So is it the case that drivers and workers who stock shelves are productive labour (transportation) and sales people are productive labour (communication) while not necessarily adding value to the commodity itself?
I'm currently on the way to reading the general theory of Maynard Keynes. My question would be in what measure did some Keynesian Economic Policies or Proposals solvent the needs of the working class by this eliminating the whole reason to fight against the free market society. I know that in practice it upholded racism, sexism and imperialism but in the hypothetical case in which all of these problems were solved would their need to be a working class movement advocating for a violent revolution of the working class as their living standards would sufficiently fulfilled via the implementation of policies that would try to achieve full employment?
In short, yes. We can divide the reasons why into two parts: exploitation theory and crisis theory. Marx derives both of these from the nature of commodity production itself (the latter, after he develops a theory of debt); it naturally leads in this direction. Keynesianism can ease exploitation, but it cannot abolish the incentive to exploit, or totally eliminate the exploitation inherent to capitalism. Keynesianism can and does reduce the intensity of crises, but it can't eliminate the structural problems that cause them. In any case, revolution is required by the bourgeoisie's tendency to retaliate more than anything. Even modest, social democratic reforms often provoke sanctions and coups. It could be argued we only got welfare states in the first place because the Russian revolution succeeded, and more militant sections of the labour movement threatened to repeat that victory.
@@MideoKuze I mean your actually right but, I wouldn't have anything against this system part from that the capitalists still own the MOP (means of production) and obviously the non democratic forms of government both western and non western countries have (i.e. liberal states) substituting them for council based democracy as shown in the video and giving the workers the control of the companies they work for as in some german football clubs or if it's not 51% at least more than 3/4 of the ownership (as public companies would be made ilegal/would just work as limited liability businesses). Another thing that I would ad to this is the nationalization of finance so as to give control to the people of their own money and the control over what gets invested on. This obviously would be a transition period to actual communism which I do really believe in I just think it needs way more technological advancements (like in Star Trek) to be fisable. (Sorry just saw some awful orthography errors; hate the auto correct)
we as marxists do not advocate violent revolution. if theres a oppourtunity to bloodlessly seize the means of production and the state apparatus with majority support we would do so. its just this isnt really.. likely.
hey!!! I’d love to do an episode with you about some basics of Marxism! I’d love to chat with you about this but don’t know how to reach out!! Hope you see this!!!!
@@aliakbaryahya583 The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824; however, it was not consistently distinguished from the related concepts of surplus labor and surplus product. The concept was subsequently developed and popularized by Karl Marx. Fact-checking is strong with this one.
@@VocalBear213 In Marxian economics, surplus value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power. The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824; however, it was not consistently distinguished from the related concepts of surplus labor and surplus product. The concept was subsequently developed and popularized by Karl Marx. Marx's formulation is the standard sense and the primary basis for further developments, though how much of Marx's concept is original and distinct from the Ricardian concept is disputed (see § Origin). Marx's term is the German word "Mehrwert", which simply means value added (sales revenue less the cost of materials used up), and is cognate to English "more worth".
@@SoraOfTheDarkness Wow kindergarten comeback. Will I ever recover from it ? The fact that you didn't care to reply "How so ?" But gave a knee jerk reaction to my reply speaks volume about your mental capabilities.
Thanks a lot, watching parts of this video makes capital more easy to understand while reading
Hello there Michael
Immensely informative. Great work as always.
So is it the case that drivers and workers who stock shelves are productive labour (transportation) and sales people are productive labour (communication) while not necessarily adding value to the commodity itself?
This should be mandatory curriculum in all schools in the US.
It won't as long as a capitalist government is in place.
I think a few more easy-to-understand examples or applications of the rule would be very helpful.
I'm currently on the way to reading the general theory of Maynard Keynes. My question would be in what measure did some Keynesian Economic Policies or Proposals solvent the needs of the working class by this eliminating the whole reason to fight against the free market society. I know that in practice it upholded racism, sexism and imperialism but in the hypothetical case in which all of these problems were solved would their need to be a working class movement advocating for a violent revolution of the working class as their living standards would sufficiently fulfilled via the implementation of policies that would try to achieve full employment?
In short, yes. We can divide the reasons why into two parts: exploitation theory and crisis theory. Marx derives both of these from the nature of commodity production itself (the latter, after he develops a theory of debt); it naturally leads in this direction. Keynesianism can ease exploitation, but it cannot abolish the incentive to exploit, or totally eliminate the exploitation inherent to capitalism. Keynesianism can and does reduce the intensity of crises, but it can't eliminate the structural problems that cause them.
In any case, revolution is required by the bourgeoisie's tendency to retaliate more than anything. Even modest, social democratic reforms often provoke sanctions and coups. It could be argued we only got welfare states in the first place because the Russian revolution succeeded, and more militant sections of the labour movement threatened to repeat that victory.
@@MideoKuze I mean your actually right but, I wouldn't have anything against this system part from that the capitalists still own the MOP (means of production) and obviously the non democratic forms of government both western and non western countries have (i.e. liberal states) substituting them for council based democracy as shown in the video and giving the workers the control of the companies they work for as in some german football clubs or if it's not 51% at least more than 3/4 of the ownership (as public companies would be made ilegal/would just work as limited liability businesses). Another thing that I would ad to this is the nationalization of finance so as to give control to the people of their own money and the control over what gets invested on. This obviously would be a transition period to actual communism which I do really believe in I just think it needs way more technological advancements (like in Star Trek) to be fisable.
(Sorry just saw some awful orthography errors; hate the auto correct)
we as marxists do not advocate violent revolution. if theres a oppourtunity to bloodlessly seize the means of production and the state apparatus with majority support we would do so. its just this isnt really.. likely.
love it
hey!!! I’d love to do an episode with you about some basics of Marxism! I’d love to chat with you about this but don’t know how to reach out!! Hope you see this!!!!
Would love that. Contact me at themarxistproject@gmail.com
Fuck yeah new vid
I am confusion XD i understood most of it till now but this is where I'm just at a complete loss ^^'
first
Dasein is always first, even if we don't know it :(
Marx greatest theory was the surplus value.
It's not even his theory🤦🏼♂️
@@VocalBear213 It is his theory. Read DAS KAPITAL.
@@aliakbaryahya583 The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824; however, it was not consistently distinguished from the related concepts of surplus labor and surplus product. The concept was subsequently developed and popularized by Karl Marx.
Fact-checking is strong with this one.
@@VocalBear213 In Marxian economics, surplus value is the difference between the amount raised through a sale of a product and the amount it cost to the owner of that product to manufacture it: i.e. the amount raised through sale of the product minus the cost of the materials, plant and labour power. The concept originated in Ricardian socialism, with the term "surplus value" itself being coined by William Thompson in 1824; however, it was not consistently distinguished from the related concepts of surplus labor and surplus product. The concept was subsequently developed and popularized by Karl Marx. Marx's formulation is the standard sense and the primary basis for further developments, though how much of Marx's concept is original and distinct from the Ricardian concept is disputed (see § Origin). Marx's term is the German word "Mehrwert", which simply means value added (sales revenue less the cost of materials used up), and is cognate to English "more worth".
Marx greatest achievement was showing how horrible an idea he had
Howso?
Thank you for saying nothing of value
@@prakharjain6232 is that what they said to Karl Marx ?
@@SoraOfTheDarkness Wow kindergarten comeback. Will I ever recover from it ?
The fact that you didn't care to reply "How so ?" But gave a knee jerk reaction to my reply speaks volume about your mental capabilities.
@@prakharjain6232 ok commie don’t cry