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?
 

>    .... 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