Footnotes: 1. Even here we can easily trip. “Productive labour” refers to workers who do labour of a productive sort, and not the activity of labour. As we will see, what is bought from productive labour is not the labour itself, but the capacity to labour, or, in other words, labour-power. The process of exchange assigns to the products of labour, according to Marx, value according to an abstraction of the actual labour done to produce them. If the capitalist was buying labour rather than labour-power, then, like any other commodity, the value in it would simply be transferred to the product. However, value certainly increases in production. 2. “The market” is not a term Marx uses, preferring to speak of commodities in exchange. Markets usually imply competition and openness, but exchanges do not always happen in a market. Occasional exchange between communities exists even where and when markets have never developed, and in capitalism, exchanges often happen directly through relationships between institutions, rather than in markets. Referring to these special contexts as “the market”, as well as grouping all markets into one general market, are imprecise. We chose to use “the market”, and similar imprecisions throughout this script, for the sake of ease of comprehension. 3. Although Marx expresses value as a quantity, there is some debate as to whether it has a quantity prior to measurement by the value form. Values are definitely magnitudes, but quantity entails a universal basis for comparison; a magnitude may be lesser than, greater than, or equal to any individual magnitude with which it interacts, but it is only a quantity when it is compared to an ordered set of known magnitudes. In other words, the measure, or form, may be said to be what gives quantity to value. 4. Some forms of labour produce more value than others. In which case, it can be accounted for as a ratio of some reference rate of value production. This is not important to the dynamics Marx is trying to express, however. 5. In proper Hegelian fashion, the progressive development of value throughout the opening chapters of Capital vol. I is both a logical and historical account. That is, it’s not just that the multiple forms of value create a consistent and necessary whole, but that the maturation of one form leads to the next. Engels’ historical account serves to ground and justify both elements, demonstrating the use of time-cost tradeoffs in pre-capitalist commodity exchange. This genealogical account produces a system, which subsequent developments alter and perturb, hence the fundamental nature of value is preserved, if new developments change the distribution of values. Its essence remains congealed social labour. It should not be held to be the case that Marx is elaborating a set of stages; it’s not that one form develops, followed by the other, rather, it’s that as one begins to develop, it gives way to the next. One does not have to complete before the next starts, because they are a dynamical process. 6. A boss could do some of the work, but we can treat the money they make as part wage and part surplus and recover the same analysis. Owners of capital need not do any of the work to hold title to profit, and the size of their profit is not related to the value they contributed, as they have the right to decide what it is all by themselves. In this analysis, profit can be immediately reinvested rather than realized as capital gains, and rents and interest are paid out of the surplus value of production. Surplus can also be directed towards savings, or, as Marx refers to them, hoards, but this adds too much complication to the analysis to address here. Hoarding is addressed in vol. I of Capital. Preliminary notes on rents come from Rent of Land, which appears in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. A more extensive theory of rents (which we’ve discussed in another video) appears in vol. III of Capital. 7. What about “gig workers”, who get paid for the time they put in? They typically aren’t compensated for equipment expenses, and wind up making less even than is necessary to get by for any reasonable length of time. On some rare occasions, the gig economy can even generate enough revenue to reinvest, although its expansion is mostly driven by surplus from other sectors, and it remains to be seen whether it can actually profit on its own, even in the first world, which buffers profits with values displaced from the third. There could be a whole script on how the gig economy works. In any case, gig workers’ hourly pay seems to be a false choice, a false relation to labour or profitability: it’s calculated (and actualized via “flooding the market”) so that you have to work a certain amount to meet your expenses, and so that you have the incentive to work when you are needed, and you cannot expect to do any better than a typical wage in your area. 8. Marx is pretty keen to note that, in fact, this presupposed state was created, and it was not accepted in the beginning. He notes in particular the British acts of enclosure, which drove peasants into the city because they could no longer use traditionally common land they depended on. Many other instances of similar practices have taken place. These processes of dispossession have always been violent, are often violently resisted, and are still ongoing. 9. While volume III of Capital explores how prices and values, profits and surplus values do not wind up the same, the economy is always overall extracting a surplus value. 10. Taken from volume III. Previous economists, notably Ricardo, also had a “law of value”, but where Marx expressed a dynamical, or in other terms, dialectical relationship between price and value, Ricardo expressed a linear one: goods are expected to sell at their values. Engels shows how this was the case, at points in the past, but capitalism had already evolved to the point that price was disconnected from value in his time. Some Marxists disagree with Marx’s expression of the law of value in vol. III, using it in a broader sense. For the sake of an arguable fidelity to Marx, and ease of understanding, the account from vol. III has been used over subsequent discussions. 11. The use of “firm”, “business”, “capitalist”, “boss”, “employer”, and so on, are useful shorthands that ground the analysis, but the object of the analysis is not so much these concrete entities as it is capitals, which we might think of as productive investments. People are always the agents of whatever capital does, but it would be misleading to say that just abolishing the bourgeoisie as a distinct class of people fixes the problem; their functions as agents of capital can be absorbed by other people, in different social positions. Engels considers this in his account of state capitalism in Anti-Dühring.
This exploitation explanation is extremely apt for Silicon valley. The engineers here put in millions of dollars of work into a year but only receive a few hundred thousand in recompense. No wonder these companies market caps are greater than the GDP of the vast majority of countries in the world
@@felipetalavera7761Ah yes, because 'voluntarily' labouring for less than you're worth is definitely the epitome of justice. Tell me, if I gave you a gold nugget but only paid you as though it was a pebble, that'd be totally fair because you voluntarily accepted it, right?
First of all, in silicon valley there a lot of startup where the mayority of workers own the company, second when u make an agreement u do it voluntarily
Right! Marx saw surplus value as a means to grow capital, and under socialism he probably saw surplus product just being used for the benefit of the people, like some kind of tax.
surplus value only exists as a category due to the class relation. if you own your own labor time and the means of production, that time cannot be divided into paid and unpaid labor. if you're reading this, read capital.
In this video some things are not shown correctly, I suspect: * Labor products and goods - According to Marx, no goods can be produced at all: - A work product only becomes a commodity when it becomes a use value for others through exchange (!). - That only happens on the market. - Consequently, it will only be decided on the market whether the labor expended on the labor product was socially useful and thus “value-creating”. * Wages for the "full value" of the work results? - You would also notice that if you answered YES to the question in the title of the video: - It is not the work that is paid, but the values of the workforce. - One could then pay the workers the wages for the sale of their labor in the full amount of the value of the labor products (W = c + v + m) only in cases when the labor products were also sold, that is, when these values are formed in the first place. - Before the work products are sold, there is no surplus value - the buyer only pays for it on the market. - Since the surplus value according to Marx is part of the value, it can be before the surplus value is not paid (positive, zero or "negative", i.e. not even the costs c + v are reimbursed when the product is sold). - However, there is only surplus value if the buyer fully (!) reimburses the costs c + v beforehand. - This makes it clear that the value is not calculated from the production costs c + v and the expected surplus value, but from the replacement of the costs plus the surplus value actually paid. - This also corresponds with Marx's statement that only socially useful work creates value. The social usefulness cannot be determined by words like “This product is very useful!”, but only by exchanging this product for a value equivalent. - The fact that a product has to be exchanged in order to recognize its usefulness corresponds in turn to Marx's statement that a labor product only becomes a commodity if it becomes a use value for others through exchange. - If one were to pay the workers the wages for the products that could not be sold, then money would come into circulation that would not be clogged by goods or services. That would be inflation money, an excess money compared to the supply of goods and services. - Another problem would be noticed: You couldn't pay the workers the “s” portion of the work products, because you can't produce the surplus value, the buyers have to pay for it on the market. - In the production area of the commodity society there are only costs and an expected surplus value. * Value as a social relationship - Only the prerequisites for value relationships, surplus value and so for values can be produced. - Value is a social relationship, a relationship between people that is formed in order to exchange a commodity for a value equivalent. - Only when it comes to an exchange is the value formed - not from the production costs plus the expected surplus value, but from the replacement of the costs plus the real added value! - This corresponds to Marx's statement that only socially useful work creates value. * Is the formula W = c + v + s still correct if c + v reflect the production costs? - Yes, but only on average, that does not apply to every single product! - If production is to be maintained, improved and expanded, it is necessary that when the products are sold, the production costs usually have to be reimbursed and an surplus value that is estimated to be sufficient has to be paid. - If one uses the costs c + v and not the replacement of these, the formula is indirectly valid - it indicates an economic necessity. * Absolute and relative usefulness - Economics is not about absolute usefulness, i.e. about a potential use value! - It is always about relative use values, use values that are recognized through exchange with other potential use values in the economic sense through exchange: - For every human being, the needs are usually greater in scope than their ability to satisfy them. - For this reason, he must weight his exchange or purchase decisions. - Only when the weighted need for a product in a buyer is so great that he buys it does he recognize the potential usefulness of this product as a real usefulness for him and thus for society. - For the exchange, in turn, the buyer and the seller form a value relationship, the reference points of which are both the product and the value equivalent. - In relation to these reference points, the value is formed on the social level between the exchange partners and assigned to both the commodity and the value equivalent. - There are no intrinsic values. Value is a social phenomenon that is only formed between people, specifically between exchange partners, and only works between them. - The value is determined objectively by social and natural conditions, but is individually influenced. - There cannot be a purely objective value, because that would be independent of people. - Without question there are things, processes and phenomena that are independent of people, but these cannot be social relationships. * Value and exchange value - There is no difference between value and exchange value - the value is identical to the exchange value. - Marx defines the difference because he starts from a "produced" value, but he also states that the products are not exchanged according to this "produced" value. - In reality the “produced value” is only an expected one - see above. - There is no produced value, Marx contradicts himself - see above. * Work and value - Work determines the value, but this is not just about human work. - Value is assigned and assigned to a product screwed together by a machine in the same way as a product screwed together by a person.
you're making a lot of good points here's another one: if an ox plows a filed, is it entitled to all the grain produced from that field is it alienated from the fruit of its labor? What about a self-driving, gps-controlled tractor?
@@mentalitydesignvideo Thanks! You have correctly recognized that I make good arguments. But your questions show me that I haven't explained everything well. This is how I use your questions to clarify: Regarding 1) No, an ox has no right to all the grain. Because he only receives part of the grain in the form of means of subsistence as a reward for using his labor (he does not work as free labor like people under capitalism, but more like a slave with a slave owner), but he will not deprived of the full result of his work: According to Marx, a human worker in this field would, with his socially useful work, materialize the value of his labor power in the products of his work. Equivalently, the ox would do the same thing, because in principle it works in the same way for the landlord. A farmer's means of subsistence include, in proportion to the work, food, clothing, personal hygiene, living space, and (quite limited in the 19th century) health care and the occasional beer. The ox's means of subsistence include water, food, personal care, a place in the stable, occasional health care, etc. It is similar to human labor. In my view, however, no value is materialized through work, but rather an expected value from the landlord is associated with the products of work. This expected value corresponds to the proportional costs for a certain amount of grain, i.e. the costs for human and animal labor. This means that the landowner would like to be reimbursed for these costs by selling his grain, as well as an estimated surplus value that he adds and which he think that he can obtain on the market. If he is able to sell his grain as desired, the value is determined with the sale and the in same amount it will be assigned (from the exchange partners) to his grain and the equivalent value (money or goods). This means that when it is sold, the work done on the grain is qualified as socially useful and therefore as value-creating. If he cannot sell it, for example because he cannot find a buyer quickly enough and the grain goes moldy through a hole in the roof of the barn, the expected value for this grain will remain - a real value will then not be formed. Regarding 2) With a self-propelled tractor it would be the same, only that its means of subsistence are more different from those that people and oxen need: diesel fuel, oil, grease, garage, maintenance, repairs, paint, tires (instead of shoes for humans) , electricity for electronics, etc. The landlord also uses the tractor like a slave.
@@mentalitydesignvideo Hello Viktor (I hope I can call you so), you are welcome! I wish you complete success with your videos! For me, your “Berlin Street Video” conveys the mood in which I find myself under the current politics in the country.
Thank you for your explanation of Marx's labour theory of value. We are a small team in Hong Kong and have also tried to explain these concepts in the form of short animations. Our latest video has English subtitles, and we're looking for constructive comments as well!
Hello Dade Society! Please contact my organisation, the Socialist Party of Great Britain - we have been promoting democratic socialist ideas based on Marx's critique of capitalism since 1904 and would be eager to assist you if our interpretation coincides. Stephen Finch Manchester Branch SPGB
I think one thing to realize is that some some of managerial positions in general, while debatably being needed/not needed in certain circumstances, are far from what makes a society capitalist. Capitalism is what allows such positions to have complete autocratic control as it gives the capitalist leverage over the proletariat that without organized collective bargaining, is impossible to overcome. So in other words you can still have a boss, you just aren't inevitably stuck with a shitty one. And also the more relevant aspect is the fact that the profits obviously would go to the capitalist or capitalists, while the proletariat are wage laborers in which their wage has nothing to do with profits. Whether or not de-centralized or centralized organization is desirable I would say is a decent debate, as both sides I say make good points, but its a different debate, since managers have nothing to do with capitalism inherently. That being said, if managers are required they would still obviously have to be compensated in some capacity imo, maybe at a lower level than the proletariat but at some level, so how would that fit into
Wait, why would managers get paid less necessarily? Managing is still work and could be reasonably difficult. Remember we're not saying all labor will become maual work that produces tangible products. Ideas are work. Management is work. Etc.
@@shady8045 yeah I'm unsure why it's contentious as well. Oh wait no it's an issue cause the anarchist wing of the Left, correct? Power and hierarchy etc. So the unnuanced anarchic views cast management in a poor light.
I think an important way you could play with this is by having multiple routes, like in a roguelike. Down one path there are good roads, there are stopping points like you've described here, but it takes a little longer to go where you're going. It'll also be more monitored by traveling guards seeking to capture criminals, so if the party is on the run they'll want to steer clear of these places.
I don't know if this is a thing with this video specifically or something to do with my settings or something, but the subtitles want to be either in Turkish or translated from automatically generated Turkish subtitles. The results, while admittedly quite amusing, are not particularly useful for actually watching the video.
How do we begin to think about modern day branding from a Marxist sense? Surely there are plenty of commodities whose use value (quality) are nearly identical or only nominally different but sold for drastically different prices. Do we consider these commodities the same or not the same for socially necessary labor time and value? Like… hand bag A vs hand bag G. Both made from the same materials and production time is roughly the same, but hand bag A is perceived to be inferior despite having the same use value and product life as hand bag G, which sells for 10x the price. Are they both hand bags for the purposes of socially necessary labor time and value, or are they distinct from one another on the basis of the brand?
There are two ways to comment on this. First we would say that Marx's theory is not a price theory (the video talked about how values are what is distributed in exchange). Some theorists would disagree, but I would say SNLT is not predictive of prices. Marx also held that luxury goods have no value, although many subsequent theorists reject that idea. The other approach is to incorporate an idea from bourgeois economics that treats commodities as variably substitutable, so branding is in part an exercise in making people less willing to substitute any old backpack for a Fjallraven backpack. iPhones do many of the same things Androids do, but they are not quite the same, and this makes iPhone users unwilling to switch, even if the price is relatively high, allowing Apple to charge as though it has a monopoly, up to a certain point.
The LTV is most useful as part of an explanation and critique of capitalism (bourgeoisie stealing the product of our labour instead of it going to society as a whole is the big one).
Workers live by the laws of value out of necessity. An artisan operates on the motion of C-M-C and so do cooperatives. Neither an artisan, nor a member of a co-op is inherently incentivised to maximise the growth of their enterprise but rather to secure their own long-term happiness which is objectively best served by co-operating with other artisans and co-ops. So, under certain conditions with as of yet generalised commodity production, society should be able to move further away from capital and commodity production and towards communism. It's probably not going to be a sudden break from the concept of value on a scale large enough to achieve communistic autarky.
Strictly speaking, this is not a reading of Marx, as Marx was emphatic that maintaining commodity production but fixing its rules of distribution did not do much to correct the "bad incentives" created by commodity production. This is reiterated in the Gotha Critique and goes back to his debates with Proudhon. While there obviously must be some intermediate states of affairs in between this social form and communism, Marx seemed to believe in implementing the so-called lower phase of communism fairly quickly and directly, which he is clear already abolishes commodity production. This account has never really come to pass though, so it's correct to feel as though we need to ask whether transition must be much longer than expected, if production hasn't reached a certain stage of development, if communist revolutions haven't succeeded at controlling a sufficient share of world production, or if we have been missing something qualitative. In short, we do need to critically evaluate both the nature of communist production and its conditions of possibility. We will cover that in another video. -Robot
What… if an employer increases production, by the law of value this would mean the value of the commodity drops and thus the price. So how is there more surplus value here? If production doubles, then the prices halve, and then it’s all the same
I absolutely didn't understand the need for a third kind of abstract value. Value is extremely subjective. And every good or service is valued to optimize profits, so you have to attract maximum number of people for the biggest price tag (of course these in most cases are counterbalanced) and that's it, that's value of the object. Of course, subjective value may not match this value, that determines if you will buy it or not.
As the video points out, it goes deeper than that. Marx is questioning the system of production that makes remuneration conceivable, by tracing exploitation back to its fundamental nature.
@Yorkshire MGTOW it's possible to form co ops under the current regime, but there's more barriers than there should be, including economic and ideological , nevermind political. Even then cooperatives as a whole, if revolutionary in character will face limitations under the current system eventually. The struggle will continue
I have some big issues with Marxism that I'm hoping someone might be able to help me with. The one I'll focus on for the moment, is that it seems to discount the value that immaterial assets bring to the equation. Eg: business relationships, proximity to supply and distribution chains, brand reputation, the way labour and assets are organized, etc. Assets like these can produce value that far exceeds what they cost, sometimes indefinitely. My current view in a nutshell, is that surplus value comes from assets like these, rather than labour. There's nothing I can think of that proves that labour brings more value to the table than what it's paid. Labour is often needed to unlock the value of these assets, but in the same way that a $2 jug cord might be needed to make use of my computer. Therefore just because I can profit by more than $2 from purchasing it, it's not because the jug cord must therefore be more than $2, it's just that it was needed to unlock the value of the computer.
correct. Profit is made by all inputs into production, and not just labour, as Marx thought. All inputs increase their output by their incorporation with others, hence labour is not underpaid. We have a lot of revolutionaries on channels like this who are rallying against this supposed 'injustice'.
@@sigigle Yep: if profit was made from labour only, then the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened in the way it did, because it would make no sense replacing labour with machinery. A reduction in labour would mean a reduction in profits.
I'm regretting responding because I don't want a discussion, but I'll point you to some answers: Part of the answer lies in the post pinned at the top of the comments section by the creator: 10. Taken from volume III. Previous economists, notably Ricardo, also had a “law of value”, but where Marx expressed a dynamical, or in other terms, dialectical relationship between price and value, Ricardo expressed a linear one: goods are expected to sell at their values. Engels shows how this was the case, at points in the past, but capitalism had already evolved to the point that price was disconnected from value in his time. Some Marxists disagree with Marx’s expression of the law of value in vol. III, using it in a broader sense. For the sake of an arguable fidelity to Marx, and ease of understanding, the account from vol. III has been used over subsequent discussions. Also responded to by someone in an other post: "There are two ways to comment on this. First we would say that Marx's theory is not a price theory (the video talked about how values are what is distributed in exchange). Some theorists would disagree, but I would say SNLT is not predictive of prices. Marx also held that luxury goods have no value, although many subsequent theorists reject that idea. The other approach is to incorporate an idea from bourgeois economics that treats commodities as variably substitutable, so branding is in part an exercise in making people less willing to substitute any old backpack for a Fjallraven backpack. iPhones do many of the same things Androids do, but they are not quite the same, and this makes iPhone users unwilling to switch, even if the price is relatively high, allowing Apple to charge as though it has a monopoly, up to a certain point." ---- Between those two, and with actually reading what Marx wrote, you come to the conclusion that you're asking a question of PRICE and PROFITs, not VALUE in the sense of what Marx references. That's *one* of the reasons why the response to your post by @Yorkshire MGTOW is full of crap and pushing a misunderstanding of the issue (their other posts on this video show that their agenda is to basically simp for capitalism with arguments they heard from people like Dinesh D'Souza and Thomas Sowell). In the Labor Theory of Value (LTV), "value" is something completely different than how you and others use it in common discourse, so the question is not really appropriately about the LTV so much as it is asking how a shark ignores the fact of a frisbee flying on land. Given that I'm not a scholar on Marx, but have instead just read some of his stuff (particularly "Value, Price and Profit," which was basically a document Marx used in an argument, taking from his pre-published Capital. More than Capital I suggest reading that, because it's much shorter and easier to digest by far), take what I say as not being doctrine, but rather my unprofessional summary: Business relationships don't bring "value" into the equation. They provide connections for the business owners to conduct business, and the relationships themselves do not themselves do any actual work nor do they alter the product in any way. It's questionable whether that affects PRICE (not value) in any way beyond deal-making between business partners, but that does not affect in any way the commodity being produced, or how much of it the worker produces for their set wage, or the technology or skill necessary to produce it. "Value" is therefore not the correct term, and I would go so far as to say the whole topic plays zero role in determining value simply because it has nothing to do with the commodity, only the relationships between businessmen. It makes as more sense to ask about haggling, because at least that indicates how close to the cost in labor, time and materials it took to produce the item the PRICE can reasonably get before the profit for the owner is too low. Proximity to supply and distribution chains reduce transit time, which reduces the labor spent transporting commodities. I'm not sure why that's hard to account for when it comes to determining PRICE, but again, that's not value. The labor spent transporting the commodity is accounted for in the price, but at the end of the day if you have two identical bars of gold, one sourced and refined locally and one produced and transported from across the sea, the value of both bars will be the same. The merchant selling the near bar might make more profit than the one selling the far bar, but that's an issue of PROFIT, not value; the laborers in both cases did the same amount of work (assuming the same technology and skills required, but that's another discussion). Again, your questions are not about value, but about profit and prices. In any case, LTV is not something that Marxists focus on a lot because it doesn't really have much practical application as anything but a theory of value. Which is why it's called the "labour theory of value," and not the "law of how prices are decided." For the most part it is people who want to "own" Marxists who point the most energetically at the LTV as "proving their point that Marx and therefore Marxist economics are wrong," whereas Marxists largely just talk about changing who owns the means of production, distribution and exchange so that the people who do the producing decide democratically how to distribute compensations for labor (among other things), and changing the entire economic system to be democratic rather than profit-driven and top-down carbon-copies of feudalism (look at a capitalist business, look at its place within the capitalist system, and then look at feudalism. They're nearly """structurally""" identical, and very similar in how they behave). LTV might be an interesting topic of discussion, but it is largely a waste of time compared to that advocacy for change (which has nothing to do with LTV), so it would be better to try and understand the demands for change than try to find random people online who will almost certainly not be scholars on a very tricky topic that even many scholars don't really agree on. I suggest reading "Value, Price and Profit" to get a better sense of economic arguments made by Marx that don't require scholars to decipher. It's a response to arguments made by a person named "Weston," several of which are nearly identical to arguments made today by right wing and even "liberal" parties around the world (especially in the U.S.). You can read it for free with a google search for the title and "marxists. org" (space added to prevent a link). That will help explain the relationship between labor, wages, prices, profits and business owners, which is infinitely more practical to discuss than LTV.
@@samuelrosander1048 You're all good. I don't like to "debate" or try and "win" discussions. I just like learning from peoples perspectives. The first point I'd raise, is that "price" or "exchange value" has always been disconnected from "real/actual value". But only because of how our subjective evaluations influence what we're willing to trade things for. The LVT of completely incorrect in my view. SNLT (Socially Necessary Labour Time) has almost nothing to do with what someone is willing to pay for something. The only connection it has to any type of value, is that it'd influence the minimum that someone would be willing to sell it for, like you said. But what it's actual true market value, what people are willing to pay for it, is entirely determined by supply and demand only. Business relationships absolutely do add value and "do work". For example: Let's say I own a company that makes phones, and you own one that specializes in making batteries. We can make a deal where I bulk buy batteries from you at a discounted price. This allows you to sell more product than you otherwise would, and allows me to lower my costs of production. This relationship is creating value for both of our companies. It also gives me the option of lowering the price of my phones in order to undercut my competition, which would result in value for the consumer. The same goes for the proximity to supply and distribution chains. They reduce unnecessary, inefficient uses of resources. We're no longer paying my employees to make inefficiently produced batteries, and our transporters to do work that no longer needs doing. It's essentially transferring money away from people doing unnecessary forms of labour, to productive businesses and/or the consumers. Therefore, these business relationships are a good/valuable thing for society, by making our production and distribution systems more efficient. It's real value. Marxists absolutely do focus on the LTV, and it's logical extension of SLV (Surplus Labour Value), as it's central to Marxism. Because it's the primary reason for why they falsely think that labourers aren't getting the full value of their labour within a capitalist sytem, when they are. The only "unfairness" that exists within capitalism, is that it "allows" the natural result of "property" to play itself out. Instead of artificially controlling it. If you can own property, then you'll be able to own assets, which is property that can produce real value on it's own without requiring your labour. That means you can acquire income from assets, and assets from income, creating an exponentially increasing cycle of ever greater asset ownership and income. This obviously results in a winner takes all situation, and so it has to be artificially mitigated by a government, to prevent power from concentrating too much. And so we have things like wealth redistribution in the form of taxes, labour laws, social security/welfare, regulations, anti-monopoly laws, law enforcement, etc. The main point here, and why Marxism is wrong, is that labourers ARE getting the true value of the labour they're selling. It's just that people who acquire assets, can sell the work/value those assets produce, without having to do labour. But just because it's not labour that they're producing, doesn't mean they're not producing value. They are. Cheers.
Isn't value subjective though? If a thousend workers proudce red shirts, but no one wants a red shirt, then those shirts will not have any value on the market even though plenty of labor has been used to create them.
@@TywersI've watched and rewatched this video and dozens of others about the labor theory of value and I still can't make heads or tails of it for the fucking life of me
Value does not equal price. Price can be influenced by subjective factors. Value cannot. The Labor Theory of Value is not immediately and obviously useful, but ties into a wider critique of capitalism.
@LiquidDemocracyNH I’ll try an explain it: It’s good to know that it’s not immediately obvious how the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) is useful, but it ties into Marx’s wider critique of capitalism. (Simplifying here) 1. Value does not equal price. 2. Everything has an objective value (not price) 3. The value is partially determined by the labour put into it (it would be very hard to concretely determine, in a numeric expression, what this is) 4. The total value is the labour put into the thing + capital (tools, investments, etc) 5. The capital’s value is also determined by the labour put into it. E.g: the objective value of the hammer = the labour put into creating it + the value of the materials (determined by the value put into creating them). 6. In order to make a profit, capitalists cannot pay workers the value of all the labour they put into their work. 7. Socialism and communism take this excess value and instead give it to the community as a whole.
@@guardwall "it would be very hard to concretely determine, in a numeric expression, what this is" Isn't that definition proof of the subjectivity of value?
Fantastic video. Never has a better showcase of everything wrong with communism been made. I know that wasn't the intent, but boy do you do a good job showcasing everything wrong with communism.
@@GeoffreyPicketts "In that case, the worker loses his job as the capitalist has failed to realize the gains he hoped to gain from the workforce he decided to employ." What if it will takes years to generate profit? as it happen in most new company. The employee still remain paid yet the boss has to carry cost until it can generate profit. Seem like a good deal to me, get paid and none of the financial risk.
The boss very seldomly carries it, but investors do. But I also think finance needs to be reorganized along democratic and cooperative lines that will allow exciting innovators working on a cancer cure or alt energy source the financial lifeline they need to fund operations until viable. Different mechanism, but also realizing better returns
Well, aren't we getting fancy with our economic theories! Let's talk Marxist theory 101: it suggests that any surplus value, or profit, generated by the workers' labour belongs rightfully to the workers. When businesses don't make a profit, it isn't that the worker is stealing; rather it's due to inefficient resource allocation or market dynamics. As for the boss having to shoulder the costs, welcome to capitalism, pal. In capitalism, risk equals reward. If a company is going to take years to turn a profit, well, that's a business risk the boss or the investors willingly undertook. You're also saying it seems like a great deal to you that the worker gets paid while the boss bears the risk? Yeah, maybe so if we're living in a fairy tale world where the 'boss' is a philanthropist generously donating his funds to keep his employees paid. In reality, the wages that workers are paid rarely reflect the true value of their labour and workers are usually the first ones to face the consequences when a business doesn't do well. Let's also talk about this 'exciting innovation' thing that's been mentioned as well. Innovation, you say? Isn't it funny how these so-called innovations mainly benefit those with capital rather than the actual workforce? As for finance being reorganised along democratic and cooperative lines, wouldn't that just be a treat? A way to get the common workers the 'financial lifeline' they deserve. 'Investors carrying the burden,' you say. Isn't it cute to think of investors as noble heroes who 'carry' the financial burden, as if they're not poised to gain massively when these businesses do turn a profit? So, 'should work do?' Ah, now there's a real zinger. Let's think this through: should work bear the burden of economic risks, or should we maybe restructure our whole economic system in a way that distributes both risk and rewards more fairly?
The things had value before they were destroyed. Labour is unique in its ability to produce value. While the laws of thermodynamics means that energy in a system is constant, the same is not true of value in a system, because it can be created and destroyed.
Whether or not someone would buy a product is not indicative of its objective value. The Labor Theory of Value is objective. The Subjective Theory of Value (under which ideas like supply and demand determining price fall) can, at best, help explain some price changes, but fails when pushed further.
suggestion: instead of popping the text descriptions on the screen while the dialogue is happening, can you wait for the sentence to end, pause, and _then_ fade-in the text description? I keep having to pause and rewind the video to re-listen and re-read to the dialogue and the text that are happening at the same time
I thought communism was giving the workers the value of their labour. From this, I wondered how investments are created in communism and innovation. I assumed it was only from tax and the government had to do it. If not entirely, surely its best for the worker to get almost their value of work minus a small amount used for investments?
From what I understand, what you are describing is market socialism/social democracy. One way to implement this would for example be worker cooperatives, which can of course set money aside for investment in the pretty much the same way that capitalist owned companies would. Communists on the other hand want to abolish the market and want a de-commoditization of the economy. How this should be achieved depends on who you ask I guess, but the Soviet Union tried to replace it by a planned economy. I don't know much about how the soviet economy actually worked tbh and I should stress that that's just my personal understanding of the terms, which might very well be wrong.
@@Kaepsele337 ב''ה, may be useful to look at how Vietnam promotes Marxist entrepreneurship through the creation of cooperative enterprises. For a Westerner this is at least a bit more direct, obvious and comprehensible [can be enjoyed or argued theoretically to be good or bad facially] compared to e.g. Chinese enterprises as presented to appease the West's preference for everything being phrased in capitalist terms. Can't say I know a ton about Vietnam but despite everything they may have had the benefit of advice from the Great Leap Forward to avoid perceiving Communization as cynically as elsewhere.
The fact that market value determines the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity is why Marx insisted that workers are paid fairly for their work. What produces the surplus value that the entrepreneur turns into a profit in the marketplace is the tendency of labor to revolutionize the production process in a dialectical relationship of the worker with the commodity. The worker isn't paid for this surplus. At least, I think that's what Rudolf Hilferding would have said. The term "exploitation" has always bothered me because the entrepreneur can exploit the embodied labor that the well-educated technician carries to the job by reason of his or her years of training more profitably than he can exploit the experience of the semi-skilled laborer by speeding up the production line. There's a lot that can be said, of course, about capital intensity and the difference between the rate of surplus value and the mass of surplus value. David Harvey argues that, according to Marx, there's a transfer of value from labor-intensive production (greater mass of surplus value) to capital-intensive production (greater rate of surplus value), that in actuality the wage-workers of Greece are subsidizing the wage-workers of Germany. Here's where he lays out the argument: th-cam.com/video/C-oPb63NBL4/w-d-xo.html
Marx did not insist on fair payment. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, a primary source for this video, he rejected it as a primary demand, arguing that the principle of a "fair distribution of the proceeds of labour" is nonsensical, and disputing the notion of fairness. Nor is it to be found in the Manifesto, or any other source I can think of. Where he articulated a suggestion for a system by which workers should be compensated for their labour, there is no mention of a principle of fairness, nor, as we might interpret through his insistence on the non-exchangeability of the means of payment and his rejection of value, does it take the form of a payment in money. A second mistake in this comment is in the statement that "market value" (i.e. price) determines the labour time socially necessary to produce a commodity. We need to be extremely careful when discussing causation in Marx. While exchange conditions production, socially necessary labour time determines value, and if we read Marx's value to directly determine prices, it therefore determines price. Nowhere does Marx assert that some process of price determination in the market acts on production to set the socially necessary time a commodity needs to be created. Thirdly, the first analysis of the production of surplus value in Capital appears before there is any discussion of revolutions of production; surplus value creation inheres in commodity production, as the difference between value added in production by acts of labour and the cost of the labour power (a capacity to work) that is necessary for this production. I am not sure if you meant to suggest that the video states that workers are paid for surplus value, but in any case, we did not make that claim here. As for Hilferding, I myself am not very familiar with his work, and a principal contributor to this video, Elasmodon, is a vocal critic. I would not consider Hilferding an authoritative interpreter of Marx. Exploitation can be a slippery term, but it's important in Marx's analysis. Personally, I like to interpret it by separating its quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Exploitation takes place quantitatively through the production of surplus values (in the first analysis), and subsequently through the transfer of values via the influence of finance capital (in the second analysis), which is the primary mechanism through which we'd talk about national exploitation. Both of these factors serve to provide to Capital values produced by labour, value of course representing a capacity to reproduce production. This quantitative dimension gives us information about when and why values are extracted, but they don't give us the material how, which is always qualitative. It is really embodied in overwork, in unsafe work, in poverty resulting from personal debt, in the risk of homelessness, in the material deprivation and underdevelopment of poor nations, and so on. It is also through this qualitative dimension that we may more easily intuit that exploitation is not an individual process; it is uneven, for sure, even affecting individual workplaces in different ways, but it is something that is universal in capitalism, and always contains the potential for increasing extremes of exploitation as a natural tendency. As such, it is not so much an issue of who is more or less exploited; the point is to abolish the conditions under which exploitation takes place. With respect to your statement on Harvey, it should be that capital-intensive production has a diminished rate of surplus value (due to the higher organic composition of capital) if it is not production of the same commodities as the more labour-intensive production under comparison, as in this case, the analysis of relative surplus values does not apply. It seems to me that you may have flipped the greater mass and greater rate statements by mistake, but I may be misreading you as well -Robot
@@themarxistproject Some decades ago, I read a French Marxist economist who claimed this regarding a fair wage. They're paid a fair wage in terms of the socially necessary labor time. I didn't mean to suggest, if that's what you're asserting, that workers are paid for the surplus value they produce, clearly never the case. When Marx's economic equations were criticized by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Hilferding was the first economist of note to defend Marx by bringing in the role of social production as a phase in an evolutionary process. His arguments turn more on social production versus individual production than I'd remembered. Making a search of the literature, I accidentally discovered, ironically in the Von Mises Institute, this collection of Böhm-Bawerk, Hilferding, and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz (whom I mention below) edited by Paul M Sweezy (see the citation). And, yes, Hilferding had a rather unsavory personal history in German politics. This statement is typical, but I think I learned of his defense of Marx from a secondary source: "Inasmuch as the productive power of human society in the specific form of organization which society confers upon that productive power is for Marx the fundamental idea of political economy, Marx demonstrates economic phenomena and their modifications as they manifest themselves in conformity to law, and causally dominated by the modifications in productive power. In this demonstration, in accordance with the dialectic method, conceptual evolution runs parallel throughout with historical evolution, inasmuch as the development of the social power of production appears in the Marxist system, on the one side as a historical reality, and on the other side as a conceptual reflex. Moreover, this parallelism furnishes the strictest empirical proof of the accuracy of the theory." www.mises.ch/library/BoehmBawerk_Marx&CloseOfHisSystem.pdf The Sweezy collection has the essay by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, the Polish statistician who solved the apparent problems with Marx's arithmetic that von Böhm-Bawerk found by couching the discussion in marginal values. Your statement regarding my mention of Harvey was correct, except that I believe I was careful to get right his distinction between the mass of surplus value versus rate of surplus value that the capitalist gets. Yes, exploitation for surplus value (as a qualitative dimension) is endemic in capitalist social production. I wasn't addressing the proportion of surplus value (the organic composition), but the mass versus the rate. Harvey finds an "apparent contradiction" expressed by Marx in a note in Chapter 11 of Volume I of «Capital» where he states that the capitalists are more interested in the mass of surplus value than the rate (because it's the mass that gives them the power, said Harvey), and he said he searched through Marx's works to find an elaboration of the contradiction in the chapter on "The Equalisation of the Rate of Profit" in Marx's notes for Volume III. Harvey says, "The problem for the Greeks is that they have a low-productivity labor régime [in terms of capital intensity]. And that means that no matter how hard they work [qualitative exploitation], most of the value they create is going to be siphoned off to Germany." Harvey's presentation is worth watching. th-cam.com/video/C-oPb63NBL4/w-d-xo.html
@@indijanacdzon8416 Value is not determined by labor hours, but by what something is worth to others given the available supply (marginal utility). Look up the water/diamond paradox. Auctions prove this. Changing values of the same product--both higher and lower--prove this. Why would you insist on something thoroughly disproven by historical economists like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk? Marx admitted he was wrong in a footnote. FYI, wages are not the original form of labor income, profit is. Profit exists first, and capitalists comes along and create wages, which eats into profits, not vice versa. So capitalists aren't taking profits out of wages. There is no labor exploitation. If there is, workers should be thrilled, because that "exploitation" has raised their standards of living miles higher than they ever expected--contrary to what Marx said would happen.
@@kelkelly9038 Those are some basic misconceptions, I suppose you haven't read Marx so try to begin with his simpler works like Wage labour and capital, and Value, price and profit. Those are really short books
Kinda late to say this, but it’s really hard to call yourself a Marxist and get a huge audience in 2021. But anyway if they do watch your content they’ll change their minds, problem is that anything with the label “Marxist”, “socialist” and “communism” is unfortunately discouraging for any regular working class person to watch.
No, or else your boss would make no money. If I produce 100 items, each sold 1 dollar (though Marx does not view money as a direct representation of surplus value, I’m simplifying here) in one hour, my employer cannot pay me 100 dollars.
Marx realized there was an abstraction about value but didn't understand that value itself was the abstraction. Money is a token. Commodities have intrinsic qualities that may be valued. Minds trade what they value less for what they value more at a given time. Trade could be for anticipated value. Western societies have traded their values for tokens.
So chinese workers has to get full value of their labor - the iphones? Weird. Working value is just a resource to produce iphones, those chinese workerks couls be easily replaced by indian workers. The true creators are designers, not manifacturers
i think workers get the full value of their labor instead of the agreed wages, well the workers could simultaneously quit the job and make the stuff themselves saying bye bye and FU to their bosses.
this is easily debunked by understanding subjective value. The idea is that the worker gets paid $10 for something the employer values at $15, so the employer must be exploiting the worker and taking that $5 of surplus value. but you could just as well look at it the other way and say that the employee is getting paid $10 an hour for something they would do for $6 an hour, therefore they are profiting $4 an hour off of their employer. the economic reality anyone understands who's taken econ 101 is that there is economic surplus on both sides. and even if there weren't, it wouldn't mean the employer should be paying more money as that would create deadweight loss. If you want to give employees more money, give them a UBI funded by efficient taxes that don't cause dead weight loss. funding them through a hypothecated tax on the people who happen to be buying labor for them is utterly idiotic. but marxists are mathematically illiterate so here we are.
Well, it seems you're suggesting the value of labour is purely subjective and everything balances out because the worker would do the job for less, but gets paid more, right? But you're missing a key point here. Marxism doesn't reduce value to pure subjectivity; it places an objective value on the labour itself, linked to the time and effort required. For instance, if a worker puts in 8 hours and produces goods that sell for $100, yet only gets paid $40, Marx would argue that this constitutes exploitation, even if the worker would've done the same job for $20. The point isn't that the worker is making more than their bare minimum, it's that there's an unfair appropriation of the total value created by the labourer. As for the idea of deadweight loss, you're applying a neo-classical concept that's alien to Marx's theory. In his view, the economic relations shouldn't result in a situation where the wealth created by the labourers is unequally distributed, benefiting a smaller group of employers or capitalists at the top. Lastly, about UBI funded by taxes, Marxism doesn't simply aim for patchwork solutions that aim to mitigate the harsh realities of capitalism. Rather, it's about changing the fundamental structures that create the economic disparities in the first place. And this has nothing to do with being 'mathematically illiterate' - it's about viewing the economy from a different perspective, where exploitation is not accepted as a given and more equitable economic models are proposed.
@@JP-fb8ni > The point isn't that the worker is making more than their bare minimum, it's that there's an unfair appropriation of the total value created by the labourer. you're not responding to my point that you can just as easily look at this in reverse: if i work an hour for 20 dollars payment, but would have been willing to work for _two_ hours for that amount, then i'm "exploiting" the employer by profiting an hour of labor off them. it's the exact same thing. in real economics, it's trivially understood that there is economic surplus on both sides of the transaction. If there wasn't then the exchange wouldn't have happened, QED. > Marxism doesn't reduce value to pure subjectivity; it places an objective value on the labour itself, linked to the time and effort required. but that's obviously wrong, because how much utility ("value") someone places on an hour of their time *is subjective*. and it not only varies from individual to individual, it varies from task to task. i'd charge less for an hour of my time playing music than washing dishes because it's more enjoyable. these arguments are so easily debunked. > As for the idea of deadweight loss, you're applying a neo-classical concept that's alien to Marx's theory. deadweight loss isn't "neoclassical", it's just objective fact. if i have an apple and you have an orange, but i prefer the orange and you prefer the apple, we're happier if we trade the two than if we don't. if we're prevented from trading, that is DEADWEIGHT LOSs. it's not a "school of thought", it's just provable objective reality, that we're less happy than we could be. neoclassical economics is just "objective reality economics".
@@ClayShentrup You're right that value can be subjective. However, we're not focused on the personal value someone may place on a task or time spent, we're discussing the value of the work produced - an objective standard. When you argue that you're exploiting the employer because you'd work more for less, it actually oversimplifies the employer-employee relationship. It's not actually equal. Employers, in fact, hold more power because they control wages and conditions. And if a worker isn't okay with them, their choice is to either accept or risk unemployment. Is that fair? As for the concept of deadweight loss, your apple-orange trade analogy actually misses a significant point. In the market economy, it's rarely an equal, one-on-one exchange. Imagine instead that one person owns all the apples and oranges and decides the exchange rate for the rest of us. Such an imbalance is inherent to capitalism; hence, our aim as Marxists is to alter the fundamental structure. Neoclassical economics being objective reality economics also assumes everyone is playing on a level field, which is clearly not the case. There are actually societal structures, wealth inequalities, and power disparities. We need to take these into account for a truly realistic view of economics.
it's not true that the employer has more "power", because there's no such thing as "power" in a market; there's just the equilibrium price produced by supply and demand. You could use the term loosely in the sense that, if I am wealthier, it's easier for me to reject a poor offer in terms of compensation and or working conditions. but if I reject the offer, that will produce a negligible impact on the equilibrium price as they will just find someone else to do the job for the same price. so framing this in terms of power is fundamentally a misunderstanding. The issue is just wealth and welfare. You fundamentally seek to reduce poverty, so support rational mechanisms like a UBI. the Marxist instinct to solve the problem by forcing workers to accept stock as payment rather than cash is harmful and doesn't change the equilibrium price of their labor anyway. for instance I get stock options in my company, and I sell them for cash because I don't want to own the means of production of my company I want to own a diverse portfolio across the whole market.
@@ClayShentrup Your point about there being no 'power' in a market actually falls short. Power doesn't merely mean the ability to reject poor offers - it refers to the very real power employers have to dictate the terms of employment and even shape the market. Can't the workers shape it too? Sure, in theory. But in practice? When's the last time you heard about a group of retail workers collectively determining their wages? As for UBI, sure, it might temporarily ease poverty. But, like applying band-aids to gaping wounds, it doesn't address the structural problem that causes poverty in the first place. On the topic of receiving stock vs cash, not everyone wants to gamble with their livelihood. What we argue is for the workers to control their labour conditions directly, not own a tiny sliver of stock in a huge, faceless corporation. Lastly, I would just point out that viewing economics only through the lens of market dynamics actually fails to consider other essential aspects like social justice, equality and sustainable development. These aren't side notes to be checked off, they're integral to how an economic system serves its people. Wouldn't you agree? Can we continue this conversation tomorrow? I need to get some sleep (midnight GMT).
I am sorry, but what was Marx's profession? If it was something that produced work, I'm on it, but if his profession produced no real work, then I am sad to bring it to you, but you're just wasting your time listening to someone that has never made any real work, talking and making theories about work... Do you get it? Just to spoil the fun, here's what wiki says about his profession "Karl Heinrich Marx was a German-born philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist, critic of political economy, and socialist revolutionary.) The bro pulled the biggest trolling in history, where he never worked in his life, while being considered "work" expert.... And for the bro who is still confused, thinking is not considered real work. Or to give a more exact description, work is the effort that you put to make a real physical thing, usually something that intellectuals want, but unable produce because it needs to move your body in the physical world to make. Writers can be considered as faux workers, but they are on the borderline, or a lazy version of a worker, but we discard them at the end because they don't move their a$$....
Oh boy, where to start? Let me begin with your premise, your 'idea' of what qualifies as work. It's clear you think that only physical labour can be deemed work. It's hilarious, because by your definition, every professor, doctor, scientist, economist, wouldn't be classified as 'workers'. Are you following me so far? Or has the sheer weight of this concept caused your grey matter to short circuit? Hang on, let me guess, by your rules, does the mental effort not count? And those occupations, like teaching or coding or developing strategies for companies... they’re just lazy versions of workers, right? I think Karl Marx might also chuckle if he read your rant about his supposed 'trolling'. Not to mention the term 'trolling'... you do know Marx existed a little bit before internet, don't you? Marx was a scholar who studied and analysed the political, economic, and social structures of society. This also included the analysis of work and labour - physically and otherwise. His philosophy also influenced major social movements and political reforms as well. But oh no, how dare a thinker theorise without being a coal miner! We in fact actually see 'work' in broader terms, not only limited to making something physical. We actually value all forms of productive activities, whether intellectual or manual, and argue that all workers deserve fair value for their work, be they factory workers or writers. But hang on, if thinking is not 'work' and all intellectual endeavours are valueless according to you, then should I apologise for thinking through this response to your statement? Just kidding. Not going to apologise for that. But on a serious note, we actually need all forms of labour - mental, physical, creative - for our society to function properly. Respect and understanding the value of different forms of work - this is one of the basics of Marxism. But of course, the world would be a funnier place if we just focused on moving our 'a$$'. Hilarious indeed!
@@JP-fb8ni My dear friend, the world that you live and depend on is made from physical things. Things that require little to no mental effort to build or maintain, but it needs real hard dirty work. On the other hand, intellectuals refuse to put their hands on the dirt, even if their life depended uppon it. Mostly not because they are incapable, but to show their supperiority uppon others. Marx really built nothing. You can't survive by eating his ideas. You will simply perish. And this is the thing that most people can't understand. Behind all those great ideologies, either far right or left, lies a war on who is going to be the master who controls the slaves that keep them alive. And guess what, in both socialism/communism and n@zi ideologies, the state plays the master who is controlled by either one. So yes, real work is considered the creation of something physical. The rest is just a way to say I am superior than you.
@@gt4654Your last statement misses several critical points in the understanding of what is 'work' and how we should value it. So let's clarify a few things, starting with your assumption that physical work is the only 'real' work. By that definition, you seem to marginalise or even negate the significant roles played by teachers who enlighten young minds, researchers who make ground-breaking discoveries, software developers who build systems that keep our digital world running, and medical doctors who, although not physically creating anything, can actually save lives. These examples may not fit into your narrow perspective of 'hard dirty work', but their impacts are nonetheless tangible and very real. Next, I must address your implication that 'intellectuals' view themselves as superior and unwilling to get their hands dirty. In fact, it's actually incorrect and misleading. Many 'intellectuals' actually dedicate their lives to solving complex problems that ultimately benefit society at large. Just because their labour doesn't always result in physical artefacts doesn't mean their contributions are less significant or valuable. Consider how intellectual endeavours like computer coding result in software applications that significantly enhance the quality of our lives, even though these coders aren't 'moving dirt'. As for your comments on Marx, let's remember that not everything in life is a consumable good. We cannot 'eat' justice or freedom, but they're necessary elements of a functioning, thriving society. Similarly, Marx's theories have actually been catalysts for societal transformation. And like all theories, they aren't meant to be consumed but are designed to provoke thought, stimulate discussion, and challenge the status quo. On the topic of who controls whom, remember that Marx argued for a worker's state, where those who actually do the 'real work', as you put it, are in charge. Marxism is against a class-based system, where a select few own and control the means of production and others have no choice but to sell their labour. You may also claim that creating something physical is the real definition of work. However, the broad perspective of Marxism actually argues for recognition of both tangible and intangible work and respects all kinds of labour equally. To end on a humorous note, 'the world that you live and depend on' was once flat, according to certain physical observations. However, 'intellectual' scientists proposed the idea of a spherical world without creating any 'physical' model. Maybe, that's also an instance of 'superior intellectualism'?
@@JP-fb8ni My friend, if you were living in in the good old days of Soviet Union, I must say that you would deserve a Socialist fraternal kiss. Not on the cheek.. The other superior one with the tongue. As expected from a fellow comrade, you didn't fail to write a lot of words with no meaning. And this is also another characteristic of the intellectuals and communists. No matter how many books you've read and took photos to share with your fellows comrades, no matter how many complex failed ideologies you try to spread, in the end, you lack the ability to comprehend what is really going in the real world and most important, how the real world works. Oh, I know your kind very well, and I say kind, because this is what your ideology dictates you. You think that people should be treated as a homogenous mass or blob, but when you're treated as such, you close your minds and start to squeak words with no meaning. Words that you know by heart, because that's what you're capable to do only. Copy, not create. Because creation needs the ability to know where you are, how things work, break the rules, follow the rules, be free... And freedom is something both far left and right detest because you can't control a free mind. I bet you can't even comprehend what the word "FREE" means, because you've never felt what it is to be free. I can understand that you've seen this word before, you've heard about it, but voluntarily you have chosen to ignore it and replace it with "sacrifice". Sacrifice for someone else. Sacrifice for the Greater Good!!! You play the savior's game, so to give meaning to your meaningless lives. But then again you fail even to do that, because all the sacrifice is only in words. You roleplay and cosplay Jesus, that your life has meaning only if you sacrifice yourself for the Greater good! But in the end, you fail miserably to save even yourselves. You find yourselves to be nothing without the state or an employer who feeds you in the mouth like a mother feeds her children and tells them what to do when they feel lost, who cuddles them to feel safe, who eats them alive, because they are grown up and instead of teaching them how to make their own family, she gives them even more love, because she has nothing else to do in this world.... I know very well that you have a great plan in your mind on how to save the world. All the greatest minds have come together and built the Greatest plan of them all... but then you stopped. You stopped because none from the Great planners are willing to get up from their chair and make it happen. Their part is fulfilled, so the rest should follow, isn't it? Now they should rest their minds, because their minds worked non stop to make the plan, but the plan should be materialized and supervised, and who's better to do that than the Great planners? Their shiny shoes and clothes cannot be spoiled with dirt or mud, because now they are gods and should be treated as such. And what better way to do that by using symbolism.... Oh the good old symbolism.. They also thought about that. Symbolism is the way that people who who never read a book or don't even know how to read a book fear and praise. And so it be, the hammer and sickle... So you have created your faux gods and symbols, but what they really are? You'll ask me "what do you mean, you've already told me", but did you manage to comprehend what I've said? I have no doubt that you've seen these tools, the hammer and sickle is well known, but do you know what they really are beyond a picture in your mind? Have you ever touched any of those in your life? They are the symbols that will bring the utopia after all, we should all hang them at our walls, but then again, there's no need to do that. There's a picture in the book that has everything on how to achieve the utopia. But time flies, so are you sure they are tools and not something else? Because symbols are powerful and stay burnt in people's minds... but symbols also fade. Not in memory, but in meaning and what the symbol represented. And so, it becomes bastardized, with every new god planner adding new meaning to the symbol and so on, till it becomes a symbol of a candy wrap or a t-shirt who demands to communicate with others that I am something special because I've read it's cool..... My friend, I hope this day will never come where the society will be brought down by the same people who wanted to save society, when society only needed to be left alone... I hope, but I know it will be brought down. And when it will and come scared to me for help because there will be nothing left standing, at least show the minimum sign that you have something that resembles a soul and say that you are sorry.
@@gt4654You really are something special, aren't you? You weave words like a master artisan and present arguments so colourfully that I almost forgot to focus on their substance - which, frankly, turned out to be non-existent, just like my fairy godmother. Your enchanting ramble also reminds me of a peacock flaunting its plumage, its beauty belying the absence of intellectual prowess. For all your criticism of intellectual labour, you seem to have gone on quite a poetic journey, jumping from topics as unrelated as 'copy, not create', to mommy feeding and god-like creators. What was it about intellectuals refusing to get their hands dirty, again? I also had a good chuckle at your mentioning the symbols, 'the hammer and sickle'. Yes, the symbolic meaning of the hammer and sickle is known to even a six-year-old: labour by hands (the hammer) and labour by land (the sickle). Maybe not as tantalising as candy wrappers for some, but as a symbol, it truly hits home the very essence of physical and intellectual work, beautifully intertwined in unity. By the way, you seemed to imply earlier that only physical labour qualifies as work, that creation necessitates 'getting up from the chair', so to speak. Pray tell, was the statement you just produced 'created' while doing a set of squats or push-ups, or perhaps during a gruelling hike uphill in the mountains? Oh, and this disdain you hold for freedom. Don't confuse yourself here. Marx and freedom were actually close pals. In his world, 'FREE' would mean emancipation from exploitation. Workers would no longer be 'controlled by the state', as you claim, but would control the state. No more 'selling yourself' to the highest bidder - that's a 'FREE' Marx stood for. Your portrait of us lefties 'cosplaying Jesus', 'saving the world' is also a striking image, but as with the rest of your argument, grossly inaccurate. No grand delusions of saviourhood here, just a longing for fair compensation for labour and a classless society. Surely, we can agree that's not too much to ask? Anyway, should the day ever come when society does crumble (as you're confident it will), I wouldn't run scared to you or anyone else. We Marxists tend to handle our own messes. But thanks for the concern. Finally, your dramatic lament about 'hope' sounds like the trailer of a very dramatic disaster movie. Well, get your popcorn ready because the proletariat's blockbuster release titled Society Needs Not To Be Saved, But To Be Freed is just around the corner! Who knows? Maybe it will outperform your personal horror show 'Society Left Alone'.
So I found the video, and it's really a 'no duh" there's this thing called surplus. The working people don't get that surplus. What I noticed was this trend with Marxism in the middle. A teensy little section about 3 minutes 30 seconds about consumption. "Think about how much time you spend consuming and how hard it is to find something to do that isn't consuming." This is one of the subtle undercurrents of Marxism that always brings me back to reality to reject it. "How dare you want to eat and have nice things." That's what the statement really boils down to. Don't play games of sophistry. EVERYTHING you do, everything is the consumption of resources. I am typing now, which requires energy which requries food (and electricity, and a computer or a phone) all consumer goods. Consumer goods are products for people. Ultimately what an economy is for is to produce things for the people to consume. But here comes the communist "wouldn't you be happier with less? Lets offer you less greedy capitalist pig...." Ironic considering this is a video about how workers aren't getting their fair share...
You've entirely misunderstood. Marxism has NOTING to do with the rejection of consumption. At all. Where exactly did you get that idea from? Marxism is an analysis of capitalism. What Marx is trying to understand in the section you're referring to is how consumption _operates under capitalism in particular._ The point being made is that commodities under capitalism are produced for the purpose of exchange, rather than primarily for their use values (although they do obviously have to have a use value, for them to be exchangeable). What many Marxists championed (William Morris being an obvious example) is the production of commodities primarily _as_ use values, rather than for their exchange value. But whatever you make a commodity for, it's obviously going to be consumed. So if you thought Marx was criticising consumption, you've entirely missed the point. You probably got thrown off by the term 'commodity fetishism', which the video didn't try to explain. This isn't a moral condemnation of the commodity, or of consumption. It's a term for when the commodity becomes a representation (i.e a fetish, in the original sense of the word) which obscures all the social relations behind it. So for example, when you buy a loaf of bread, all you see is the bread. What you don't see (unless you're actively thinking about it) are all the social relations behind it - all the productive human labour which went into making it and getting it to the supermarket. Again, this isn't a moral point or anything like that, it's just a description of how commodities present themselves to us under a given mode of production.
@@monkeymox2544 Dude, total thumbs up even if I don't agree with the point that was a very solid defined argument that explained so many thoughts. I'd explain that the problem with abandoning comodities is that well... that means abandoning specialization. Comodities are items produced en mass for trade correct? Not for their use value to the producer but to the potential consumers in exhcange for the things the producer needs? In other words, rejection of comodities is rejection of trade, which is the only way that specialization occurs. The opposite of that is subsistance work where one person tries to do everything themselves / produce all within a locality, which is the story of roughly 8/10ths of human history, and it is a story of utter misery and poverty. Fuedalism is an example of this subsistance anti trade work on a local leve as manorialism came into being as a result of trade essentially becoming impossible in the late Roman empire. People tried to form tiny self sufficient enclaves that produced as much of everything possible themselves. It allowed people to survive but it was as prosperous as specialization brought on by trade. You combine this with... the anti human way Marxist actors approach global resources and climate change, ie outright nakedly saying "people get progressively less until the planet is fixed" and you can understand why my perception is what it is. In almost every Marxist criqitue of liberal society ("capitalism" is a straw man in my opinion) there is a backhand comment denegrating liberal society for it's rampant consumerism. ie " how dare people want so much stuff."
It seems like there might be a bit of confusion about Marx's critique of value. You're right that workers are paid, but that payment usually doesn't reflect the total value they produce. This difference, which Marx calls surplus value, is essentially the source of profits in the capitalist economy. It's also true that it can be tricky to calculate a worker's exact contribution, but that's exactly Marx's point. In the capitalist system, workers are often paid less than the full value of their labour because part of the value they generate goes towards the owner's profit. It's like this: say you bake biscuits, or what you in the US call cookies, and sell each one for a dollar. The ingredients and baking time might cost fifty cents. If you were paid only the cost, fifty cents, there would be no profit. The extra fifty cents per cookie sold - that's the surplus value that you created but isn't going into your pocket. It's not that it's impossible to quantify, but it's overlooked, which Marx argued is unfair.
I am halfway through the video and I can't help but think this is bullcrap. I am really trying hard to understand what you're saying about value, but your definition is so artificial and nonsensical. Value is not only affected by labor time. Who cares if a chair is made by 5 carpenters working together, or a 1 machine, or even a freaking genie. Nobody cares! Nobody cares how much they are paid! People only cares about the chair(unless it is an exclusive item or some sort). Can you see where I am getting at? Value is determined by supply and demand! This is tested and proven already. Where can we find your definition of value in real life? Does anyone counts the labor time for a commodity before buying? Unless you're insane, nobody gives a shit. I only care about how cheap the commodity is and how high its quality is. I say demand and supply affects value. And that's true. Buyers of a commodity have differing opinions on how much value a commodity has. That's why in the first place it's nonsensical to get a measure of value from the amount of labor, labor time, amount of machine hours, capital, or any of those crap. For a coin collector, that ancient coin might be worth a hundred dollars, but for me I might think I will only pay one cent for that crap. I will only change my assessment of the value of that coin when I hear that other people will buy it for higher. Supply decreases a commodity's price because there is so much stuff to sell. If I satisified a buyer with a high value assessment for my good, I will be left with people with lower assessment of value to my good. This race for the bottom lowers its value. The reverse is true when there's low supply. Only the high assessment of value buyers will get the thing. That's why the commodity will have higher exchange value because of its exclusivity. You can fill the gaps for demand. What I am saying is half of this video(since I had only watched a half) is bullcrap! Convince me otherwise!
Alright, it's pretty clear you've got a bone to pick with the idea of labour value. Let's see if I can shed some light on what Marx was getting at. Firstly, it's worth noting that Marx was fully aware of supply and demand - he's not disregarding it, he's merely saying there's another layer underneath it. You also use a great example of the coin collector. So, imagine two coins, one from the ancient Roman era and one fresh off the mint from the present day. Both of these coins have the exact same use-value - they're equally useful. And, at a given point, the supply and demand could be the same for both coins. Yet, we all know which one would fetch a higher price on the market - the ancient Roman coin. Why? Well, this is where Marx comes in. It's not about the direct labour time poured into creating the coin - it's about socially necessary labour time, or in other words, how long it would take society on average to reproduce this coin. And an ancient Roman coin would take a significant amount of time, if we were even able to recreate it authentically. The coin collector knows this, and that's why they're willing to pay more. Likewise with your chair example - it's not about who, or how many, or in what way the chair is made, but rather how long it would take society to reproduce that chair. A handcrafted oak chair, that would take skilled labour and specialised knowledge to make, would take a long time to reproduce, and so has a higher labour value. And the time and cost associated with the skill and the materials required factor into the final price. But you're right in a way - people often only care about the quality and cost of the product. This is what Marx critiques. He says that by buying a commodity, we hide the real labour value - the social labour that went into it. In an ideal world, he believes that labour should be adequately compensated based on the labour time it takes to reproduce that product. But here's the crux of Marx's argument: Capitalism creates a system where profit often overrides labour value, creating an exploitative system. Capitalism, in fact, encourages buying labour as cheaply as possible, thus often undervaluing it. I hope this helps you understand the perspective a bit more, even if you don't fully agree.
@@JP-fb8ni Ow, I now understand Marx's perspective a little bit better and I appreciate your great explanation, however I am still not convinced. I will use your example of an ancient Roman coin and a newly minted coin. A coin collector sees these two coins with different values. You argue that this is because the coin collector "knows" how much labour and how long it would take to reproduce it assuming it's even possible. However, I argue that the coin collector does not need to "know" how much labour is spent and he/she will only care about it not being reproducible and how ancient it is. I am saying that scarcity and not labor value is what's raising the value of the Roman coin. In the example about the chair, the specialty and the skills of the people behind the making of the chair is already reflected on the quality of the chair. The exception will be if Taylor Swift made the chair, then it will be valued based on who made the labour. However, this can still be classified as being valuable because it is scarce(the only chair made by Taylor Swift). I am saying that scarcity makes a commodity valuable rather than labor value in the first example. In the second example, skills and expertise behind the labour of the chair is already reflected on its quality and therefore its price. I am painfully aware of how Capitalism widens economic inequality. I am a citizen of a third world country and it sucks being the stagnators in globalization. However, capitalism is a great system no matter how much you hate it. It is freedom in its purest form. It has flaws for sure, but for now that is being covered by the government no matter how corrupt it is. The politicians' interests happen to align, since he/she needs the people to vote for him and he/she also needs the people as human resources. Oil-rich countries are dictatorships because they don't rely on human resources. Anyway, I digressed too much. Back to topic. Labour value is a laughable concept. No amount of labor that is not reflected in the commodity will have any value. It doesn't matter if your carbonated water is made by decomposing diamonds in a very hot furnace or if your carbonated water is just made of plain water and carbon dioxide. The only thing that matters is the quality of the final product. That is what gives its value.
@@jakeaustria5445 I appreciate your point of view and your contribution to this discussion. You make some compelling points, but allow me to present a different angle. While I see how scarcity can be a determinant of value - let's face it, people tend to crave what's hard to get - Marx argues that there's actually a lot more at play here. It's not just about scarcity, but the process it would take to replace that scarce object, the so-called socially necessary labour time. Sure, we don't often consider the 'behind-the-scenes' work, but Marx posits that it's still inherently tied to a commodity's worth. I also hear you when you say quality determines the price, but where does that quality come from? Isn't it from the skill and expertise of the labour involved? That labour should also be reflected in the value, right? Let's also put aside celebrity endorsements, as they're more about marketing and brand, which is a whole other kettle of fish. Your example of carbonated water also brings to mind an interesting question: why do some people buy pricey Perrier while others stick to the budget store brand? Isn't it, in part, about the labour, expertise, and process that goes into creating that distinct Perrier taste and brand reputation? This is part of Marx's critique - under capitalism, the 'real value' of labour can often get lost, obscured by marketing gimmicks and shiny branding. Now, about capitalism being 'freedom in its purest form'. Freedom for whom? Certainly not for the labourers at the bottom rung who often work long hours for a wage that doesn't necessarily cover basic living costs, right? They may have the 'freedom' to work, but do they have real choices? That's one of the questions that Marx and other critics of capitalism try to bring to the table. And while capitalism has certainly driven impressive technological advancements and wealth, Marx actually challenges us to look deeper - to consider if that's a truly equitable distribution of wealth and if there might be a more fair system. Is capitalism 'the best we can do', or can we strive for something better? And is valuing labour in our economic system one step towards that goal? Again, your perspective is valued, and I appreciate the chance to exchange thoughts with you. Hopefully, this has offered you a new way to consider Marx's theories.
@@JP-fb8ni I very much like how productive this conversation is. You are presenting your arguments that are very good. However, I just can't accept it. It's probably not because I have a bias in capitalism(probably I have). We have these two differing philosophies. I look at how valuable the product is at face value, while you look at the hidden value of the product. I think there's nothing wrong, about these two perspectives. But I am in the face value philosophy and I feel like looking at the hidden value is a bit naive in my perspective, no offense. First, let's explore your argument. Correct me if I am wrong. Labor Value -> Product -> Product Value A product's value has an inherent labor value in it that was being obscured by marketing gimmicks and shiny branding. Here is my argument Product -> Product Value The difference in my point of view is that I removed the Labor Value in the equation. This is because I observed that when a product is put on the shelf, the buyers will then examine it, and then put a value. They usually don't care how the product is made, but how well they are made. Exceptions are vegans and other note-worthy sensitive groups of people. We first need to establish a common ground we can agree on. I agree that for a product to be made, there must be labor. I will restrict the definition for the two of us to specifically mean the work of squishy meat-bags favored by evolution aka homo sapiens. Machines will be considered Capital. Land can also be considered Capital. Raw materials are also Capital. There is no sense differentiating them if you get them when a rich person buys it in one go without caring about how he/she treats them. The rich person are therefore free to make his/her own decisions on the capital. We can therefore not make any meaningful economics since economics means making decisions because of limited resources. If they are the ones making the decisions for that, then we can't change it. There will always be buyers of capital in any economic system. We can change this definition later on. Therefore, I agree that for a product to be made, there must be a presence of these two elements: Labor and Capital. That's why I also agree that there is an inherent labor value inside a product. However, this is where we diverge. I think that when a product is sold all the inherent values must already be reflected in the quality and quantity of the product. That's why it is nonsensical to talk about labor value in determining what makes a commodity valuable. Let's also make sure I get the right definition of labor value. Labor value is the inherent value of the product from the labor that made it. Labor value can also mean the amount of time and resources needed to be spent to create the product. I prefer the second definition you proposed since it is more concrete. Please correct me later. Your perspective says that this inherent value of labor must not be taken out in determining the value of the product. I feel like you are also saying that this is somewhat a necessary step in determining what's a fair economic system. An example of this is pricing a good based on its inherent labor value and not based on what the market dictates. Pretty interesting concept. We can flesh out the details, but let's just say it is possible to price a product based on its inherent labor value. My mother is telling me to do something? A bummer. I will continue later.
@@jakeaustria5445 Jake, it's a pleasure having this insightful discussion with you! Let's go straight to it, shall we? You've pinpointed one of the core arguments of Marx - labour value isn't just hidden, it's inherently connected to the worth of a commodity. The process of valuing goods on their inherent labour might seem too simplistic or even naive from your viewpoint. I see where you're coming from - consumers typically prioritise quality, price, and their personal preferences. However, from Marx's perspective, the fact that these factors determine the commodity's market price is a characteristic of capitalism that alienates workers from their labour and creates a market dynamic which prioritises profit over equitable compensation. Let me illustrate with an example. If a cobbler spends ten hours making a pair of shoes using quality materials, and a factory pumps out a hundred pairs using lower-quality materials but a faster production method, consumers are likely to be swayed by the cheaper, readily available factory-made shoes. Yet, who's really producing the 'greater' value here? For Marx, it would be the cobbler, even though the market might not agree. Herein lies the problem: when labour and its value are divorced from the product it produces, we, as a society, begin to devalue the importance of the labour itself. For Marx, placing the emphasis back on labour is about reinstating the real 'human cost' of a product and restructuring the economic system so that value isn't exclusively based on market prices. Incidentally, in response to your mum's request, remember to put some value on that domestic labour as well! 😉
Footnotes:
1. Even here we can easily trip. “Productive labour” refers to workers who do labour of a productive sort, and not the activity of labour. As we will see, what is bought from productive labour is not the labour itself, but the capacity to labour, or, in other words, labour-power. The process of exchange assigns to the products of labour, according to Marx, value according to an abstraction of the actual labour done to produce them. If the capitalist was buying labour rather than labour-power, then, like any other commodity, the value in it would simply be transferred to the product. However, value certainly increases in production.
2. “The market” is not a term Marx uses, preferring to speak of commodities in exchange. Markets usually imply competition and openness, but exchanges do not always happen in a market. Occasional exchange between communities exists even where and when markets have never developed, and in capitalism, exchanges often happen directly through relationships between institutions, rather than in markets. Referring to these special contexts as “the market”, as well as grouping all markets into one general market, are imprecise. We chose to use “the market”, and similar imprecisions throughout this script, for the sake of ease of comprehension.
3. Although Marx expresses value as a quantity, there is some debate as to whether it has a quantity prior to measurement by the value form. Values are definitely magnitudes, but quantity entails a universal basis for comparison; a magnitude may be lesser than, greater than, or equal to any individual magnitude with which it interacts, but it is only a quantity when it is compared to an ordered set of known magnitudes. In other words, the measure, or form, may be said to be what gives quantity to value.
4. Some forms of labour produce more value than others. In which case, it can be accounted for as a ratio of some reference rate of value production. This is not important to the dynamics Marx is trying to express, however.
5. In proper Hegelian fashion, the progressive development of value throughout the opening chapters of Capital vol. I is both a logical and historical account. That is, it’s not just that the multiple forms of value create a consistent and necessary whole, but that the maturation of one form leads to the next. Engels’ historical account serves to ground and justify both elements, demonstrating the use of time-cost tradeoffs in pre-capitalist commodity exchange. This genealogical account produces a system, which subsequent developments alter and perturb, hence the fundamental nature of value is preserved, if new developments change the distribution of values. Its essence remains congealed social labour. It should not be held to be the case that Marx is elaborating a set of stages; it’s not that one form develops, followed by the other, rather, it’s that as one begins to develop, it gives way to the next. One does not have to complete before the next starts, because they are a dynamical process.
6. A boss could do some of the work, but we can treat the money they make as part wage and part surplus and recover the same analysis. Owners of capital need not do any of the work to hold title to profit, and the size of their profit is not related to the value they contributed, as they have the right to decide what it is all by themselves. In this analysis, profit can be immediately reinvested rather than realized as capital gains, and rents and interest are paid out of the surplus value of production. Surplus can also be directed towards savings, or, as Marx refers to them, hoards, but this adds too much complication to the analysis to address here. Hoarding is addressed in vol. I of Capital. Preliminary notes on rents come from Rent of Land, which appears in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts. A more extensive theory of rents (which we’ve discussed in another video) appears in vol. III of Capital.
7. What about “gig workers”, who get paid for the time they put in? They typically aren’t compensated for equipment expenses, and wind up making less even than is necessary to get by for any reasonable length of time. On some rare occasions, the gig economy can even generate enough revenue to reinvest, although its expansion is mostly driven by surplus from other sectors, and it remains to be seen whether it can actually profit on its own, even in the first world, which buffers profits with values displaced from the third. There could be a whole script on how the gig economy works. In any case, gig workers’ hourly pay seems to be a false choice, a false relation to labour or profitability: it’s calculated (and actualized via “flooding the market”) so that you have to work a certain amount to meet your expenses, and so that you have the incentive to work when you are needed, and you cannot expect to do any better than a typical wage in your area.
8. Marx is pretty keen to note that, in fact, this presupposed state was created, and it was not accepted in the beginning. He notes in particular the British acts of enclosure, which drove peasants into the city because they could no longer use traditionally common land they depended on. Many other instances of similar practices have taken place. These processes of dispossession have always been violent, are often violently resisted, and are still ongoing.
9. While volume III of Capital explores how prices and values, profits and surplus values do not wind up the same, the economy is always overall extracting a surplus value.
10. Taken from volume III. Previous economists, notably Ricardo, also had a “law of value”, but where Marx expressed a dynamical, or in other terms, dialectical relationship between price and value, Ricardo expressed a linear one: goods are expected to sell at their values. Engels shows how this was the case, at points in the past, but capitalism had already evolved to the point that price was disconnected from value in his time. Some Marxists disagree with Marx’s expression of the law of value in vol. III, using it in a broader sense. For the sake of an arguable fidelity to Marx, and ease of understanding, the account from vol. III has been used over subsequent discussions.
11. The use of “firm”, “business”, “capitalist”, “boss”, “employer”, and so on, are useful shorthands that ground the analysis, but the object of the analysis is not so much these concrete entities as it is capitals, which we might think of as productive investments. People are always the agents of whatever capital does, but it would be misleading to say that just abolishing the bourgeoisie as a distinct class of people fixes the problem; their functions as agents of capital can be absorbed by other people, in different social positions. Engels considers this in his account of state capitalism in Anti-Dühring.
The most leftist footnote I have ever seen.
Footnotes in general: few words
Footnotes of marxists: entire article
Next part is hidden?
No subtitles for English
The work you do on this channel to educate people on Marxism is incredible. Thank you so much for your labor in making these succinct videos.
Marxism is nonsense, easily debunked by just understanding basic econ 101 concepts like subjective value.
This exploitation explanation is extremely apt for Silicon valley. The engineers here put in millions of dollars of work into a year but only receive a few hundred thousand in recompense. No wonder these companies market caps are greater than the GDP of the vast majority of countries in the world
the engineer are working voluntarily, i dont see the injustice
@@felipetalavera7761Ah yes, because 'voluntarily' labouring for less than you're worth is definitely the epitome of justice. Tell me, if I gave you a gold nugget but only paid you as though it was a pebble, that'd be totally fair because you voluntarily accepted it, right?
First of all, in silicon valley there a lot of startup where the mayority of workers own the company, second when u make an agreement u do it voluntarily
So yes, if u agreed to get pay less there is no Injustice
@felipetalavera7761 you're so politically illiterate, it's pitiful. Lmao
Right! Marx saw surplus value as a means to grow capital, and under socialism he probably saw surplus product just being used for the benefit of the people, like some kind of tax.
surplus value only exists as a category due to the class relation. if you own your own labor time and the means of production, that time cannot be divided into paid and unpaid labor. if you're reading this, read capital.
@@flantos23 i'm already reading capital, thanks.
No the point is surplus value won't exist
In a communist society
@@Comrade_Zaz What exactly do you mean in a "communist society" ?
@@apestogetherstrong341 probably he meant a stateless, moneyless and classless society, I assume
Elas, Robot, and Val are all megaminds. Props!
@Hydra Hydra is that you>
Feed the algorithm
good to see y'all are still cooperating in the discord : )
-bran
In this video some things are not shown correctly, I suspect:
* Labor products and goods
- According to Marx, no goods can be produced at all:
- A work product only becomes a commodity when it becomes a use value for others through exchange (!).
- That only happens on the market.
- Consequently, it will only be decided on the market whether the labor expended on the labor product was socially useful and thus “value-creating”.
* Wages for the "full value" of the work results?
- You would also notice that if you answered YES to the question in the title of the video:
- It is not the work that is paid, but the values of the workforce.
- One could then pay the workers the wages for the sale of their labor in the full amount of the value of the labor products (W = c + v + m) only in cases when the labor products were also sold, that is, when these values are formed in the first place.
- Before the work products are sold, there is no surplus value - the buyer only pays for it on the market.
- Since the surplus value according to Marx is part of the value, it can be before the surplus value is not paid (positive, zero or "negative", i.e. not even the costs c + v are reimbursed when the product is sold).
- However, there is only surplus value if the buyer fully (!) reimburses the costs c + v beforehand.
- This makes it clear that the value is not calculated from the production costs c + v and the expected surplus value, but from the replacement of the costs plus the surplus value actually paid.
- This also corresponds with Marx's statement that only socially useful work creates value. The social usefulness cannot be determined by words like “This product is very useful!”, but only by exchanging this product for a value equivalent.
- The fact that a product has to be exchanged in order to recognize its usefulness corresponds in turn to Marx's statement that a labor product only becomes a commodity if it becomes a use value for others through exchange.
- If one were to pay the workers the wages for the products that could not be sold, then money would come into circulation that would not be clogged by goods or services. That would be inflation money, an excess money compared to the supply of goods and services.
- Another problem would be noticed: You couldn't pay the workers the “s” portion of the work products, because you can't produce the surplus value, the buyers have to pay for it on the market.
- In the production area of the commodity society there are only costs and an expected surplus value.
* Value as a social relationship
- Only the prerequisites for value relationships, surplus value and so for values can be produced.
- Value is a social relationship, a relationship between people that is formed in order to exchange a commodity for a value equivalent.
- Only when it comes to an exchange is the value formed - not from the production costs plus the expected surplus value, but from the replacement of the costs plus the real added value!
- This corresponds to Marx's statement that only socially useful work creates value.
* Is the formula W = c + v + s still correct if c + v reflect the production costs?
- Yes, but only on average, that does not apply to every single product!
- If production is to be maintained, improved and expanded, it is necessary that when the products are sold, the production costs usually have to be reimbursed and an surplus value that is estimated to be sufficient has to be paid.
- If one uses the costs c + v and not the replacement of these, the formula is indirectly valid - it indicates an economic necessity.
* Absolute and relative usefulness
- Economics is not about absolute usefulness, i.e. about a potential use value!
- It is always about relative use values, use values that are recognized through exchange with other potential use values in the economic sense through exchange:
- For every human being, the needs are usually greater in scope than their ability to satisfy them.
- For this reason, he must weight his exchange or purchase decisions.
- Only when the weighted need for a product in a buyer is so great that he buys it does he recognize the potential usefulness of this product as a real usefulness for him and thus for society.
- For the exchange, in turn, the buyer and the seller form a value relationship, the reference points of which are both the product and the value equivalent.
- In relation to these reference points, the value is formed on the social level between the exchange partners and assigned to both the commodity and the value equivalent.
- There are no intrinsic values. Value is a social phenomenon that is only formed between people, specifically between exchange partners, and only works between them.
- The value is determined objectively by social and natural conditions, but is individually influenced.
- There cannot be a purely objective value, because that would be independent of people.
- Without question there are things, processes and phenomena that are independent of people, but these cannot be social relationships.
* Value and exchange value
- There is no difference between value and exchange value - the value is identical to the exchange value.
- Marx defines the difference because he starts from a "produced" value, but he also states that the products are not exchanged according to this "produced" value.
- In reality the “produced value” is only an expected one - see above.
- There is no produced value, Marx contradicts himself - see above.
* Work and value
- Work determines the value, but this is not just about human work.
- Value is assigned and assigned to a product screwed together by a machine in the same way as a product screwed together by a person.
you're making a lot of good points
here's another one: if an ox plows a filed, is it entitled to all the grain produced from that field is it alienated from the fruit of its labor? What about a self-driving, gps-controlled tractor?
@@mentalitydesignvideo
Thanks!
You have correctly recognized that I make good arguments.
But your questions show me that I haven't explained everything well.
This is how I use your questions to clarify:
Regarding 1) No, an ox has no right to all the grain.
Because he only receives part of the grain in the form of means of subsistence as a reward for using his labor (he does not work as free labor like people under capitalism, but more like a slave with a slave owner), but he will not deprived of the full result of his work:
According to Marx, a human worker in this field would, with his socially useful work, materialize the value of his labor power in the products of his work.
Equivalently, the ox would do the same thing, because in principle it works in the same way for the landlord.
A farmer's means of subsistence include, in proportion to the work, food, clothing, personal hygiene, living space, and (quite limited in the 19th century) health care and the occasional beer.
The ox's means of subsistence include water, food, personal care, a place in the stable, occasional health care, etc. It is similar to human labor.
In my view, however, no value is materialized through work, but rather an expected value from the landlord is associated with the products of work.
This expected value corresponds to the proportional costs for a certain amount of grain, i.e. the costs for human and animal labor. This means that the landowner would like to be reimbursed for these costs by selling his grain, as well as an estimated surplus value that he adds and which he think that he can obtain on the market.
If he is able to sell his grain as desired, the value is determined with the sale and the in same amount it will be assigned (from the exchange partners) to his grain and the equivalent value (money or goods). This means that when it is sold, the work done on the grain is qualified as socially useful and therefore as value-creating.
If he cannot sell it, for example because he cannot find a buyer quickly enough and the grain goes moldy through a hole in the roof of the barn, the expected value for this grain will remain - a real value will then not be formed.
Regarding 2) With a self-propelled tractor it would be the same, only that its means of subsistence are more different from those that people and oxen need: diesel fuel, oil, grease, garage, maintenance, repairs, paint, tires (instead of shoes for humans) , electricity for electronics, etc.
The landlord also uses the tractor like a slave.
@@rainerlippert jeez, man, I was just being sarcastic in respect to Marxist dogma which I find to be flawed
@@mentalitydesignvideo
Hello Viktor (I hope I can call you so), you are welcome!
I wish you complete success with your videos!
For me, your “Berlin Street Video” conveys the mood in which I find myself under the current politics in the country.
@@rainerlippert thank you, I appreciate that very much
Yes. Thanks for watching
Where can I find part 2? On the playlist it says it's hidden and unavailable ):
Thank you for your explanation of Marx's labour theory of value. We are a small team in Hong Kong and have also tried to explain these concepts in the form of short animations. Our latest video has English subtitles, and we're looking for constructive comments as well!
Hello Dade Society! Please contact my organisation, the Socialist Party of Great Britain - we have been promoting democratic socialist ideas based on Marx's critique of capitalism since 1904 and would be eager to assist you if our interpretation coincides. Stephen Finch Manchester Branch SPGB
I think one thing to realize is that some some of managerial positions in general, while debatably being needed/not needed in certain circumstances, are far from what makes a society capitalist. Capitalism is what allows such positions to have complete autocratic control as it gives the capitalist leverage over the proletariat that without organized collective bargaining, is impossible to overcome. So in other words you can still have a boss, you just aren't inevitably stuck with a shitty one. And also the more relevant aspect is the fact that the profits obviously would go to the capitalist or capitalists, while the proletariat are wage laborers in which their wage has nothing to do with profits. Whether or not de-centralized or centralized organization is desirable I would say is a decent debate, as both sides I say make good points, but its a different debate, since managers have nothing to do with capitalism inherently. That being said, if managers are required they would still obviously have to be compensated in some capacity imo, maybe at a lower level than the proletariat but at some level, so how would that fit into
Wait, why would managers get paid less necessarily? Managing is still work and could be reasonably difficult. Remember we're not saying all labor will become maual work that produces tangible products. Ideas are work. Management is work. Etc.
@@HallyVee oh did I say that my B idk why I did. At least I’m conceding to their necessity which for some reason is a contentious topic
@@shady8045 yeah I'm unsure why it's contentious as well. Oh wait no it's an issue cause the anarchist wing of the Left, correct? Power and hierarchy etc. So the unnuanced anarchic views cast management in a poor light.
@@HallyVee yeah basically
very concise and informative
Hey, do you make available the transcripts to be able to add translations?
I think an important way you could play with this is by having multiple routes, like in a roguelike. Down one path there are good roads, there are stopping points like you've described here, but it takes a little longer to go where you're going. It'll also be more monitored by traveling guards seeking to capture criminals, so if the party is on the run they'll want to steer clear of these places.
Have u made a video on the transformation problem
Your project is great. Nice job
I don't know if this is a thing with this video specifically or something to do with my settings or something, but the subtitles want to be either in Turkish or translated from automatically generated Turkish subtitles. The results, while admittedly quite amusing, are not particularly useful for actually watching the video.
Yeah i thought i was tripping lol
You're back awesome
Another Based Video Comrade!
Excellent video, thanks comrade
How do we begin to think about modern day branding from a Marxist sense? Surely there are plenty of commodities whose use value (quality) are nearly identical or only nominally different but sold for drastically different prices. Do we consider these commodities the same or not the same for socially necessary labor time and value?
Like… hand bag A vs hand bag G. Both made from the same materials and production time is roughly the same, but hand bag A is perceived to be inferior despite having the same use value and product life as hand bag G, which sells for 10x the price. Are they both hand bags for the purposes of socially necessary labor time and value, or are they distinct from one another on the basis of the brand?
There are two ways to comment on this. First we would say that Marx's theory is not a price theory (the video talked about how values are what is distributed in exchange). Some theorists would disagree, but I would say SNLT is not predictive of prices. Marx also held that luxury goods have no value, although many subsequent theorists reject that idea.
The other approach is to incorporate an idea from bourgeois economics that treats commodities as variably substitutable, so branding is in part an exercise in making people less willing to substitute any old backpack for a Fjallraven backpack. iPhones do many of the same things Androids do, but they are not quite the same, and this makes iPhone users unwilling to switch, even if the price is relatively high, allowing Apple to charge as though it has a monopoly, up to a certain point.
The LTV is most useful as part of an explanation and critique of capitalism (bourgeoisie stealing the product of our labour instead of it going to society as a whole is the big one).
Workers live by the laws of value out of necessity. An artisan operates on the motion of C-M-C and so do cooperatives. Neither an artisan, nor a member of a co-op is inherently incentivised to maximise the growth of their enterprise but rather to secure their own long-term happiness which is objectively best served by co-operating with other artisans and co-ops. So, under certain conditions with as of yet generalised commodity production, society should be able to move further away from capital and commodity production and towards communism. It's probably not going to be a sudden break from the concept of value on a scale large enough to achieve communistic autarky.
^Wolffist gang
Strictly speaking, this is not a reading of Marx, as Marx was emphatic that maintaining commodity production but fixing its rules of distribution did not do much to correct the "bad incentives" created by commodity production. This is reiterated in the Gotha Critique and goes back to his debates with Proudhon. While there obviously must be some intermediate states of affairs in between this social form and communism, Marx seemed to believe in implementing the so-called lower phase of communism fairly quickly and directly, which he is clear already abolishes commodity production. This account has never really come to pass though, so it's correct to feel as though we need to ask whether transition must be much longer than expected, if production hasn't reached a certain stage of development, if communist revolutions haven't succeeded at controlling a sufficient share of world production, or if we have been missing something qualitative. In short, we do need to critically evaluate both the nature of communist production and its conditions of possibility. We will cover that in another video.
-Robot
What… if an employer increases production, by the law of value this would mean the value of the commodity drops and thus the price. So how is there more surplus value here? If production doubles, then the prices halve, and then it’s all the same
I absolutely didn't understand the need for a third kind of abstract value. Value is extremely subjective. And every good or service is valued to optimize profits, so you have to attract maximum number of people for the biggest price tag (of course these in most cases are counterbalanced) and that's it, that's value of the object. Of course, subjective value may not match this value, that determines if you will buy it or not.
Value does not equal price. The Labor Theory of Value is most useful for Marx’s critique of capitalism.
Amazing analysis and presentation. :)
Love the title of this video I'm excited.. I always had qualms with this phrase.
It's not possible to directly get the full value of labour
I want to add that it should be more about control and power than exact or precise remuneration for our labour's
As the video points out, it goes deeper than that. Marx is questioning the system of production that makes remuneration conceivable, by tracing exploitation back to its fundamental nature.
@@distortiontildeafness what is there to stop co-ops from forming under the present capitalist economies?
@Yorkshire MGTOW it's possible to form co ops under the current regime, but there's more barriers than there should be, including economic and ideological , nevermind political. Even then cooperatives as a whole, if revolutionary in character will face limitations under the current system eventually.
The struggle will continue
@@distortiontildeafness How are there political and ideological barriers in capitalism? Can you give me some?
Where can we find this letter he wrote to the party in 75? Thanks
It's called Critique of the Gotha Program
Why still use plastic to cover the wood ? I mean, that's the reason why you built the shelt, right?
I have some big issues with Marxism that I'm hoping someone might be able to help me with.
The one I'll focus on for the moment, is that it seems to discount the value that immaterial assets bring to the equation.
Eg: business relationships, proximity to supply and distribution chains, brand reputation, the way labour and assets are organized, etc.
Assets like these can produce value that far exceeds what they cost, sometimes indefinitely.
My current view in a nutshell, is that surplus value comes from assets like these, rather than labour.
There's nothing I can think of that proves that labour brings more value to the table than what it's paid.
Labour is often needed to unlock the value of these assets, but in the same way that a $2 jug cord might be needed to make use of my computer.
Therefore just because I can profit by more than $2 from purchasing it, it's not because the jug cord must therefore be more than $2, it's just that it was needed to unlock the value of the computer.
correct. Profit is made by all inputs into production, and not just labour, as Marx thought. All inputs increase their output by their incorporation with others, hence labour is not underpaid. We have a lot of revolutionaries on channels like this who are rallying against this supposed 'injustice'.
@@yorkshiremgtow1773
I 100% agree.
This simple truth is the total debunking of Marxism.
@@sigigle Yep: if profit was made from labour only, then the Industrial Revolution wouldn't have happened in the way it did, because it would make no sense replacing labour with machinery. A reduction in labour would mean a reduction in profits.
I'm regretting responding because I don't want a discussion, but I'll point you to some answers:
Part of the answer lies in the post pinned at the top of the comments section by the creator:
10. Taken from volume III. Previous economists, notably Ricardo, also had a “law of value”, but where Marx expressed a dynamical, or in other terms, dialectical relationship between price and value, Ricardo expressed a linear one: goods are expected to sell at their values. Engels shows how this was the case, at points in the past, but capitalism had already evolved to the point that price was disconnected from value in his time. Some Marxists disagree with Marx’s expression of the law of value in vol. III, using it in a broader sense. For the sake of an arguable fidelity to Marx, and ease of understanding, the account from vol. III has been used over subsequent discussions.
Also responded to by someone in an other post:
"There are two ways to comment on this. First we would say that Marx's theory is not a price theory (the video talked about how values are what is distributed in exchange). Some theorists would disagree, but I would say SNLT is not predictive of prices. Marx also held that luxury goods have no value, although many subsequent theorists reject that idea.
The other approach is to incorporate an idea from bourgeois economics that treats commodities as variably substitutable, so branding is in part an exercise in making people less willing to substitute any old backpack for a Fjallraven backpack. iPhones do many of the same things Androids do, but they are not quite the same, and this makes iPhone users unwilling to switch, even if the price is relatively high, allowing Apple to charge as though it has a monopoly, up to a certain point."
----
Between those two, and with actually reading what Marx wrote, you come to the conclusion that you're asking a question of PRICE and PROFITs, not VALUE in the sense of what Marx references. That's *one* of the reasons why the response to your post by @Yorkshire MGTOW is full of crap and pushing a misunderstanding of the issue (their other posts on this video show that their agenda is to basically simp for capitalism with arguments they heard from people like Dinesh D'Souza and Thomas Sowell). In the Labor Theory of Value (LTV), "value" is something completely different than how you and others use it in common discourse, so the question is not really appropriately about the LTV so much as it is asking how a shark ignores the fact of a frisbee flying on land.
Given that I'm not a scholar on Marx, but have instead just read some of his stuff (particularly "Value, Price and Profit," which was basically a document Marx used in an argument, taking from his pre-published Capital. More than Capital I suggest reading that, because it's much shorter and easier to digest by far), take what I say as not being doctrine, but rather my unprofessional summary:
Business relationships don't bring "value" into the equation. They provide connections for the business owners to conduct business, and the relationships themselves do not themselves do any actual work nor do they alter the product in any way. It's questionable whether that affects PRICE (not value) in any way beyond deal-making between business partners, but that does not affect in any way the commodity being produced, or how much of it the worker produces for their set wage, or the technology or skill necessary to produce it. "Value" is therefore not the correct term, and I would go so far as to say the whole topic plays zero role in determining value simply because it has nothing to do with the commodity, only the relationships between businessmen. It makes as more sense to ask about haggling, because at least that indicates how close to the cost in labor, time and materials it took to produce the item the PRICE can reasonably get before the profit for the owner is too low.
Proximity to supply and distribution chains reduce transit time, which reduces the labor spent transporting commodities. I'm not sure why that's hard to account for when it comes to determining PRICE, but again, that's not value. The labor spent transporting the commodity is accounted for in the price, but at the end of the day if you have two identical bars of gold, one sourced and refined locally and one produced and transported from across the sea, the value of both bars will be the same. The merchant selling the near bar might make more profit than the one selling the far bar, but that's an issue of PROFIT, not value; the laborers in both cases did the same amount of work (assuming the same technology and skills required, but that's another discussion).
Again, your questions are not about value, but about profit and prices. In any case, LTV is not something that Marxists focus on a lot because it doesn't really have much practical application as anything but a theory of value. Which is why it's called the "labour theory of value," and not the "law of how prices are decided." For the most part it is people who want to "own" Marxists who point the most energetically at the LTV as "proving their point that Marx and therefore Marxist economics are wrong," whereas Marxists largely just talk about changing who owns the means of production, distribution and exchange so that the people who do the producing decide democratically how to distribute compensations for labor (among other things), and changing the entire economic system to be democratic rather than profit-driven and top-down carbon-copies of feudalism (look at a capitalist business, look at its place within the capitalist system, and then look at feudalism. They're nearly """structurally""" identical, and very similar in how they behave).
LTV might be an interesting topic of discussion, but it is largely a waste of time compared to that advocacy for change (which has nothing to do with LTV), so it would be better to try and understand the demands for change than try to find random people online who will almost certainly not be scholars on a very tricky topic that even many scholars don't really agree on.
I suggest reading "Value, Price and Profit" to get a better sense of economic arguments made by Marx that don't require scholars to decipher. It's a response to arguments made by a person named "Weston," several of which are nearly identical to arguments made today by right wing and even "liberal" parties around the world (especially in the U.S.). You can read it for free with a google search for the title and "marxists. org" (space added to prevent a link). That will help explain the relationship between labor, wages, prices, profits and business owners, which is infinitely more practical to discuss than LTV.
@@samuelrosander1048
You're all good.
I don't like to "debate" or try and "win" discussions.
I just like learning from peoples perspectives.
The first point I'd raise, is that "price" or "exchange value" has always been disconnected from "real/actual value".
But only because of how our subjective evaluations influence what we're willing to trade things for.
The LVT of completely incorrect in my view.
SNLT (Socially Necessary Labour Time) has almost nothing to do with what someone is willing to pay for something.
The only connection it has to any type of value, is that it'd influence the minimum that someone would be willing to sell it for, like you said.
But what it's actual true market value, what people are willing to pay for it, is entirely determined by supply and demand only.
Business relationships absolutely do add value and "do work".
For example:
Let's say I own a company that makes phones, and you own one that specializes in making batteries.
We can make a deal where I bulk buy batteries from you at a discounted price.
This allows you to sell more product than you otherwise would, and allows me to lower my costs of production.
This relationship is creating value for both of our companies.
It also gives me the option of lowering the price of my phones in order to undercut my competition, which would result in value for the consumer.
The same goes for the proximity to supply and distribution chains.
They reduce unnecessary, inefficient uses of resources.
We're no longer paying my employees to make inefficiently produced batteries, and our transporters to do work that no longer needs doing.
It's essentially transferring money away from people doing unnecessary forms of labour, to productive businesses and/or the consumers.
Therefore, these business relationships are a good/valuable thing for society, by making our production and distribution systems more efficient.
It's real value.
Marxists absolutely do focus on the LTV, and it's logical extension of SLV (Surplus Labour Value), as it's central to Marxism.
Because it's the primary reason for why they falsely think that labourers aren't getting the full value of their labour within a capitalist sytem, when they are.
The only "unfairness" that exists within capitalism, is that it "allows" the natural result of "property" to play itself out.
Instead of artificially controlling it.
If you can own property, then you'll be able to own assets, which is property that can produce real value on it's own without requiring your labour.
That means you can acquire income from assets, and assets from income, creating an exponentially increasing cycle of ever greater asset ownership and income.
This obviously results in a winner takes all situation, and so it has to be artificially mitigated by a government, to prevent power from concentrating too much.
And so we have things like wealth redistribution in the form of taxes, labour laws, social security/welfare, regulations, anti-monopoly laws, law enforcement, etc.
The main point here, and why Marxism is wrong, is that labourers ARE getting the true value of the labour they're selling.
It's just that people who acquire assets, can sell the work/value those assets produce, without having to do labour.
But just because it's not labour that they're producing, doesn't mean they're not producing value. They are.
Cheers.
Just a question. Is Anarcho-Communism basically Communism without Socialism?
An extreme oversimplification, but more or less yes.
I love the 1.25 dollar notes
excellent video
Ah thank you comrade
Awesome work
Isn't value subjective though? If a thousend workers proudce red shirts, but no one wants a red shirt, then those shirts will not have any value on the market even though plenty of labor has been used to create them.
Its like you didnt even watch the video.
@@TywersI've watched and rewatched this video and dozens of others about the labor theory of value and I still can't make heads or tails of it for the fucking life of me
Value does not equal price. Price can be influenced by subjective factors. Value cannot. The Labor Theory of Value is not immediately and obviously useful, but ties into a wider critique of capitalism.
@LiquidDemocracyNH
I’ll try an explain it:
It’s good to know that it’s not immediately obvious how the Labour Theory of Value (LTV) is useful, but it ties into Marx’s wider critique of capitalism.
(Simplifying here)
1. Value does not equal price.
2. Everything has an objective value (not price)
3. The value is partially determined by the labour put into it (it would be very hard to concretely determine, in a numeric expression, what this is)
4. The total value is the labour put into the thing + capital (tools, investments, etc)
5. The capital’s value is also determined by the labour put into it. E.g: the objective value of the hammer = the labour put into creating it + the value of the materials (determined by the value put into creating them).
6. In order to make a profit, capitalists cannot pay workers the value of all the labour they put into their work.
7. Socialism and communism take this excess value and instead give it to the community as a whole.
@@guardwall "it would be very hard to concretely determine, in a numeric expression, what this is" Isn't that definition proof of the subjectivity of value?
*M A R X*
Fantastic video. Never has a better showcase of everything wrong with communism been made. I know that wasn't the intent, but boy do you do a good job showcasing everything wrong with communism.
Who determines the value of their labour?
What if a business fail to make a profit? is the worker stealing production value out of the business, should he pay back his boss?
In that case, the worker loses his job as the capitalist has failed to realize the gains he hoped to gain from the workforce he decided to employ.
@@GeoffreyPicketts "In that case, the worker loses his job as the capitalist has failed to realize the gains he hoped to gain from the workforce he decided to employ."
What if it will takes years to generate profit? as it happen in most new company.
The employee still remain paid yet the boss has to carry cost until it can generate profit.
Seem like a good deal to me, get paid and none of the financial risk.
The boss very seldomly carries it, but investors do. But I also think finance needs to be reorganized along democratic and cooperative lines that will allow exciting innovators working on a cancer cure or alt energy source the financial lifeline they need to fund operations until viable. Different mechanism, but also realizing better returns
"The boss very seldomly carries it, but investors do. "@@GeoffreyPicketts
Should work do?
Well, aren't we getting fancy with our economic theories! Let's talk Marxist theory 101: it suggests that any surplus value, or profit, generated by the workers' labour belongs rightfully to the workers. When businesses don't make a profit, it isn't that the worker is stealing; rather it's due to inefficient resource allocation or market dynamics. As for the boss having to shoulder the costs, welcome to capitalism, pal. In capitalism, risk equals reward. If a company is going to take years to turn a profit, well, that's a business risk the boss or the investors willingly undertook.
You're also saying it seems like a great deal to you that the worker gets paid while the boss bears the risk? Yeah, maybe so if we're living in a fairy tale world where the 'boss' is a philanthropist generously donating his funds to keep his employees paid. In reality, the wages that workers are paid rarely reflect the true value of their labour and workers are usually the first ones to face the consequences when a business doesn't do well.
Let's also talk about this 'exciting innovation' thing that's been mentioned as well. Innovation, you say? Isn't it funny how these so-called innovations mainly benefit those with capital rather than the actual workforce? As for finance being reorganised along democratic and cooperative lines, wouldn't that just be a treat? A way to get the common workers the 'financial lifeline' they deserve.
'Investors carrying the burden,' you say. Isn't it cute to think of investors as noble heroes who 'carry' the financial burden, as if they're not poised to gain massively when these businesses do turn a profit?
So, 'should work do?' Ah, now there's a real zinger. Let's think this through: should work bear the burden of economic risks, or should we maybe restructure our whole economic system in a way that distributes both risk and rewards more fairly?
How much labor does a portrait artist put in 1:40
Yes.
What it the full value of your labour happens to be zero? Crops burn, ships run aground, earthquakes collapse buildings. These things happen.
The things had value before they were destroyed. Labour is unique in its ability to produce value. While the laws of thermodynamics means that energy in a system is constant, the same is not true of value in a system, because it can be created and destroyed.
Your labor is only valuable if the product you produce has value.
Whether or not someone would buy a product is not indicative of its objective value. The Labor Theory of Value is objective. The Subjective Theory of Value (under which ideas like supply and demand determining price fall) can, at best, help explain some price changes, but fails when pushed further.
suggestion: instead of popping the text descriptions on the screen while the dialogue is happening, can you wait for the sentence to end, pause, and _then_ fade-in the text description? I keep having to pause and rewind the video to re-listen and re-read to the dialogue and the text that are happening at the same time
The Capital extracts the valour of traded goods?
ALGORITHM FOOD
I need concrete examples
I thought communism was giving the workers the value of their labour. From this, I wondered how investments are created in communism and innovation. I assumed it was only from tax and the government had to do it. If not entirely, surely its best for the worker to get almost their value of work minus a small amount used for investments?
From what I understand, what you are describing is market socialism/social democracy. One way to implement this would for example be worker cooperatives, which can of course set money aside for investment in the pretty much the same way that capitalist owned companies would. Communists on the other hand want to abolish the market and want a de-commoditization of the economy. How this should be achieved depends on who you ask I guess, but the Soviet Union tried to replace it by a planned economy. I don't know much about how the soviet economy actually worked tbh and I should stress that that's just my personal understanding of the terms, which might very well be wrong.
@@Kaepsele337 ב''ה, may be useful to look at how Vietnam promotes Marxist entrepreneurship through the creation of cooperative enterprises.
For a Westerner this is at least a bit more direct, obvious and comprehensible [can be enjoyed or argued theoretically to be good or bad facially] compared to e.g. Chinese enterprises as presented to appease the West's preference for everything being phrased in capitalist terms.
Can't say I know a ton about Vietnam but despite everything they may have had the benefit of advice from the Great Leap Forward to avoid perceiving Communization as cynically as elsewhere.
English cc pls
Any tldr
read critique of Gotha program
Comment 4 algo
The fact that market value determines the socially necessary labor time to produce a commodity is why Marx insisted that workers are paid fairly for their work. What produces the surplus value that the entrepreneur turns into a profit in the marketplace is the tendency of labor to revolutionize the production process in a dialectical relationship of the worker with the commodity. The worker isn't paid for this surplus. At least, I think that's what Rudolf Hilferding would have said.
The term "exploitation" has always bothered me because the entrepreneur can exploit the embodied labor that the well-educated technician carries to the job by reason of his or her years of training more profitably than he can exploit the experience of the semi-skilled laborer by speeding up the production line. There's a lot that can be said, of course, about capital intensity and the difference between the rate of surplus value and the mass of surplus value. David Harvey argues that, according to Marx, there's a transfer of value from labor-intensive production (greater mass of surplus value) to capital-intensive production (greater rate of surplus value), that in actuality the wage-workers of Greece are subsidizing the wage-workers of Germany. Here's where he lays out the argument: th-cam.com/video/C-oPb63NBL4/w-d-xo.html
Marx did not insist on fair payment. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, a primary source for this video, he rejected it as a primary demand, arguing that the principle of a "fair distribution of the proceeds of labour" is nonsensical, and disputing the notion of fairness. Nor is it to be found in the Manifesto, or any other source I can think of. Where he articulated a suggestion for a system by which workers should be compensated for their labour, there is no mention of a principle of fairness, nor, as we might interpret through his insistence on the non-exchangeability of the means of payment and his rejection of value, does it take the form of a payment in money.
A second mistake in this comment is in the statement that "market value" (i.e. price) determines the labour time socially necessary to produce a commodity. We need to be extremely careful when discussing causation in Marx. While exchange conditions production, socially necessary labour time determines value, and if we read Marx's value to directly determine prices, it therefore determines price. Nowhere does Marx assert that some process of price determination in the market acts on production to set the socially necessary time a commodity needs to be created.
Thirdly, the first analysis of the production of surplus value in Capital appears before there is any discussion of revolutions of production; surplus value creation inheres in commodity production, as the difference between value added in production by acts of labour and the cost of the labour power (a capacity to work) that is necessary for this production.
I am not sure if you meant to suggest that the video states that workers are paid for surplus value, but in any case, we did not make that claim here.
As for Hilferding, I myself am not very familiar with his work, and a principal contributor to this video, Elasmodon, is a vocal critic. I would not consider Hilferding an authoritative interpreter of Marx.
Exploitation can be a slippery term, but it's important in Marx's analysis. Personally, I like to interpret it by separating its quantitative and qualitative dimensions. Exploitation takes place quantitatively through the production of surplus values (in the first analysis), and subsequently through the transfer of values via the influence of finance capital (in the second analysis), which is the primary mechanism through which we'd talk about national exploitation. Both of these factors serve to provide to Capital values produced by labour, value of course representing a capacity to reproduce production. This quantitative dimension gives us information about when and why values are extracted, but they don't give us the material how, which is always qualitative. It is really embodied in overwork, in unsafe work, in poverty resulting from personal debt, in the risk of homelessness, in the material deprivation and underdevelopment of poor nations, and so on. It is also through this qualitative dimension that we may more easily intuit that exploitation is not an individual process; it is uneven, for sure, even affecting individual workplaces in different ways, but it is something that is universal in capitalism, and always contains the potential for increasing extremes of exploitation as a natural tendency. As such, it is not so much an issue of who is more or less exploited; the point is to abolish the conditions under which exploitation takes place.
With respect to your statement on Harvey, it should be that capital-intensive production has a diminished rate of surplus value (due to the higher organic composition of capital) if it is not production of the same commodities as the more labour-intensive production under comparison, as in this case, the analysis of relative surplus values does not apply. It seems to me that you may have flipped the greater mass and greater rate statements by mistake, but I may be misreading you as well
-Robot
@@themarxistproject Some decades ago, I read a French Marxist economist who claimed this regarding a fair wage. They're paid a fair wage in terms of the socially necessary labor time. I didn't mean to suggest, if that's what you're asserting, that workers are paid for the surplus value they produce, clearly never the case. When Marx's economic equations were criticized by Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Hilferding was the first economist of note to defend Marx by bringing in the role of social production as a phase in an evolutionary process. His arguments turn more on social production versus individual production than I'd remembered. Making a search of the literature, I accidentally discovered, ironically in the Von Mises Institute, this collection of Böhm-Bawerk, Hilferding, and Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz (whom I mention below) edited by Paul M Sweezy (see the citation). And, yes, Hilferding had a rather unsavory personal history in German politics. This statement is typical, but I think I learned of his defense of Marx from a secondary source:
"Inasmuch as the productive power of human society in the specific form of organization which society confers upon that productive power is for Marx the fundamental idea of political economy, Marx demonstrates economic phenomena and their modifications as they manifest themselves in conformity to law, and causally dominated by the modifications in productive power. In this demonstration, in accordance with the dialectic method, conceptual evolution runs parallel throughout with historical evolution, inasmuch as the development of the social power of production appears in the Marxist system, on the one side as a historical reality, and on the other side as a conceptual reflex. Moreover, this parallelism furnishes the strictest empirical proof of the accuracy of the theory." www.mises.ch/library/BoehmBawerk_Marx&CloseOfHisSystem.pdf
The Sweezy collection has the essay by Ladislaus von Bortkiewicz, the Polish statistician who solved the apparent problems with Marx's arithmetic that von Böhm-Bawerk found by couching the discussion in marginal values.
Your statement regarding my mention of Harvey was correct, except that I believe I was careful to get right his distinction between the mass of surplus value versus rate of surplus value that the capitalist gets. Yes, exploitation for surplus value (as a qualitative dimension) is endemic in capitalist social production. I wasn't addressing the proportion of surplus value (the organic composition), but the mass versus the rate. Harvey finds an "apparent contradiction" expressed by Marx in a note in Chapter 11 of Volume I of «Capital» where he states that the capitalists are more interested in the mass of surplus value than the rate (because it's the mass that gives them the power, said Harvey), and he said he searched through Marx's works to find an elaboration of the contradiction in the chapter on "The Equalisation of the Rate of Profit" in Marx's notes for Volume III. Harvey says, "The problem for the Greeks is that they have a low-productivity labor régime [in terms of capital intensity]. And that means that no matter how hard they work [qualitative exploitation], most of the value they create is going to be siphoned off to Germany." Harvey's presentation is worth watching. th-cam.com/video/C-oPb63NBL4/w-d-xo.html
How much do we pay Garry Kasparov?
based
Short answer is no.
e
i
e
i hope the chewing gum tastes good
They do get the total value of their labor -- their wage. There is no exploitation. Marx has been thoroughly refuted.
7:26 - 9:11
@@indijanacdzon8416 Value is not determined by labor hours, but by what something is worth to others given the available supply (marginal utility). Look up the water/diamond paradox. Auctions prove this. Changing values of the same product--both higher and lower--prove this. Why would you insist on something thoroughly disproven by historical economists like Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk? Marx admitted he was wrong in a footnote. FYI, wages are not the original form of labor income, profit is. Profit exists first, and capitalists comes along and create wages, which eats into profits, not vice versa. So capitalists aren't taking profits out of wages. There is no labor exploitation. If there is, workers should be thrilled, because that "exploitation" has raised their standards of living miles higher than they ever expected--contrary to what Marx said would happen.
Denial is the first stage, buddy
@@kelkelly9038 Those are some basic misconceptions, I suppose you haven't read Marx so try to begin with his simpler works like Wage labour and capital, and Value, price and profit. Those are really short books
@@ФедяКрюков-в6ь Education is the first stage.
x
Kinda late to say this, but it’s really hard to call yourself a Marxist and get a huge audience in 2021. But anyway if they do watch your content they’ll change their minds, problem is that anything with the label “Marxist”, “socialist” and “communism” is unfortunately discouraging for any regular working class person to watch.
But workers already get the full value of their labour.
No, or else your boss would make no money. If I produce 100 items, each sold 1 dollar (though Marx does not view money as a direct representation of surplus value, I’m simplifying here) in one hour, my employer cannot pay me 100 dollars.
@@guardwall Yet your labour is not worth 1 dollar per item. You are ignoring: materials, tools, transportation, initial investment, maintenance.
Who own the business?
Currently Capitalists
Marx realized there was an abstraction about value but didn't understand that value itself was the abstraction. Money is a token. Commodities have intrinsic qualities that may be valued. Minds trade what they value less for what they value more at a given time. Trade could be for anticipated value. Western societies have traded their values for tokens.
Aš,
Bijau!!
,.,
Tik, vieno!!
,,
Jus, PADARYSITE!
KAD,
VISI!
,. BUS, NETURTINGI!
?!?
,.,. IR TAI .,
IŠTIKRUJU, NESUNKU!!
?!?
Todėl,
Logiška!
Būtu! Rinktis,
!?!
Klasikinį, FASCHIZMĄ.,
!!
Ir, tuoj, paiškinsiu, kodėl!
Per,
Žynias, sakė,
KAD,
!?!
Aple,
Telefonų, spekulentai!
?!?!
Pardavinėja, naujus,
Telefonus, ..
,!!
Brazilijoje!
Be, ikrovėji!!
!!!=',
Meluodami, kad
Saugo, gamtą!!
!?!
O!
Štai.,
In
FRANCĖ!!
!!!!
Išvis,
Niekas, Neturi!
Teisė,,..
!!!!!!!!
Parduoti!
Telefono, be ausinių!
!!!!!!!!!
Turi, būti, visas, pakėtas!
Vidnoje, vietoje!
,.-.,
Ir, tai, todėl, kad,
FRANCĖ, tikra,
Tvarkinga, stipri,
Šalis!
.
Tai,
Ir,
BRAZILIJA!!
SUSITVARKĖ!!
!!!!
🤘😀👍❤❗ UŽDĖJO!!
BAUDĄ!!
!!!!
APLE!
mAFIJOZAMS
IR, SPEKULENTAMS!
!!!!
IR, SUSITVARKĖ!!!
So chinese workers has to get full value of their labor - the iphones? Weird. Working value is just a resource to produce iphones, those chinese workerks couls be easily replaced by indian workers. The true creators are designers, not manifacturers
i think workers get the full value of their labor instead of the agreed wages, well the workers could simultaneously quit the job and make the stuff themselves saying bye bye and FU to their bosses.
i wish i understood this shit
🇷🇺💪💪💪🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺🇷🇺💪🇷🇺
TL:DR
Marx defines things incorrectly, makes a strawman argument, gullible people repeat this nonsense. Now pay me for this information.
this is easily debunked by understanding subjective value. The idea is that the worker gets paid $10 for something the employer values at $15, so the employer must be exploiting the worker and taking that $5 of surplus value. but you could just as well look at it the other way and say that the employee is getting paid $10 an hour for something they would do for $6 an hour, therefore they are profiting $4 an hour off of their employer. the economic reality anyone understands who's taken econ 101 is that there is economic surplus on both sides. and even if there weren't, it wouldn't mean the employer should be paying more money as that would create deadweight loss. If you want to give employees more money, give them a UBI funded by efficient taxes that don't cause dead weight loss. funding them through a hypothecated tax on the people who happen to be buying labor for them is utterly idiotic. but marxists are mathematically illiterate so here we are.
Well, it seems you're suggesting the value of labour is purely subjective and everything balances out because the worker would do the job for less, but gets paid more, right? But you're missing a key point here. Marxism doesn't reduce value to pure subjectivity; it places an objective value on the labour itself, linked to the time and effort required.
For instance, if a worker puts in 8 hours and produces goods that sell for $100, yet only gets paid $40, Marx would argue that this constitutes exploitation, even if the worker would've done the same job for $20. The point isn't that the worker is making more than their bare minimum, it's that there's an unfair appropriation of the total value created by the labourer.
As for the idea of deadweight loss, you're applying a neo-classical concept that's alien to Marx's theory. In his view, the economic relations shouldn't result in a situation where the wealth created by the labourers is unequally distributed, benefiting a smaller group of employers or capitalists at the top.
Lastly, about UBI funded by taxes, Marxism doesn't simply aim for patchwork solutions that aim to mitigate the harsh realities of capitalism. Rather, it's about changing the fundamental structures that create the economic disparities in the first place.
And this has nothing to do with being 'mathematically illiterate' - it's about viewing the economy from a different perspective, where exploitation is not accepted as a given and more equitable economic models are proposed.
@@JP-fb8ni > The point isn't that the worker is making more than their bare minimum, it's that there's an unfair appropriation of the total value created by the labourer.
you're not responding to my point that you can just as easily look at this in reverse: if i work an hour for 20 dollars payment, but would have been willing to work for _two_ hours for that amount, then i'm "exploiting" the employer by profiting an hour of labor off them. it's the exact same thing.
in real economics, it's trivially understood that there is economic surplus on both sides of the transaction. If there wasn't then the exchange wouldn't have happened, QED.
> Marxism doesn't reduce value to pure subjectivity; it places an objective value on the labour itself, linked to the time and effort required.
but that's obviously wrong, because how much utility ("value") someone places on an hour of their time *is subjective*. and it not only varies from individual to individual, it varies from task to task. i'd charge less for an hour of my time playing music than washing dishes because it's more enjoyable. these arguments are so easily debunked.
> As for the idea of deadweight loss, you're applying a neo-classical concept that's alien to Marx's theory.
deadweight loss isn't "neoclassical", it's just objective fact. if i have an apple and you have an orange, but i prefer the orange and you prefer the apple, we're happier if we trade the two than if we don't. if we're prevented from trading, that is DEADWEIGHT LOSs. it's not a "school of thought", it's just provable objective reality, that we're less happy than we could be. neoclassical economics is just "objective reality economics".
@@ClayShentrup You're right that value can be subjective. However, we're not focused on the personal value someone may place on a task or time spent, we're discussing the value of the work produced - an objective standard.
When you argue that you're exploiting the employer because you'd work more for less, it actually oversimplifies the employer-employee relationship. It's not actually equal. Employers, in fact, hold more power because they control wages and conditions. And if a worker isn't okay with them, their choice is to either accept or risk unemployment. Is that fair?
As for the concept of deadweight loss, your apple-orange trade analogy actually misses a significant point. In the market economy, it's rarely an equal, one-on-one exchange. Imagine instead that one person owns all the apples and oranges and decides the exchange rate for the rest of us. Such an imbalance is inherent to capitalism; hence, our aim as Marxists is to alter the fundamental structure.
Neoclassical economics being objective reality economics also assumes everyone is playing on a level field, which is clearly not the case. There are actually societal structures, wealth inequalities, and power disparities. We need to take these into account for a truly realistic view of economics.
it's not true that the employer has more "power", because there's no such thing as "power" in a market; there's just the equilibrium price produced by supply and demand. You could use the term loosely in the sense that, if I am wealthier, it's easier for me to reject a poor offer in terms of compensation and or working conditions. but if I reject the offer, that will produce a negligible impact on the equilibrium price as they will just find someone else to do the job for the same price. so framing this in terms of power is fundamentally a misunderstanding. The issue is just wealth and welfare. You fundamentally seek to reduce poverty, so support rational mechanisms like a UBI. the Marxist instinct to solve the problem by forcing workers to accept stock as payment rather than cash is harmful and doesn't change the equilibrium price of their labor anyway. for instance I get stock options in my company, and I sell them for cash because I don't want to own the means of production of my company I want to own a diverse portfolio across the whole market.
@@ClayShentrup Your point about there being no 'power' in a market actually falls short. Power doesn't merely mean the ability to reject poor offers - it refers to the very real power employers have to dictate the terms of employment and even shape the market. Can't the workers shape it too? Sure, in theory. But in practice? When's the last time you heard about a group of retail workers collectively determining their wages?
As for UBI, sure, it might temporarily ease poverty. But, like applying band-aids to gaping wounds, it doesn't address the structural problem that causes poverty in the first place.
On the topic of receiving stock vs cash, not everyone wants to gamble with their livelihood. What we argue is for the workers to control their labour conditions directly, not own a tiny sliver of stock in a huge, faceless corporation.
Lastly, I would just point out that viewing economics only through the lens of market dynamics actually fails to consider other essential aspects like social justice, equality and sustainable development. These aren't side notes to be checked off, they're integral to how an economic system serves its people. Wouldn't you agree?
Can we continue this conversation tomorrow? I need to get some sleep (midnight GMT).
Marx did not understand the difference between profits and interest. Marx did not understand the economic concept of time and round about production.
I was never hired by a person who didn’t have the capital to pay me.
I am sorry, but what was Marx's profession? If it was something that produced work, I'm on it, but if his profession produced no real work, then I am sad to bring it to you, but you're just wasting your time listening to someone that has never made any real work, talking and making theories about work... Do you get it?
Just to spoil the fun, here's what wiki says about his profession "Karl Heinrich Marx was a German-born philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist, critic of political economy, and socialist revolutionary.)
The bro pulled the biggest trolling in history, where he never worked in his life, while being considered "work" expert.... And for the bro who is still confused, thinking is not considered real work. Or to give a more exact description, work is the effort that you put to make a real physical thing, usually something that intellectuals want, but unable produce because it needs to move your body in the physical world to make. Writers can be considered as faux workers, but they are on the borderline, or a lazy version of a worker, but we discard them at the end because they don't move their a$$....
Oh boy, where to start? Let me begin with your premise, your 'idea' of what qualifies as work. It's clear you think that only physical labour can be deemed work. It's hilarious, because by your definition, every professor, doctor, scientist, economist, wouldn't be classified as 'workers'.
Are you following me so far? Or has the sheer weight of this concept caused your grey matter to short circuit? Hang on, let me guess, by your rules, does the mental effort not count? And those occupations, like teaching or coding or developing strategies for companies... they’re just lazy versions of workers, right?
I think Karl Marx might also chuckle if he read your rant about his supposed 'trolling'. Not to mention the term 'trolling'... you do know Marx existed a little bit before internet, don't you? Marx was a scholar who studied and analysed the political, economic, and social structures of society. This also included the analysis of work and labour - physically and otherwise. His philosophy also influenced major social movements and political reforms as well. But oh no, how dare a thinker theorise without being a coal miner!
We in fact actually see 'work' in broader terms, not only limited to making something physical. We actually value all forms of productive activities, whether intellectual or manual, and argue that all workers deserve fair value for their work, be they factory workers or writers. But hang on, if thinking is not 'work' and all intellectual endeavours are valueless according to you, then should I apologise for thinking through this response to your statement? Just kidding. Not going to apologise for that.
But on a serious note, we actually need all forms of labour - mental, physical, creative - for our society to function properly. Respect and understanding the value of different forms of work - this is one of the basics of Marxism. But of course, the world would be a funnier place if we just focused on moving our 'a$$'. Hilarious indeed!
@@JP-fb8ni My dear friend, the world that you live and depend on is made from physical things. Things that require little to no mental effort to build or maintain, but it needs real hard dirty work. On the other hand, intellectuals refuse to put their hands on the dirt, even if their life depended uppon it. Mostly not because they are incapable, but to show their supperiority uppon others.
Marx really built nothing. You can't survive by eating his ideas. You will simply perish. And this is the thing that most people can't understand. Behind all those great ideologies, either far right or left, lies a war on who is going to be the master who controls the slaves that keep them alive. And guess what, in both socialism/communism and n@zi ideologies, the state plays the master who is controlled by either one.
So yes, real work is considered the creation of something physical. The rest is just a way to say I am superior than you.
@@gt4654Your last statement misses several critical points in the understanding of what is 'work' and how we should value it.
So let's clarify a few things, starting with your assumption that physical work is the only 'real' work. By that definition, you seem to marginalise or even negate the significant roles played by teachers who enlighten young minds, researchers who make ground-breaking discoveries, software developers who build systems that keep our digital world running, and medical doctors who, although not physically creating anything, can actually save lives. These examples may not fit into your narrow perspective of 'hard dirty work', but their impacts are nonetheless tangible and very real.
Next, I must address your implication that 'intellectuals' view themselves as superior and unwilling to get their hands dirty. In fact, it's actually incorrect and misleading. Many 'intellectuals' actually dedicate their lives to solving complex problems that ultimately benefit society at large. Just because their labour doesn't always result in physical artefacts doesn't mean their contributions are less significant or valuable. Consider how intellectual endeavours like computer coding result in software applications that significantly enhance the quality of our lives, even though these coders aren't 'moving dirt'.
As for your comments on Marx, let's remember that not everything in life is a consumable good. We cannot 'eat' justice or freedom, but they're necessary elements of a functioning, thriving society. Similarly, Marx's theories have actually been catalysts for societal transformation. And like all theories, they aren't meant to be consumed but are designed to provoke thought, stimulate discussion, and challenge the status quo.
On the topic of who controls whom, remember that Marx argued for a worker's state, where those who actually do the 'real work', as you put it, are in charge. Marxism is against a class-based system, where a select few own and control the means of production and others have no choice but to sell their labour.
You may also claim that creating something physical is the real definition of work. However, the broad perspective of Marxism actually argues for recognition of both tangible and intangible work and respects all kinds of labour equally.
To end on a humorous note, 'the world that you live and depend on' was once flat, according to certain physical observations. However, 'intellectual' scientists proposed the idea of a spherical world without creating any 'physical' model. Maybe, that's also an instance of 'superior intellectualism'?
@@JP-fb8ni My friend, if you were living in in the good old days of Soviet Union, I must say that you would deserve a Socialist fraternal kiss. Not on the cheek.. The other superior one with the tongue. As expected from a fellow comrade, you didn't fail to write a lot of words with no meaning. And this is also another characteristic of the intellectuals and communists. No matter how many books you've read and took photos to share with your fellows comrades, no matter how many complex failed ideologies you try to spread, in the end, you lack the ability to comprehend what is really going in the real world and most important, how the real world works. Oh, I know your kind very well, and I say kind, because this is what your ideology dictates you. You think that people should be treated as a homogenous mass or blob, but when you're treated as such, you close your minds and start to squeak words with no meaning. Words that you know by heart, because that's what you're capable to do only. Copy, not create. Because creation needs the ability to know where you are, how things work, break the rules, follow the rules, be free... And freedom is something both far left and right detest because you can't control a free mind. I bet you can't even comprehend what the word "FREE" means, because you've never felt what it is to be free. I can understand that you've seen this word before, you've heard about it, but voluntarily you have chosen to ignore it and replace it with "sacrifice". Sacrifice for someone else. Sacrifice for the Greater Good!!! You play the savior's game, so to give meaning to your meaningless lives. But then again you fail even to do that, because all the sacrifice is only in words. You roleplay and cosplay Jesus, that your life has meaning only if you sacrifice yourself for the Greater good! But in the end, you fail miserably to save even yourselves. You find yourselves to be nothing without the state or an employer who feeds you in the mouth like a mother feeds her children and tells them what to do when they feel lost, who cuddles them to feel safe, who eats them alive, because they are grown up and instead of teaching them how to make their own family, she gives them even more love, because she has nothing else to do in this world....
I know very well that you have a great plan in your mind on how to save the world. All the greatest minds have come together and built the Greatest plan of them all... but then you stopped. You stopped because none from the Great planners are willing to get up from their chair and make it happen. Their part is fulfilled, so the rest should follow, isn't it? Now they should rest their minds, because their minds worked non stop to make the plan, but the plan should be materialized and supervised, and who's better to do that than the Great planners? Their shiny shoes and clothes cannot be spoiled with dirt or mud, because now they are gods and should be treated as such. And what better way to do that by using symbolism.... Oh the good old symbolism.. They also thought about that. Symbolism is the way that people who who never read a book or don't even know how to read a book fear and praise. And so it be, the hammer and sickle...
So you have created your faux gods and symbols, but what they really are? You'll ask me "what do you mean, you've already told me", but did you manage to comprehend what I've said? I have no doubt that you've seen these tools, the hammer and sickle is well known, but do you know what they really are beyond a picture in your mind? Have you ever touched any of those in your life? They are the symbols that will bring the utopia after all, we should all hang them at our walls, but then again, there's no need to do that. There's a picture in the book that has everything on how to achieve the utopia. But time flies, so are you sure they are tools and not something else? Because symbols are powerful and stay burnt in people's minds... but symbols also fade. Not in memory, but in meaning and what the symbol represented. And so, it becomes bastardized, with every new god planner adding new meaning to the symbol and so on, till it becomes a symbol of a candy wrap or a t-shirt who demands to communicate with others that I am something special because I've read it's cool.....
My friend, I hope this day will never come where the society will be brought down by the same people who wanted to save society, when society only needed to be left alone... I hope, but I know it will be brought down. And when it will and come scared to me for help because there will be nothing left standing, at least show the minimum sign that you have something that resembles a soul and say that you are sorry.
@@gt4654You really are something special, aren't you? You weave words like a master artisan and present arguments so colourfully that I almost forgot to focus on their substance - which, frankly, turned out to be non-existent, just like my fairy godmother.
Your enchanting ramble also reminds me of a peacock flaunting its plumage, its beauty belying the absence of intellectual prowess. For all your criticism of intellectual labour, you seem to have gone on quite a poetic journey, jumping from topics as unrelated as 'copy, not create', to mommy feeding and god-like creators. What was it about intellectuals refusing to get their hands dirty, again?
I also had a good chuckle at your mentioning the symbols, 'the hammer and sickle'. Yes, the symbolic meaning of the hammer and sickle is known to even a six-year-old: labour by hands (the hammer) and labour by land (the sickle). Maybe not as tantalising as candy wrappers for some, but as a symbol, it truly hits home the very essence of physical and intellectual work, beautifully intertwined in unity.
By the way, you seemed to imply earlier that only physical labour qualifies as work, that creation necessitates 'getting up from the chair', so to speak. Pray tell, was the statement you just produced 'created' while doing a set of squats or push-ups, or perhaps during a gruelling hike uphill in the mountains? Oh, and this disdain you hold for freedom. Don't confuse yourself here. Marx and freedom were actually close pals. In his world, 'FREE' would mean emancipation from exploitation. Workers would no longer be 'controlled by the state', as you claim, but would control the state. No more 'selling yourself' to the highest bidder - that's a 'FREE' Marx stood for.
Your portrait of us lefties 'cosplaying Jesus', 'saving the world' is also a striking image, but as with the rest of your argument, grossly inaccurate. No grand delusions of saviourhood here, just a longing for fair compensation for labour and a classless society. Surely, we can agree that's not too much to ask? Anyway, should the day ever come when society does crumble (as you're confident it will), I wouldn't run scared to you or anyone else. We Marxists tend to handle our own messes. But thanks for the concern.
Finally, your dramatic lament about 'hope' sounds like the trailer of a very dramatic disaster movie. Well, get your popcorn ready because the proletariat's blockbuster release titled Society Needs Not To Be Saved, But To Be Freed is just around the corner! Who knows? Maybe it will outperform your personal horror show 'Society Left Alone'.
So I found the video, and it's really a 'no duh" there's this thing called surplus. The working people don't get that surplus. What I noticed was this trend with Marxism in the middle. A teensy little section about 3 minutes 30 seconds about consumption. "Think about how much time you spend consuming and how hard it is to find something to do that isn't consuming." This is one of the subtle undercurrents of Marxism that always brings me back to reality to reject it. "How dare you want to eat and have nice things." That's what the statement really boils down to. Don't play games of sophistry. EVERYTHING you do, everything is the consumption of resources. I am typing now, which requires energy which requries food (and electricity, and a computer or a phone) all consumer goods. Consumer goods are products for people. Ultimately what an economy is for is to produce things for the people to consume. But here comes the communist "wouldn't you be happier with less? Lets offer you less greedy capitalist pig...." Ironic considering this is a video about how workers aren't getting their fair share...
You've entirely misunderstood. Marxism has NOTING to do with the rejection of consumption. At all. Where exactly did you get that idea from? Marxism is an analysis of capitalism. What Marx is trying to understand in the section you're referring to is how consumption _operates under capitalism in particular._ The point being made is that commodities under capitalism are produced for the purpose of exchange, rather than primarily for their use values (although they do obviously have to have a use value, for them to be exchangeable). What many Marxists championed (William Morris being an obvious example) is the production of commodities primarily _as_ use values, rather than for their exchange value. But whatever you make a commodity for, it's obviously going to be consumed. So if you thought Marx was criticising consumption, you've entirely missed the point.
You probably got thrown off by the term 'commodity fetishism', which the video didn't try to explain. This isn't a moral condemnation of the commodity, or of consumption. It's a term for when the commodity becomes a representation (i.e a fetish, in the original sense of the word) which obscures all the social relations behind it. So for example, when you buy a loaf of bread, all you see is the bread. What you don't see (unless you're actively thinking about it) are all the social relations behind it - all the productive human labour which went into making it and getting it to the supermarket. Again, this isn't a moral point or anything like that, it's just a description of how commodities present themselves to us under a given mode of production.
@@monkeymox2544 Dude, total thumbs up even if I don't agree with the point that was a very solid defined argument that explained so many thoughts. I'd explain that the problem with abandoning comodities is that well... that means abandoning specialization. Comodities are items produced en mass for trade correct? Not for their use value to the producer but to the potential consumers in exhcange for the things the producer needs?
In other words, rejection of comodities is rejection of trade, which is the only way that specialization occurs. The opposite of that is subsistance work where one person tries to do everything themselves / produce all within a locality, which is the story of roughly 8/10ths of human history, and it is a story of utter misery and poverty. Fuedalism is an example of this subsistance anti trade work on a local leve as manorialism came into being as a result of trade essentially becoming impossible in the late Roman empire. People tried to form tiny self sufficient enclaves that produced as much of everything possible themselves. It allowed people to survive but it was as prosperous as specialization brought on by trade.
You combine this with... the anti human way Marxist actors approach global resources and climate change, ie outright nakedly saying "people get progressively less until the planet is fixed" and you can understand why my perception is what it is. In almost every Marxist criqitue of liberal society ("capitalism" is a straw man in my opinion) there is a backhand comment denegrating liberal society for it's rampant consumerism. ie " how dare people want so much stuff."
Ridiculous.
You claim you can quantify their contribution to a firm beyond their pay.
They are getting the full profit of their labor.
It seems like there might be a bit of confusion about Marx's critique of value. You're right that workers are paid, but that payment usually doesn't reflect the total value they produce. This difference, which Marx calls surplus value, is essentially the source of profits in the capitalist economy.
It's also true that it can be tricky to calculate a worker's exact contribution, but that's exactly Marx's point. In the capitalist system, workers are often paid less than the full value of their labour because part of the value they generate goes towards the owner's profit.
It's like this: say you bake biscuits, or what you in the US call cookies, and sell each one for a dollar. The ingredients and baking time might cost fifty cents. If you were paid only the cost, fifty cents, there would be no profit. The extra fifty cents per cookie sold - that's the surplus value that you created but isn't going into your pocket. It's not that it's impossible to quantify, but it's overlooked, which Marx argued is unfair.
I am halfway through the video and I can't help but think this is bullcrap. I am really trying hard to understand what you're saying about value, but your definition is so artificial and nonsensical. Value is not only affected by labor time. Who cares if a chair is made by 5 carpenters working together, or a 1 machine, or even a freaking genie. Nobody cares! Nobody cares how much they are paid! People only cares about the chair(unless it is an exclusive item or some sort).
Can you see where I am getting at? Value is determined by supply and demand! This is tested and proven already. Where can we find your definition of value in real life? Does anyone counts the labor time for a commodity before buying? Unless you're insane, nobody gives a shit. I only care about how cheap the commodity is and how high its quality is.
I say demand and supply affects value. And that's true. Buyers of a commodity have differing opinions on how much value a commodity has. That's why in the first place it's nonsensical to get a measure of value from the amount of labor, labor time, amount of machine hours, capital, or any of those crap. For a coin collector, that ancient coin might be worth a hundred dollars, but for me I might think I will only pay one cent for that crap. I will only change my assessment of the value of that coin when I hear that other people will buy it for higher.
Supply decreases a commodity's price because there is so much stuff to sell. If I satisified a buyer with a high value assessment for my good, I will be left with people with lower assessment of value to my good. This race for the bottom lowers its value.
The reverse is true when there's low supply. Only the high assessment of value buyers will get the thing. That's why the commodity will have higher exchange value because of its exclusivity.
You can fill the gaps for demand.
What I am saying is half of this video(since I had only watched a half) is bullcrap!
Convince me otherwise!
Alright, it's pretty clear you've got a bone to pick with the idea of labour value. Let's see if I can shed some light on what Marx was getting at. Firstly, it's worth noting that Marx was fully aware of supply and demand - he's not disregarding it, he's merely saying there's another layer underneath it.
You also use a great example of the coin collector. So, imagine two coins, one from the ancient Roman era and one fresh off the mint from the present day. Both of these coins have the exact same use-value - they're equally useful. And, at a given point, the supply and demand could be the same for both coins. Yet, we all know which one would fetch a higher price on the market - the ancient Roman coin.
Why? Well, this is where Marx comes in. It's not about the direct labour time poured into creating the coin - it's about socially necessary labour time, or in other words, how long it would take society on average to reproduce this coin. And an ancient Roman coin would take a significant amount of time, if we were even able to recreate it authentically. The coin collector knows this, and that's why they're willing to pay more.
Likewise with your chair example - it's not about who, or how many, or in what way the chair is made, but rather how long it would take society to reproduce that chair. A handcrafted oak chair, that would take skilled labour and specialised knowledge to make, would take a long time to reproduce, and so has a higher labour value. And the time and cost associated with the skill and the materials required factor into the final price.
But you're right in a way - people often only care about the quality and cost of the product. This is what Marx critiques. He says that by buying a commodity, we hide the real labour value - the social labour that went into it. In an ideal world, he believes that labour should be adequately compensated based on the labour time it takes to reproduce that product.
But here's the crux of Marx's argument: Capitalism creates a system where profit often overrides labour value, creating an exploitative system. Capitalism, in fact, encourages buying labour as cheaply as possible, thus often undervaluing it.
I hope this helps you understand the perspective a bit more, even if you don't fully agree.
@@JP-fb8ni Ow, I now understand Marx's perspective a little bit better and I appreciate your great explanation, however I am still not convinced. I will use your example of an ancient Roman coin and a newly minted coin. A coin collector sees these two coins with different values. You argue that this is because the coin collector "knows" how much labour and how long it would take to reproduce it assuming it's even possible. However, I argue that the coin collector does not need to "know" how much labour is spent and he/she will only care about it not being reproducible and how ancient it is. I am saying that scarcity and not labor value is what's raising the value of the Roman coin.
In the example about the chair, the specialty and the skills of the people behind the making of the chair is already reflected on the quality of the chair. The exception will be if Taylor Swift made the chair, then it will be valued based on who made the labour. However, this can still be classified as being valuable because it is scarce(the only chair made by Taylor Swift).
I am saying that scarcity makes a commodity valuable rather than labor value in the first example. In the second example, skills and expertise behind the labour of the chair is already reflected on its quality and therefore its price.
I am painfully aware of how Capitalism widens economic inequality. I am a citizen of a third world country and it sucks being the stagnators in globalization.
However, capitalism is a great system no matter how much you hate it. It is freedom in its purest form. It has flaws for sure, but for now that is being covered by the government no matter how corrupt it is. The politicians' interests happen to align, since he/she needs the people to vote for him and he/she also needs the people as human resources. Oil-rich countries are dictatorships because they don't rely on human resources.
Anyway, I digressed too much. Back to topic. Labour value is a laughable concept. No amount of labor that is not reflected in the commodity will have any value. It doesn't matter if your carbonated water is made by decomposing diamonds in a very hot furnace or if your carbonated water is just made of plain water and carbon dioxide. The only thing that matters is the quality of the final product. That is what gives its value.
@@jakeaustria5445 I appreciate your point of view and your contribution to this discussion. You make some compelling points, but allow me to present a different angle.
While I see how scarcity can be a determinant of value - let's face it, people tend to crave what's hard to get - Marx argues that there's actually a lot more at play here. It's not just about scarcity, but the process it would take to replace that scarce object, the so-called socially necessary labour time. Sure, we don't often consider the 'behind-the-scenes' work, but Marx posits that it's still inherently tied to a commodity's worth.
I also hear you when you say quality determines the price, but where does that quality come from? Isn't it from the skill and expertise of the labour involved? That labour should also be reflected in the value, right? Let's also put aside celebrity endorsements, as they're more about marketing and brand, which is a whole other kettle of fish.
Your example of carbonated water also brings to mind an interesting question: why do some people buy pricey Perrier while others stick to the budget store brand? Isn't it, in part, about the labour, expertise, and process that goes into creating that distinct Perrier taste and brand reputation? This is part of Marx's critique - under capitalism, the 'real value' of labour can often get lost, obscured by marketing gimmicks and shiny branding.
Now, about capitalism being 'freedom in its purest form'. Freedom for whom? Certainly not for the labourers at the bottom rung who often work long hours for a wage that doesn't necessarily cover basic living costs, right? They may have the 'freedom' to work, but do they have real choices? That's one of the questions that Marx and other critics of capitalism try to bring to the table.
And while capitalism has certainly driven impressive technological advancements and wealth, Marx actually challenges us to look deeper - to consider if that's a truly equitable distribution of wealth and if there might be a more fair system. Is capitalism 'the best we can do', or can we strive for something better? And is valuing labour in our economic system one step towards that goal?
Again, your perspective is valued, and I appreciate the chance to exchange thoughts with you. Hopefully, this has offered you a new way to consider Marx's theories.
@@JP-fb8ni I very much like how productive this conversation is. You are presenting your arguments that are very good. However, I just can't accept it. It's probably not because I have a bias in capitalism(probably I have).
We have these two differing philosophies. I look at how valuable the product is at face value, while you look at the hidden value of the product. I think there's nothing wrong, about these two perspectives. But I am in the face value philosophy and I feel like looking at the hidden value is a bit naive in my perspective, no offense.
First, let's explore your argument. Correct me if I am wrong.
Labor Value -> Product -> Product Value
A product's value has an inherent labor value in it that was being obscured by marketing gimmicks and shiny branding.
Here is my argument
Product -> Product Value
The difference in my point of view is that I removed the Labor Value in the equation. This is because I observed that when a product is put on the shelf, the buyers will then examine it, and then put a value. They usually don't care how the product is made, but how well they are made. Exceptions are vegans and other note-worthy sensitive groups of people.
We first need to establish a common ground we can agree on.
I agree that for a product to be made, there must be labor. I will restrict the definition for the two of us to specifically mean the work of squishy meat-bags favored by evolution aka homo sapiens. Machines will be considered Capital. Land can also be considered Capital. Raw materials are also Capital. There is no sense differentiating them if you get them when a rich person buys it in one go without caring about how he/she treats them. The rich person are therefore free to make his/her own decisions on the capital. We can therefore not make any meaningful economics since economics means making decisions because of limited resources. If they are the ones making the decisions for that, then we can't change it. There will always be buyers of capital in any economic system. We can change this definition later on.
Therefore, I agree that for a product to be made, there must be a presence of these two elements: Labor and Capital.
That's why I also agree that there is an inherent labor value inside a product.
However, this is where we diverge. I think that when a product is sold all the inherent values must already be reflected in the quality and quantity of the product. That's why it is nonsensical to talk about labor value in determining what makes a commodity valuable.
Let's also make sure I get the right definition of labor value. Labor value is the inherent value of the product from the labor that made it. Labor value can also mean the amount of time and resources needed to be spent to create the product. I prefer the second definition you proposed since it is more concrete. Please correct me later.
Your perspective says that this inherent value of labor must not be taken out in determining the value of the product. I feel like you are also saying that this is somewhat a necessary step in determining what's a fair economic system. An example of this is pricing a good based on its inherent labor value and not based on what the market dictates. Pretty interesting concept. We can flesh out the details, but let's just say it is possible to price a product based on its inherent labor value.
My mother is telling me to do something? A bummer. I will continue later.
@@jakeaustria5445 Jake, it's a pleasure having this insightful discussion with you! Let's go straight to it, shall we? You've pinpointed one of the core arguments of Marx - labour value isn't just hidden, it's inherently connected to the worth of a commodity.
The process of valuing goods on their inherent labour might seem too simplistic or even naive from your viewpoint. I see where you're coming from - consumers typically prioritise quality, price, and their personal preferences. However, from Marx's perspective, the fact that these factors determine the commodity's market price is a characteristic of capitalism that alienates workers from their labour and creates a market dynamic which prioritises profit over equitable compensation.
Let me illustrate with an example. If a cobbler spends ten hours making a pair of shoes using quality materials, and a factory pumps out a hundred pairs using lower-quality materials but a faster production method, consumers are likely to be swayed by the cheaper, readily available factory-made shoes. Yet, who's really producing the 'greater' value here? For Marx, it would be the cobbler, even though the market might not agree.
Herein lies the problem: when labour and its value are divorced from the product it produces, we, as a society, begin to devalue the importance of the labour itself. For Marx, placing the emphasis back on labour is about reinstating the real 'human cost' of a product and restructuring the economic system so that value isn't exclusively based on market prices.
Incidentally, in response to your mum's request, remember to put some value on that domestic labour as well! 😉
No substitle for English