Ask a question in Capital, about the question of Capital, those who know please come in!

In what we call the stage of barter, the contradiction between the limited production capacity of people and the infinite expansion of consumption is still in its infancy, and it is the emergence of money that makes this contradiction gain a prominent position. Marx, with the sagacity of his philosophers, wrote: "In qualitative, or formal, money is infinite, that is to say, a general representation of material wealth, because it can be directly transformed into any commodity."

But in terms of quantity, each actual amount of money is finite, and therefore only a means of purchasing with limited effect. This contradiction between the quantitative finitude and the qualitative infinity of money forces the money depositors to constantly engage in the labor of accumulation in the form of interest-based accumulation. Money as a "general equivalent", as a "general value of use", is a general representation of material wealth, which can be exchanged for any commodity in the commodity world.

Therefore, if the advent of barter has led to an infinite expansion of people's consumption, it is only in the form of money that the infinite nature of people's consumption finds its realistic representation. It should be said that the contradiction between the quantity and quality of money is nothing but a concentrated expression of the contradiction between the limitation of people's production capacity and the infinite expansion of consumption; just as everything has a reaction, money, as the concentrated embodiment of this contradiction, will react on this contradiction, making the contradiction between the limitation of people's production capacity and the infinite expansion of consumption more prominent and acute.

Sisyphus is a Greek myth.

One of the greedy kings, after his death, was punished for carrying stones up the hill to pile them, but when the stones were moved to the top of the hill they rolled down, so they went up the hill endlessly without success. Thus, sisyphusarbeit (sipfasian labor) becomes synonymous with futile hard labor. This is a metaphor for the accumulation of money, which is futile.

"Accumulation labor" is a figurative metaphor for the accumulation of money, which has no end and is fruitless.

My understanding is for reference only.

The meaning of the first sentence is that the amount of money a commodity can sell depends on its market value, which is created by socially necessary labour, and the total amount of labour necessary to produce these commodities is to meet the needs of society, and to be the social needs of society, which have the ability to pay. Here's an example:

A certain kind of luxury goods, it enters the Chinese market, it must be because there are more rich people in China who can afford it, that is, there are more people who can afford it, and the rich people in society have a need for luxury goods, forming a social need, but the number of these luxury goods made cannot be too large (everyone has it, it is not a luxury product). Things should coincide with the social needs of luxury.

The meaning of the second sentence is: if there is an oversupply of a certain commodity in the market, ** will inevitably fall below the value (production**); Conversely, if a commodity is in short supply on the market, it must be higher than the value (production). The fluctuation of commodities regulates the distribution of total social labor in various sectors.

Here, Marx explicitly recognizes the ultimate determinant of value between supply and demand.

Whether the value formed by abstract (socially necessary) labor condensed in commodities can be recognized by society, it is necessary to make a painful leap through the difficulty of "pursuing money through commodities", that is, to get money. **Fluctuates up and down around value. The reason for the fluctuation is supply and demand and competition.

If you have time, please read someone's blog post, "The Footsteps of Marx".

The value of a commodity is based on its quantity of value and fluctuates up and down around the law of value. That is, how much society needs, in fact, the social production capacity will regulate the society to produce the corresponding products.

The owner of money and the owner of labor are logically both owners of factors of production, and production is indispensable y=f(l,k)

However, since money is a currency, and labor is not, labor can only snort in the face of capital.

This may be the meaning of Capital, that capital extracts labor, not the other way around.

w-g-w became g-w-g, and survival became a secondary goal.

What kind of science is Capital? The science of things, or the science of things?

Take The Production Process of Capital, for example, which is the foundation work of Marx's critique of political economy in Capital. Engels praised it as "an independent and complete work". It is a history book of scientific significance, a great attempt to apply dialectics to political economy.

The Productive Process of Capital paints a story in which the historical death knell of capitalism will be sounded!

Marx's voyage is from "history" to "logic" and then to "history".

Its internal method, logic, and working discourse is "historical materialist genealogy".

This is the context of Marx's "my dialectical method" work under Chinese conditions.

From this, we can merge and narrate "the classic work of agricultural history - "Tao Te Ching" and "the classic work of industrial history - "Capital" in terms of history.

The Production Process of Capital can be illustrated as the "logic" of histogenesis; "The Circulation Process of Capital" can be explained as the "logic" of phylogeny; The General Process of Capitalist Production can be described as the "logic" of phenomenology; The Theory of Surplus Value can be explained as the "logic" of epistemology.

To explain the process of historical development as being constructed by the unified provisions of the content and form of these "histories" is to sublimate the logic of the work of Capital.

Fortunately, this is relatively easy to understand.

The first half of the sentence "Although every article or quantity of a commodity contains the social labour necessary to produce it, and in this respect the market value of all such commodities also represents only necessary labour" roughly means that the production of a commodity requires a certain amount of social labour, and the value of the commodity is closely related to this labour. Market value is equivalent to necessary labor.

The second half of the sentence "However, if the output of a certain commodity exceeds the needs of the society at that time, a part of the social labor time is wasted, and then the amount of social labor represented by this commodity in the market is much smaller than the amount of social labor it actually contains" For example, for example: the market only needs 100 watermelons, then the amount of labor required to plant 100 watermelons is a, and the market only needs 100 watermelons, but 200 watermelons are planted, and 100 more watermelons are produced. The extra 100 watermelons were wasted. And because the market only needs 100 watermelons, it makes the value of watermelons depreciate. Therefore, correspondingly, the labor force B that needs to be paid is not as valuable as A.

No, the year-end bonus is different in different companies and different positions, depending on the nature of the company. In general, there is a question of how much.