[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.
[ Return / Go to bottom ]

File: 1641896080765.jfif (142.68 KB, 827x467, preview.jfif)

 No.686583

So I started reading capital and I have a question:
Say you have an investment of 400r (resources)/100m (c minus r)/500v. The 400r will change form from one commodity to another (gold to a ring), so the 400r remains constant. Assuming that because of your machinery there are 5 hours of necessary labour and another 5 of surplus labour you will create 500 in surplus value and thus profit (for this equation I assume the commodity will be sold at their value). If you decrease the investment in labour or machinery your labour output will decrease, and thus your surplus value and thus your profit, but can the same be said about resources? So say you have an identical production process but we change the ratio to 100r/400m/500v, this can be done by instead of investing in gold we can invest in something cheap like wood. Now the wood still changes form from one commodity to another, say tables, and that cost is added to the price in the end so nothing is gained nor lost, but with the extra investment in machinery the rate of production is increased fourfold, thus the labour output, thus the surplus labour and thus the surplus value and profit. With the same starting income (1000) and the same cost to investors you made 4 times as much.
To summaries: if machines and labour create profit but resources don't shouldn't as much as possible not be invested in the former two?
This logic concludes that as long as you spend a minimum amount on resources to keep workers busy with useful labour the ratio should as much as possible be in favor of m or v, concluding that barring other circumstances capitalists should prioritize cheap commodities over luxury products. If the demand is equal and nothing else prevents you from doing so there should be more profit in tables than golden rings.
Is this logic sound or did I do a mudpie argument?

 No.686585

>>686583
>this can be done by instead of investing in gold we can invest in something cheap like wood.
if you're building something that requires gold, like spacecraft shielding, then you can't simply switch to wood. or am I not understanding what you mean?

 No.686587

>>686585
The idea is exactly that you're investing in something cheap like tables rather than spacecraft shielding, since otherwise a large part of your ratio of investment won't produce profit

 No.686593

>>686583
> if machines and labour create profit
Machines do not create profit. Machines changes socially necessary labor to produce certain commodities, which in turn changes the value of such commodities which significantly influences prices of those commodities (~96% of those prices outside of natural monopolies like oil).

In fact the rate of profit is reduced the more capital intesive industry is and increased the more labor intesive it is. The cheaper the labor the less incentive there is to actually invest in machinery.

 No.686595

>>686593
>Machines do not create profit
I mean that machines increase productivity, which like you said decreases snlt which increases profit, even if not a source of profit itself

 No.686596

>>686587
do you think that the usual way of profit (selling commodities to consumers, providing a service, satisfying a need) is true for all companies today? today, a lot of companies survive on government subsidies or investment from other companies. also, a lot of companies are effectively landlords. what does Amazon make the most money from? amazon web services, they rent space on their servers, and they are the richest company on the planet. how does SpaceX make money? they don't, they are paid by the US government and other investors. Google and Facebook are built on advertising, how does advertising fit into it?

first chapters of Capital explains the workings of capitalism, simply. it is full of abstractions and generalisations and you can't use those simple formulas to model real world examples. furthermore, even Marx says that you aren't supposed to calculate labour time for each commodity, but his method allows you to calculate average labour time for all commodities produced. it helps you figure out the total societal surplus that can then be reinvested in the next year, that is how much can the means of production be expanded without resulting in famine or lack.

 No.686601

>>686595
>decreases snlt which increases profit
No. Read again what i wrote on relation between oganic capital composition and profit rate. Increased productivity does not necessarily leads to increased profits, since profits comes not from machines but from underpaid labor.

Let's say you can buy a machine for 100 money that would make work of 100 hours of human labor per production cycle. If you pay 2 money for 1 hour of labor, the machine will save you 100 money per production cycle, increasing your rate of profit. But if you pay 1 money for 2 hours of labor, investing in the machine leads to you loosing 100 money per production cycle buecause you can buy twice as much labour directly from humans, decreasing your rate of profit. The cheaper the labor is the less incentive there is to invest into machinery. Which leads to inverse relation of profit rates to capital intesiveness of industry (meaning how much there is capital in proportion to human labor). In simple terms, you can underpay humans, you can't underpay robots and computers, so the more machines you actually have, the less you can extract profits in relation to investment. That is one of the major contradictions of capitalism.

 No.686603

>>686601
*loosing 50 money

Should pay more attention to math, sorry.

 No.687188

No
The point of enterprise is to minimize the amount of labour and revenue imputed into production while maximizing extraction of foreign capital
If the capitalist running the plant can’t make a profit off increasing extraction of minerals simply put he won’t especially when you account for the fact that all instruments of labour have shelf lives like that of a human and become less productive the more they’re used

 No.687192

>>687188
Unless of course the revenue produced from selling resources through extraction of capital through transaction in the form of MCM overcomes cost to mine it and for the wages of labourers and their tools than yeah I guess it would be a choice a capitalist would make


Unique IPs: 4
[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]
[ Return / Go to top /