On Tuesday, September 17, 2019, 08:19:27 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:00:58 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Surplus value" is a phony, fictitious concept https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value that originated in the mid-1800's, when it was individual physical labor which "made" most products.
> wow - cosmic level of economic ignorance on display. Here, I notice that while you disagree with what I said, you made that clear, nevertheless you didn't disprove what I said, or even provide a cogent argument.
Then came the Industrial Revolution, when products began to be made mostly, and eventually almost completely, by machines (and later, even robots).
everything is made by 'labor' - oh wait, you think that machines magically create and operate themselves?) a
"made by (human) labor" doesn't QUANTIFY it, as a proportion of the total value. Today, humans do very little 'labor' in making modern products. What you (and others who push the "surplus value" nonsense) are trying to come to a quantitative conclusion (the workers are entitled to a large fraction of the 'surplus value' regardless of the quantity of their input) without any sort of quantitative analysis.
"Workers" want to think they they 'created' the products that the machines and robots actually created.
dude, 'workers' created the machines and robots.
Are you suggesting that 'the workers' who made the machine are somehow entitled to a high proportion of the 'value' represented by the products the machine is producing? Rather than merely being compensated for their time and effort?
They want what they call "profit", which is actually mostly the responsibility of hundreds of machines.
.... this was would be hilarious except for the fact that it's pathetic.
Again, you clearly DISAGREE with what I said, but you've said nothing to DISPROVE it, no even provide a credible argument why you think I'm wrong. Jim Bell