Added value (marxism)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Marx's theory of labor value , surplus value denotes the difference between the value of a commodity and the (lesser) total value

  1. the value of the labor necessary to produce this product ( variable capital ) and
  2. the value of the means of production necessary to manufacture this product, ie raw materials, intermediate products, proportionate machine and energy costs, etc. ( constant capital ).

History of theory

The term "value added" ( Engl. Surplus-value ) used in 1824 already William Thompson in his study on Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness . As Engels and Kautsky demonstrate to Anton Menger , Thompson uses this term to describe the additional profit that a capitalist using machines makes compared to a craftsman. In addition, Thompson also speaks of "added value" ( additional value ) , with which he the total creation of value or replacement value means (m + v). Marx himself already uses the term in his article on the wood theft law , but there in the sense of compensation that the forest owner receives.

Marx's concept of surplus value has a critical aspect. In his economic studies theories of surplus value , Marx criticized the classics Adam Smith (1723–1790) and David Ricardo (1772–1823) for not developing a general concept of surplus value and instead examining surplus value in its various forms such as profit. That has led to contradictions.

Through the theory of surplus value, Marx explains how exploitation is possible under capitalism , although the wage workers, as formally free subjects according to the law of value, basically get the equivalent of what their labor is worth. On the basis of the laws of the market, capitalism is basically not “unjust”. Marx does not even want to moralize exploitation. He rejects this kind of criticism and makes fun of it. In addition to a critique of the existing political economy, Das Kapital is also about understanding the laws of motion of the capitalist mode of production. The surplus value is not to be understood as a coincidental phenomenon, but as a necessary moment of capitalist development. The production and appropriation of surplus value takes place and is reproduced on the basis of the law of value.

The concept of surplus value in the critique of political economy

Karl Marx writes in Das Kapital : “We already know, however, that the labor process continues beyond the point where a mere equivalent for the value of labor would be reproduced and added to the object of labor. Instead of the 6 hours that are sufficient for this, the process takes z. B. 12 hours. Thus, through the activity of labor, not only is its own value reproduced, but excess value is produced. This surplus value forms the excess of the product value over the value of the consumed product formers, i.e. H. the means of production and labor. "

Surplus value as a specific feature of the capitalist mode of production

Just like “value”, “surplus value” is an economic category that is only fully valid under capitalism. The economic goal of all pre-capitalist societies was the production of use values, that is, of concrete useful objects. Insofar as the direct producers (e.g. farmers) produced more use values ​​than they consumed themselves, there was a surplus product. The appropriation of this surplus product by the ruling classes happened i. d. Usually directly through coercion (e.g. as forced labor ).

The capitalist mode of production is not primarily concerned with the appropriation of use values . It implies the generalization of commodity production and is oriented towards exchange value . Their primary goal is the creation and appropriation of added value. Added value is the specific product of the capitalist economy.

According to Marx, a socialist or communist society is characterized, among other things, by the fact that it has no private ownership of the means of production, no goods, no money and no capital . In the first volume of Das Kapital he observes that in a post-capitalist society the working day would be reduced to the necessary work . However, this would be longer. The workers would develop higher needs; Likewise, they would have to use the working hours, which they produce as overtime under capitalist conditions , in order to create social funds.

The capital formula

logo

In the first volume of Das Kapital, Marx analyzes capitalist market relations in two different formulas:

  • the simple circulation of goods C - G - W (goods - money - goods)
  • the capital movement G - W - G '(money - commodity - more money)

The exchange process C - M - W means the exchange of goods of the same value and different use value; Money takes on an intermediary function here. Someone produces and sells a commodity that has no use value for him in order to buy a commodity with the money with which he would like to satisfy a need. The money is spent. The process is based on the need and ends when it is satisfied.

In the case of M - W - M ', money becomes capital . In order for this formula to make economic sense for the capitalist , it depends on the G ', i. H. on increasing the original sum of money. The difference between G 'and G is the surplus value m. In the third volume of capital, Marx distinguishes the concept of surplus value from the concept of profit .

G 'becomes the starting point of a new cycle. Money is the starting and ending point of a movement. Capital utilization becomes an end in itself. The movement has no immanent end. Every G 'is finite and must be advanced again in order to remain capital. The movement is immoderate because it is not related to an external need that indicates enough. The use value is here merely a prerequisite for saleability.

That the capitalist strives for the greatest possible exploitation, Marx does not attribute primarily to the moral or psychological characteristics of the capitalist, but refers to the practical constraints of competition. Only when a capitalist achieves as much added value as possible can he repeatedly invest in his company or modernize it in order to survive against his competitors; otherwise he risks going under as a capitalist.

Capital is essentially value in motion or value that is realized. The capitalist as such is the bearer of the capital movement. It is capital endowed with consciousness and will; capital, on the other hand, is the automatic subject: it is actually lifeless, but it determines movement.

Doubly free wage laborer

In the first volume, Marx explains how surplus value is created. He wants to show that surplus value is not a random product, but a normal moment of the capitalist mode of production. To simplify the explanation, Marx explains that the exchange of goods, which is mediated by money, takes place in its pure form: only value equivalents are exchanged and the prices correspond to the value of the goods. In the chapter "The transformation of money into capital" he argues that one cannot explain the formation of surplus value with the sphere of trade alone. The fundamental source of surplus value is productive labor, which is based on a certain class relation.

First of all, Marx contradicts the claim that trade produces surplus value because the buyer considers the goods to be more useful than the seller in question and therefore the goods are more valuable to the buyer. According to this approach, no equal value objects are exchanged and the buyer receives something more valuable. According to Marx, this view arises from the fact that the use value is confused with the exchange value of the commodity.

Marx admits that the premise that only value equivalents are exchanged does not always hold true in reality. However, if it were given up, the added value would still not be satisfactorily explained. To show this, Marx goes through various cases. If the capitalist as a seller could raise a price premium and the other capitalists pass this price premium on, then he would have to lose his profit as a buyer at the "GW" again. The same would apply if someone could buy below value. It should also be noted that the buyers and sellers themselves are either producers or represent producers. The view that surplus value results from a nominal overcharge or the privilege of selling above value presupposes that there is a certain unproductive class. This buys and consumes, but it does not sell or produce itself. This case requires that the commodity owners give free money to the unproductive class so that this class can buy overpriced goods from the commodity owners. For example, states in Asia Minor had to pay tribute to the Roman Empire, with which Rome bought overpriced goods from them. The states of Asia Minor could not have enriched themselves in this way. Finally, Marx constructs a case in which a cunning individual A sells a commodity to B above its value and B cannot reciprocate this deception. A makes a profit, but that profit is only the loss of B. For example, if A exchanges something worth 50 for something worth 100, A makes a profit of 50 and B a loss of 50. The total value would remain 150 For society as a whole, the value would not have grown, it would only have been redistributed.

The sphere of production is required to explain the formation of surplus value. The capitalist has to find a commodity that creates more value than it costs itself: human labor. The value of magnification created by human productive application manpower . In order for the money in the hands of the capitalist to become the means of command over human labor , the " doubly free wage worker " is needed . In contrast to the slave or serf , he is free to sell his labor to whoever he wants, but also "free" from ownership of the means of production, so that he has to sell his labor.

Marx emphasizes that the sphere of circulation is nevertheless necessary for the creation of surplus value. If you look at a commodity producer in isolation, he cannot utilize the value of an existing commodity. He could add value by continuing to work on it. For example, if he owns leather, he could turn it into boots. The boot would be more valuable than the leather, but the value of the leather would not have been realized and would have remained constant. To this argument from the chapter on the transformation of money into capital it can be added that, according to Marx, value only arises in production and circulation; A commodity viewed in isolation has no value, but this value is only constituted in the exchange relationship with other commodities.

The worker does not receive all of the value he creates, but the value of the labor power. This value is equal to the amount of food that is considered necessary for an average worker to reproduce. The term food is to be understood in a broad sense: it does not only mean food, clothing and home, but can also include other things. It is not only about what is necessary to maintain an individual, but also what is necessary to maintain a working class family, because the class as such must be able to reproduce; education costs for the next generation are also included. What is considered necessary depends on historical and moral factors. This can vary from country to country and over time. The scope also depends on what the respective working class claims to be necessary. The wage or price of the labor can in principle also be above or below the value. The price can indicate not only the value but also a momentary surplus or shortage of manpower and fall or rise accordingly. But the value of labor only changes when the amount of necessary food or its value changes.

Industrial capital as the basis of the production of surplus value

While the production process is examined in the first volume of Das Kapital , Marx devotes himself to circulation in the second volume. It specifies the general capital formula G - W - G '. The basis of surplus value is industrial capital . As such, capital goes through the cycle G - W ... P ... W '- G'.

in which

G = c + v (advanced capital)
c = constant capital (consumed means of production)
v = variable capital (wages or the value of labor)
m = added value (result of unpaid overtime )
G '= c + v + m (expanded, utilized capital)

The capitalist buys goods or labor and means of production (G - W). The circulation is interrupted. In the production process P, the worker creates a higher value quantity of goods W '. In doing so, he transfers the value of the means of production used up to the new quantity of goods. Since there is no change in value in this regard, Marx speaks of constant capital c. Furthermore, the worker creates a new value of v + m; since there is a change in value here, Marx calls the capital invested in wages variable capital v. The circulation continues. The capitalist sells the higher value quantity of commodities (C '- G'). The advanced capital G has been realized and realized as capital. While the worker only receives v from the new value of v + m, the capitalist appropriates the surplus value m.

Capital is first of all money capital; In the production process, the means of production and labor become productive capital. Then it becomes commodity capital W ', which finally returns to the money form as G'. Capital can only produce surplus value as industrial capital. As trading capital or as interest-bearing capital , it can only appropriate the surplus value.

The ratio of surplus value m to variable capital v is the rate of surplus value m / v. The added value or the rate of surplus value can by longer working hours ( absolute value ) and an increase in productivity of labor ( relative value ) can be increased. The latter is driven by the capitalists striving for extra value . If a capitalist is the first to introduce something new in his branch in order to increase productive power, he can produce cheaper than his competitors and lower the individual value of his commodities; if he sells at normal value, he realizes additional added value. This disappears when the new mode of production has generalized.

The case in which the capitalist spends the surplus value obtained as his income for his private consumption is what Marx calls simple reproduction. If the capitalist advances surplus-value again as capital, it is a question of accumulation . The relationship between capitalist and double-free workers arose in the course of primitive accumulation . Marx attributed an important role to violence and the coercion of the state in this early phase. The relationship, however, is not only an essential prerequisite of the capitalist mode of production, but is also systematically reproduced by this mode of production. The worker goes into the production process as a worker and as such comes out of the process again.

Productive and unproductive work

Under capitalism, only that work that creates surplus value counts as productive work. This concerns the production of goods and services according to the formula of industrial capital. The word industrial must not be misunderstood in a purely material sense; the term is defined at the value level. A productive wage worker does not have to work in a factory. He could also manufacture agricultural products, work as a schoolmaster or transmit information. Certain services that are in circulation but represent an extension of the production process, such as transport services, also create added value. The term productive should not be interpreted in such a way that the worker has to be in direct physical contact with the goods. In the course of the division of labor, a collective overall worker emerges whose members are partly more physically and more mentally active; some sub-workers take control of the work process.

Work that does not add value is unproductive work , even if this work appears necessary under capitalism or is socially useful. Unproductive is a worker who works as a private servant for a capitalist instead of producing a commodity or service for the market under the command of the capitalist. The workers of commercial capital , which in its pure form only takes care of changing the form of money and commodities, are also unproductive . An example of a pure circulation agent is the cashier.

Systematic wage regulation in favor of added value

The standard of living of the working class can rise. This does not have to rule out the possibility that workers create more value than they get in wage form and are exploited in this sense. The capitalist mode of production has its own mechanisms for reducing wages to the value of labor; even if this value can change historically, it cannot existentially threaten the capitalist mode of production.

One can imagine two simplified scenarios. If one assumes that the ratio of constant to variable capital c / v remains the same and the capitalists accumulate , then advanced capital and demand for labor grow equally; Ceteris paribus, labor is becoming scarcer; consequently, workers can raise the price of labor. The more they reduce the surplus value as a result, the less the capitalists can demand more labor. If, on the other hand, one assumes that the ratio c / v increases because the capitalists invest more in labor-saving machine systems, then workers will be made redundant. That is the typical development. Since the capitalists demand less labor, they can depress wages. The introduction of relatively expensive machinery with which productivity can be increased is lucrative precisely when the wages are relatively high.

Mystification of wages

That the worker produces more value than the capitalist pays him in wages is not always easy to see. With the form of wages, the common form of thought arises, according to which it is not the value of labor but the value of work that is paid.

Marx called the expression value of labor an imaginary expression. According to Marx, abstract labor is indeed the substance of value and the measure of value, but it itself has no value. If you wanted to ask about their value, you would only get "absurd tautology" as an answer. It could only be said that, for example, the value of 12 hours of work corresponds to the value of 12 hours of work.

Marx wanted to demystify this superficial phenomenon, in which the real relationship is reversed. The worker cannot sell his work to the capitalist because it must exist before it can be sold. If wages were the value of the work done and if the worker did not get all the new value that he produced, then the laws of exchange of goods would be violated. If wages were the value of the work done and if the worker received the whole new value, the capitalist would not be able to receive surplus value; consequently a foundation of the capitalist mode of production would be undermined.     

He attributed the mystification to various factors. One factor is that the worker always has to work the entire contractually agreed working day in order to get paid. The capitalist, on the other hand, explains his profit by buying below value or selling above value. Imaginary expressions, in which the existing state of affairs is presented incorrectly, arise from the relations of production themselves.

The mystification of wages plays a central role. It affects not only workers, but also capitalists and economists. It is the basis of further mystifications, such as the mystification of profit, and thus a core element of the Trinitarian formula .

Distribution and manifestations of added value

In the third volume of Das Kapital, Marx distinguishes the concept of surplus value from the concept of profit . The former is the term used in his scientific analysis to reveal a social relationship or exploitation . According to the rate of surplus value m / v, the surplus value m is set in relation to the variable capital v. The concept of profit, on the other hand, captures a relationship between advanced capital and realized capital, that is, between G, which represents a sum of values ​​of c + v, and G 'in the amount c + v + m. The surplus value m is set in relation to the total sum G advanced. While it is clear to the capitalist that profit arises by using labor and means of production, he believes that both c and v add value. According to Marx, however, it is the case that the value of the consumed means of production c is transferred and that the worker creates a new value of v + m. The view that both c and v are value-creating is aided by the mystification of wages . Accordingly, it is not the value of the labor that is paid, but the value of the work done. The concept of profit thus mystifies consciousness: in the imagination, the actual facts are turned into the opposite and the increase in value appears as the fruit of capital. The rate of profit is not m / v, but m / (c + v). In practice it is the quantity that interests the capitalist.

A capitalist does not simply appropriate surplus value directly. As the individual capitals compete with one another, the individual rates of profit tend to equalize each other to form a general or average rate of profit . This rate of profit implies that prices typically do not adequately express the value of a commodity and that the total mass of surplus value is redistributed: every capitalist gets a profit, the size of which depends on how much capital the capitalist concerned has used.

In addition to the industrial capitalist, the commercial capitalist can also appropriate part of the surplus value. If the industrial capitalist sells below value to a commercial capitalist and he resells in order to realize the value, then the trader can appropriate part of the surplus value. In the case of interest-bearing capital , Marx distinguishes the money capitalist from the functioning capitalist. The money capitalist as such lends money to a capitalist who makes it function, for example, as an industrial capitalist; its gross profit is then divided into its entrepreneurial profit and the interest that the money capitalist receives. If a capitalist himself does not own land but has to pay the landlord a rent, the latter appropriates part of the surplus value as rent. Finally, the state can also operate as a capitalist and acquire surplus value. In Anti-Dühring Engels used the concept of the ideal total capitalist. In this function the state secures certain conditions for the utilization of capital against capitalists and workers; the more the state itself possesses productive forces, the more it becomes a real capitalist who exploits its citizens as wage laborers.

Importance of the credit system

The credit system enables the individual capitalist to overcome the limits of his own profit and to raise additional funds through banks and capital markets. So he can more easily invest in new means of production with which the productivity of the workers can be increased. The latter is an important point for the production of relative surplus value .

The credit system plays a crucial role in realizing the added value of society. As the industrial capitalists advance capital and return capital to them through sales, resources are created which are collected in funds, such as funds for accumulation . Until these funds are used for their purpose, they can be lent as interest-bearing capital ; likewise, a capitalist could borrow capital before his accumulation fund is sufficiently replenished from his own profits to make the investment in question sooner. If one looks at the total social production, then it can be put simply that the capitalists of a country advance a total of constant and variable capital in one year and produce a total added value. Additional funds are required to buy this additional product. The capitalists either hold a treasure or they take out loans. The fact that they hold a treasure would contradict the logic of exploitation, which requires that the available value be exploited as much as possible; If the capitalists follow this logic, then they buy the surplus product by means of credit.

The credit system is also a basis for the distribution of total added value. The individual capitals move away from the sectors in which they can be used poorly and towards those sectors in which they can be better used. In the sectors from which capital is withdrawn, competitive pressure decreases so that prices and the rate of profit can rise; In industries into which capital moves, the pressure of competition increases, so that prices and the rate of profit fall. Hence, the individual rates of profit tend to balance each other out at the average rate of profit . The credit system enables relatively large amounts of capital to be pooled and transferred between sectors. This makes the mechanism that tends towards the general rate of profit much more flexible.

Remarks

“In order to apply Marx's argument correctly, it must be noted that it takes place, as is usual in economics, under certain model conditions, i. H. depending on the case, refrains from more specific conditions and simplifies complex situations in order to study the basic logic, such as fluctuations in market prices according to supply and demand:

What is the relationship between values ​​and market prices or between natural prices and market prices? The market price for all commodities of the same kind is the same, however different the conditions of production may be for the individual producers.

Market prices express only the average amount of social labor necessary under the average conditions of production to supply the market with a certain amount of a certain article.

It is calculated from the totality of all goods of a certain class. To that extent, the market price of a commodity coincides with its value. On the other hand, the fluctuations in market prices depend on the fluctuations in supply and demand, sometimes above, sometimes below the value or natural price. "

Differentiation from "added value"

The term added value refers to the difference between the value of all products sold by a company ( production value or turnover ) and the value of the inputs and depreciation required for this (the constant capital at Marx) - calculated for a specific year. The inputs are products that were required for the production process and were purchased from other companies. The depreciation is the depreciation of the machinery and the buildings of the companies that occurred during the year. Today's concept of added value corresponds to Marx's new value .

Compared to added value, it is the more comprehensive term:

  • New value = value of the finished product ./. Value of intermediate consumption
  • Added value = value of the finished product ./. Value of intermediate consumption and ./. Value of labor.

Occasionally the value added is referred to as "value added", so in the word value added tax , which is levied in the company on the value added. This “surplus value” then includes not only capital income (surplus value in the Marxian sense), but also the income of employees ( variable capital ).

Reception and criticism

Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883–1950) noted in Theory of Economic Development that some of his claims were similar in certain respects to Marx's theory. According to Marx, constant capital does not create any surplus value. The same in Schumpeter's theory is the assertion that in an economy that is in perfect equilibrium, the interest rate is zero. Schumpeter only accepted one kind of surplus value in the Marxian sense, namely the surplus value that appears as entrepreneurial profit and interest on capital. According to Schumpeter, the function of the entrepreneur is simply to introduce innovations into the economy. This applies above all to new products, new methods of production, new sources of raw materials or sales markets, as well as the reorganization of an industry, for example by creating or breaking a monopoly. In the case of an entrepreneur who is the first to introduce a new mode of production, he can produce cheaper than his competitors and sell at the usual price. So he makes an entrepreneurial profit; this disappears when others imitate its innovation and the demand for the relevant production factors increases. Banks play an important role here, creating money ex nihilo and making it available to entrepreneurs.

However, there are fundamental differences between Marx and Schumpeter's theories. According to the economic historian and Schumpeter student Eduard März (1908–1987), surplus value in the Marxian sense arises from production, whereas according to Schumpeter the surplus value comes from circulation. In Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy , Schumpeter dealt intensively with Marx. He criticized and relativized the labor theory of value and preferred a marginal utility theory. Schumpeter admitted that Marx's theory of exploitation tried to capture exploitation scientifically, but he regarded the theory as untenable. The labor theory of value cannot be applied to the commodity labor power, since the workers cannot be reproduced like machines.

See also

literature

Web links

swell

  1. William Thompson: An Inquiry into the Principles of the Distribution of Wealth Most Conducive to Human Happiness , London 1824, pp. 167,169. 1850 edition on Google Books
  2. MEW 21, p. 506.
  3. MEW 1, pp. 135,136,139.
  4. Karl Marx: Theories about the surplus value . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 26 , no. 1 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1965, p. 60 : “Because Adam develops surplus value according to the matter, but not expressly in the form of a certain category that is different from its special forms, he immediately afterwards throws it together with the further developed form of profit. This mistake remains with Ricardo and all of his successors. This gives rise to a number of inconsistencies, unresolved contradictions and thoughtlessnesses that the Ricardians [...] try to solve scholastically through idioms. "
  5. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 93-94 .
  6. Michael Heinrich: Criticism in Marx . In: Devi Dumbadze / Johannes Geffers / Jan Haut et al. (Eds.): Knowledge and criticism. Contemporary positions . transcript Verlag, Bielefeld 2009, p. 46 .
  7. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy . In: Ulrich Albrecht / Helmut Volger (Ed.): Lexicon of International Politics . R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich / Vienna 1997, p. 298-300 .
  8. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 87-88 .
  9. ^ Marx: Das Kapital , pp. 307f. Digital Library Volume 11: Marx / Engels, p. 3616f (see MEW Vol. 23, p. 223)
  10. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 184 : “What characterizes the capitalist epoch is that the labor power for the worker himself takes the form of a commodity that belongs to him, and his work therefore takes the form of wage labor. On the other hand, it is only from this moment that the commodity form of the labor products generalizes. "
  11. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 249–250 : “Capital did not invent overtime. Wherever a part of society has the monopoly of the means of production, the worker, free or unfree, must add excess working time to the working time necessary for his self-preservation in order to produce the means of production for the owner of the means of production [...] However, it is clear that, if in an economic social formation it is not the exchange value but the use value of the product that predominates, the surplus labor is limited by a narrower or wider circle of needs, but no unrestricted need for surplus labor arises from the character of production itself. In antiquity, therefore, there is terrible evidence of overwork, where it is a matter of obtaining exchange value in its independent monetary form, in the production of gold and silver. Working violently to death is the official form of overwork here. Just read Diodorus Siculus. But these are exceptions in the old world. But as soon as peoples, whose production still moves in the lower forms of slave labor, compulsory labor, etc., are drawn into a world market dominated by the capitalist mode of production, which develops the sale of their products abroad for the predominant interest, the barbaric atrocities of slavery, Serfdom, etc. grafted the civilized horror of overwork. "
  12. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 225-227 .
  13. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 552 : “The absolute minimum limit of the working day is actually formed by this necessary but contractible component. If the whole working day then shrank, the surplus work would disappear, which is impossible under the regime of capital. The abolition of the capitalist form of production makes it possible to limit the working day to the necessary work. However, the latter would, under otherwise unchanged circumstances, expand its space. On the one hand because the living conditions of the worker are richer and his living standards are greater. On the other hand, part of the current overtime would count as necessary work, namely the work necessary to achieve a social reserve and accumulation fund. "
  14. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 83 .
  15. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 83-84 .
  16. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 166 : "And quantitative terms [...], 110 pounds sterling [= G ', d. V.] a limited sum of value such as £ 100. [= G, d. V.]. If the £ 110 when money was spent, they fell out of their role. They stopped being capital. Removed from circulation, they petrify into treasure [...] "
  17. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 167 : “The simple circulation of commodities - the sale for the purchase - serves as a means for an end purpose lying outside the circulation, the appropriation of use values, the satisfaction of needs. The circulation of money as capital, on the other hand, is an end in itself, for the valorization of value only exists within this constantly renewed movement. The movement of capital is therefore immoderate. "
  18. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 84-85 .
  19. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 84-86 .
  20. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 87 .
  21. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 173-174 .
  22. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 174 : “If commodities or commodities and money of the same exchange value, that is, equivalents, are exchanged, then no one obviously extracts more value from circulation than he throws into it. There is then no creation of surplus value. In its pure form, however, the process of circulation of commodities causes the exchange of equivalents. However, in reality things are not pure. We therefore assume the exchange of non-equivalents. "
  23. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 175 : “Now suppose that the seller has been given some inexplicable privilege to sell the goods above their value, at 110 if they are worth 100, that is to say with a nominal price premium of 10%. So the seller collects an added value of 10. But after being a seller, he becomes a buyer. He now meets a third owner of goods as a seller and in turn enjoys the privilege of selling the goods 10% too expensive. Our man won 10 as a seller to lose 10 as a buyer. The whole thing is, in fact, that all commodity owners sell their commodities to each other 10% above their value, which is exactly the same as if they were selling the commodities at their value. Such a general nominal surcharge of the goods brings about the same effect as if the goods values ​​z. B. would be valued in silver instead of gold. The money names, d. H. the prices of the goods would increase, but their value would remain unchanged. "
  24. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 175 : “Conversely, let us assume that it is the buyer's privilege to buy goods below their value. Here it is not even necessary to remember that the buyer becomes a seller again. He was a seller before he was a buyer. He's already lost 10% as a seller before gaining 10% as a buyer. Everything stays the same again. "
  25. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 176 : “In circulation, producers and consumers face each other only as sellers and buyers. To claim that the surplus value for the producer arises from the fact that the consumers pay for the goods above their value means only to mask the simple sentence: The goods owner, as the seller, has the privilege of selling too dearly. The seller has produced the goods himself or represents their producer, but the buyer has produced no less the goods represented in his money himself or represents their producer. So there is producer versus producer. What distinguishes them is that one buys and the other sells. It doesn't get us a step further that the owner of the goods under the name of the producer sells the goods above their value and that the name of the consumer pays them too dearly. "
  26. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 176 : “The consequent advocates of the illusion that the surplus value arises from a nominal price surcharge or from the privilege of the seller to sell the goods too dearly, therefore assume a class that only buys without selling, i.e. also only consumes without buying to produce. The existence of such a class is still inexplicable from the point of view we have reached up to now, that of simple circulation. But let's get ahead. The money with which such a class constantly buys must flow to it continuously, without exchange, in vain, under any legal or violent title, from the goods owners themselves. Selling goods to this class above their value only means cheating back some of the money given away for free. "
  27. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 177 : “Goods owner A may be clever enough to cheat his colleagues B or C while they owe revenge despite their best will. A sells wine worth £ 40 to B and buys grain in exchange for £ 50 worth. A has his £ 40 worth £ 50. transformed, made more money out of less money and turned its commodities into capital. Let's take a closer look. Before the exchange we had £ 40 wine in A's hand and £ 50 grain in B's hand, a total value of £ 90. After the exchange we have the same total value of £ 90. The circulating value has not increased by an atom, its distribution between A and B has changed. On the one hand there appears as surplus value what is on the other hand inferior in value, on the one hand as plus, what on the other hand appears as minus. The same change would have occurred if A, without the disguising form of the exchange, had stolen £ 10 directly from B. The sum of the circulating values ​​obviously cannot be increased by any change in their distribution, any more than a Jew increases the mass of precious metals in a country by selling a farthing from the time of Queen Anne for a guinea. The entirety of the capitalist class of a country cannot take advantage of itself. "
  28. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 87-88 .
  29. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 13-14 and pp. 87-88 .
  30. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 179–180 : “The circulation is the sum of all interrelationships between the owners of goods. Outside of this, the owner of the goods is only related to his own goods. As far as its value is concerned, the ratio is limited to the fact that it contains a quantum of his own labor measured according to certain social laws. This quantum of labor is expressed in the value of its commodities and, since value is represented in calculating money, in a price of, for example, 10 pounds sterling. But his labor is not represented in the value of the commodity and in a surplus above its own value, not in a price of 10 which is at the same time a price of 11, not in a value that is greater than himself. The owner of the goods can create values ​​through his work, but not values ​​that can be utilized. He can increase the value of a commodity by adding new value to existing value through new work, e.g. making boots out of leather. The same material now has more value because it contains a greater amount of labor. The boot is therefore more valuable than the leather, but the value of the leather has remained what it was. It did not utilize itself, nor did it add value during the boot production. It is therefore impossible that the commodity producer outside the sphere of circulation, without coming into contact with other commodity owners, utilizes value and therefore converts money or commodities into capital. "
  31. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 51-54 .
  32. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 92-93 .
  33. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 90 .
  34. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 91 .
  35. a b c Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 131-132 .
  36. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 99 .
  37. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 134 .
  38. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 591–592 : “If production has a capitalist form, then reproduction. Just as in the capitalist mode of production the labor process appears only as a means for the process of valorization, so reproduction appears only as a means to reproduce the advanced value as capital, that is, as a valorized value. The capitalist's economic character mask only clings to a person because his money continually functions as capital. Has, for example, the sum of money advanced, of £ 100, been converted into capital this year and has a surplus-value of £ 20. produced, it must repeat the same operation the next year and so on. As a periodic increment of capital-value, or the periodic fruit of processing capital, surplus-value takes the form of a revenue arising from capital. If this revenue serves the capitalist only as a consumption fund, or if it is consumed as periodically as it is gained, then, under otherwise constant circumstances, simple reproduction takes place. [...] "
  39. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 122 .
  40. ^ David Harvey: A Companion to Marx's Capital. The Complete Edition . Verso, London / New York 2018, p. 298-299 .
  41. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 595–596 : “What at first was only the starting point [= the separation of the direct producers from the means of production, i. V.] was, through the mere continuity of the process, of simple reproduction, is constantly being produced anew and perpetuated as a separate result of capitalist production. On the one hand, the process of production continuously transforms material wealth into capital, into means of utilization and pleasure for the capitalist. On the other hand, the worker continually emerges from the process as he entered it - personal source of wealth, but stripped of all means of realizing this wealth for himself. Since before his entry into the process his own labor is alienated from himself, appropriated to the capitalist, and incorporated into capital, it is constantly objectified during the process in another product. Since the process of production is at the same time the process of consumption of labor by the capitalist, the product of the laborer is not only continuously transformed into commodity, but into capital, value that sucks up the value-adding power, foodstuffs that people buy, means of production that the producer uses. The worker himself therefore constantly produces objective wealth as capital, a power alien to him, dominating and exploiting him, and the capitalist just as constantly producing labor power as subjective, abstract, separate from its own means of objectification and realization, existing in the mere physicality of the worker Source of wealth, in short the workers as wage laborers. This constant reproduction or perpetuation of the worker is the sine qua non of capitalist production. "
  42. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 120-122 .
  43. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 133-134 .
  44. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 777 : “Industrial here in contrast to agrikol. In the "categorical" sense, the lessee is an industrial capitalist as well as the manufacturer. "
  45. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 532 : “Capitalist production is not only the production of goods, it is essentially the production of surplus value. The worker does not produce for himself but for capital. It is therefore no longer enough for him to produce at all. He must produce surplus value. Only the worker is productive who produces surplus value for the capitalist or who serves for the self-evaluation of capital. If it is free to choose an example outside the sphere of material production, a schoolmaster is a productive worker if he not only works on children's heads, but works himself off to enrich the entrepreneur. The fact that the latter invested his capital in a training factory instead of a sausage factory does not change the relationship. "
  46. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. Second volume. Book II: The Circulation Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 24 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1963, p. 60 : “But there are independent branches of industry where the product of the production process is not a new objective product, not a commodity. Only the communication industry is economically important, be it the actual transport industry for goods and people, be it the transmission of messages, letters, telegrams etc. "
  47. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 132-133 .
  48. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 531 : “To the extent that the work process is a purely individual one, the same worker unites all functions that are later separated. He controls himself in the individual appropriation of natural objects for his life's purposes. Later he is controlled. The individual human being cannot act on nature without operating his own muscles under the control of his own brain. Just as head and hand belong together in the natural system, the work process combines head work and hand work. Later they split up to the point of hostile opposition. The product in general is transformed from the immediate product of the individual producer into a social product, into the common product of a collective worker, i. H. a combined workforce, whose members are closer or further to handling the work item. With the cooperative character of the work process itself, the concept of productive work and its carrier, the productive worker, necessarily expands. In order to work productively, it is no longer necessary to lend a hand; it is sufficient to be the organ of the collective worker to perform any of its sub-functions. "
  49. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 134 .
  50. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 133 .
  51. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 645–646 : "Under the conditions of accumulation that have been most favorable to the workers, which have been assumed up to now, their relationship of dependency on capital is clad in bearable or, as Eden says," comfortable and liberal "forms. That is, the sphere of exploitation and domination of capital expands only with its own dimension and the number of its subjects. Of their own swelling surplus-product, which is swellingly transformed into additional capital, a larger part flows back to them in the form of means of payment, so that they are beyond their own You can expand your enjoyment, better equip your consumption fund of clothes, furniture, etc., and build up small reserve funds of money. As little as better clothing, food, treatment, and a greater peculium abolish the relationship of dependency and the exploitation of the slave, just as little that of the wage laborer Price of labor due to the accumulation of capital In fact, it only means that the size and weight of the golden chain, which the wage worker has already forged himself, allow it to be loosely tensioned. "
  52. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 124 .
  53. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 124-125 .
  54. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 564 : "Incidentally, the same applies to the form of appearance," value and price of labor "or" wages, "in contrast to the essential relationship that appears, the value and price of labor, as to all forms of appearance and their hidden background. The former reproduce themselves immediately and spontaneously, as common forms of thought, the other must first be discovered by science. Classical political economy comes close to the true state of affairs without, however, consciously formulating it. She cannot do that as long as she is in her bourgeois skin. "
  55. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 94-95 .
  56. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 557 : “But what is the value of a commodity? Objective form of the social labor expended in its production. And how do we measure the magnitude of their worth? By the size of the work it contains. How would the value of a twelve-hour working day, for example, be determined? Because of the 12 working hours contained in a working day of 12 hours, which is an absurd tautology. "
  57. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 558 : “In order to be sold as a commodity on the market, labor would have to exist in any case before it is sold. But if the worker could give her an independent existence, he would sell goods and not work. "
  58. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 558 : “Apart from these contradictions, a direct exchange of money, that is, objectified labor, with living labor would either abolish the law of value, which only develops freely on the basis of capitalist production, or abolish capitalist production itself, which is precisely based on the Wage labor is based. The working day of 12 hours, for example, has a monetary value of 6 shillings. Either equivalents are exchanged, and then the worker receives 6 shillings for twelve hours' work. The price of his labor would be equal to the price of his product. In this case he produced no surplus value for the buyer of his work, the 6 shillings. were not transformed into capital, the basis of capitalist production disappeared, but it is precisely on this basis that he sells his labor and his labor is wage labor. Or he receives less than 6sh. For 12 hours of work, ie less than 12 hours of work. Twelve hours of work are exchanged for 10, 6, etc. hours of work. This equation of unequal sizes not only abolishes the determination of value. Such a self-canceling contradiction cannot even be expressed or formulated as a law. "
  59. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 563 : “If we take the standpoint of the worker who receives, for example, the value product of six hours of work for twelve hours of work, say 3 shillings, then for him his twelve-hour work is in fact the means of purchase of the 3 shillings. The value of his labor may vary with the value of his habitual provisions from three to four shillings. or from 3 to 2 shillings, or if the value of his labor power remains the same, its price, owing to the changing relationship between demand and supply, may rise to 4 shillings. rise or to 2 sh. fall, he always gives 12 hours of work. Every change in the size of the equivalent that he receives therefore seems necessary to him as a change in the value or price of his 12 hours of work. "
  60. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 564 : “On the other hand, if we take the capitalist, he wants to get as much work as possible for as little money as possible. In practice he is only interested in the difference between the price of labor and the value that its function creates. But he tries to buy all commodities as cheaply as possible and everywhere explains his profit from simple cheating, buying below and selling above value. He therefore does not come to the conclusion that if such a thing as the value of labor really existed, and he really paid for this value, there would be no capital, his money would not turn into capital. "
  61. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The Production Process of Capital . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 559 : "In the expression:" Value of labor "the concept of value is not only completely obliterated, but reversed into its opposite. It is an imaginary expression, such as the value of the earth. These imaginary expressions, however, arise from the relations of production themselves. They are categories for manifestations of essential relationships. That things are often presented the wrong way round in appearance is well known in all sciences, except in political economy. "
  62. ^ Karl Marx: The capital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Book I: The production process . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 23 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1962, p. 562 : “One therefore understands the decisive importance of the transformation of the value and price of labor power into the form of wages or into the value and price of labor itself. All legal ideas are based on this form of appearance, which makes the real relationship invisible and precisely shows its opposite of the worker as well as the capitalist, all the mystifications of the capitalist mode of production, all its illusions of freedom, all the apologetic nonsense of the vulgar economy. "
  63. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 96 .
  64. a b c d e Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 141-142 .
  65. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 94-96 .
  66. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 144-145 .
  67. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 145-146 .
  68. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 134-135 .
  69. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 155-156 .
  70. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 181-182 .
  71. Friedrich Engels: Mr. Eugen Dühring's upheaval in science . In: Institute for Marxism-Leninism at the Central Committee of the SED (Ed.): Karl Marx Friedrich Engels Works (MEW) . tape 20 . Dietz Verlag, Berlin 1975, p. 260 : “And the modern state is again only the organization which bourgeois society gives itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments, both by the workers and by the individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is an essentially capitalist machine, the state of capitalists, the ideal total capitalist. The more productive forces he takes over into his property, the more he becomes a real total capitalist, the more citizens he exploits. The workers remain wage workers, proletarians. The capital ratio is not canceled, it is rather driven to extremes. "
  72. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 166-167 .
  73. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 165 .
  74. a b Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 166 .
  75. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 144-145 .
  76. Michael Heinrich: Critique of the political economy. An introduction . 14th edition. Butterfly Verlag, Stuttgart 2018, p. 167 .
  77. ^ Marx: Lohn, Preis, Profit , pp. 51f. Digital Library Volume 11: Marx / Engels, p. 3260f (cf. MEW Vol. 16, p. 127–128)
  78. Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Theory of economic development. A study of entrepreneurial profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle . 7th edition. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, p. XXIV : “I am not saying this to make anything that I write in this book related to his [= Karl Marx, d. V.] to connect big names. The intention and the results are far too different to give me the right to do so. Similarities in the results, which undoubtedly exist (compare, for example, the thesis of this book that in perfect equilibrium the interest would be zero with Marx's proposition that constant capital produces no surplus value) is not only due to a very large difference in the general one Basic attitude erased, but also achieved by methods so different that any emphasis on parallels would be highly unsatisfactory for Marxists. "
  79. Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Theory of economic development. A study of entrepreneurial profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. 7th edition. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, p. 223 : “Only this surplus, which appears in the private sector as entrepreneurial profit and interest on capital, can be described as surplus value in the Marxist sense. There is no such thing as an excess of this kind that can be explained in any other way. "
  80. Kerstin Burmeister: Joseph Alois Schumpeter's ideas of the dynamic entrepreneur . In: Francesca Schinzinger (Ed.): Entrepreneurs and technical progress . Harald Boldt Verlag im R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munich 1996, p. 25-30 .
  81. Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Theory of economic development. A study of entrepreneurial profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle . 7th edition. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1987, p. 100-101 .
  82. ^ Eduard March: The theory of economic development by Joseph A. Schumpeter in its relationship to the Marxian system . In: Economy and Society. Economic journal of the Chamber for Workers and Salaried Employees for Vienna, 6th year, issue 3 . 1980, p. 256 .
  83. ^ Eduard March: The theory of economic development by Joseph A. Schumpeter in its relationship to the Marxian system . In: Economy and Society. Economic journal of the Chamber for Workers and Salaried Employees for Vienna, 6th year, issue 3 . 1980, p. 256-257 .
  84. ^ Eduard March: The theory of economic development by Joseph A. Schumpeter in its relationship to the Marxian system . In: Economy and Society. Economic journal of the Chamber for Workers and Salaried Employees for Vienna, 6th year, issue 3 . 1980, p. 262–263 : “With the help of the capital fund temporarily given to him by the banks, the entrepreneur is able to establish a relationship of domination over things and people in order to give them a new productive orientation. Bank credit is therefore only one method of initiating new production relationships. Schumpeter thus makes a radical break with the material concept of capital, which can be traced back to the time of classical economics. But the similarity of Schumpeter's concept of capital to that of Marx is, in our opinion, only a purely verbal one. Because the relationship of domination over people and things that has arisen with the help of bank credit results in the appearance of surplus value, but this does not arise from the sphere of production, as is the case with Marx, but from that of circulation. "
  85. ^ Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy . 10th edition. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, Tübingen 2020, p. 27-30 .
  86. ^ Joseph Alois Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy . 10th edition. Narr Francke Attempto Verlag, Tübingen 2020, p. 33–34 : “With regard to the merits of this scientific argument, we must carefully distinguish two sides, one of which has been persistently neglected by the critics. At the usual level of the theory of a stationary economic process it is easy to show that under Marx's own assumptions the theory of surplus value is untenable. Labor theory of value, even if we could admit that it is valid for every other commodity, can never be applied to the commodity of labor; for that would mean that workers and machines are produced according to rational cost calculations. Since they will not, one is not entitled to assume that the value of labor-power will be proportional to the hours of work that go into their "production". Logically, Marx would have improved his position if he had accepted Lassalle's "iron wage law" or if he had simply argued along the lines of Malthus, as Ricardo did. But since he wisely refused, his theory of exploitation has lost one of its essential pillars from the start. "