How much do socialists/Marxists think the surplus is?

So much is made of the labor surplus taken by capitalists over the effort of the workers. I'm curious what sort of percentage you believe is taken and how you come to that figure.

I ask because it occurred to me that in government contracting we treat a ten percent profit as a standard fair and competitive amount.

Googling average returns on securities seems to give the same number. For example:
https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/... about 10% per year,year are far from average.

Of course 10% of everyone's labor is enough to make many billionaires.

But is this rough amount something agreed on?

 

I'm not quite sure what you're asking. First of all, define surplus labor. Because in this Coronavirus pandemic there is actually a shortage of labor.

Also, I don't understand what is your percentage? I see a reference to the stock market, but I have only ever lost money when investing.

 

This is a good question. But unfortunately, the people who you are trying to ask, the vast majority of them do not think in numerical quantitative terms, they think in emotion.

So I doubt you will get an answer on this forum.

This question is similar to another thread I started: Question to Socialists: Would 10% be enough?

 

Stock market returns no are NOT profits on capital investments.

The stock market does not sell returns. It sells stocks that promise augmentation because profits are good. (And the reverse as well.)

The return that matters is Return on Investment made. That will be substantially different ...

 

Perhaps I should explain. The only reason employeers hire employees is to make money. Marxists consider that unfair. But how much are we talking about? I called that the surplus, but looking it up I think I've phrased it a little off. But we're talking about how much of workers value produced goes to the capitalists.

In government contracting, there are some contracts where the government agrees to pay for costs plus a fixed amount of profit, which is typically 10%.

The stock market 10% is a different number. It roughly means that either through dividends or stocks gaining value, you can, on average expect to gain 10% on whatever money is invested every year. But that's just an average, you could lose.

The two might be linked in that perhaps stock valuation has a relationship to companies gross income.

 

Explain the difference between socialists and Marxist.

 

THE PRIME-MATTER OF OUR EXISTENCE ON EARTH

You're mixing everything up to suit yourself.

Work is central to survival. Ever since our predecessors (monkeys) found their food on trees. So it is not just a "fun game" we all play. And because it is not a game and because it is an attribute that is CENTRAL to human existence, it is not to be played with lightly as you have done!

Survival is a key attribute to any well-organized society. One example of how humans can get that attribute Very Wrong was Communism that reared its ugly-head at the turn of the 20th century. That finally came to an end in Russia and Eastern Europe in the 1980s - but not yet in China.

The point being this: A functional fair Market Economy is key to our existence on earth because it provides the means of subsistence to a family, which is still the "Societal Core" of human existence on earth!

And as such Family Income is a matter that must not be taken lightly - above all at the bottom-end but also at the high-end of earnings. Income is the heartland of our life-style because of its ability to not only sustain existence (at the bottom end) but also provide existence-enhancement all the way up-the-ladder to Top Incomes.

Anybody with the slightest intelligence should understand that statement-of-existence above because it is the heart of our life-on-earth. We've got to get it right up-and-down the Income Ladder in the US. Fairness is the key-element to the good-functioning of the most important social-element on this planet - called the "family".

My Point as regards Income Fairness: I dare you to argue that such is NOT the prime-matter of our existence on earth. And all that really matters are those who can (vis-à-vis those who cannot) drive a $130K Porsche ...

 

If they're actual Socialists, they shouldn't care. Surplus isn't their game.

If OTOH hand they're Progressives, they'll care only insofar as it pays for a nice lunch for the unproductive. They want your stuff, because they don't want to have to break sweat to get their own.

 

Socialists hate the Welfare State, and Marxists are @sshats.

 

A shortage of labor? On which planet do you live?

From the Congressional Research Service here (date January 12, 2021):

 

SOME BADLY NEEDED DEFINITIONS

First define who's a Socialist! They believe that the state owns ALL the means of production! The only countries left believing that idiocy are China and North Korea.

Who's a Marxist? First, definition of Marxism:

The above was posited in the late 19th century when manufacturing became possible because machines automated work. Thus, it concentrated workers into factories and - true enough - their working conditions were awful. But, that does not make Marxism a functional "theory". It is/was simply good enough to formulate a "labor-movement" that, in Russia, brought down the Tsar and instituted Communism as the prevailing political/economic thinking. That lasted from the end of WW1 (1919) until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Instruction for the dimwit-Right in America: Socialism exists nowhere on earth except China, which owns the property on which any house or building is located. Meaning it can shut down the economy overnight by declaring that the properties must be vacated.

What exists nowadays principally in Europe is "Social Democracy" based upon the principles of democracy (namely the free-and-open election to political office). European countries have "constitutions of sorts".That is, they define the state and what it does by certain principles. It's definition is thus:

And the quicker the Right on this forum understands the above the better will be the debates about "social-democracy" (especially in "capitalist-oriented mixed-economies*") !

*What's a "mixed-economy"? This: A democratic welfare state that incorporates both capitalist and socialist practices.
**Fair and equitable treatment of all people in a society, including respect for the rights of minorities and equitable distribution of resources among members of a community.

 

Clubbing together to build roads, or have a fire service or schools is a feature of socialism accepted in many places, certainly in Europe.
In America some people will twist themselves into knots to try to say such things are not social enterprises, or socialist if you like.
Goodness knows why.
Collective action to create bridges, or fund coast guards seem to me to be fine, worthy and socialist things.

 

No, not "socialist". Which means that a socialist-government does everything in the production of goods/services.

Which it should not do. Capitalism seeks out those that do it best and does that just fine. Unfortunately, what capitalism does TOO FINE is generate billions of dollars amassed by the wrong-people! A country must be fair and equitable throughout - from the very-poor to the very-rich.

Leaving not enough for those who live arduous lives on the bottom rung of the ladder. We all need damn-fine healthcare in order to live as long as possible. But, even more importantly, we all need a damn-fine education in this new Internet world of ours. Low-skill manufacturing jobs are since long gone from developed-economies.

The Internet has become essential to the way we communicate to do business/work ... and THAT is what nowadays pays-for-the-porridge ... !

 

All governments capable of being voted in and voted out are following a socialist path.
The practical task(s) of conducting or having elections is a socialist enterprise.

 

No, not really. Socialism is a rigorous governance in which all the productive-abilities are owned/run by the government. Quite the opposite of Capitalism.

Not so subtle a difference that - especially to a country that is highly capitalist in nature. (Meaning Uncle Sam ...)

PS: And for those who want to dive into the thicket (of what's the difference between Socialism and Communism) I suggest this here:
How Are Socialism and Communism Different?

 

Call it what you like, if you insist.

But, if you come to Europe be careful of the way you argue the matter. Communism and Socialism and Hedonistic-Capitalism are very distinctly different here ...

PS: Moreover, after the demise of Communism in the Eastern Bloc countries, all that is left of Communism in the world is China/North Korea/Cuba/Laos/Vietnam ...

 

I live in Europe. My partner is from Beijing. I have some direct experience of differing governmental structures.
In terms of elections the Americans are socialist.
Can you imagine a capitalist election structure?
You vote but after a 14 day cooling off period you get your vote back, or maybe a buy one get one free/half price vote?

 

Oh, come off it - will you? Americans are not socialist and you refuse to understand the definition of socialism.

They elected Trump, didn't they. Do you think he is a socialist too ... ?

No I cannot - because the word does not apply.

There is no such thing as a "capitalist election structure"! The word capitalism applies to the economic method employed, not political!

Yes, I'm a capitalist because I believe in that economic method. But, no I did not vote for Biden because I thought he was "socialist".

 

I should have been clearer.
In terms of having elections at all, not in terms of election results.
To have generally speaking free and fair elections is a socialist approach within a community, as opposed to for example a dictatorship.
I fear that it is you that does not understand the term socialist.

By the way, well done for not voting for that Prince of Darkness, Trump.

 

Oh, come-off-it! Please! It is not just socialist in nature.

Democracy from here:

The sooner America gets BigMoney out of its democratic-process of electing representatives to state and national congresses, the better America will become. At present, we seem (in the US) to be electing presidents employing commercial-tactics best used for selling soaps. (You know, the kind that "wash whiter than white")

For the moment, the US remains in an intellectual-miasma regarding its "democracy" the definition of which was never fully appreciated. Because, in the 19th century when the word was "born", political power resided with elected Heads of state that were privileged families that happened to accede to the presidential throne-of-power in the US.

The real success of America's democracy is to underscore the separation of power between the three instances: Congress, the Head of state and the Supreme Court. It was and remains a brilliant idea!

Real democratic power is with the people. If they know how to use it.

Many do not ... and I blame the present instruction of the notion in American schools ...

 

That is NOT socialism. It's simply purchase of services.

In this case, they are services purchased via the profits of capitalism. There is nothing collective about it at all. In a collective, the bridge would actually be built BY the members. They would not pay others to build it for them, because that would mean the buying and selling of labour via the profits of capitalism.

 

No they aren't, and no it isn't.

Capitalism and Socialism are ECONOMIC models, not political models.

There are conservative Socialists. There are Left wing Capitalists. Socialists and Capitalists both come in the full variety of political flavours.

 

I suppose "what is a socialist" has gotten to be a confused thing. But I suppose that isn't really required to be resolved. Perhapse I should have just left it open.

Fundamentally the question I'm trying to get at in this thread is how much do the capitalists (or say shareholders) get? I propose the answer is about 10% of the total with the other 90% going to salaries and expenses (and those expenses similarly go to profit and salaries).

 

This idea completely misunderstands the economic situation. The surplus is almost all created by investment in producer goods, not labor, and it is divided between labor, the providers of producer goods (i.e., investors, in varying degrees), and privilege holders, especially landowners. Typically investors get the smallest portion because the profits of productive investment tend to be competed away. Workers in advanced democracies get a bigger portion because democratically accountable governments have to rescue them from enslavement by the privileged -- who take the largest share while being the only faction that does not contribute anything to production.

 

IMO 10% is a reasonable guess in a typical advanced capitalist democracy. Labor typically gets about 40%, and the rents of privilege account for the rest.