Why Karl Marx Was Wrong About Capitalism - George Magnus 💸 [2013] | Intelligence Squared
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 มี.ค. 2023
- In this clip from our 2013 session, George Magnus sits down with Intelligence Squared and a panel of guests to debate whether Karl Marx was right about capitalism.
See the full session here: • "Karl Marx Was Right"
✅ Click on this link to subscribe: th-cam.com/users/iqsquare...
Intelligence Squared has established itself as the leading forum for live, agenda-setting debates, talks and discussions around the world. Our aim is to promote a global conversation that enables people to make informed decisions about the issues that matter, in the company of the world's greatest minds and orators.
👉 Facebook page: / intelligence2
👉 Twitter page: / intelligence2
📌 Website: www.intelligencesquared.com/
#KarlMarx #Capitalism #Politics #GeorgeMagnus #IntelligenceSquared #IQ2
![Mary Beard: Why Rome Was the Ultimate Civilisation [2016] | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wNEbXUGYsFs/mqdefault.jpg)
![Mary Beard: Why Rome Was the Ultimate Civilisation [2016] | Intelligence Squared](/img/tr.png)
"It is curious how these followers of Marxism criticize today's society, managing to deceive many young people. However, they do not present viable solutions for the problems they point out. When they try to do so, the results end up being disastrous both from an economic point of view and historic. the results are there in the countries where they've tried.
are people under the impression that wage labor just mysteriously appeared? this is just history. There ae critiques things are tried and iproved upon and eventually new systems emerge. Their critiques are justified wether or not the solutions are yet clear
His predictions failed to materialize. Meanwhile a lot of Nietzsche's predictions were spot-on.
Many of Marx’s predictions came to pass, what are you talking about?
I don't think Marx was right but I dont think Smith was right either.
Recommend that you search speeches and short messages by an American Economics Professor, Dr. Richard D. Wolff, if one may. He might have a lot to fill the gaps for you.
he was right about almost everything. the optimal system is wealth redistribution without dead weight loss. pigovian taxes, land value taxes, UBI. fix market failures. done.
@@etbuch4873 Wolff is not highly regarded as an economist. Most economists think he is a quack.
If you search Wealth of Nations you can find multiple instances of "read, write and account". He used the word 'education' Eighty Times.
Western countries could have made accounting/finance mandatory in high schools. When have capitalists or socialists suggested any such thing.
@@etbuch4873Wolff is a joke!
Marx did not recognize the importance of value and the market.
He tried to explain the formation of values in a purely objective way, which meant that he had to contradict himself.
Marx explains the formation of value with a formula:
W = c + v + m.
W value of a work product
c constant capital (proportionally the costs for raw materials, supplier products, premises, electricity, and in Marx also machines, etc.) per product.
v variable capital (proportionally the cost of labor per product - for Marx only that of human labor)
m Surplus value (is generated by the (in Marx only human) workers in the so-called unpaid working time).
Marx applies this formula to the production side of commodity society. For him, the market has no significance for the creation of value.
Marx was somewhat wrong about this formula: surplus value cannot be produced; only a buyer can pay for it on the market. But there is only surplus value if the buyer replaces the costs c + v completely (!) and pays even more, namely the surplus value.
Furthermore, the surplus value is not paid on the costs, as this formula suggests, but on the replacement of the costs.
Both happen on the market. Since surplus value is part of value, value is therefore formed on the market.
On the production side of the commodity society, an entrepreneur can only estimate one surplus value:
W|expected = c|cost factor, replacement expected + v|cost factor, replacement expected + s|expected.
On the market the value is formed:
W|real = c|cost replacing + v|cost replacing + s|real.
The value therefore does not reflect the cost of the expenses plus an expected surplus value, but, at least in the case of work products, the recognition of the expenses, which also takes place through the replacement of the costs (partially or completely) and usually through the real surplus value.
For Marx, the market was only the place of exchange. In reality, the unity of market and value shows what is important in an economic sense to people in a given social (economic, technological, political, cultural, religious, historical, foreign trade, etc.) and natural environment.
Important in an economic sense means that, for example, very little value is assigned to a glass of water in a private household, namely the proportional costs for the provider, for the fittings, etc. - nothing more is necessary. In a restaurant, you assign a significantly higher value to a glass of water because the environment requires additional costs that you accept - additional rooms, services, furniture, additional hygiene measures based on legal requirements, etc. A person dying of thirst in the desert will drink a glass of water assign even higher value.
Political influences on value formation are achieved through laws, e.g. that catalytic converters must be used in cars, how companies must treat wastewater, etc.
This means that its interpreters fail to grasp what is being done to central planning. Furthermore, he was unable to grasp that the formation of values is not directly brought about by workers - one can only produce the prerequisites for the formation of values, but not the values directly.
He also did not capture the fact that machines and parts of nature are used as workers.
There is more to say about this.
why is this published 10 years late 😱
Really! Still so relevant.
Old dogs know no new tricks, so they often resort to what their ancestors did in the Neolithic Age. Sorta "atavistic evolution" in some sense.
Haven't you noticed that the US regime has been fighting Russia and China with the archaic tricks dating back to the time of Nero's latter days when Roman Empire was about to fall?
@etbuch, Would Xi or Putin going to be the one to do some justice for K. Marx? or, both with their unlimited partnership/friendship?
@@vanessali1365 , One would reckon that the PRC has been doing it for round 4 decades by now and still doing it, and better by the days.
As to Russian Federation, they might be able to get on with it once Zelensky's black comedy comes to its finale. Thus, we shall wait to see if Russian Federation is going to be able to do that like what the PRC has been doing. Lucky for Putin though, coz he's got a successful model to emulate.
@@etbuch4873 hope your 🔮 ball won't let you down too badly.
The truth in those jokes are undeniable.
Ok
How does planned obsolescence fit into Marxist theory? Doesn't that expoit the workers? Then economists ignore the depreciation even though the stuff was added to GDP when it was purchased.
lol those anecdotes are spot on👏👏
Capitalism is not 100% the problem Capitalism and human greed is the entire problem!
Regulation.
Government Intervention
How to regulate greed? We aren't doing well in this area. Perhaps, human nature is part of the reason?
@@vanessali1365 We are rewarding greed instead of rewarding cooperation. Moreover, rewarding greed puts the sociopaths in charge.
@@PerryWagle you ever wonder why? Or simply highly selective about what would fit your narrative?
This guy still alive ?
XD, evidently he did not get his house taken away from a bank while seeing his neighbors kicked out by a rental company. He should stfu.
Thank you so much
Subscribe this channel "differences" for educational content
Or you should for not understanding the points and deflecting with irrelevancy!
Why George Magnus was wrong about Karl Marx?
Waiting for your answer
@@vanessali1365 , As I recommend to another gentleman, one could recommend that you search speeches and short messages by an American Economics Professor, Dr. Richard D. Wolff, if one may. He might have a lot to fill the gaps for you.
@@etbuch4873 I know Wolff's stuff quite well, not buying his narrative either.
By capitalism he means Keynesian model, not a free market
Maybe
marx? or this dude. cuz marx definitely lived in a time of unregulated capitalism lol
This dude
@@alexanderpowell3791 you guys are weird. Capitalism isn’t just a free market. Capitalism isn’t even an model it’s a term given to a mode of production by socialists. Capitalism just means a system based on capital accumulation. So as long as the system relies on capital accumulation then it is capitalism, no matter how “free” the market is.
A so-called "free market" is what led to the creation of Socialism and Communism.
Womp womp
What was he right about? The painfully obvious and that’s about it.
If it was painfully obvious that begs the question of why no other scholar went into quite as much depth in their analysis as Marx did, and marx based his work off of the work of those that preceeded him one or two centuries prior such as Adam Smith because nobody else was doing it.
jesus people like you have zero active brain cells
8:23 “personally I don’t think anyone thinks laissez-faire is the answer” well, you’re wrong
Crazy how these people talk about the finance sector behaving irrationally but deliberately omit the obvious explanation, which is the artificial surplus of low/zero interest loans caused by insane monetary policy (QE infinity)
of course it's not the answer. If you redistribute wealth without deadweight loss you get a net utility increase. this is econ 101. also there are market failures. please take an economics course m
facts!!!!
Breaking News: Reactionary British Scholar finds something wrong about Karl Marx!
Reactionary: communist buzzword for anyone who does not comply. fascist, regressive, meanie
Nobody perfect ok, not even your great pal Karl.
"Anyone that disagrees with my leftist religion and its central prophet is a reactionary."
INCORRECT. Because by no means can George Magnus be labeled reactionary! Nice try.
As a communist. The best i can get is that hes a neo-liberal. Not a reactionary.
No as long as capitalism is here we cannot progress
Your device was a product of capitalism. Give that up before you try forcing your failed system on everyone else. If communism is the way, give up everything that was developed by capitalists first (your device, your food, your clothes, your vehicle, and your home) then you can come back and tell us how wonderful life is without capitalism.
@@leonardticsay8046What a ridiculous, inane comment. That’s like telling Adam Smith to go live in a cave and start society from scratch if he doesn’t like feudalism. Progress is predicated on critiquing and reforming the systems that already exist.
@@enbym1793 but only for progress’s sake. History is not linear. It is cyclical. Civilizations come and go, and it is arrogant hubris to ignore the fact that civilizations decay from within because of decadence. You attack what got you there in the first place because of imaginary “progress”.
You criticize without offering realistic solutions. That’s not progress.
Progress or not progress, we are pretty resilient about our 'struggle' if I may call it a struggle.