Marxist political economy can reveal the essence of contemporary Chinese capitalism through social phenomena, and it is of great importance for doing mass work. I have only read the 1975 “Political Economy” from Peking University in the past, and I felt that the part about capitalism in it was the same whether it was included or not. Recently, I have started to study “Introduction to Political Economy” myself. Here I share my doubts and insights.\n
6 Likes
Doubt
- A capitalist called “Wangzai Xiao Qiao” asks other singers to write songs for his company, but doesn’t pay a single penny. Isn’t this exploitation rate infinitely positive?
1 Like
Looked into it, the problem is solved
2 Likes
The lowest limit of labor value is determined by the purely physiological factors of workers, that is, the value of the necessary living materials to sustain life. However, now in the middle-repair society, there is a situation of “paid work,” mainly among manual laborers, where, for example, rent and commuting costs exceed wages, leading to a situation where they have to pay out of pocket just to go to work. What is this situation? Shouldn’t the minimum wage also meet the needs of maintaining life? 
Or is it still the case that Chinese capitalists’ oppression of workers has become so brutal that wages are below the value of necessary labor?
Just finished reading the chapter on wages and understood that it is entirely possible for wages to be lower than the value of labor. But while it is possible, its realization also depends on certain conditions. What are these conditions?
Wages are a variable amount, but ultimately they are determined by the comparison of class forces. For example, under China’s extremely barbaric reactionary fascist dictatorship, the repression is very strong, and the spiritual opium is highly reactionary, with widespread toxicity. This also leads to difficulties for Chinese workers to organize and unite in struggle; they either show indifference to others’ struggles spiritually, or after establishing similar workers’ organizations like unions, they are detained by the reactionary government. Under such circumstances, the strength of the bourgeoisie exceeds that of the proletariat, which allows wages to be suppressed to very low levels. This point is also mentioned in Chapter 3, Section 4.
4 Likes
Hmm, I understand now
It seems quite appropriate to call the unemployed population ‘flexible employment population’ in Zhongxiu, because they are the reserve army of industry. Capitalists need them to be employed and will give them job opportunities. During a crisis, which is now, there isn’t a need for so much labor, so there’s no need to employ them, but rather to let them be unemployed. Truly ‘flexible’.
Is the composition of capital the ratio of capital-technical composition to value composition, or the ratio of constant capital to variable capital? It should be the latter, right?
The organic composition of capital is the part of the capital value composition determined by the composition of technology. The capital value composition also fluctuates with changes in the prices of labor and means of production. However, the organic composition does not consider these secondary effects; it focuses on the most fundamental relationships.
The ratio of constant to variable capital is not so precise; it might be more representative to take the average of this ratio over a period of time (to offset occasional fluctuations).
In fact, it’s just a way to cover up the unemployment issue. Zhongxiu often plays these word games, and there’s also “negative growth.” “Flexible employment” sounds as if workers decide themselves whether to work or not, but in reality, they have no choice. It’s just unemployment where people can’t find jobs, with a surplus of labor supply and demand. Workers’ wages are also suppressed. “Flexible” refers to capitalists hiring and firing cheap labor flexibly, and this term was created entirely from the capitalist’s perspective.
2 Likes
The organic composition reflects the value composition of the technical composition, where the technical composition is the ratio of means of production to labor. Changes in the organic composition reflect changes in the quantities of means of production and labor. However, the value composition is not necessarily the same as the technical composition, because changes in the value of labor and the value of means of production can both cause changes in the value composition. Later, due to technological changes in production, the inputs of means of production and labor change, leading to a change in the value composition, which is called the organic composition.
“The value composition that changes” refers to what the previous and the subsequent value compositions are.
Is the previous value composition technological value? Is the change in value composition caused by technological changes an organic composition?
The composition of value is the ratio of constant capital to variable capital. In formal logic, the organic composition is a subset of the value composition, and the organic composition is a special form of value composition, with the special aspect reflecting changes in technological composition.
2 Likes
Oh oh, I see. The institutional composition is a special value composition, determined by the technical composition of value.
1 Like
The section on the cycle of capital left me feeling dizzy. I was reading it with a half-understanding, half-not-understanding approach. The main difficulty was my unclear understanding of the formulas, so I kept pondering what the formulas meant, which made reading very slow and also felt very challenging.
What does the temporality of the movement of industrial capital mean? Does one cycle end and then another cycle begins? What does it mean for them to coexist in space? Does it mean that the capital of one capitalist is in the stage of monetary capital circulation, while the capital of another capitalist is in a different stage?
The reason why monetary capital, commodity capital, and productive capital must exist simultaneously is because these three types of capital can transform into each other, ensuring the continuous movement of capital. So, why can’t the movement of capital be interrupted? Is it because an interruption would prevent one from competing with other capitalists, leading to bankruptcy?
Temporal succession means that monetary capital, productive capital, and commodity capital are constantly transforming into each other over time, from monetary capital to productive capital, and then to commodity capital. Coexistence in space refers to the fact that, in order to continuously obtain profits, the bourgeoisie divides their capital into monetary capital, productive capital, and commodity capital in proportion at the same time.
Yes, because temporal succession and spatial coexistence are mutually conditional. The reason for the coexistence of the three forms of capital in space is to ensure that the industrial capital does not break down. The book states that if there is no monetary capital, only productive and commodity capital, then if the sale of commodity capital is hindered, there would be no monetary capital to transform into productive capital, and the movement of production would be disrupted. If the succession is broken, then the three forms of capital will not coexist. For example, if a workers’ strike causes production to halt, then only two forms of capital—monetary and commodity—would exist.
I feel that mainly because movement and matter are inseparable, and the capitalist mode of production necessarily involves continuous movement of capital (a complete interruption of this continuous movement would trigger a revolution). On the other hand, the movement of capital is the process by which capitalists constantly obtain surplus value, and the bourgeoisie’s desire to possess value is unlimited. Therefore, they are unwilling to see exploitation cease.