Surplus labour

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Surplus labour" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (June 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (September 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of a series on
Marxism
Outline of Marxism
Theoretical works Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 The Condition of the Working Class in England The German Ideology The Communist Manifesto The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte Grundrisse Capital Critique of the Gotha Programme Dialectics of Nature The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State What Is to Be Done? The Accumulation of Capital Philosophical Notebooks Terrorism and Communism The State and Revolution Essays on Marx's Theory of Value History and Class Consciousness Prison Notebooks The Black Jacobins On Practice Dialectic of Enlightenment A Critique of Soviet Economics The Long Revolution Guerrilla Warfare The Wretched of the Earth Reading Capital The Society of the Spectacle Pedagogy of the Oppressed Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses Ways of Seeing How Europe Underdeveloped Africa Social Justice and the City Women, Race and Class Marxism and the Oppression of Women Imagined Communities Hegemony and Socialist Strategy The Sublime Object of Ideology Time, Labor and Social Domination The Age of Extremes The Origin of Capitalism Empire Late Victorian Holocausts Change the World Without Taking Power Caliban and the Witch An Introduction to the Three Volumes of Karl Marx's Capital Capitalist Realism Capital in the Anthropocene
Philosophy Alienation Dialectical materialism Ideology Philosophy of nature Philosophy in the Soviet Union Reification Marxist ethics
Critique of political economy Capital (accumulation) Crisis theory Commodity Concrete and abstract labor Factors of production Falling profit-rate tendency Means of production Mode of production Capitalist Socialist Productive forces Scientific socialism State monopoly capitalism Surplus product Socially necessary labour time Value-form Wage labour
Sociology Base and superstructure Bourgeoisie Class Class consciousness Classless society Commodity fetishism Communist society Critical theory Cultural hegemony Democracy Dictatorship of the proletariat Soviet Radical Democratic centralism Exploitation False consciousness Human nature Immiseration Imperialism Lumpenproletariat Metabolic rift Proletariat Private property Relations of production State theory Working class
History Class struggle Historical determinism Primitive accumulation Proletarian revolution World revolution Theory of historical trajectory
Aspects Aesthetics Archaeology Criminology Cultural Marxism Cultural Studies Ethics Film theory Geography Historiography Literary criticism Marxism and religion Sociology Philosophy
Common variants Structural Autonomist Marxism–Leninism Guevarism Maoism Neo-Gramscianism Regulation school Third-worldist Titoism Trotskyism Hegelian Budapest School Frankfurt School Humanist Neue Marx-Lektüre Open Praxis School Both Black Classical Communization Feminist Leninism Neo Post Western
Other variants Analytical Austromarxism Hispanic marxism Centrist Eurocommunism Instrumental Marxism–Leninism–Maoism Nkrumaism Political Revisionist Situationist Socialism with Chinese characteristics Wertkritik
People Marx Engels Morris Lafargue Rubin Kautsky Plekhanov Du Bois Connolly Lenin Luxemburg Liebknecht Kollontai Stalin Trotsky Grossman Zinoviev Bloch Lukács Korsch Bukharin Ho Serge Gramsci Pashukanis Bordiga Benjamin Mao Basu Mariátegui Horkheimer Dutt Brecht Marcuse Kalecki Fromm Cox Lefebvre James Adorno Padmore Sartre Deutscher Beauvoir Sombart Nkrumah Sweezy Emmanuel Hill Bettelheim Draper Jones Hobsbawm Althusser Hinton Williams Freire Cunhal Lara Mandel Sivanandan Miliband Cabral Thompson Bauman Fanon Berger Castro Guevara Liebman Heller Guattari Mészáros O'Connor Wallerstein Mies Tronti Debord Amin Hall Nairn Parenti Negri Jameson Dussel Harvey Laclau Bahro Poulantzas Vattimo Badiou Harnecker Altvater Anderson Löwy Vogel Sison Easthope Rancière Berman Przeworski Cohen Therborn Losurdo Postone Rodney Bannerji Spivak Newton Wood Federici Wolff Balibar Eagleton Kurz Rowbotham Mouffe Geras Brenner Davis Massey Cleaver Bishop Haraway Panitch Clarke Jessop Davis Wright Fraser Burawoy Holloway Rose Screpanti Tamás Hampton Cano Žižek Berardi Sankara Hennessy McDonnell Douzinas Roediger Foster West Ghandy Marcos Heinrich Prashad Kelley Dean Lordon Linera Fisher Li Coulthard Malm Seymour Toscano Bhattacharya Moufawad-Paul Srnicek Horvat Hamza Saito
Journals Antipode Capital & Class Capitalism Nature Socialism Constellations Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory Historical Materialism Mediations Monthly Review New Left Review Race & Class Rethinking Marxism Science & Society Socialist Register
Related topics 21st-century communist theorists Anarchism Creative destruction Conflict theory Criticism of Marxism Communism Communalism Economic determinism History of communism Left-wing politics Marxian economics New Left Old Left Municipalism Political ecology Socialism Authoritarian Democratic Market Reformist Revolutionary Social Utopian Left-wing populism Universal class Vulgar Marxism Economism Worker cooperative Workers' council
Communism portal Economics portal Philosophy portal Politics portal Socialism portal
v t e

Surplus labor (German: Mehrarbeit) is a concept used by Karl Marx in his critique of political economy. It means labor performed in excess of the labor necessary to produce the means of livelihood of the worker ("necessary labor"). The "surplus" in this context means the additional labor a worker has to do in their job, beyond earning their own keep. According to Marxian economics, surplus labor is usually uncompensated (unpaid) labor. Marx's first analysis of what surplus labor means appeared in The Poverty of Philosophy (1847), a polemic against the philosophy of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.^[1] A much more detailed analysis is presented in the volumes of Theories of Surplus Value and Das Kapital.

Marx explains the origin of surplus labor in the following terms:

"It is only after men have raised themselves above the rank of animals, when therefore their labor has been to some extent socialised, that a state of things arises in which the surplus-labor of the one becomes a condition of existence for the other. At the dawn of civilisation the productiveness acquired by labor is small, but so too are the wants which develop with and by the means of satisfying them. Further, at that early period, the portion of society that lives on the labor of others is infinitely small compared with the mass of direct producers. Along with the progress in the productiveness of labor, that small portion of society increases both absolutely and relatively. Besides, capital with its accompanying relations springs up from an economic soil that is the product of a long process of development. The productiveness of labor that serves as its foundation and starting-point, is a gift, not of nature, but of a history embracing thousands of centuries."^[2]

The historical emergence of surplus labor is, according to Marx, also closely associated with the growth of trade (the economic exchange of goods and services) and with the emergence of a society divided into social classes. As soon as a permanent surplus product can be produced, the moral-political question arises as to how it should be distributed, and for whose benefit surplus-labor should be performed. The strong defeat the weak, and it becomes possible for a social elite and its army to gain control over the surplus-labor and surplus product of the working population; they can live off the labor of others.

labor which is sufficiently productive so that it can perform surplus labor is, in a cash economy, the material foundation for the appropriation of surplus-value from that labor. How exactly this appropriation will occur, is determined by the prevailing relations of production and the balance of power between social classes.

According to Marx, capital had its origin in the commercial activity of buying in order to sell and rents of various types, with the aim of gaining an income (a surplus value) from this trade. But, initially, this does not involve any capitalist mode of production; rather, merchant traders, state functionaries, religious authorities and rentiers are intermediaries between non-capitalist producers. During a lengthy historical process, the old ways of extracting surplus labor are gradually replaced by commercial forms of exploitation and private industrial enterprises.

In Das Kapital Vol. 3, Marx highlights the central role played by surplus labor:

"The specific economic form, in which unpaid surplus-labor is pumped out of direct producers, determines the relationship of rulers and ruled, as it grows directly out of production itself and, in turn, reacts upon it as a determining element. Upon this, however, is founded the entire formation of the economic community which grows up out of the production relations themselves, thereby simultaneously its specific political form. It is always the direct relationship of the owners of the conditions of production to the direct producers — a relation always naturally corresponding to a definite stage in the development of the methods of labor and thereby its social productivity — which reveals the innermost secret, the hidden basis of the entire social structure and with it the political form of the relation of sovereignty and dependence, in short, the corresponding specific form of the state. This does not prevent the same economic basis — the same from the standpoint of its main conditions — due to innumerable different empirical circumstances, natural environment, racial relations, external historical influences, etc. from showing infinite variations and gradations in appearance, which can be ascertained only by analysis of the empirically given circumstances."^[3]

This statement is a foundation of Marx's historical materialism insofar as it specifies what the class conflicts in civil society are ultimately about: an economy of time, which compels some to do work of which part or all of the benefits go to someone else, while others can have leisure-time which in reality depends on the work efforts of those forced to work.

In modern society, having work or leisure may often seem a choice, but for most of humanity, work is an absolute necessity, and consequently most people are concerned with the real benefits they get from that work. They may accept a certain rate of exploitation of their labor as an inescapable condition for their existence, if they depend on a wage or salary, but beyond that, they will increasingly resist it. Consequently, a morality or legal norm develops in civil society which imposes limits for surplus-labor, in one form or another. Forced labor, slavery, gross mistreatment of workers etc. are no longer generally acceptable, although they continue to occur; working conditions and pay levels can usually be contested in courts of law.^{[dubious – discuss]}

Marx acknowledged that surplus labor may not just be appropriated directly in production by the owners of the enterprise, but also in trade. This phenomenon is nowadays called unequal exchange. Thus, he commented that:

"From the possibility that profit may be less than surplus value, hence that capital [may] exchange profitably without realizing itself in the strict sense, it follows that not only individual capitalists, but also nations may continually exchange with one another, may even continually repeat the exchange on an ever-expanding scale, without for that reason necessarily gaining in equal degrees. One of the nations may continually appropriate for itself a part of the surplus labor of the other, giving back nothing for it in the exchange, except that the measure here [is] not as in the exchange between capitalist and worker."^[4]

In this case, more work effectively exchanges for less work, and a greater value exchanges for a lesser value, because some possess a stronger market position, and others a weaker one. For the most part, Marx assumed equal exchange in Das Kapital, i.e. that supply and demand would balance; his argument was that even if, ideally speaking, no unequal exchange occurred in trade, and market equality existed, exploitation could nevertheless occur within capitalist relations of production, since the value of the product produced by labor power exceeded the value of labor power itself. Marx never completed his analysis of the world market however.

In the real world, Marxian economists like Samir Amin argue, unequal exchange occurs all the time, implying transfers of value from one place to another, through the trading process. Thus, the more trade becomes "globalised", the greater the intermediation between producers and consumers; consequently, the intermediaries appropriate a growing fraction of the final value of the products, while the direct producers obtain only a small fraction of that final value.

The most important unequal exchange in the world economy nowadays concerns the exchange between agricultural goods and industrial goods, i.e. the terms of trade favour industrial goods against agricultural goods. Often, as Raul Prebisch already noted, this has meant that more and more agricultural output must be produced and sold, to buy a given amount of industrial goods. This issue has become the subject of heated controversy at recent^[when?] WTO meetings.

The practice of unequal or unfair exchange does not presuppose the capitalist mode of production, nor even the existence of money. It only presupposes that goods and services of unequal value are traded, something which has been possible throughout the whole history of human trading practices.

According to economist Fred Moseley, "neoclassical economic theory was developed, in part, to attack the very notion of surplus labor or surplus value and to argue that workers receive all of the value embodied in their creative efforts."^[5]

Some basic modern criticisms of Marx's theory can be found in the works by Pearson, Dalton, Boss, Hodgson and Harris (see references).

The analytical Marxist John Roemer challenges what he calls the "fundamental Marxian theorem" (after Michio Morishima) that the existence of surplus labor is the necessary and sufficient condition for profits. He proves that this theorem is logically false. However, Marx himself never argued that surplus labor was a sufficient condition for profits, only an ultimate necessary condition (Morishima aimed to prove that, starting from the existence of profit expressed in price terms, we can deduce the existence of surplus value as a logical consequence).^{[citation needed]} Five reasons were that:

• profit in a capitalist operation was "ultimately" just a financial claim to products and labor services made by those who did not themselves produce those products and services, in virtue of their ownership of private property (capital assets).
• profits could be made purely in trading processes, which themselves could be far removed in space and time from the co-operative labor which those profits ultimately presupposed.
• surplus labor could be performed, without this leading to any profits at all, because e.g. the products of that labor failed to be sold.
• profits could be made without any labor being involved, such as when a piece of unimproved land is sold for a profit.
• profits could be made by a self-employed operator who did not perform surplus labor for somebody else, nor necessarily appropriated surplus labor from anywhere else.

All that Marx really argued was that surplus labor was a necessary feature of the capitalist mode of production as a general social condition. If that surplus labor did not exist, other people could not appropriate that surplus labor or its products simply through their ownership of property.

Also, the amount of unpaid, voluntary and housework labor performed outside the world of business and industry, as revealed by time use surveys, suggests to some feminists (e.g. Marilyn Waring and Maria Mies) that Marxists may have overrated the importance of industrial surplus labor performed by salaried employees, because the very ability to perform that surplus-labor, i.e. the continual reproduction of labor power depends on all kinds of supports involving unremunerated work (for a theoretical discussion, see the reader by Bonnie Fox). In other words, work performed in households—often by those who do not sell their labor power to capitalist enterprises at all—contributes to the sustenance of capitalist workers who may perform little household labor.

Possibly the controversy about the concept is distorted by the enormous differences with regard to the world of work:

• in Europe, the United States, Japan and Australasia,
• the newly industrialising countries, and
• the poor countries.

Countries differ greatly with respect to the way they organise and share out work, labor participation rates, and paid hours worked per year, as can be easily verified from ILO data (see also Rubery & Grimshaw's text). The general trend in the world division of labor is for hi-tech, financial and marketing services to be located in the richer countries, which hold most intellectual property rights and actual physical production to be located in low-wage countries. Effectively, Marxian economists argue, this means that the labor of workers in wealthy countries is valued higher than the labor of workers in poorer countries. However, they predict that in the long run of history, the operation of the law of value will tend to equalize the conditions of production and sales in different parts of the world.^[6]

• Abstract labor and concrete labor
• Capital accumulation
• Capitalist mode of production
• Economic surplus
• labor power
• labor theory of value
• Productive and unproductive labor
• Reserve army of labor
• Spatial mismatch
• Surplus product
• Surplus value

• ^ Capital, Volume I
• ^ The Agrarian Question in Russia Towards the Close of the Nineteenth Century
• ^ Capital, Volume III
• Karl Marx, "The character of surplus labor" [2]
• George Dalton (February 1961). "Economic theory and primitive society". American Anthropologist, LXIII, no. 1, 1–25.
• Boss, Helen (1990). Theories of surplus and transfer: parasites and producers in economic thought. Boston: Hyman. ISBN 0-04-330372-2.
• Emmanuel D. Farjoun, Moshé Machover and David Zachariah, How Labor Powers the Global Economy: A Labor Theory of Capitalism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022.
• Fine, Ben (1998). labor Market Theory: A Constructive Reassessment. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-16676-4.
• Harman, Chris (1999). A People's History of the World. Bookmarks Publications. ISBN 1-898876-55-X.
• Marvin Harris, Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. Random House 1979.
• Geoffrey Hodgson, Capitalism, Value and Exploitation (Martin Robertson, Oxford, 1982).
• Ernest Mandel, Marxist Economic Theory, Vol. 1. London: Merlin Press, 1968.
• Karl Marx, Das Kapital.
• Bonnie Fox (ed.), Hidden in the Household: Women's Domestic labor Under Capitalism, Women's Press, 1980.
• Stephen A. Resnick and Richard D. Wolff, Knowledge and Class: A Marxian Critique of Political Economy (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987).
• Jill Rubery and Damian Grimshaw, The Organization of Employment; An International Perspective. Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.
• Fred Moseley papers [3]
• Harry W. Pearson, "The economy has no surplus" in "Trade and market in the early empires. Economies in history and theory", edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad M. Arensberg and Harry W. Pearson (New York/London: The Free Press: Collier-Macmillan, 1957).
• John Roemer, Analytical foundations of Marxian Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1981.