that positive liberty is the self enlargement of societal entities, the more every entity improves (DeMartino, 2000) the other the bigger the development of all of them. This presents possibilities that are richer for the societal relations amid them and as well for additional enlargement for every one. It is via such interrelations of mutuality that the free enlargement of each is the stipulation for the growth of all.

References

Musto, M., 2008. Karl Marx’s Grundrisse. Critique of political economy. Translated by Nicolaus Martin. London:  Penguin Books

Gould, C., 1978. Marx’s sociology ontology: Individuality and community in Marx’s theory of social reality. London: MIT Press.

Wilson, p., 1990. Disturbing the peace. New York: Alfred Knopf.

DeMartino, G., 2000. Global economy, global justice. London: Routledge.