What in the hell …

ΔM, that is. The difference between M’ and M. As in M-C-M’, the circuit which Marx identifies with capital (the circuit of money as capital).

The difference is surplus value, which is really what I’m on about. M-C-M’ is really M-C(mp+lp)…P…C’-M’ where mp=means of production and lp=labor power and …P… indicates production. Which is to say, the capitalist, our man Moneybags, makes an initial outlay for means of production (say, buildings and tools/machinery and raw materials) and for labor power (workers), which are then combined to produce a new product which is then sold for an amount greater than Moneybags’ outlay for mp and lp. The difference between the outlay and take home is the profit or surplus value (for now we’ll say profit and surplus value are the same; we’re also going to leave aside accumulation for now and just assume it happens normally).

Let’s say Moneybags spends $1000 and makes $1500. Let’s say annually. In that case the change in M is $500. Moneybags spends $500 on means of production and $500 on labor power (hiring ten workers for the year) and makes $500 over and above his costs. So far so good, right? All good and Marxly? (more…)

And is it an anomaly or a necessity? (more…)

In my last post I parroted part of Walter Johnson’s question, how would it change our reading of Marx and our understanding of capitalism if we started from the history of slavery. Marcus Rediker’s new book The Slave Ship offers further grist for milling this question. (more…)

One of the two birthday gifts I brought to Uncle Karl’s (Great-Uncle, technically) birthday festivities was a small translation from Sandro Mezzadra’s book. In the translated passage, Mezzadra argues for placing forced labor more at the heart of our understanding of capitalism, and making “free” labor (waged labor) less central. (more…)

Pasted below is part two of my b-day celebration offering for Marx’s hundredsomethingth. (more…)