Is surplus value theory a fallacy?

In some of our standard textbooks and mainstream views, it is described that capitalists possess surplus value:

In Marx's view, capital, machinery, technology, raw materials and other factors of production can not produce new value because they have no life; Workers are "living labor", so they are the most active productive forces. The inanimate factors of production can only create new and more value through "living labor"; Capitalists, just because they have capital, machinery, technology and raw materials, occupy workers' "extra labor" and "surplus value" for free, which is the essence of exploitation.

This leads to a very common problem, that is, a capitalist not only owns capital, machinery, technology and raw materials, but also makes great contributions in the production process-he needs to make decisions, he may also provide intellectual property rights (he also earned this intellectual property right through labor), he may also do business management, and finally he and he bear the risk of investment. Then after paying the worker's salary, he should of course go to all the surplus income. Of course, this surplus may far exceed the total wages of front-line workers, but how can we ignore the capitalists' own labor and think it is "exploitation"?

This is the mainstream view that questions Marx's theory of surplus value now. On this basis, some critics think that the theory of surplus value is a fallacy.

However, this doubt is actually very weak.

The crux of the problem lies in distinguishing a character from a person.

When you talk about capitalists, you should first consider clearly that the "capitalist" who holds surplus value identified by Marx refers to the role of capitalists, not capitalists.

In the above-mentioned production activities, capitalists as human beings not only play the role of investors (that is, real pure "capitalists"), but also play the role of risk analysts, operators, decision makers, managers, inventors and even ordinary workers. It should be noted that the total income of the capitalist-as a complete person at this time-is still surplus after deducting the part he deserves as a risk analyst, operator, decision maker, manager, inventor and even ordinary worker-this surplus that still exists is what Marx called surplus value. And this surplus value does not correspond to any labor and risk. Its existence is entirely due to the capitalist's pre-possession of the means of production.

Let me give two practical examples:

In the first example, you occupy a piece of land-a small piece on the map with permanent ownership-and as long as the earth is still there, you don't have to take any risks and have no labor force when renting this land. -someone asked, what about taxes? Taxes are only a part of income. There must be some after smoking. What about business tax and land tax? The fundamental source of land tax is the extraction of the value-added part of land, and even the value-added part remains after extraction. Then you will say that you need to advertise and find an intermediary to rent out this piece of land. . . . Yes, renting this land may require labor, but think about it. After deducting this labor cost from your rental income, is there any surplus? -This surplus, which does not correspond to any labor and risk, comes from the realization of surplus value pointed out by Marx.

The second example: for example, if you have 1 100 million dollars in your hand, you entrust your investment decision to a highly professional investment company, invest in a project with stable income and promising prospects, and then buy an insurance for your entrustment. According to the qualifications of this investment company and this project, after completely offsetting your investment risk, the difference between the insured amount and the insured amount will remain. You bet the rest on inflation risk. By this time, you have got rid of all risks through insurance reinsurance. Enough to wait at home for benefits. You think-wow, then you have to have an eye for it. This "vision" is enough to correspond to your income. Cultivating this vision itself is very hard work. Hehe, the story is not over yet. What you have to consider is-suppose this person does all this for his son, what can his son do? What labor did he do and what risks did he cope with in order to enjoy the inheritance he will inherit? That legacy comes purely from material possession (possession of the means of production of "capable dad"). In fact, from the realization of father's surplus value, it can be considered naked.

In fact, if you think about it carefully, adventure itself is not labor. Strictly speaking, the gains from taking risks may not be publicly extracted from the surplus value. However, since you still have to pay for taking risks, strict theorists can still correspond it to a certain fair reward, and then calculate the contribution value beyond the surplus value. In fact, real investors often eliminate risks through insurance.

Marx believes that surplus value is evil, and its logical route is as follows:

Surplus value comes from possession.

Possession is stealing (robbing).

Surplus value comes from theft (plunder).

The key point of his view is that it is a sin to exclude the rights shared by others with nature (or a part of nature) by violent means. Because this is a kind of evil, possession itself is evil, and private ownership, as an approval of the result of possession, is also a flower of evil. As the fruit of this flower, it does not correspond to any surplus value of fair labor and adventure, that is, it is evil.

Marx's surplus value theory is a logical reasoning process. There is no problem in itself. The moral criticism of the reality of "possession of surplus value" does not come from his logical reasoning process, but from his most basic belief: it is unfair to rely on others' natural violent ability to infringe on others' opportunities to enjoy nature. -and this is just his personal opinion.

There is nothing wrong with the core of Marx's theory, at least there is room for development. But first of all, China's understanding of Marx in its early years was quite distorted, but it did not dare to develop after WG, which led to this "static Marxism" in our textbooks.

Fear of testing one's beliefs represents senility and cowardice.