The driving force of capital accumulation is the only motive for the bourgeoisie to develop production in capitalist society; they pursue surplus value themselves, and because commodities are sold according to social necessary labor, if productivity is low, they earn less, accumulate more slowly, or even face mergers and bankruptcy. Therefore, there is also an external drive of capitalist competition that encourages capitalists to develop production. At the same time, as capital accumulation expands, capitalists have more human and material resources, enabling them to undertake various technological improvements on a scale that was not possible before. Objectively, this competition can indeed promote the development of production, but this development is only at the level of individual enterprises. During the process of competition, it also causes significant waste and destruction of productive forces. Moreover, as capitalism enters the era of monopoly imperialism, monopolist bourgeoisie may even hoard new technologies to maintain monopoly profits. As for the fact that bourgeoisie living in luxury can enhance their reputation and influence, making more people buy products, it might only be a disguise as philanthropists to deceive others, and to make people “support conscientious enterprises” to achieve the effect you mentioned. However, such tricks are meaningless, not mainstream, and there is no need for discussion.
It’s easy to understand that capital accumulation can produce larger capitalists. But why is it also said that capital accumulation can generate more capitalists?
The upper middle class also engages in expanded reproduction, accumulating capital, and thus continuously rising from the petty bourgeoisie to the bourgeoisie; this is how more capitalists come about.
Why does higher production technology mean that each worker can drive a greater quantity of means of production? For example, previously one worker could operate a manual tool, but now with the introduction of machinery, one machine requires multiple people to operate together to function effectively. Isn’t this a counterexample?
The quantity of means of production here does not refer to the number of machines, but rather the number of tools functioning simultaneously within a given time period. A spinning machine has hundreds of spindles, operating at speeds unattainable by manual labor. A person using hand tools can complete one step within a certain time, while three people operating a large machine can control 50 tools working 30 times within a certain period. The number of tools driven by the latter is five hundred times that of the former.
The type of cutting head used by machines to process workpieces is essentially a variation of hand tools, but its operational efficiency is much higher than that of manual tools.
-
One of the benefits of large-scale production compared to small-scale production is that it “can widely utilize the favorable conditions in transportation and commerce.” How should this sentence be understood?
-
I am not very familiar with the specific process of feudal land annexation. What methods were used to achieve it?
-
Why is relatively surplus population an inevitable trend in capitalist society? On one hand, due to the increasing scale of capital accumulation, the absolute demand for labor by capital has increased; on the other hand, because the organic composition of capital has improved, the demand for labor has relatively decreased, and in some sectors even decreased absolutely. Meanwhile, the supply of labor is also continuously increasing. How can it be proven that the amount of increase in the former is definitely less than the amount of decrease in the latter?
- Large enterprises have high volumes of transportation and sales, so they can reach certain agreements with transportation companies and commercial capitalists, which can reduce freight rates and business expenses.
- Feudal landlords in the feudal society used extralegal coercion on peasants, forcing them to pay rent through armies and bureaucratic groups; similarly, land annexation was also carried out through coercive means.
- Capitalists invest capital into production, which inevitably involves employing workers for exploitation. Human reproduction in essence is also the reproduction of labor power, and the overall trend is certainly an increase in population. The absolute increase and relative decrease are not mutually exclusive; investing more capital requires hiring more workers, but due to technological innovation, the labor required per unit of capital has decreased. For example, previously, concrete had to be poured using buckets and scaffolding, requiring dozens of workers working all day, but now, with mechanical equipment, it only takes a few hours. The total capital in the construction industry today is certainly higher than in the past, but the work that originally required dozens of workers can now be completed with just a few workers.
An increase in the organic composition of capital itself does not lead to relative overpopulation. An increase in the organic composition reduces the amount of labor required per unit of product, meaning less active labor is needed. For example, products that originally required 50 people working for a day can now be produced by just one person working for a day. However, if the saved labor can be used to expand the depth and breadth of production, and can be fully employed to enlarge reproduction, producing far more than before, then relative overpopulation will not occur. The problem is that under capitalism, the proportions of production are unbalanced, and the impoverishment of the working people is very severe. The goods that can be produced are very limited, and due to relative surplus of commodities, capitalists cannot actually infinitely expand reproduction. As a result, the population also becomes relatively overpopulated.
Why, in competition, can large enterprises purchase the means of production of small enterprises at the lowest prices after the small enterprises go bankrupt? How are the profits after “voluntary” union distributed?
I have many questions about this page. Why do foreign capitalists invest the surplus value domestically rather than abroad? Why does bureaucratic capital use surplus value for feudal exploitation? Why does capital accumulation in old China show the characteristics of slow gathering but fast concentration?
Why is it said: the proletariat is the most revolutionary class in human history? How to judge the revolutionary level of a class? How to understand the organization and discipline of the proletariat? Slave society also involves collective labor, and slaves suffer more severe oppression than workers. Slave owners also enforce super-economic coercion on slaves. Slaves have no personal freedom, and slave owners force slaves to work with whips and sticks. The living standards of slaves are much lower than those of workers. Given such severe exploitation and oppression, why is it not said that the slave class is the most revolutionary?
-
Small enterprises go bankrupt because they are squeezed out by the large bourgeoisie, and the market is occupied by the large bourgeoisie. At this time, other small capitalists are also unwilling to invest in this squeezed market. Few small enterprises need to operate, but there are many bankrupt small enterprises. Therefore, these second-hand equipment are oversupplied, and big capitalists can easily acquire these means of production at low prices. The so-called profits after voluntary union are generally dividends obtained by small capitalists, and the dividend rate is lower than the profit rate, so the profits of small capitalists are also reduced.
-
First, foreign capitalists are not just taking money back to invest; they also buy more advanced and higher-quality products from their own country for luxury enjoyment. Second, the foreign bourgeoisie in China has basically achieved monopoly; relying on monopoly, they can collect large profits. Due to the small market of old China, expanding reproduction is also difficult to increase profits, and expanding reproduction is not very urgent. Internally, within their own countries, monopolistic capitalists face fierce competition, and of course, they will find ways to invest domestically to suppress competitors. The first point is the main one.
官僚资本 (bureaucratic capital) controls its own violence organs and can carry out feudal exploitation through extra-economic coercion. Because the living conditions of feudal serfs are worse, bureaucratic capital can achieve greater exploitation rates through feudal exploitation, so they engage in feudal exploitation very barbarically.
The capital accumulation speed in old China was slow, for the reasons mentioned earlier: most surplus value was used for luxury consumption, financial speculation, and feudal exploitation, rather than for the expansion of reproduction in old China. The speed of concentration was fast because bureaucratic capital and colonizers relied on the regime to suppress the national bourgeoisie and bankrupt the petty bourgeoisie, making the capital concentration very rapid.
- The proletariat is a class trained in large-scale socialized production, a class with no private property, with highly organized production, and a very broad outlook. The revolutionary nature of the proletariat is the most thorough, firstly because the proletariat has completely no private property; when working, their physical strength is entirely devoted to production, and their mental effort is also used to think about how to accelerate labor to support their families, and how to carry out these complex tasks, so they cannot control themselves. Their labor income can only sustain their survival and cannot accumulate anything, nor can it be used to dominate others. Secondly, the mode of production represented by the proletariat is directly opposed to private ownership. In socialized large-scale production, everyone’s living materials are provided by society, the knowledge used for labor is provided by the entire society, and the means of production used for labor are also provided by society. What qualification do they have to own their products? Whose are they anyway? In fact, for socialized production to develop, production planning must serve the entire society, not individual interests, so private interests are not allowed. Thirdly, the proletariat demands liberation and cannot achieve it through personal effort alone; they cannot find a utopia on their own. They must continuously struggle together with their class brothers and, in the struggle, completely eliminate private ownership in both material and ideological aspects. Fourthly, during the process of large-scale production, the proletariat has long been accustomed to actively adapting to the high degree of planning and discipline required by large-scale production. Ships must have discipline to sail; a production line must have discipline to operate normally; chaos and playfulness inevitably affect workers. Therefore, the proletariat must constantly consider collective interests and dedicate themselves.
Why are slaves not the most revolutionary? Because slaves do not represent a new mode of production; after fleeing, they only become free citizens engaging in small-scale production. Small producers must support private ownership. Slaves are extremely brave in struggle, but they cannot maintain this revolutionary spirit forever.
Why did this phenomenon of super-economic coercion become increasingly rare in capitalist societies? Although slavery and feudal societies practiced super-economic coercion because the production tools at that time were relatively primitive, and slaves and serfs still had the possibility to break away from their masters and landlords to produce their own tools and make a living independently, and farmers also had their own tools, super-economic coercion could also increase the rate of exploitation. Why did this phenomenon of selling and using black slaves (slaves) and implementing super-economic coercion still exist during the period of primitive accumulation of capital, and why did it disappear later?
I think it still depends on the struggle of the masses of the people, and super-economic coercion has not disappeared. Those black coal kilns and black brick kilns are just capitalists carrying out brutal super-economic coercion on disabled workers. The exploiting class, of course, will try every possible means to oppress and exploit the working people whenever they have the opportunity. It is only because of the struggle of the working people that the exploiting class cannot arbitrarily kill or harm them.
Economically, capitalist society is a society that treats labor power as a commodity; workers also need to purchase living materials, and this is based on free commodity exchange. If a group of capitalists uses super-economic coercion to enslave workers, then to whom will other capitalists sell their goods and whom will they exploit? However, this kind of super-economic coercion is fundamentally not abolished by capitalists, but is overthrown by the people’s struggle. In the late feudal society of China, there were no capitalists yet, but monetary rent had already overwhelmed the two forms of personal dependence—labor rent and physical rent—which are the result of continuous peasant uprisings against the feudal system.
- Small enterprises must repay debts incurred from breaches of contract with suppliers, partners, and customers, as well as pay wages and compensation to workers. These funds are required to be paid in the short term and are often sold at a discount. The profits from “voluntary” joint ventures are also distributed based on the amount of capital and strength, with small capital surrendering a portion of profits to large capital. For example, if Enterprise A cannot realize its value or surplus value due to lack of orders or unsellable goods and goes bankrupt, it may be merged into Company B as a subsidiary at an estimated value of less than 5 million yuan, which is below the general market value. This is a “voluntary” union, borrowing B company’s sales channels or outsourcing production to help A restore production. Afterwards, A maintains relative independence, but a portion of its operating profits must be shared with B. The distribution of profits should depend on the actual control and capital strength of the controlling owners of both companies. Even if B does not participate in A’s production, it can still, through this “voluntary” union, share in a part of the surplus value created by A’s workers. The actual profit distribution situation can be even more complex.
Regarding productive labor and unproductive labor:
-
To determine whether a type of labor is productive or unproductive, it is necessary to see whether this labor creates material wealth. To judge whether a labor creates material wealth, one must see whether the laborer’s labor is condensed in the material being transformed, condensed in the object of labor. So, how to judge whether this labor condenses in the object of labor? When washing dishes, the laborer maintains the use value of the dish, so why doesn’t his labor condense in the dish? Why don’t dishes become more valuable the more they are washed?
-
Since it is said that the work of teachers, bureaucrats, bourgeois literary workers, and police is unproductive labor, does that mean they are also working? Isn’t this a bit of an idealization? Labor is purposeful activity in which people change the form of natural matter to make it suitable for their needs. So, playing games on a mobile phone also changes the electronic arrangement of the phone to suit one’s needs. Is this also labor? Dribbling a basketball, picking up a water cup to drink water—are these also changing the spatial position of the basketball or water cup to suit one’s needs, and thus also considered labor?
-
Why, during the period of socialism, is it necessary to reduce the number of unproductive laborers? Although unproductive labor does not create value, it still involves using one’s labor to provide others with a service or a use value. Why is it necessary to keep reducing this?
Las agencias de violencia simplemente cumplen funciones de represión, y el trabajo no productivo no puede considerarse, al igual que las actividades de explotación de la burguesía tampoco pueden llamarse trabajo.
This is obviously not labor, but indulgence, entertainment, or consumer activity.
People’s labor at any time is carried out within society, under certain social relations. If one leaves society, there is no such thing as human labor.
It means relatively reduced, and material production is the foundation of building communism. It is certain that the part of productive labor should be greater than the non-productive labor.
I am not sure about this either, maybe it has created new use values @October’s Wind
-
Whether labor is condensed in the object of labor does not depend on whether its use value changes. If, before and after labor, it remains the same kind of commodity, but its location has changed—from the factory to the consumer—this is still productive labor. Because a commodity can only enter the consumer domain after being transported to the consumer, it is considered productive. However, washing dishes is more akin to maintenance (minor repairs) in repair work, aimed at allowing the dish to better realize its use value (the reason it is not preserved like refrigerated fruit to retain use value is that dishes do not have the characteristic of rapidly losing use value over time like fruit). In the outline of political economy, this kind of specialized labor is regarded as unproductive; most importantly, the use value of the dish itself has not changed, and it is not a transportation labor that moves goods into the consumer domain. A dish washed ten times is not considered to have higher value than one washed only once; if the former has no wear, they are regarded as identical commodities. The washing of dishes in a store is considered a service in the consumer domain, just like household cleaning is not regarded as productive. However, if this cleaning occurs in a factory, it becomes productive because the process is also necessary for production. Value is a social attribute, so it depends on the social relations it corresponds to, not just on changes in the material form.
-
Mobile phones are already in the consumer domain; basketballs and water cups are also in the consumer domain. Your activity is just using finished products for consumption, which does not count as labor. This is very different from harvesting work.
-
Because productive forces are determined by productive labor, which ultimately drives social progress. Today, the service industry accounts for over 70%, leading to significant waste of productive forces. People do not live on the service industry but on material wealth. The service industry can only play an auxiliary role.
As the scale of capital accumulation or production continues to expand and social division of labor develops, means of production are no longer used individually by small commodity producers as before, but are shared by many people, taking on a social nature. Although the means of production are used collectively, they are privately owned and controlled by a small number of capitalists. The ownership of the means of production determines the distribution of products, and the labor成果 produced by the entire society is also owned by a few capitalists and distributed according to their private interests. This is the contradiction between the socialization of capitalist production and the private ownership of means of production. This contradiction may sound somewhat abstract, but how is it reflected in real life? Why is it considered the fundamental contradiction of capitalist society?