I see Dr. Desai, I hit play! This is a fantastic discussion. So grateful to have Radhika Desai alive at this time. I truly appreciate her work w/ Michael Hudson as well!
❤ A Fantastic Conversation With The Dynamics Very Clearly Explained! Prof. Desai 's Expertise Understanding Of The Inner Economic Matrix Is Commendable! The Global World Stands To Benefit A Lot From Her Ideas! Thank You For Hosting Such Discussion! 😊👍
These informative discourses from people (practicalising thinkers) of the quality of Professor Radhika Desai (amongst quite a number of others), brought to us by Jyotishman on India & Global Left - this provides us with real tools for thinking through: ... what are the real possibilities for making progress ... why is there still hope ... the nature of the difficulties ahead ... what next to choose to do. Thank you both for this particular episode. Thank you Jyotishman for persevering and keeping this channel open.
Wonderful to hear this discussion, I always learn more when Radhika speaks. On the closing remarks about Chinese finacialisation, I recall Michael Hudson stating recently that it was such a big mistake for China to allow.such heavy privatisation of their own real estate , and he criticised Chinese economists for getting their economics education over in the US, in the Chicago school style, which would wreak havoc on the public and social benefits of the Chinese economic system. So, I think Michael Hudson fleshes out that final point is great detail as a sticking problem for China going forth. However, like Radhika, he seemed to think that it could be much more easily resolved than say in the US or the UK.
Out sourcing of labor to cheaper labor that ran to the south or asia was predicted in '80's with Reagan the war against government workers and labor unions that I watched having studied economics from my mother an accountant and bookkeeper with geopolitics and history education.
What about the Adam Smith model with mandatory accounting in the schools? Smith used the word 'education' Eighty Times and wrote "read, write and account" multiple times.
09:33 - Applying Hegelian methods to resolve the [mistaken attention to the raised & meaningless] problems of classical political economy, such as what was VALUE , where does SURPLUS VALUE come from , why is it that if value comes from labour [another classical economy mistake which distracted K-Marx] then why are labor-intensive For-Money-Profit firms less profitable than For-Money-Profit firms which are more "capital-intensive".
Wheres the evidence that capital intensive industries are more profitable. Also value refers to exchange value of commodities, particularly relationally to each other . How much one commodity is worth to another? The answer is always in labor. What you’re referring to is energy and sustenance which is a different issue.
09:54 - [K-Marx observed the real problem: Inhumane treatment of working poor by most means-of-industrial-production "Owners". These Lords of Industry behaved as badly as had Kings & the anything but noble Lords of productive Land before them. K-Marx solved no question of economic import for he only read Ricardo, Smith, & Mill & they were wrong. K-Marx failed to read the right book, written by a Physiocrat who really knew where value came from before the word had been coined]
To understand capitalism, I think we have to step back from seeing it as a "system" which has been constructed by academics. Marx wrote about the "capitalist mode of production." Capitalism is not a system but a mode of production of a particular historical social group, the bourgeoisie. Systems have no history, they simply work according to their parts, but capitalism most certainly has a history and has evolved as a mode of production. In his introduction to Capital, Ernest Mandel discusses at length why Marx begins Capital analyzing the commodity, rather than abstract concepts like "value." The commodity is the historical embryo of the development of the capitalist mode of production. What is a commodity? It's an object, something that can be produced, owned, possessed and exchanged in a market. The historical basis of capitalism, as Mandel discusses, is the emergence of generalized commodity production. Previously in history, there had been petty commodity production. In other words, societies produced "things" i.e. commodities, but those societies did not revolve around the production of commodities, their social modes of production were oriented toward their needs as a society. When we speak about the bourgeoisie, what we mean is an historically new form of society that revolves around the production and ownership and exchange of "things" i.e. commodities. Bourgeois society is a society of "things" i.e. commodities that can be exchanged, bought and sold on a market. What matters in bourgeois society is ownership of things. The Industrial Revolution transformed land and labor into things, into commodities, and it also turned ownership into a commodity. When we speak of "capital," what we essentially mean is ownership. Capital can take many forms, but what matters regardless of the form of capital is ownership, the right of an owner to exchange those things for other things. We often think of money as synonymous with capital, but this is only so because money is the most liquid form of capital, it can be exchanged on the market very easily. But "capital" is not the money itself, nor the value it bears, but the ownership it represents. When a capitalist buys shares in a company, they are exchanging ownership of that money-capital in exchange for ownership of future profits (returns & dividends). Thus, we should not think of capitalists as accumulators of finance, but rather as exchangers of ownership. What distinguished the capitalist from the proletariat was/is not their accumulated wealth, but their ownership of the means/factors of production. In the capitalist mode of production, labor is divided in the service of generalized commodity production i.e. producing "things" that the capitalist owns and can exchange on the market. Those "things" have value insofar as they have been produced out of nothing except by the will of the capitalist and the hired labor he employs. But the key concept here is not "value" but rather commodity, ownership and exchange. That's the historical embryo of bourgeois society and the capitalist mode of production. What sets the bourgeoisie apart socially is that they own "things" i.e. commodities that have been produced as ends in themselves, with no reference to social need or organization. The commodity is the key concept in the capitalist mode of production.
Thanks for the great interpretation. Only one sentence i don't think is complete: "Those "things" have value insofar as they have been produced out of nothing except by the will of the capitalist and the hired labor he employs". You missed one important piece the 'things" are produced from raw materials (not nothing) plus labor. Thus wasting resources and labor energy on otherwise useless stuff. This is not a minor point imo given the massive cancerous growth of the consumer bourgeoisie and thus the destructive effect on the natural world.
I see Dr. Desai, I hit play! This is a fantastic discussion. So grateful to have Radhika Desai alive at this time. I truly appreciate her work w/ Michael Hudson as well!
My feelings, also!
Ditto
❤ A Fantastic Conversation With The Dynamics Very Clearly Explained! Prof. Desai 's Expertise Understanding Of The Inner Economic Matrix Is Commendable! The Global World Stands To Benefit A Lot From Her Ideas! Thank You For Hosting Such Discussion! 😊👍
Glad you watched and liked it. Stay in touch. Love & solidarity, IGL.
Interesting perspective. Food for thought.
Agreed.
Prof is 100% correct
These informative discourses from people (practicalising thinkers) of the quality of Professor Radhika Desai (amongst quite a number of others), brought to us by Jyotishman on India & Global Left - this provides us with real tools for thinking through: ... what are the real possibilities for making progress ... why is there still hope ... the nature of the difficulties ahead ... what next to choose to do.
Thank you both for this particular episode. Thank you Jyotishman for persevering and keeping this channel open.
Thanks a lot. These comments encourage us to keep it going. Stay in touch!
Great conversation
Very insightful discussion.
Great discussions!
More content on china please ❤
Sure
Wonderful to hear this discussion, I always learn more when Radhika speaks. On the closing remarks about Chinese finacialisation, I recall Michael Hudson stating recently that it was such a big mistake for China to allow.such heavy privatisation of their own real estate , and he criticised Chinese economists for getting their economics education over in the US, in the Chicago school style, which would wreak havoc on the public and social benefits of the Chinese economic system. So, I think Michael Hudson fleshes out that final point is great detail as a sticking problem for China going forth. However, like Radhika, he seemed to think that it could be much more easily resolved than say in the US or the UK.
Bravo!! what a synopsis!! One of best i ve heard,thank you!!
Out sourcing of labor to cheaper labor that ran to the south or asia was predicted in '80's with Reagan the war against government workers and labor unions that I watched having studied economics from my mother an accountant and bookkeeper with geopolitics and history education.
Who said, "Let's send all the industrial production of goods outside the territory of the USA" ?
I just discovered IGL and Im glad to see Radhika Desai here, as i try to learn and expand my perspectives on different ideas and systems.
06:27 -
07:53 -
08:02 - Another huge question
What about the Adam Smith model with mandatory accounting in the schools?
Smith used the word 'education' Eighty Times and wrote "read, write and account" multiple times.
Palki of firstpost should listen and learn
Didn't it just stared at the end?... Why don't you invite her again and continue.... Also of what she thinks about Modi.
09:54 - K-Marx resolved every classical economic problem raised by David Ricardo, Adam Smith, & John Stuart Mill
04:20 - Does capital-ism have a future ?
09:33 - Applying Hegelian methods to resolve the [mistaken attention to the raised & meaningless] problems of classical political economy, such as what was VALUE , where does SURPLUS VALUE come from , why is it that if value comes from labour [another classical economy mistake which distracted K-Marx] then why are labor-intensive For-Money-Profit firms less profitable than For-Money-Profit firms which are more "capital-intensive".
Wheres the evidence that capital intensive industries are more profitable.
Also value refers to exchange value of commodities, particularly relationally to each other . How much one commodity is worth to another? The answer is always in labor.
What you’re referring to is energy and sustenance which is a different issue.
09:08 -
Since human beings settled down capitalism has worked. Can this be said about communism??
Communism is our original economy.
What's a family? To by need, from by ability
09:54 - [K-Marx observed the real problem: Inhumane treatment of working poor by most means-of-industrial-production "Owners". These Lords of Industry behaved as badly as had Kings & the anything but noble Lords of productive Land before them. K-Marx solved no question of economic import for he only read Ricardo, Smith, & Mill & they were wrong. K-Marx failed to read the right book, written by a Physiocrat who really knew where value came from before the word had been coined]
To understand capitalism, I think we have to step back from seeing it as a "system" which has been constructed by academics.
Marx wrote about the "capitalist mode of production." Capitalism is not a system but a mode of production of a particular historical social group, the bourgeoisie. Systems have no history, they simply work according to their parts, but capitalism most certainly has a history and has evolved as a mode of production.
In his introduction to Capital, Ernest Mandel discusses at length why Marx begins Capital analyzing the commodity, rather than abstract concepts like "value." The commodity is the historical embryo of the development of the capitalist mode of production.
What is a commodity? It's an object, something that can be produced, owned, possessed and exchanged in a market. The historical basis of capitalism, as Mandel discusses, is the emergence of generalized commodity production.
Previously in history, there had been petty commodity production. In other words, societies produced "things" i.e. commodities, but those societies did not revolve around the production of commodities, their social modes of production were oriented toward their needs as a society.
When we speak about the bourgeoisie, what we mean is an historically new form of society that revolves around the production and ownership and exchange of "things" i.e. commodities. Bourgeois society is a society of "things" i.e. commodities that can be exchanged, bought and sold on a market.
What matters in bourgeois society is ownership of things. The Industrial Revolution transformed land and labor into things, into commodities, and it also turned ownership into a commodity. When we speak of "capital," what we essentially mean is ownership. Capital can take many forms, but what matters regardless of the form of capital is ownership, the right of an owner to exchange those things for other things.
We often think of money as synonymous with capital, but this is only so because money is the most liquid form of capital, it can be exchanged on the market very easily. But "capital" is not the money itself, nor the value it bears, but the ownership it represents. When a capitalist buys shares in a company, they are exchanging ownership of that money-capital in exchange for ownership of future profits (returns & dividends).
Thus, we should not think of capitalists as accumulators of finance, but rather as exchangers of ownership. What distinguished the capitalist from the proletariat was/is not their accumulated wealth, but their ownership of the means/factors of production.
In the capitalist mode of production, labor is divided in the service of generalized commodity production i.e. producing "things" that the capitalist owns and can exchange on the market. Those "things" have value insofar as they have been produced out of nothing except by the will of the capitalist and the hired labor he employs.
But the key concept here is not "value" but rather commodity, ownership and exchange. That's the historical embryo of bourgeois society and the capitalist mode of production. What sets the bourgeoisie apart socially is that they own "things" i.e. commodities that have been produced as ends in themselves, with no reference to social need or organization. The commodity is the key concept in the capitalist mode of production.
Thanks for the great interpretation. Only one sentence i don't think is complete: "Those "things" have value insofar as they have been produced out of nothing except by the will of the capitalist and the hired labor he employs".
You missed one important piece the 'things" are produced from raw materials (not nothing) plus labor. Thus wasting resources and labor energy on otherwise useless stuff. This is not a minor point imo given the massive cancerous growth of the consumer bourgeoisie and thus the destructive effect on the natural world.