As David Harvey's courses were my first introduction to Capital there is still a lot I am having to re-learn as a result. When you literally come out and say "revolution is bad actually and not something we should aspire to" you just might not be a marxist.
I watched Radhika Desai on Geopolitical Economy Report and Ben Norton was spouting nonsense about “use value” and “exchange value”, apparently believing these were two different forms of value. Unfortunately Radhika Desai didn’t correct him, so the audience probably got the idea that he knew what he was talking about. I like Ben Norton, but he really doesn’t understand Marxism.
hmm nope. What do you mean by scarcity? Scarcity existed in all ages and the concept itself is relative. One thing we can prove is that much of today's scarcity is because of capitalism, not despite of it. Marginal Utility does not rebuke labour theory. Utilitarianism is the only serious liberal attempt to overcome capitalism's inherent contradictions. That's why Utilitarianism is largely misinterpreted and/or ignored. Anyway, Utilitarianism cannot provide any tools of how to reform the system, it provides only a conceptual criteria based on old greek interpretations of utility. Marginal utility is academical truism with the typical confusion that liberals do between micro and macroeconomics.
@@MK-jc6us labor is no longer the only arguable basis of value. Subjective market demand defines value. I see no difference between the measure of value and market price. Moreover SOME industrial capitalists provide value by organizing and innovating. Other capitalists like land owners and bankers are parasitic rentiers which add no value. In any event, gringo capitalism has a long way to go before it hits the Nordic model. Gringo plutocrats were bitten by the warmongering imperial bug wasting resources in the military industrial complex and tax breaks for the rich instead of spending in universal health and tertiary education.
@@manuelmanuel9248 Sorry to be picky here but "subjective-market"? Subjectivity is an individual trait. Market is considered aggregated demand and offer. I assume you are referring to aggregated-subjectivity here. I see what you mean as this is not the first time I read this kind of argument. There is a big difference between use value (what you simply call value) and exchange value (what you call market value). I do agree that the border between both becomes somehow blurred with our mass consumption society but finally the distinction between both concepts remains pertinent. I'll give you an example, imagine a drug which treats Alzheimer. We will calculate its value based on invested capital plus a margin which will allow the capitalist to A- pay his bills and B-reinvest. When the drug-maker puts the product in the market the exchange value is defined by "demand", the drug maker will raise or lower prices depending on several factors (State regulation, local purchase power, size of the market, competition, etc). The exchange value is thus a value that does not match the "subjective-market" demands. "Subjectively" all consumers suffering from Alzheimer are willing to pay the minimum price possible. I.e. Production cost + margin for reinvestment + capitalist own bills. We can see with an array of real case examples that this is not what happens. To say that people who "really need" a treatment for Alzheimer will pay inflated prices is a truism. Of course, if you suffer from a serious illness you will "subjectively" accept to pay above your initial willingness to pay the minium price that I just mentioned. Maybe you will argue that my example is a bad one because people are not buying something for pleasure and that there is no competitive market for Alzheimer drugs. We can take another, more mondaine example instead. Let's imagine that a consumer wants to purchase a new shirt. You will argue that Marxist view is not correct as the consumers will value design, good practices, quality of the material and fashion which will not match the production cost + margin that I mentioned above. But in fact it will, as the elements such as fashion/design are also products of Marketing campaigns and this requires human work. I agree that people may accept to pay much more than the "normal" value because of a brand or ephemeral hype but I fail to see how this cheap consumerism can be used as a solid argument for Capitalism as a Civilizational project in a time where we talk about lack of basic resources such as water. If we refer to goods and services which can be classified as staple or useful (in a utilitarian sense) we will easily see that aggregated demand will tend to match the lower possible price in the market (and this making abstraction from all possible State regulations and private speculation for the sake of simplicity). I do not see any decent "debunk" of Marx's critique to Capitalism. What I do see a lot is a to and fro from micro to macroeconomics that tend to avoid the Marxist critique, which is a macro, long term and global one, not a micro not even a nation-limited critique. In aggregated terms, capitalist are willing to pay the lowest wage possible. This has obviously as consequence that workers in general will tend to buy for the lowest price possible. It is clear that Capitalism as a system cannot rely on "subjective" tastes and preferences in the long run as this clashes with the very notion of Capitalist competition (at least on its liberal version). Bottom line argument, the "premium" consumption that you refers to makes abstraction of the global economy as a whole. The excess of wage being paid in Switzerland for example is a result of a plus-value extraction from non-consupmtion in the semi-periphery and periphery. If workers in Ghana receive a fair wage, the chocolate consumption in Switzerland will fall to something closer of a "use value". Exchange value cannot escape the plus-value process when analysed globally. The Nordic model you mention as a way to go is a historical accident. Western Capitalism had to make concessions right after WW2 in order to create a social peace and avoid the socialist threat (in the revolutionary sense). It is not a mere coincidence that the decline of the Soviet Union and the rise of Dengusim in China during the 70s/80s coincide with the neo-liberal attack on social rights (and even political rights if we think on our last 2 decades).
@@MK-jc6us price is NOT “use value”. If that were the case water would be more expensive than diamonds in the market. The rest of your “picky”’ retort is marxist parroting of a word salad.
@@MK-jc6us looking forward to AI taking over all manufacturing “jobs” because then marxists will have to scrap the word salad about the labor theory of value. The only “jobs” will be in the service sector which Marx wrote off in his dated analysis. Mind you, labor does create value but it is not the only source of value. About the Nordic system, the historic “accident” can easily be repeated by gringoland. In that sense, everything is a historic accident including the Soviet Union,
As David Harvey's courses were my first introduction to Capital there is still a lot I am having to re-learn as a result. When you literally come out and say "revolution is bad actually and not something we should aspire to" you just might not be a marxist.
Hell yeah
We need a video like this on Volume 3!
Very interesting talk. Thank you very much. I've gone and subscribed now.
Radhika Desai is amazing
I watched Radhika Desai on Geopolitical Economy Report and Ben Norton was spouting nonsense about “use value” and “exchange value”, apparently believing these were two different forms of value. Unfortunately Radhika Desai didn’t correct him, so the audience probably got the idea that he knew what he was talking about. I like Ben Norton, but he really doesn’t understand Marxism.
Labor theory of value went up in smoke after scarcity, supply and demand and marginal utility were theorized.
hmm nope. What do you mean by scarcity? Scarcity existed in all ages and the concept itself is relative. One thing we can prove is that much of today's scarcity is because of capitalism, not despite of it. Marginal Utility does not rebuke labour theory. Utilitarianism is the only serious liberal attempt to overcome capitalism's inherent contradictions. That's why Utilitarianism is largely misinterpreted and/or ignored. Anyway, Utilitarianism cannot provide any tools of how to reform the system, it provides only a conceptual criteria based on old greek interpretations of utility. Marginal utility is academical truism with the typical confusion that liberals do between micro and macroeconomics.
@@MK-jc6us labor is no longer the only arguable basis of value. Subjective market demand defines value. I see no difference between the measure of value and market price. Moreover SOME industrial capitalists provide value by organizing and innovating. Other capitalists like land owners and bankers are parasitic rentiers which add no value. In any event, gringo capitalism has a long way to go before it hits the Nordic model. Gringo plutocrats were bitten by the warmongering imperial bug wasting resources in the military industrial complex and tax breaks for the rich instead of spending in universal health and tertiary education.
@@manuelmanuel9248 Sorry to be picky here but "subjective-market"? Subjectivity is an individual trait. Market is considered aggregated demand and offer. I assume you are referring to aggregated-subjectivity here. I see what you mean as this is not the first time I read this kind of argument. There is a big difference between use value (what you simply call value) and exchange value (what you call market value). I do agree that the border between both becomes somehow blurred with our mass consumption society but finally the distinction between both concepts remains pertinent.
I'll give you an example, imagine a drug which treats Alzheimer. We will calculate its value based on invested capital plus a margin which will allow the capitalist to A- pay his bills and B-reinvest. When the drug-maker puts the product in the market the exchange value is defined by "demand", the drug maker will raise or lower prices depending on several factors (State regulation, local purchase power, size of the market, competition, etc). The exchange value is thus a value that does not match the "subjective-market" demands. "Subjectively" all consumers suffering from Alzheimer are willing to pay the minimum price possible. I.e. Production cost + margin for reinvestment + capitalist own bills. We can see with an array of real case examples that this is not what happens. To say that people who "really need" a treatment for Alzheimer will pay inflated prices is a truism. Of course, if you suffer from a serious illness you will "subjectively" accept to pay above your initial willingness to pay the minium price that I just mentioned.
Maybe you will argue that my example is a bad one because people are not buying something for pleasure and that there is no competitive market for Alzheimer drugs. We can take another, more mondaine example instead. Let's imagine that a consumer wants to purchase a new shirt. You will argue that Marxist view is not correct as the consumers will value design, good practices, quality of the material and fashion which will not match the production cost + margin that I mentioned above. But in fact it will, as the elements such as fashion/design are also products of Marketing campaigns and this requires human work. I agree that people may accept to pay much more than the "normal" value because of a brand or ephemeral hype but I fail to see how this cheap consumerism can be used as a solid argument for Capitalism as a Civilizational project in a time where we talk about lack of basic resources such as water. If we refer to goods and services which can be classified as staple or useful (in a utilitarian sense) we will easily see that aggregated demand will tend to match the lower possible price in the market (and this making abstraction from all possible State regulations and private speculation for the sake of simplicity). I do not see any decent "debunk" of Marx's critique to Capitalism. What I do see a lot is a to and fro from micro to macroeconomics that tend to avoid the Marxist critique, which is a macro, long term and global one, not a micro not even a nation-limited critique. In aggregated terms, capitalist are willing to pay the lowest wage possible. This has obviously as consequence that workers in general will tend to buy for the lowest price possible. It is clear that Capitalism as a system cannot rely on "subjective" tastes and preferences in the long run as this clashes with the very notion of Capitalist competition (at least on its liberal version). Bottom line argument, the "premium" consumption that you refers to makes abstraction of the global economy as a whole. The excess of wage being paid in Switzerland for example is a result of a plus-value extraction from non-consupmtion in the semi-periphery and periphery. If workers in Ghana receive a fair wage, the chocolate consumption in Switzerland will fall to something closer of a "use value". Exchange value cannot escape the plus-value process when analysed globally.
The Nordic model you mention as a way to go is a historical accident. Western Capitalism had to make concessions right after WW2 in order to create a social peace and avoid the socialist threat (in the revolutionary sense). It is not a mere coincidence that the decline of the Soviet Union and the rise of Dengusim in China during the 70s/80s coincide with the neo-liberal attack on social rights (and even political rights if we think on our last 2 decades).
@@MK-jc6us price is NOT “use value”. If that were the case water would be more expensive than diamonds in the market. The rest of your “picky”’ retort is marxist parroting of a word salad.
@@MK-jc6us looking forward to AI taking over all manufacturing “jobs” because then marxists will have to scrap the word salad about the labor theory of value. The only “jobs” will be in the service sector which Marx wrote off in his dated analysis. Mind you, labor does create value but it is not the only source of value. About the Nordic system, the historic “accident” can easily be repeated by gringoland. In that sense, everything is a historic accident including the Soviet Union,
This says that she solved the labor value theory but never actually says how. A talking head
Ewww marxism
😂