<p>From reading a selection of writings by Marx, I have come to understand the following three as the core elements of Marxian economics.</p>
<ol>
<li><p><em>The labour theory of value.</em> It asserts that the exchange value of a commodity <span class="math-container">$x$</span> (what quantities of <span class="math-container">$x$</span> that can be exchanged for another commodity) is determined by that labour time which is socially necessary to produce <span class="math-container">$x$</span>.</p>
</li>
<li><p><em>Surplus value theory of profit.</em> I.e., capitalists derives profit from their exploitation of workers. Suppose a capitalist purchases labour power from a worker for one day. To Marx, then, the value of one day's usage of this labour power is the value of the commodities which is necessary for the worker to live through one day. Say that it takes one fourth of a day to produce this amount of commodities, the value of which will be equivalent to the wage paid to the worker by the capitalist. This one fourth of a day is called necessary labour. Any work above this level is surplus labour from which the capitalist derives profit.</p>
</li>
<li><p><em>The theory of alienation.</em> In the following I quote a passage from Marx's <em>Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844</em>. Relating this passage to the above core elements, I note that Marx somehow seems to think that the institution of capitalism structures parts of the social world.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his
production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever
cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces. The <em>devaluation</em> of
the human world grows in direct proportion to the <em>increase in value</em> of
the world of things. Labour not only produces commodities; it also
produces itself and the workers as a <em>commodity</em> and it does so in the
same proportion in which it produces commodities in general.</p>
<p>This fact simply means that the object that labour produces, its
product, stands opposed to it as <em>something alien</em>, as a power
independent of the producer. The product of labour is labour embodied
and made material in an object, it is the <em>objectification</em> of labour.
The realization of labour is its objectification. In the sphere of
political economy, this realization of labour appears as a <em>loss of
reality</em> for the worker, objectification as loss of and bondage to the
object, and appropriation as estrangement, as <em>alienation</em>.</p>
<p>So much does the realization of labour appear as loss of reality that
the worker loses his reality to the point of dying of starvation. So
much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker
is robbed of the objects he needs most not only for life but also for
work. Work itself becomes an object which he can only obtain through
an enormous effort and with spasmodic interruptions. So much does the
appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more
objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he
falls under the domination of his product, of capital.</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-22T08:33:47.080Z
NB that the labor theory of value was "invented" by the early classical economists like Ricardo. Another thing that Marx picked up from the classics was the division into classes. Ricardo e.g. distinguishes between 3 classes: landlords, capitalists and the working class
Fitzroy Hogsflesh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-14T14:11:57.830Z
@FranzPlumpton I agree. However, I think the marxian labor theory of value is to be viewed as unique and distinct from the classical economists.
Elias
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-15T08:38:10.650Z
just out of curiosity: how would you distinguish them?
Fitzroy Hogsflesh
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-02-17T12:57:56.280Z
@FranzPlumpton I do not think I am qualified to answer your question, that is why I wrote "I think". Anyhow, I would distinguish them like this: While the classical economist thought that the exchange value of a good was proportional to the amount of labor needed to produce it, Marx thought that the exchange value of a good was proportional to the amount of socially necessary labor time, a concept Marx developed. Thus, Marx stresses societal standards and not individual conditions as the classical economists did. This is a rough way of distinguishing the two labor theories.
Elias
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-20T21:32:44.437Z
2016-11-21T13:14:43.130Z
2020-06-17T09:40:54.643Z
Elias
<p>If I had to sum up Marxism in a single word it would be alienation. His political and economic work all branched off the concept of the worker becoming disconnected from his labor. Rather than an egalitarian state, Marx wanted to reconnect man to his the products of labor.  Of course, central to this is his labor theory of value, Hegelian dialectical process, and his view of man being the product of his environment. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-10-21T19:45:48.643Z
2017-03-30T19:51:14.583Z
2017-03-30T19:51:14.583Z
bdempe
<ul>
<li><p><strong>Critique:</strong> Marxism seeks to observe the world as it is. While the form of presentation in Capital is from the fundamental dialectic of the commodity relationship towards specific social relations; the manner of research was from concrete social relations towards immediate explanatory claims. Marxism doesn’t do thought experiments or models: it is sociological. </p></li>
<li><p><strong>Liberation:</strong> the other face of the critique is that the purpose of Marxist economics is not to explain capitalism but to abolish it. Marxism seeks to find and explain the cracks in the commodity form’s society such that workers together can stick in a sharpened screwdriver and twist. </p></li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-10-22T07:01:52.393Z
2018-10-22T07:01:52.393Z
Samuel Russell
<p>I am interested in understanding the differences between mainstream economics and marxist economics. For that, a guide about what is <strong>central</strong> to the marxist <strong>economic</strong> theory (not political or cultural theory) would be highly useful.</p>

<p>What are the <strong>core</strong> elements of Marxist economics? </p>

<p>PS: my emphasis on <strong>core</strong> aims to avoid this question being flagged as "too-broad". I also hope there is sufficient consensus within theorists in order to avoid being "primarily opinion-based".</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-09-04T21:14:58.730Z
You asked an important question but I think there are tons of things to be written as an answer for this question. I may suggest you to look at theory of value and how Marx looked at relation between "money and goods" and I think the best way is to read original texts of Marx.
optimal control
<theory><marxism>
Core elements of Marxist Economics
luchonacho
# Core elements of Marxist Economics

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-03)

I am interested in understanding the differences between mainstream economics and marxist economics. For that, a guide about what is **central** to the marxist **economic** theory (not political or cultural theory) would be highly useful.

What are the **core** elements of Marxist economics?

PS: my emphasis on **core** aims to avoid this question being flagged as "too-broad". I also hope there is sufficient consensus within theorists in order to avoid being "primarily opinion-based".

**Tags:** theory, marxism
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You asked an important question but I think there are tons of things to be written as an answer for this question. I may suggest you to look at theory of value and how Marx looked at relation between "money and goods" and I think the best way is to read original texts of Marx.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-11-20. Score: 8

From reading a selection of writings by Marx, I have come to understand the following three as the core elements of Marxian economics.

1. *The labour theory of value.* It asserts that the exchange value of a commodity $x$ (what quantities of $x$ that can be exchanged for another commodity) is determined by that labour time which is socially necessary to produce $x$.
2. *Surplus value theory of profit.* I.e., capitalists derives profit from their exploitation of workers. Suppose a capitalist purchases labour power from a worker for one day. To Marx, then, the value of one day's usage of this labour power is the value of the commodities which is necessary for the worker to live through one day. Say that it takes one fourth of a day to produce this amount of commodities, the value of which will be equivalent to the wage paid to the worker by the capitalist. This one fourth of a day is called necessary labour. Any work above this level is surplus labour from which the capitalist derives profit.
3. *The theory of alienation.* In the following I quote a passage from Marx's *Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844*. Relating this passage to the above core elements, I note that Marx somehow seems to think that the institution of capitalism structures parts of the social world.

> The worker becomes poorer the more wealth he produces, the more his
> production increases in power and extent. The worker becomes an ever
> cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces. The *devaluation* of
> the human world grows in direct proportion to the *increase in value* of
> the world of things. Labour not only produces commodities; it also
> produces itself and the workers as a *commodity* and it does so in the
> same proportion in which it produces commodities in general.
>
> This fact simply means that the object that labour produces, its
> product, stands opposed to it as *something alien*, as a power
> independent of the producer. The product of labour is labour embodied
> and made material in an object, it is the *objectification* of labour.
> The realization of labour is its objectification. In the sphere of
> political economy, this realization of labour appears as a *loss of
> reality* for the worker, objectification as loss of and bondage to the
> object, and appropriation as estrangement, as *alienation*.
>
> So much does the realization of labour appear as loss of reality that
> the worker loses his reality to the point of dying of starvation. So
> much does objectification appear as loss of the object that the worker
> is robbed of the objects he needs most not only for life but also for
> work. Work itself becomes an object which he can only obtain through
> an enormous effort and with spasmodic interruptions. So much does the
> appropriation of the object appear as estrangement that the more
> objects the worker produces the fewer can he possess and the more he
> falls under the domination of his product, of capital.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: NB that the labor theory of value was "invented" by the early classical economists like Ricardo. Another thing that Marx picked up from the classics was the division into classes. Ricardo e.g. distinguishes between 3 classes: landlords, capitalists and the working class  
> **username_2**: @FranzPlumpton I agree. However, I think the marxian labor theory of value is to be viewed as unique and distinct from the classical economists.  
> **username_3**: just out of curiosity: how would you distinguish them?  
> **username_2**: @FranzPlumpton I do not think I am qualified to answer your question, that is why I wrote "I think". Anyhow, I would distinguish them like this: While the classical economist thought that the exchange value of a good was proportional to the amount of labor needed to produce it, Marx thought that the exchange value of a good was proportional to the amount of socially necessary labor time, a concept Marx developed. Thus, Marx stresses societal standards and not individual conditions as the classical economists did. This is a rough way of distinguishing the two labor theories.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2016-10-21. Score: 1

If I had to sum up Marxism in a single word it would be alienation. His political and economic work all branched off the concept of the worker becoming disconnected from his labor. Rather than an egalitarian state, Marx wanted to reconnect man to his the products of labor. Of course, central to this is his labor theory of value, Hegelian dialectical process, and his view of man being the product of his environment.


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2018-10-22. Score: 0

* **Critique:** Marxism seeks to observe the world as it is. While the form of presentation in Capital is from the fundamental dialectic of the commodity relationship towards specific social relations; the manner of research was from concrete social relations towards immediate explanatory claims. Marxism doesn’t do thought experiments or models: it is sociological.
* **Liberation:** the other face of the critique is that the purpose of Marxist economics is not to explain capitalism but to abolish it. Marxism seeks to find and explain the cracks in the commodity form’s society such that workers together can stick in a sharpened screwdriver and twist.


---

