#surplus profit | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

rotenotes · 6 months

Text

Reading Marx's Capital (profit vs. surplus value)

Marx's Capital TOC (https://rotenotes.neocities.org/) Reading Marx’s Capital | social and political theory

[translate in english and expand on "η υπεραξία και το κερδος δεν απλα οικονομικο-φιλοσοφικες εννοιες' εχουν και μαθηματικη σχεση μεταξυ τους…. κερδος = υπεραξία / μεταβλητο κεφαλαιο(μισθοι που αγοραζουν δημιουργουσα αξια αρα και υπεραξια ζωντανη εργατικη ικανοτητα ή δυναμη) και σταθερο κεφαλαιο (αντικειμενοποιημενη/νεκρη εργασια)" ChatGPT

The term "η υπεραξία και το κέρδος δεν απλά είναι οικονομικο-φιλοσοφικές έννοιες" translates to "surplus value and profit are not just economic-philosophical concepts."

The statement goes on to establish a mathematical relationship between these concepts: "κέρδος = υπεραξία / μεταβλητό κεφάλαιο (μισθοί που αγοράζουν δημιουργούν δημιουργική αξία, άρα και υπεραξία, ζωντανή εργατική ικανότητα ή δύναμη) και σταθερό κεφάλαιο (αντικειμενοποιημένη/νεκρή εργασία)."

In English, this can be expanded as follows:

"The concepts of surplus value and profit extend beyond mere economic and philosophical notions. They can be understood through a mathematical relationship: profit equals surplus value divided by variable capital (wages that purchase productive labor, hence generating surplus value from living labor power or capability), and constant capital (objectified/dead labor)."

This statement highlights the interconnectedness of economic and philosophical ideas with mathematical formulations, emphasizing the intricate relationship between labor, value creation, and profitability. It underscores the importance of recognizing the mathematical underpinnings of economic concepts for a more comprehensive understanding of their implications.]

[translate in english and write an essay in english for "στον 1ο τομο του Κεφαλαιου αντικειμενο ειναι η παραγωγη υπεραξιας . στο 2ο τομο ειναι η πραγματοποίση της υπεραξίας στην κυκλοφορια (των εμπορευματων). στον 3ο τομο ειναι η κατανομη της υπεραξίας: σε (βιομηχανικο/εμπορικο) κερδος, σε τοκο (επι καποιου κεφαλαιου: παραγωγικου (profit of enterprise) η/και χρηματικου: interest), σε γαιοπροσοδο (rent) ….πριν απο αυτο βρισκεται η μετατροπη της υπεραξίας σε κερδος και των αξιων σε τιμες παραγωγης (prices of production): μεσω αυτης της μετατροπης κρυβεται η εκμεταλλευτικη σχεση, γιατι ετσι το κερδος φαινεται να προκύπτει τοσο απο το μεταβλητο οσο και απο το σταθερο κεφαλαιο, κατι που παιρνει την πιο μυστικοποιμενη μορφη της υπεραξίας στον τοκο (interest: Χ-Χ' με Χ'>Χ) (οπου η διαμεσολαβηση απο την παραγωγικη εργασια [Εργατικη δύναμη/Μεσα παραγωγης / Εμπορευματων] στη διαδικασια αξιοποιησης του κεφαλαιου εχει χαθει)" ChatGPT

Title: Marx's Analysis of Surplus Value and Capital Circulation

In the first volume of "Capital," Karl Marx delves into the fundamental concept of surplus value production. He meticulously dissects the process through which capital accumulates, revealing the intricate dynamics underlying capitalist economies. Moving forward to the second volume, Marx shifts his focus towards the realization of surplus value within the sphere of circulation, predominantly within the realm of commodities.

The third volume marks a crucial juncture in Marx's exploration, as it centers on the distribution of surplus value. This distribution occurs across various channels, including industrial and commercial profits, interest on capital (both productive, categorized as profit of enterprise, and monetary, recognized as interest), and land rent. These distinct avenues elucidate the multifaceted nature of surplus value's dispersion within the capitalist system.

Preceding this comprehensive analysis is the transformation of surplus value into profit and the conversion of values into production prices. Concealed within this transformation lies the exploitative relationship inherent in capitalist production. This transformation is pivotal in understanding the obscured form of surplus value, particularly in relation to interest.

Interest, represented as (Χ-Χ' with Χ'>Χ), encapsulates a critical aspect of this process. It signifies a departure from the direct involvement of productive labor (Labor Power / Means of Production / Commodities) in the capital utilization process. This shift highlights the evolution from a labor-centric production model to a more financially driven system.

Marx's exposition on these intricate stages provides a profound insight into the inner workings of capitalist economies. The transformation of surplus value into profit, and subsequently into interest, exemplifies the nuanced dynamics of exploitation within this economic framework. By unraveling these layers, Marx sheds light on the mechanisms that perpetuate the accumulation of capital and the perpetuation of class-based disparities.

In conclusion, Marx's trilogy of "Capital" offers a comprehensive framework for understanding the generation, realization, and distribution of surplus value within capitalist economies. The conversion of surplus value into profit and production prices unveils the veiled dimensions of exploitation, with interest serving as a critical intermediary. Through this meticulous analysis, Marx provides invaluable insights into the functioning of capitalist systems, contributing significantly to economic and philosophical discourse.]

#profit #surplus value #variable capital #constant capital #labour capacity #labour power #value-creating living labour #living labour #dead labour #objectified labour #karl marx

0 notes

opstandelse · 8 months

Text

την εποχη του Μαρξ προοδευτικη οικονομια ήταν η Αμερικάνικη….οι λογοι: 1) η Αμερικη ηταν αποικια των Βρεττανων και ως αποικια η γη της ηταν ακομη ελευθερη, ετσι εχοντας ενα κομματι γης μπορουσες να γινεις αυτονομος αναμεσα σε αυτονομους…ακομη εαν επρεπε για καποιους λογους να εργαστεις ως μισθωτος εργατης γρηγορα με το μισθο σου θα μπορουσες να αγορασεις γη και να αυτονομηθεις. 2) στην Αμερικη…

View On WordPress

0 notes

leftofliberal · 1 year

Text

#leftism #libertarianism #left libertarianism #tax policy #profit #surplus value theory #my post

0 notes

dcafanzine · 1 month

Text

Hello everyone! We’ve compiled this handy-dandy FAQ to hopefully answer any basic questions regarding this zine that you all may have.

(As this FAQ has gotten pretty extensive, all of the questions and answers are now listed under the cut!)

FAQ

What’s a fanzine?

A fanzine is a collection of fan works (typically art and/or writing) by fans for fans that focuses on a specific fandom, ship, or character! Most of the time contributors and the team behind a zine are not paid, and the cost of the zine covers production and shipping costs. Any surplus may be donated to charity, or, in the case of a for-profit zine, the contributors and team will be financially compensated.

What’s this zine about?

This zine will be focusing on the daycare attendant (DCA) from Five Nights at Freddy’s in all of their canon variants: Sun, Moon, and Eclipse (including other forms such as the Ruined and arcade cabinet forms and Jack o Moon). We aim to celebrate all canon forms of these characters with a similar number of pieces dedicated to each of their main three forms (Sun, Moon, Eclipse) together or separately.

Will this zine be SFW?

All content produced for this zine will be SFW. NSFW and 18+ pieces will not be included in this zine.

Will ships/pairings be included?

Following feedback from the zine interest check, we’ve decided to focus more strongly on the DCA as characters in general for this zine rather than on romantic pairings. Romantic ships won’t be the primary focus of any pieces for this zine. Platonic interactions and fluff are A-okay.

(Ship lovers please see the question below for an added note on ships!)

Will AUs be included?

Following the zine’s interest check results, for this zine, most pieces will be focusing on more canon-adjacent leaning depictions of the DCA where the designs and/or circumstances are not too far removed from those depicted in canon (for example, where the daycare attendant/s are still working or had previously worked at the pizzaplex, with room for AUs like role swaps where Sun has the more prominent effects from the virus, the DCA working in the theatre or as Glamrocks or on the carousel or something else, the characters being in separate bodies or the same body, etc etc), with some wiggle room for more differentiated AU content and designs to be included in a few pieces so long as it is submitted by either the creator of the AU or with the AU creator’s express permission and depending on the pitch(es) provided by the applicant(s).

(A note on the last two questions: There will be a potential for a bonus PDF or two to be produced focusing more closely on AUs (submitted by the creator of the AU or with the creator’s permission) and/or SFW shipping content depending on contributor interest and availability. This will be separate from the main zine. Interest in this or lack thereof will in no way affect your application and no one will be obliged to participate.)

Will other canon characters / self inserts/ y/n characters / OCs be included?

Other canon characters are completely okay to include so long as the piece still strongly focuses on the DCA! Self inserts, y/ns and OCs may be included so long as:

They have a defined physical design (if drawn) and are either the contributor’s own creation or submitted with the express permission of their creator.

The primary focus of the piece is still the DCA.

What are the general requirements for joining this zine as a contributor?

All zine contributors must be aged 16 or over.

Most zine communications will happen over Discord. Zine contributors should have a Discord account and be willing to use Discord for communications when working on the zine.

Zine contributor applications should include at least one piece (preferably more) depicting the DCA (canon-adjacent or in an AU form where they still have a similar general physical appearance and/or play a similar role is preferred) for a good chance of a successful application. Contributors will also be asked to pitch an idea or two on what they potentially want to do for their piece in the zine which may help secure them a spot in the zine and aid in brainstorming for their piece even if they don’t ultimately use the suggestions they gave for their pitch.

Will this zine be for profit or for charity?

Surplus profits from this fanzine will be donated to charity (when a specific charity has been chosen by the mod team, we will announce this and update the FAQ - suggestions are most welcome!).

Who will be contributing to this zine?

At the heart of this zine from behind the scenes is a team of 8 mods working together to bring you tons of fun DCA content who will be announced in due time!

While exact contributor numbers have not yet been finalised, the zine’s contributor lineup will include something resembling the following:

23 page artists who will draw full-page coloured illustrations with backgrounds as standalone pieces for the zine

5 writers who will each write a short piece for the zine (around 1.5-2k words) which will be illustrated by an accompanying spot artist

5 spot artists who will illustrate scenes to accompany pieces written by the writers working on the zine

2-3 merch artists who will design merch to be produced dependent on the zine hitting certain financial targets

Will mods be allowed to contribute to the zine?

Yes, mods will be allowed to contribute to the zine, if they find that they have the time, but this will not affect the number of other contributors that we take on. Mods will be held to the same standards as every other contributor and must complete the check ins regardless of their mod status. Mods will only be allowed to contribute one piece of work, or may instead opt to be a pinch hitter in the case of a contributor dropping out!

Will this zine be physical or digital?

Dependent on sales, we are hoping on making this a physical printed zine with the option to purchase a digital copy. There will be a selection of bundles available with a range of merchandise.

Are contributors allowed to collaborate?

Two or more contributors may work on a single piece for the zine so long as they work well together! Collaborations will be counted as a single submission.

Will contributors receive a free copy of the zine?

Contributors will receive a free digital copy of the zine and, dependent on sales, will receive a free physical copy of the zine as well. We are hoping to offer discounted or free merch for contributors as well, although this will depend on sales.

In the case of collaborations, whilst each of the collaborators collaborating on a piece will be guaranteed a free digital copy of the zine, each collaborator receiving a free physical copy of the zine will ultimately depend on sales.

When can I apply?

Contributor applications will open on the 25th of March and will close on the 22nd of April.

Can I apply for more than one role?

You can apply for as many roles as you like on the zine (though be sure your application caters specifically to the role you are applying for when you complete each of your applications!), however, you will still only be selected as a contributor for one role. A comment field will be made available in each application form so you can state your order of preference here if you like!

How long will I have to complete my piece if I’m selected?

Zine contributors will have around three months to complete their pieces upon being selected. If you have applied to and are selected to be a pinch hitter (taking a spot in case another contributor drops out) this may vary.

If your question hasn’t been answered here or you’re looking for more clarification, please head on over to our ask box or our CuriousCat!

#dca fan zine #dca fandom #fnaf daycare attendant #daycare attendant #fnaf dca #dca fanzine #fanzine #dca fanzine asks #zine asks #long post

632 notes · View notes

apas-95 · 9 months

Text

???

On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus value. The labourer produces, not for themself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that they should simply produce. They must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolteacher is a productive labourer, when, in addition to belabouring the heads of their scholars, they work like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out their capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value.

.- Ch. 16, Das Kapital, Marx (emphasis mine)

Every productive worker is a wage labourer; but this does not mean that every wage labourer is a productive worker. [...] A singer who sings like a bird is an unproductive worker. If she sells her song for money, she is to that extent a wage-labourer or merchant. But if the same singer is engaged by an entrepreneur who makes her sing to make money, then she becomes a productive worker, since she produces capital directly. […] In both cases the worker is a wage labourer or a day labourer, but in the first case he is a productive worker, in the second an unproductive one, because in the first case he produces capital, in the second case he does not

.- Draft Ch. 6, Das Kapital, Marx (emphasis in bold mine)

The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital

.- Principles of Communism, Engels

So, firstly, productive labour is not specifically that labour which produces a physical product, it is, in fact, that labour which expands and enriches capital - which produces surplus value for the capitalist. Secondly, it is not the production of surplus value that defines whether one exists as a proletarian, it is the relationship towards capital, which is to say, owning none, owning only ones own labour-power.

1K notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year

Text

Social Quitting

In “Social Quitting,” my latest Locus Magazine column, I advance a theory to explain the precipitous vibe shift in how many of us view the once-dominant social media platforms, Facebook and Twitter, and how it is that we have so quickly gone asking what we can do to get these services out of our lives to where we should go now that we’re all ready to leave them:

https://locusmag.com/2023/01/commentary-cory-doctorow-social-quitting/

The core of the argument revolves around surpluses — that is, the value that exists in the service. For a user, surpluses are things like “being able to converse with your friends” and “being able to plan activities with your friends.” For advertisers, surpluses are things like “being able to target ads based on the extraction and processing of private user data” and “being able to force users to look at ads before they can talk to one another.”

For the platforms, surpluses are things like, “Being able to force advertisers and business customers to monetize their offerings through the platform, blocking rivals like Onlyfans, Patreon, Netflix, Amazon, etc” and things like “Being able to charge more for ads” and “being able to clone your business customers’ products and then switch your users to the in-house version.”

Platforms control most of the surplus-allocating options. They can tune your feed so that it mostly consists of media and text from people you explicitly chose to follow, or so that it consists of ads, sponsored posts, or posts they think will “boost engagement” by sinking you into a dismal clickhole. They can made ads skippable or unskippable. They can block posts with links to rival sites to force their business customers to transact within their platform, so they can skim fat commissions every time money changes hands and so that they can glean market intelligence about which of their business customers’ products they should clone and displace.

But platforms can’t just allocate surpluses will-ye or nill-ye. No one would join a brand-new platform whose sales-pitch was, “No matter who you follow, we’ll show you other stuff; there will be lots of ads that you can’t skip; we will spy on you a lot.” Likewise, no one would sign up to advertise or sell services on a platform whose pitch was “Our ads are really expensive. Any business you transact has to go through us, and we’ll take all your profits in junk fees. This also lets us clone you and put you out of business.”

Instead, platforms have to carefully shift their surpluses around: first they have to lure in users, who will attract business customers, who will generate the fat cash surpluses that can be creamed off for the platforms’ investors. All of this has to be orchestrated to lock in each group, so that they won’t go elsewhere when the service is enshittified as it processes through its life-cycle.

This is where network effects and switching costs come into play. A service has “network effects” if it gets more valuable as users join it. You joined Twitter to talk to the people who were already using it, and then other people joined so they could talk to you.

“Switching costs” are what you have to give up when you leave a service: if a service is siloed — if it blocks interoperability with rivals — then quitting that service means giving up access to the people whom you left behind. This is the single most important difference between ActivityPub-based Fediverse services like Mastodon and the silos like Twitter and Facebook — you can quit a Fediverse server and set up somewhere else, and still maintain your follows and followers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/23/semipermeable-membranes/#free-as-in-puppies

In the absence of interoperability, network effects impose their own switching cost: the “collective action problem” of deciding when to leave and where to go. If you depend on the people you follow and who follow you — for emotional support, for your livelihood, for community — then the extreme difficulty of convincing everyone to leave at the same time and go somewhere else means that you can be enticed into staying on a service that you no longer enjoy. The platforms can shift the surpluses away from you, provided that doing so makes you less miserable than abandoning your friends or fans or customers would. This is the Fiddler On the Roof problem: everyone stays put in the shtetl even though the cossacks ride through on the reg and beat the shit out of them, because they can’t all agree on where to go if they leave:

https://doctorow.medium.com/how-to-leave-dying-social-media-platforms-9fc550fe5abf

So the first stage of the platform lifecycle is luring in users by allocating lots of surplus to them — making the service fun and great and satisfying to use. Few or no ads, little or no overt data-collection, feeds that emphasize the people you want to hear from, not the people willing to pay to reach you.

This continues until the service attains a critical mass: once it becomes impossible to, say, enroll your kid in a little-league baseball team without having a Facebook account, then Facebook can start shifting its surpluses to advertisers and other business-users of the platform, who will pay Facebook to interpose themselves in your use of the platform. You’ll hate it, but you won’t leave. Junior loves little-league.

Facebook can enshittify its user experience because the users are now locked in, holding each other hostage. If Facebook can use the courts and technological countermeasures to block interoperable services, it can increase its users’ switching costs, producing more opportunities for lucrative enshittification without the risk of losing the users that make Facebook valuable to advertisers. That’s why Facebook pioneered so many legal tactics for criminalizing interoperability:

https://www.eff.org/cases/facebook-v-power-ventures

This is the second phase of the toxic platform life-cycle: luring in business customers by shifting surpluses from users to advertisers, sellers, etc. This is the moment when the platforms offer cheap and easy monetization, low transaction fees, few barriers to off-platform monetization, etc. This is when, for example, a news organization can tease an article on its website with an off-platform link, luring users to click through and see the ads it controls.

Because Facebook has locked in its users through mutual hostage-taking, it can pollute their feeds with lots of these posts to news organizations’ sites, bumping down the messages from its users’ friends, and that means that Facebook can selectively tune how much traffic it gives to different kinds of business customers. If Facebook wants to lure in sports sites, it can cram those sites’ posts into millions of users’ feeds and send floods of traffic to sports outlets.

Outlets that don’t participate in Facebook lose out, and so they join Facebook, start shoveling their content into it, hiring SEO Kremlinologists to help them figure out how to please The Algorithm, in hopes of gaining a permanent, durable source of readers (and thus revenue) for their site.

But ironically, once a critical mass of sports sites are on Facebook, Facebook no longer needs to prioritize sports sites in its users’ feeds. Now that the sports sites all believe that a Facebook presence is a competitive necessity, they will hold each other hostage there, egging each other on to put more things on Facebook, even as the traffic dwindles.

Once sports sites have taken each other hostage, Facebook can claw back the surplus it allocated to them and use it to rope in another sector — health sites, casual games, employment seekers, financial advisors, etc etc. Each group is ensnared by a similar dynamic to the one that locks in the users.

But there is a difference between users’ surpluses and business’s surpluses. A user’s surplus is attention, and there is no such thing as an “attention economy.” You can’t use attention to pay for data-centers, or executive bonuses, or to lobby Congress. Attention is not a currency in the same way that cryptos are not currency — it is not a store of value, nor a unit of exchange, nor or a unit of account.

Turning attention into money requires the same tactics as turning crypto into money — you have to lure in people who have real, actual money and convince them to swap it for attention. With crypto, this involved paying Larry David, Matt Damon, Spike Lee and LeBron James to lie about crypto’s future in order to rope in suckers who would swap their perfectly cromulent “fiat” money for unspendable crypto tokens.

With platforms, you need to bring in business customers who get paid in actual cash and convince them to give you that cash in exchange for ethereal, fast-evaporating, inconstant, unmeasurable “attention.” This works like any Ponzi scheme (that is, it works like cryptos): you can use your shareholders’ cash to pay short-term returns to business customers, losing a little money as a convincer that brings in more trade.

That’s what Facebook did when it sent enormous amounts of traffic to a select few news-sites that fell for the pivot to video fraud, in order to convince their competitors to borrow billions of dollars to finance Facebook’s bid to compete with Youtube:

https://doctorow.medium.com/metaverse-means-pivot-to-video-adbe09319038

This convincer strategy is found in every con. If you go to the county fair, you’ll see some poor bastard walking around all day with a giant teddy bear that he “won” by throwing three balls into a peach-basket. The carny who operated that midway game let him win the teddy precisely so that he would walk around all day, advertising the game, which is rigged so that no one else wins the giant teddy-bear:

https://boingboing.net/2006/08/27/rigged-carny-game.html

Social media platforms can allocate giant teddy-bears to business-customers, and it can also withdraw them at will. Careful allocations mean that the platform can rope in a critical mass of business customers and then begin the final phase of its life-cycle: allocating surpluses to its shareholders.

We know what this looks like.

Rigged ad-markets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

Understaffed content moderation departments:

https://www.dw.com/en/twitters-sacking-of-content-moderators-will-backfire-experts-warn/a-63778330

Knock-off products:

https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/08/twitter-is-the-latest-platform-to-test-a-tiktok-copycat-feature/

Nuking “trust and safety”:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/twitter-dissolves-trust-safety-council-2022-12-13/

Hiding posts that have links to rival services:

https://www.makeuseof.com/content-types-facebook-hides-why/

Or blocking posts that link to rival services:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/12/19/better-failure/#let-my-tweeters-go

Or worse, terminating accounts for linking to rival services:

https://blog.joinmastodon.org/2022/12/twitter-suspends-mastodon-account-prevents-sharing-links/

That is, once a platform has its users locked in, and has its business customers locked in, it can enshittify its service to the point of near uselessness without losing either, allocating all the useful surplus in the business to its shareholders.

But this strategy has a problem: users and business customers don’t like to be locked in! They will constantly try to find ways to de-enshittify your service and/or leave for greener pastures. And being at war with your users and business customers means that your reputation continuously declines, because every time a user or business customer figures out a way to claw back some surplus, you have to visibly, obviously enshittify your service wrestle it back.

Every time a service makes headlines for blocking an ad-blocker, or increasing its transaction fees, or screwing over its users or business customers in some other way, it makes the case that the price you pay for using the service is not worth the value it delivers.

In other words, the platforms try to establish an equilibrium where they only leave business customers and users with the absolute bare minimum needed to keep them on the service, and extract the rest for their shareholders. But this is a very brittle equilibrium, because the prices that platforms impose on their users and business customers can change very quickly, even if the platforms don’t do anything differently.

Users and business customers can revalue the privacy costs, or the risks of staying on the platform based on exogenous factors. Privacy scandals and other ruptures can make the cost you’ve been paying for years seem higher than you realized and no longer worth it.

This problem isn’t unique to social media platforms, either. It’s endemic to end-stage capitalism, where companies can go on for years paying their workers just barely enough to survive (or even less, expecting them to get public assistance and/or a side-hustle), and those workers can tolerate it, and tolerate it, and tolerate it — until one day, they stop.

The Great Resignation, Quiet Quitting, the mass desertions from the gig economy — they all prove the Stein’s Law: “Anything that can’t go on forever will eventually stop.”

Same for long, brittle supply-chains, where all the surplus has been squeezed out: concentrating all the microchip production in China and Taiwan, all the medical saline in Puerto Rico, all the shipping into three cartels… This strategy works well, and can be perfectly tuned with mathematical models that cut right to the joint, and they work and they work.

Until they stop. Until covid. Or war. Or wildfires. Or floods. Or interest rate hikes. Or revolution. All this stuff works great until you wake up and discover that the delicate balance between paying for guard labor and paying for a fair society has tilted, and now there’s a mob building a guillotine outside the gates of your luxury compound.

This is the force underpinning collapse: “slow at first, then all at once.” A steady erosion of the failsafes, flensing all the slack out of the system, extracting all the surpluses until there’s nothing left in the reservoir, no reason to stay.

It’s what caused the near-collapse of Barnes and Noble, and while there are plenty of ways to describe James Daunt’s successful turnaround, the most general characterization is, “He has reallocated the company’s surpluses to workers, readers, writers and publishers”:

https://tedgioia.substack.com/p/what-can-we-learn-from-barnes-and

A system can never truly stabilize. This is why utopias are nonsense: even if you design the most perfect society in which everything works brilliantly, it will still have to cope with war and meteors and pandemics and other factors beyond your control. A system can’t just work well, it has to fail well.

This is why I object so strenuously to people who characterize my 2017 novel Walkaway as a “dystopian novel.” Yes, the protagonists are eking out survival amidst a climate emergency and a failing state, but they aren’t giving up, they’re building something new:

https://locusmag.com/2017/06/bruce-sterling-reviews-cory-doctorow/

“Dystopia” isn’t when things go wrong. Assuming nothing will go wrong doesn’t make you an optimist, it makes you an asshole. A dangerous asshole. Assuming nothing will go wrong is why they didn’t put enough lifeboats on the Titanic. Dystopia isn’t where things go wrong. Dystopia is when things go wrong, and nothing can be done about it.

Anything that can’t go on forever will eventually stop. The social media barons who reeled users and business customers into a mutual hostage-taking were confident that their self-licking ice-cream cone — in which we all continued to energetically produce surpluses for them to harvest, because we couldn’t afford to leave — would last forever.

They were wrong. The important thing about the Fediverse isn’t that it’s noncommercial or decentralized — it’s that its design impedes surplus harvesting. The Fediverse is designed to keep switching costs as low as possible, by enshrining the Right Of Exit into the technical architecture of the system. The ability to leave a service without paying a price is the best defense we have against the scourge of enshittification.

(Thanks to Tim Harford for inspiring this column via an offhand remark in his kitchen a couple months ago!)

[Image ID: The Phillip Medhurst Picture Torah 397. The Israelites collect manna. Exodus cap 16 v 14. Luyken and son.]

#pluralistic #social media #post-twitter #post-facebook #switching costs #network effects #web theory #locus magazine #exodus #decentralization

3K notes · View notes

liberalsarecool · 6 months

Text

GivIng all the surplus labor value and profits to ONE PERSON is unconscionable.

CEO pay/compensation is crushing us all.

#late stage capitalism

586 notes · View notes

gf-seasons-zine · 2 months

Text

GF SEASONS ZINE INTEREST CHECK!

The GF Seasons Zine Interest Check is now officially live! The form will be open for two weeks (from the 23rd Feb to March 8th at 11:59 EST).

The zine will focus on the Pines family hanging out and enjoying the four seasons of the year together. Do you want to see who would win in a snowball fight between Stan and Ford? What the Pines family would get up to on a rainy spring day? Or perhaps you want to see the Mystery Twins jumping in piles of autumn leaves? Whatever you’re thinking, fill out the form and let us know!

This zine will be looking for moderators, artists, writers, and merch artists to come together and depict our favourite family having fun! The amount of contributors we accept and whether the zine is digital or physical will be determined after the interest check closes. More information can be found on our Carrd.

Please fill out our form and reblog this post if you’re interested! We would love to make this zine a reality but can't do it without your help.

Alternative link: https://forms.gle/WZJuzpESfX24rkbf9

Disclaimer: We are not affiliated with Disney in any way. The zine will be a charity zine with all surplus going to charity- no one will profit from this zine.

CARRD TWITTER RETROSPRING

----------Thank you for the reblogs! <3----------

@zineapps

344 notes · View notes

seat-safety-switch · 3 months

Text

Real estate is the big industry in Canada. When I say "the" big industry, I mean it. Our top three are basically pulling goop and rocks out of the ground, chopping trees down, and selling houses to each other. What this means is that houses are crazy expensive, being the foundation of our whole economy and all.

Here's the secret about capitalism: it needs fat profits to work. You need to go back to your investors and show some growth every year, or they get mad that you're just making "enough" money and pull the plug. Inevitably, this leads to really bad business decisions usually involving fraud. That's why your local mall imploded; some combination of lies caught up with a series of liars and everyone looked like an asshole. Now it stands empty and unused.

These two things together mean that, in order to support the weight of the entire Canadian economy's expectations of infinite growth, house prices have to keep going up. More profit = more growth = more trying to keep our mind off the inevitable heat death of the universe. And everything worked out great, up until people had to start living in their vans because they could no longer afford to sleep inside the completely unoccupied houses around them. This drove up the price of vans, at which point it became my problem.

As the new prime minister of Canada, I will take our surplus decrepit 1970s motorhomes and revive them. Then, I will do sick donuts in various farmers' fields, municipal parking lots, and sports arenas until some part of the powertrain lets go at high RPM and slip angle. Once this occurs, my lackeys will bury the vehicle up to its wheels in soil and plant some nice sod. I present to you: a new house. We'll solve both walkability and affordability at the same time, and also provide some surplus Mopar 440s and low-cam Chevy V8s for the gearhead psychopaths who voted my party into office in record numbers.

205 notes · View notes

yngwrthr · 2 years

Text

An addition to the debate on simple and capitalist commodity production — and a couple points to consider Marx’s theories on “value” and “surplus value”:

The argument forged by Marx suggests that relations of simple production of commodities (ie values/ exchange values) and the law of commodity exchange (ie the law of value) do not in themselves produce surplus value. Capitalism, as opposed to simple (ie, pre capitalist) commodity production, can only begin with production of surplus value. Conditions of production — and expansion — of surplus value defines capitalism. This constitutes its identifying feature.

As understood by Marx, accumulation of surplus value is a necessary function of capital; “necessary” in as much as representing its source of profit; and requires that workers produce more than the value equivalent of the daily average of commodities required for their subsistence — thus exploitation. Nevertheless, the initial laws of simple commodity exchange and relations associated with value obtain within capitalism — albeit, in a modified form — which Marx called the “average rate of profit” — such that production of commodities and exchange of equivalent values results in a greater sum of values — surplus value — profit — bestowed upon capital. Thus, as Marx indicates, equality of value form/ commodity owners coincides with exploiting workers and wage labor under capitalism.

As explained above, profits on capital in accordance with the law of value is one of the most glaring contradictions of capitalism. And the solution to the paradox lies in the unique capacity of labor power to produce more exchange value than its own. But still leaves us with, as we witness, the blind mechanisms of commodity production — which continue to interfere with satisfying human need.

3 notes · View notes

yourtongzhihazel · 4 days

Text

The labor theory of value, which did not originate from Marx, forms a central pillar of Marx's analysis of the capitalist mode of production. In short, it's this: labor adds value to a finished product which makes its final value greater than the sum of its raw materials and poduction costs. It is through this fact that profit can exist. Suppose a capitalist hires a worker at an hourly wage at market value, such that they are paid 10 monies per product made in an hour, to make a product that costs 20 monies in raw material and production costs but sells for 100 monies, then the worker has generated 80 monies of value through their labor but is only compensated for 10 monies of that generated value, letting the capitalist pocket a profit of 70 monies. So profit, then, is the excess value generated from labor which, instead of going to compensate the worker for the full value generated, is pocketed as surplus value. The ratio of compensation to profit is known as the rate of profit or rate of exploitation. Bear in mind that this ratio is different in every industry, firm, country, and community but generally follows that profit must be maintained due to the logic behind the capitalist mode of production: maximizing profit.

In our example, we see a worker compensated with a market wage of 10 monies per product (abstracted). In this example, the worker is "fully compensated" for the value of their labor in the market sense. That is, they are paid what the market agrees is a fair amount for their labor; the market price of the worker selling their labor for that job in that industry. However, there exists cases where this does not happen. Instead, the worker is paid significantly less than the "fair market value" of their labor. This process is known as super exploitation. In super exploitation, the worker is paid less than the market value of their labor and which allows the capitalist to pocket even more profit. Examples of this include plantation workers in Latin America, sweat shoo workers in Southeast Asia, ship crews across the maritime industry, and more. Note that while the vast majority of these examples are from the global south. Indeed, super exploitation is a key aspect of imperialism. Global south workers are paid significantly less than their imperial core counterparts due to several factors largely stemming from a weakened working class under the domination and control of imperialist powers through hard (e.g. coups or invasions) and soft (e.g. sanctions, "free trade" agreements, loans with restructuring, etc.) power methods. The reduced cost of labor in the global south makes them attractive to imperial core firms who seek to profit more and reduce labor costs. So, while global south capitalists benefit from super exploitation, they do not have the market power that imperial core countries have which allows them to truly reap the benefits of super exploitation. This is how bananas at a while foods in san francisco can cost a mere 19 usa cents per banana.

Here I must note that though super exploitation happens most commonly in the global south, it can also happen in the imperial core. Migrant or undocumented workers are exploited far more than their "native citizen" counterparts largely due to their vulnerable political-economy. Migrant farm workers in california, for example, work long hard hours for less than minimum wage solely because they do not benefit from the protections of labor laws. These workers are largely unable to agitate or organize against these exploitative practices because their political-economic position allows the bourgeois state to deport, detain, or otherwise halt their organizing. You'll also note, this is also a great case of liberalism in practice: the exception of certain groups from accessing the "universal rights and liberties" espoused by liberalism.

SN: AZ49

#super exploitation #mmp #AZ49

88 notes · View notes