The structure of the Introduction:
1. It describes the discursive relationship between production and exchange, distribution, and consumption studied in political economy.
2. Explains that the research method of political economy is material dialectics.
The epistemology of dialectical materialism is the method of analyzing economic phenomena by "starting from the real and the concrete, from the premises of reality" to the abstract, and "rising from the abstract to the concrete", i.e., concrete→abstract→concrete.
3. The idea of the overall structure of society was put forward.
(To be honest, the language of Capital is obscure, and there are too many historical knowledge and allusions, which have caused me reading obstacles, and some of them are really difficult to understand, such as "production" of this subsection. For example, the section on "production" was difficult to understand. I consulted the relevant reference books, but in the end, I didn't quite get it.
But from the information, I learned that "& lt; Critique of Political Economy & gt; Introduction" is Marx left an unfinished manuscript. Marx thought that it was not appropriate to preface the issues to be discussed, so the manuscript was half written and left unfinished. [
The final section, "Production," was left unfinished, but the title of this section summarizes his deep thoughts on society in general. That is, "Production. Means of production and relations of production. Relations of production and relations of interaction. The relation of the forms of state and consciousness to the relations of production and communication. The relations of law. Family relations." This overall relationship of society starts with the productive forces, from production to the development of the productive forces, to the relations of production to the superstructure, including cultural concepts and so on. But what makes it difficult to understand is why Marx thought that the highest point of overall social relations was the family and family relations. What exactly is the connotation of the overall structure of society as he understood it?
It has been said that the introduction is a must-read for all those who study Marx's thought, that it is an important document for us to understand the "middle-aged Marx", and that it is also one of the more difficult papers left by Marx. Perhaps because of my limited level, I have a deep understanding of this, and I think it is at least one of the difficulties from the Introduction to Volume I. I will have to read more in the future! (I'll have to do more reading in the future!)
Structure of the Preface:
1. Explanation of the order in which Marx undertook his study of the capitalist economic system and his plan for writing the Critique of Political Economy.
2. Points out the motivation and the passage of his study of political economy.
3. Summarize the principles of historical materialism, Marx's general philosophical worldview.
Think:
Production, distribution, exchange, and consumption are the four links within the general process of social reproduction, and there is an interconnected and mutually constraining relationship between them. Among them, production plays a dominant determining role, a certain production determines a certain distribution, exchange and consumption; and distribution, exchange and consumption also have a counteraction to production.
Combined with the reality, in the process of the current socialist modernization and economic construction, the decisive and dominant role of production in the four links of social production requires us to pay attention to production and put production in the first place. Development is the hard truth, the liberation and development of productive forces is the essence of socialism. The development process should deepen the concept of science and technology as the first productive force and establish a new concept of development.
The principle of the counteraction of distribution, exchange and consumption on production makes us sure to harmonize the relationship between production and distribution, exchange and consumption while strengthening economic development. Such as deepening the reform of the income distribution system, narrowing the income gap between residents, coordinating the economic development of the eastern and western regions; but also gradually improve the market exchange competition mechanism, standardize the order of market exchange, the ultimate goal is to improve the level of consumption of the population.
Preface to Volume I of Capital, Treated
Preface to the First Edition of 1867
Structure:
1. Point out the relationship between Capital and the Critique of Political Economy.
2. Explains the object, purpose and method of the study of Capital.
3.Describe the class nature of political economy and its structure in Capital.
Economic forms can be analyzed neither with a microscope nor with chemical reagents. Both must be replaced by the power of abstraction.
This statement means that political economy, which takes the social relations of production as its object of study, because of the specificity of its object, cannot get to the truth of things by using some more intuitive tools such as microscopes and chemical reagents, as in the case of physics or chemistry, but must rely on the force of abstraction, i.e., the ability of people to extract and generalize the most essential features of things from their various surface phenomena. Our analysis of social and economic phenomena, only through the scientific abstract thinking ability to discover and master the laws of objective things.
For example, in his analysis of Capital, Marx first abstracted the cellular form of commodities from the complexity of the capitalist economic phenomenon, and thus put forward the categories of value, labor, and money; and then made an in-depth analysis of the relationship between capital and wage labor, and finally gradually rose to an overall understanding of the capitalist economy.
But if the German reader sees the situation in which the industrial and agricultural workers of England find themselves and hypocritically shrugs his shoulders, or optimistically reassures himself that the situation in Germany is far from bad, I shall say to him loudly: this is exactly what is said of His Excellency!
What the more industrially advanced countries show to the less industrially advanced countries is only a vision of the latter's future.
In England the process of change is already evident. When it has reached a certain point, it must spread to the Continent. Whether there it will take a more brutal or a more humane form will depend on the degree of development of the working class itself.
These passages are extremely logical, and all show that the capitalist mode of production revealed in Capital, using England as an example, is universally applicable to other capitalist countries, despite the fact that the situation in Germany, which was economically backward at that time, was very different from that of England, which was economically developed. The actual situation and the degree of economic development vary from country to country. As capitalism develops and its basic contradictions continue to intensify, it will eventually be replaced by socialism, and whether the proletarian revolution will be in the form of bloodshed or in a peaceful manner will depend on the actual situation of that country.
Not only do the living make us suffer, but the dead make us suffer. The dead seize the living!
By "the dead" we mean the remnants of feudalism, and by "the living" we mean capitalism. At that time, German capitalism had developed to a certain extent, but the old feudal remnants were still serious. Therefore, Marx believed that the workers in Germany were exploited and oppressed by both capitalism and feudalism, and that the feudal remnants also hindered the development of capitalism.
Perthesius needed an invisibility hat to hunt down demons. Instead, we use an invisibility hat to tightly cover our eyes and ears in order to potentially deny the existence of demons.
(I don't quite understand the allusion here, so I checked the reference book.)[13] Marx is borrowing the "invisibility hat of Theseus" to satirize the German rulers of the time. They were the opposite of Patheus, who wore the invisibility hat so as not to be seen by the demons, while they used the invisibility hat to cover their ears and eyes to deny the double exploitation and oppression of the German working people by both capitalism and feudalism.
Even if a society explores the natural laws of its own movement, - and the ultimate aim of this book is to reveal the laws of economic movement in modern society, - it still can neither skip nor cancel by decree the natural stages of development. But it shortens and lessens the pain of labor.
"Modern society" means capitalist society, so the purpose of Capital is to reveal the laws of the emergence, development and demise of capitalist relations of production. It is an objective law that is not subject to human will, and the process of capitalist development cannot be jumped, but the proletariat, in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, recognizes and applies the economic laws, but it is able to alleviate the pain of the revolutionary process.
So this statement can't help but cause us to think: Is it true that every country must go through the stage of capitalist development? Does China also go through the stage of capitalist development?
Since the 1911 Xinhai Revolution, the nature of Chinese society has basically belonged to the category of capitalism[14] . However, capitalism was not very developed and feudal relations still existed in large numbers. Therefore, China did not skip the stage of capitalist development or the natural stage of development, but a socialist revolution on the basis that capitalism was not yet fully developed did, on the one hand, shorten and lessen the pain of childbirth, and, on the other hand, inevitably led to twists and turns in the aftermath of the revolution.
My view is to understand the development of the social form of the economy as a process of natural history.
This statement indicates the materialist basis of Marx's methodology, which holds that social development is a natural historical process, that society is a part of nature, and that the laws of its development, like the laws of nature, are objective and not subject to human will. Historical materialism is the theoretical reproduction of this natural historical process and its laws of development, and mirrors the first half of this article, which says, "The more industrially advanced countries show to the less industrially advanced countries only a vision of the latter's future."
Trek of the second edition of 1872
This part is roughly speaking of three layers of meaning: 1, pointing out the changes made in the second edition; 2, introducing the development of bourgeois political economy in Germany, mainly pointing out the class nature of political economy; 3, methodology - dialectical method.
It is evident that political economy lacks a basis for survival in our country. It was imported as a finished product from England and France; professors of political economy in Germany have been students.
Political economy is based on the developed capitalist relations of production, theoretical analysis, while in Germany a long period of feudalism hindered the development of capitalism, so that political economy "lacks the basis for survival. In fact, the current development of Western mainstream economic theory in China is also the same. Due to different social systems, different national conditions, and different degrees of economic development, we can't copy Western theories completely. When borrowing and applying these theories or methods, we have to take into account our specific situation.
Of course, in form, the narrative method must be different from the research method.
My understanding is that the narrative method refers to reproducing the essence and its intrinsic connection revealed in research. That is, abstraction → concreteness. The research method, on the other hand, is to grasp the essence of things through the phenomenon, from perceptual understanding to rational understanding, i.e., concrete → abstract. Therefore, the thinking process between the two is opposite.
My dialectical method, fundamentally, is not only different from Hegel's dialectical method, but also diametrically opposed to it.
We know that classical German philosophy is one of the theoretical sources of Marxism. This statement shows that Marx was critically absorbing the reasonable kernel of Hegel's dialectic, freeing the dialectic from the shell of idealism, and eventually creating a materialist dialectic and applying it to the study of political economy.
Capital, Volume I The Process of Production of Capital
The First Commodity and Money
The wealth of a society in which the capitalist mode of production prevails is expressed in the form of a "vast accumulation of commodities," and individual commodities are manifested as the elemental forms of this wealth. Thus, our study begins with an analysis of commodities.
Because commodities are the "elemental form" of capitalist wealth or the "cellular form" of the capitalist economy, Marx dissects the capitalist economy in terms of commodities. I think here, things of the "elemental form" or "cellular form", they are not simply from the universal connection of things arbitrarily extracted from the part, factors, but contains "all the contradictory germs They are not simply parts or elements arbitrarily extracted from the universal connection of things, but contain "the germ of all contradictions". Starting from commodities, Marx saw that in commodities, as in embryos, lie those contradictions of capitalist production which will become reality under certain conditions and at a certain stage of development, and saw that the basic contradictions of capitalism are constantly growing, moving and developing.
(Embryonic form → Infantile form → Growing form → Developing form → Completed form)
This duality of labor contained in commodities was first demonstrated by me critically. This point is the pivot of understanding political economy.
The duality of labor in the production of commodities was first revealed and demonstrated by Marx, who critically inherited the labor-value theory of classical political economy, created the scientific labor theory of value, and laid the foundation for the further establishment of the doctrine of surplus value.
1, the classical political economy that value is created by labor, but can not distinguish between labor duality, do not know is the concrete labor to create the use of value, abstract labor to create value.
2, the amount of value is determined by the socially necessary labor time, but classical political economy believes that the socially necessary labor time is not the average labor time, but by the worst conditions of production labor time.
3. Classical political economy distinguished between value and exchange value, but did not understand the intrinsic connection between the two.
4. Classical political economy considered value to be a natural property of things, not a social property.
5. Classical political economy considered commodities, value, and the value form to be eternal categories, and therefore capitalism to be an eternal system.
Labor productivity is determined by a variety of circumstances, including: the average proficiency of workers, the level of development of science and the extent to which it is applied to processes, the social integration of the production process, the size and effectiveness of the means of production, and natural conditions.
I think there are two points in this sentence that should be noted (and were actually covered in class):
(1) Labor productivity and labor productivity:
Marx used the concepts of labor productivity and labor productivity in Capital, in some places strictly, and in some places not strictly (the two can be equated in the above sentence). But I think there are some differences between the two terms. Labor productivity focuses on "force" as the ability of specific labor to produce use value, and labor productivity focuses on "rate" as the efficiency of specific labor to actually produce use value.
Capacity and efficiency are different, capacity is the potential power, efficiency is the ability to play a role in the results. Generally speaking, ability and efficiency are directly proportional, but there are exceptions. Some are very capable, but not very efficient; some are not very capable, but very efficient.
(2) actually puts forward the concept of "natural productivity" (I was not aware of it)
In this sentence, Marx includes natural conditions as an important factor of productivity "...... natural conditions", and emphasizes that natural conditions are also important factors of productivity. conditions" and emphasizes the special role of natural forces as a productive force.
My understanding is that natural productivity refers to the effective utilization of certain natural forces at a certain level of science and technology to produce productive forces, in fact, "natural forces" and "productive forces" two words compounded. Natural forces are the basis and premise of such productivity, science and technology and the effective utilization of such natural forces are the conditions for the production of such natural productivity. Destroy a certain natural conditions or can not effectively utilize a certain natural conditions, will make this natural productivity is destroyed and can not form the reality of productive forces.
But with the development of society and the advancement of science and technology, the unlimited development of social productive forces has the potential to reduce the natural productive forces. [15] Therefore, Marx's theory of natural productivity in conjunction with reality can be the need to adhere to the strategy of sustainable development, correctly deal with the interrelationship between economic development and population, resources and the environment, to achieve a virtuous cycle. It can be seen that today we put forward this new concept of development, Marx more than a hundred years ago, Marx had foreseen, to some extent to see for many years because we only see Marx's theory of the establishment of scientific socialism and neglected the guiding role of Marxism in our construction of a socialist market economy[16] .
Socially necessary labor time is the labor time required to make a certain use value under existing socially normal conditions of production, at the average level of labor proficiency and labor intensity in society.
Socially necessary labor time has two meanings: micro and macro. The above is the micro meaning, which is formed between different producers producing the same kind of goods, it involves the labor spent on the same kind of goods. The other is the macro meaning, which refers to the socially necessary labor time formed among producers of different commodities producing different commodities, and it is the distribution of the total social labor time over various commodities. (This meaning is dealt with mainly in the third volume of Capital. But I think it is also addressed in Volume I:[17] In the Means of Circulation "...... Finally, suppose that each piece of linen in the market contains only socially necessary labor time. Even so, the total number of these pieces of linen may still contain an excessive amount of labor time expended.")
The jump of commodity value from the commodity body to the gold body is, as I have said elsewhere, a thrilling jump for the commodity. If this jump is unsuccessful, it is not the commodity that falls and breaks, but it must be the commodity owner.
W-G It's a thrilling jump, and it's especially important in today's society for businesses or commodity producers. Because the use value of commodities, is the value of the material bearer, then the enterprise to pursue unlimited surplus value, must continue to produce marketable products, and constantly improve the product structure and industrial structure, improve production efficiency so that the individual value of the product is lower than the social value, only so that the product can be recognized by the community to achieve the thrill of the jump, so that the enterprise spends the prepaid capital can be in the value of the appropriate compensation. compensation for the upfront capital expended by the enterprise. And, as consumption is the final link in production, companies must also pay great attention to marketing.
Think:
1, combined with previous knowledge, there are mainly the following four different theories of value determination:
①Labor Theory of Value: the entity of value is labor, and the amount of value of the commodity is determined by the amount of socially necessary labor time for the production of goods. This is represented by the English classical school and Marx.
②Supply and demand theory of value: the entity of value is supply and demand, the intersection of the supply curve and the demand curve determines value. Represented by Marshall.
③ Factor theory of value: the value of commodities is determined by the three elements of labor, land and capital **** together. The main representative is Say.
④ utility theory of value: the entity of value is utility, or marginal utility, utility and marginal utility determine the value of commodities. Represented by Menger, Pombalvik and others.
2. Generally speaking, the analysis of economics on an economy can be divided into two levels: one is the analysis of the essential level, that is, the analysis of the level of production relations, the Marxist political economy is biased in favor of this kind of; the second is the analysis of the level of the surface level, that is, the analysis of the level of economic operation, the western economics generally belong to this. But it is one-sided to think that only Western economics has a theory of economic institutions, while Marx has no exposition in this regard. [
I think that in the first volume of Capital, although the word "economic system" is not used, but in revealing the economic relations of capitalism, the economic relations of capitalism must be revealed objectively through the mechanism of its economic operation. For example, Marx's law of value and its role (the law of value is an extremely important part of labor value, but it seems that there is no such part in the selected readings), and his discussion of competition, supply and demand, and the movement of value is actually a question of the mechanism of competition, supply and demand, and the movement of prices [19]. So, Marx has dealt with the mechanism of economic operation in his discussion of many economic issues.
3. On the understanding of commodity fetishism
Commodity fetishism is to see the relationship between human beings, which is materialized in commodities, upside down as the relationship between things and things. Thus a mystical view of commodities arises, as if in the world of religion people worship God, Allah, etc., and in the world of commodities people worship the product of their hands, the commodity. Thus Marx studied economics, ostensibly the relationship between commodities and commodities, but ultimately the relationship between human beings, because, behind the commodity is the human being, and the economic relationship is the relationship between human beings under the cover of things . In contrast, Western economics is not the study of the relationship between man and man, but only the relationship between goods and commodities, that is, the relationship between things and things.
Part II Conversion of Money into Capital
Capital, therefore, cannot arise out of circulation and out of circulation. It must be produced both in and out of circulation.
(Only a philosophical economist could write such a statement! The meaning of this statement has been analyzed in general political economy classes) Marx's analysis of the contradiction in the general formula of capital shows that circulation does not produce surplus value. Any enterprise that tries to buy and sell goods by changing hands and raising prices arbitrarily is not a source of capital multiplication; it can only change the distribution of wealth, not add to it in any real way.
In the commodity market, individual business owners are pitted against each other, and all they have is the right to the ownership of their commodities, with equal exchange being the basic principle. In a commodity market, any fraudulent, violent, or monopolistic behavior is improper and contrary to the basic principles of commodity production and commodity exchange.
So, socialist enterprises to pursue the proliferation of capital is also never obtained by improper behavior in circulation, but by correct and effective operation of capital.
The buying and selling of labor takes place within the boundaries of the sphere of circulation or exchange of goods, a sphere which is indeed the true paradise of natural human rights. What reigns there is simply freedom, equality, ownership, and siderealization.
This statement is really Marx's profound revelation of the hypocrisy of bourgeois freedom and equality through his analysis of the buying and selling of labor. [110] The relations of equivalence in the process of circulation conceal the relations of exploitation in the process of production. Bianchin's "rationality", as I think it is called in modern Western vulgar economics, is to regard blatant egoism as the main motivation for human moral behavior and as the guiding principle of human life. Many bourgeois economists of the time used Bianchin's theories to justify bourgeoisism by arguing that the capitalist sphere of circulation was free and equal, and that both parties to an exchange acted in their own self-interest, thus benefiting both parties. In reality, the illusion of equality and mutual benefit in the sphere of circulation masks the brutal exploitation in the sphere of production, where the capitalist and the worker are in an antagonistic relationship of exploitation and exploitation.
Part III The Production of Absolute Surplus-Value
The structure of the remains of animals is of great importance for the understanding of the organism of extinct animals, and the remains of the means of labor are of equal importance for the judgment of extinct socio-economic forms. The difference between the various economic epochs lies not in what was produced, but in how it was produced and with what means of labor. The means of labor are not only a measure of the development of human labor, but also an indicator of the social relations through which labor is performed.
The main implication of this statement is that the change in the means of production is the main indicator of the development of productive forces. The study of different socio-economic forms requires attention to the instruments of production used at the time, for the instruments of production play an important role in the productive forces, which are the most revolutionary factor, and the relations of production must be suited to the nature of the productive forces. The way in which the laborer and the means of production are united, the particular ways and means of practicing this union, distinguish the social structure into various economic periods, i.e., the various economic epochs are distinguished by the different social ways in which the laborer is united with the means of production, "The hand-powered mill gives rise to the society of the feudal lords, and the steam mill gives rise to the society of the capitalists. "
And in "Capital" can be seen: Marx from the analysis of the means of production, not only see the necessity of labor tools for the smooth progress of capitalist production, but also through the economic phenomenon of the analysis of the tools of production of the social productive forces of the great role, that the change of the means of production is the main sign of the progress of the productive forces. This market economy in today's society is still used, in the fierce competition situation, each sector, each enterprise are competing to introduce advanced technology and equipment, improve the level of technology, in order to enhance the competitiveness of products to improve economic efficiency.
Think:
Reviewing the history of economic doctrine previously studied, the history of modern political economy for the study of surplus value, began in the bourgeois classical political economy. The agronomists made the "first systematic understanding" of the capitalist mode of production and put forward the theory of "pure product", which is essentially their doctrine of surplus value. They believed that "surplus value cannot be generated from circulation" but is created in agriculture and is a purely natural gift; they recognized the existence of surplus value only in the form of land rent, but did not know the category of profit, let alone study the general form of surplus value. Therefore, they did not discern the secret of surplus-value. However, they shifted the study of the origin of surplus value from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production and laid the foundation for analyzing the capitalist mode of production. Smith's understanding of surplus value, on the other hand, was a big step ahead of the Heavy Agrarian School, and he studied profit and land rent, which are also surplus value. He believed that surplus value exists not only in the field of agricultural production, but also in the field of industrial production; not only put forward the category of profit, but also, on the basis of the labor theory of value, pointed out that the general surplus labor is the source of surplus value, including profit and land rent, therefore, in this sense, Smith recognized the real origin of surplus value.
Part IV The Production of Relative Surplus-Value
All direct social labor or ****same labor on a larger scale requires, to a greater or lesser extent, direction in order to coordinate the activities of individuals and to execute the movements of the totality of production - as distinct from the movements of the separate organs of this totality -- the various general functions that arise.
In this statement Marx emphasizes the necessity of business management. He believed that in the process of socialized mass production, consisting of many individuals working together, command and supervision and enterprise management are necessary in order to co-ordinate the labour of individuals so that they can work closely together for the purpose of accomplishing a given task of production * * * together. Capitalist production is socialized mass production and requires management. Socialist production is established on the basis of public ownership of the means of production, but also large-scale socialized production, production scale is larger, more detailed division of labor, more collaborative atmosphere, more need for management within the enterprise. If there is no unified command and no scientific management method, productive production cannot be carried out effectively.
Capitalists also try to extend the working day as much as possible to completely utilize this "period of first love".
This phrase is used to describe the capitalist's fervent pursuit of excess profits. Marx analyzed that when the capitalist in a certain sector is the first to use machine production, he can get excess profit above the average rate of profit, but if the sector is universally using machine production, this excess profit disappears, so the individual capitalist who is the first to use machine production always tries to extend the working day so as to make full use of this "period of first love" (the first to use machine production) in the "period of first love" (the first to use machine production), which is the period of first love. Therefore, the individual capitalist who was the first to use machine production always tries to extend the working day in order to produce more in this "period of first love" (the period when machine production was first adopted) and to make more profit than others.
Think:
In Capital, Marx analyzes two basic forms of capitalist exploitation, absolute surplus value production and relative surplus value production. Compared to Marx's time, contemporary capitalism has seen many new changes in the forms of exploitation, especially in the post-war period when countries have relied more on the exploitative means of producing relative surplus value. But the bourgeoisie's raising of the productive forces and thus lowering the value of the means of subsistence is in no way in the interest of the laborers, but rather increases their exploitation. Capitalism raises the productive forces of labor antagonistically. Thus, Marx's principle of relative surplus value criticizes Seigneur's "workers should be grateful to capital for developing the productive forces".
But in contemporary capitalism there have been a series of new changes in the forms of exploitation: for example, the employee share scheme. The issuance of shares among employees allows workers to participate in the distribution of the surplus value of the enterprise by owning an equity stake, thus incentivizing workers to work for a larger share of the dividends and treating them as shareholders similar to capitalists. In essence, by issuing shares among workers, the capitalist enterprises, firstly, wanted to tie the interests of the enterprises and the workers together, blurring the line between labor and capital; secondly, they wanted to collect money from the workers to expand the accumulation of capital. [111]
Part V. The Production of Absolute and Relative Surplus-Value
This formal subordination of labor to capital gives way, in turn, to the actual subordination of labor to capital.
(This sentence is difficult to understand, consulted the reference book) The formal subordination of labor to capital means the subordination of labor to capital on the basis of the capitalist relations of production. In the early years of capitalism before machine production, the technological basis of labor was still manual production, but the relations of production changed. At this time capitalists mainly used the extended workday to produce absolute surplus value.
The actual subordination of labor to capital means that labor is not only subordinated to capital in the capitalist relations of production, but is further subordinated to capital as a result of fundamental changes in the technical processes and social organization of labor. In machine production, the original technology of manual labor does not work. Without the machine, the worker cannot participate in the production process of capital, and the technical basis on which the worker could have resisted capital by virtue of his craftsmanship disappears, so that labor, which is totally dependent on the machine, becomes even more subordinate to capital. At this time, the capitalist mainly through the use of machines to increase the productivity of labor, in order to obtain relative surplus value.
The deepening of the subordination of labor to capital is therefore accompanied by a change in the technological basis and organization of labor (from manual to machine production) and a change in the emphasis of the methods of exploitation (from absolute to relative surplus-value production).
Thinking:
1, Marx's principle of absolute and relative surplus value production, and China's enterprise capital multiplication mechanism and economic growth mode there is a certain correspondence between:
Absolute surplus value production→external capital multiplication mechanism→intensive mode of economic growth
Relative surplus value production→internal capital proliferation mechanism → intensive mode of economic growth
In analyzing the production of absolute surplus value it is emphasized that this type of capital accumulation is characterized by an increase in the extraneous amount of labor. Similar to the corporate episodic capital augmentation mechanism, it is centered purely on the growth of the quantity of input factors of production, and is predicated on purely quantitatively expansive growth. It is equivalent to the crude economic growth mode, characterized by high inputs, low outputs, low efficiency, waste of resources and environmental degradation.
While corresponding to the relative surplus value is the connotative capital multiplication mechanism and intensive economic growth mode. Because the internal capital accumulation mechanism is based on the quality of factors of production, the improvement of the efficiency of the use of factors of production, as well as the optimization of the combination of factors of production, all of which will help to improve the quality and efficiency of the intensive economic growth mode.
2, (in the teacher issued the syllabus on the methodology of "Capital" in the fourth point is the logical method and historical method) I think this in the first volume of a number of embodiments, logical and historical unity, that is to say, from where history begins, logical analysis also begins there. For example, the historical development from the simple form of value to the monetary form; the historical development from the circulation of commodities to the circulation of money; and in this case, the development from absolute to relative surplus value, and so on.
Part VI The Wage
All the conceptions of the law of the worker and the capitalist, all the mysteries of the capitalist mode of production, all the illusions of freedom which this mode of production produces, all the apologetic evasions of vulgar economics, are based on this manifestation.
Under capitalist conditions, wages, which are supposed to be the transformed form of the value or price of labor power, are represented as the value or price of labor, a distortion which is imperceptible when viewed from the standpoint of the conception of law. For the exchange of capital and labor is the same as the exchange between ordinary commodities, in that one party pays money and the other pays commodities; the buyer and the seller are equal, and all that can be perceived is that the commodities bought and sold between them are different. Therefore, in the form of wages, all the labor of the worker is expressed as paid labor, and as mentioned earlier in this sentence the system of wage labor is very deceptive in comparison with slavery and serfdom, and its manifestations conceal the reality of the exploitative relationship. And the existence of this form provides a firm foundation for vulgar economics. Many bourgeois apologists have used this as a theoretical basis for their sophistry on behalf of the capitalist system of exploitation.