I guess the best way for American readers to start to enjoy reading Marx because he is an amazing writer and takes the reader into a places people never go before, is to understand historical materialism as a method of investigation and as theory of presentation. HM sees all the phenomena of the universe as matter. Matter appears in reality in a gazillion forms. Matter in the form of a sea, land or air, is matter in general. Our air quality, water quality, and soil quality is produced by the hand of man. Air, water and soil from the dawn of man up to industrialization is produced by universal laws of physics, nature herself. But from the point where the inter-relating actions between tools and labor become mechanized actions on the landscape this action has made our planet is entirely man -made including the wild preserves and conservation lands. Composition and recombination is the action of the planet's matter and the universe, the earth, the soil , water, air. Here we get a glimpse of the way the ancient philosophers saw life and I think for this reason Marx is the last of the greatest classical philosophers of all history with one foot into the modern era. Indispensable reading.
@@MrDXRamirez philosophy and economics were closely intertwined in all the earlier economic thought. Nowdays, econ is more into politics and math. Seems more scientific but we can see marx and engels trying to take philosiohy into a scientific examination of socioeconomic reality. Seems more useful that way,than modern econ, but we really need all those tools together,to use objectively.
@@drphosferrous All ancient reality is labor. Past and present labor. This is the principal of archeology, examining the object and form to arrive at the labor it contains. All modern reality is labor. Concrete and Abstract Labor. This is a principal of Marxian economics, examining the objects and social forms of modern industry for the two types of labor they contain. Deep.
@@MrDXRamirez if there were only 100 people in the world and only 50 worked, i wonder how much work it would take to get everyone food,water,and shelter? In a decent ecosystem, might take 20hr work weeks. With 40, they could also afford an upper ruling class and historic wage conflict.
@@drphosferrous they do not willingly line up at the door to support a ruling class with their labor. The ruling class has to win their hearts and minds. If the Shaman does not end the drought he recommends not enough people are being sacrificed to appease the God of Rain, if that fails to end the drought, the priest has to sacrifice himself is the responsibility that comes with the job. That’s the deal. If that fails the city-states are abandoned and are swallowed up by the jungle. If it takes a modern working class 6 hours to earn their keep but are working 12 hour days the entire social system is dependent on 6 hours work per person. Death and Taxes. A lot of hours. Never ending surplus labor assuming of course the working day is reduced to 6 hours in which case the fixed amount people are paid to work is enough to live happily which, in reality, it can be but is not.
the organisation functions as we know from the Japanese business school, so that the authoritarian relations in society are in accord with the organization's intentions. Aspects insofar as taxation, intellectual property, zones, prices of commodities are set demands to be met. There no other reason to study, but to enter the company as a junior companyman. Now bow..!
what happens to that surplus without an autocratic overlord? if a hunter-gatherer finds enough to feed 10 people for 3 days, she doesn't sell it to another tribe. human instinct has most people volounteer it to their people. a large portion feeds children, and others who dont hunt or gather. this is how socioeconomic organization is without a class scam. its how humans worked for most of our existence on earth
Kids,elderly,and disabled. Thats the right and natural place for all labor surplus. Since the neolithic, an upper class has interjected themselves into that exchange by convincing us we need them.
The last time I checked , when somebody sells something they should get paid for doing so. In the example given by dr. Wolff above, the only person he mentions selling something is the employer (5:17), the laborer sold nothing other than his labor-power. The employer used what was sold by the laborer to make or provide something of greater value in the marketplace than just the laborer`s labor-power. He sold what was produced, NOT the laborer. The laborer should be paid for how much the marketplace values that specific labor and NOT for how much the marketplace values the product or service they help produce, in which the employer sells.
"The laborer should be paid for how much the marketplace values that specific labor" - To what marketplace are you referring to? Exactly HOW does that specific labor get valued and WHO places value on said labor? I can assure you, it's not the laborer. Which is the entire point.
@@jaym10918 Basically the laborer and marketplace I was referring to, is the one Dr. Wolf was using in his example, the laborers who get employed to make stuff (i.e., chairs), but have nothing to do with the marketing and sales of what they make ... To the laborer, he's getting paid to make chairs, not market and sell chairs. So as I see it as a laborer in that specific market, he is being paid according to how much an employer is willing to pay for them to do that specific job, and not necessarily how much an employee can get for his work, if he could personally sell the chairs he made.
@@davidmeyersonestep So you are ok with the emoyer dictating the financial lives of the people who make it possible for said employer to make such tyrannical decisions in the first place? That is authoritarian and actually goes against human nature. The problem with your mindset is that in many cases, the employer doesn't have the employees best interest at heart. The employers primary motivation is to profit and the only way to do that is to pay the employee less than what they produce. This is the cause of inequality and poverty. Others must suffer so a small group can make all the profit. The relationship is parasitic.
@@jaym10918 No, I`m not okay with that!! (NOT MY MINDSET)... That`s just the way it is, IF you`re an employee, and you better learn what`s going on, IF you want to do something better!
Prof Wolff undoubtedly has a pension and other investments in the CAPITALIST stock market. So when HIS investments in the market have a positive growth, that would be considered PROFIT. Profit that was earned in the stock market off the backs of his financial advisor, employees of the company where his money is invested and so many more. What does Prof Wolff do with HIS PROFIT from the capitalist stock market ? Does he donate it to charity ? Does he give it back ? Does he refuse accept it ? With run away inflation the value of his home has sky rocketed. His home is worth double or triple what he paid for it years ago. When he sells his home what will he do with the PROFIT he earned on the value of his home through inflation. Will he donate it to charity? This guy is a lunatic
Even if we suppose all of this is true it does absolutely nothing in refuting this accurate description of capitalism. All you guys have is trying to point out hypocrisy as though that negates the argument being made - it doesn't. Capitalism is a mode of production that funnels the surplus profit not to labor but to the capitalist. This breeds greed and a belief that nothing else (environment, family, human well-being, etc.) matters except for endless profit and infinite growth on a finite planet.
The logic Richard Wolf attempts to use is so unbelievably flawed to the degree that it absolutely boggles the mind. What does he mean the workers didn't get to keep what they made? They are PAID to make what they made using the land, building, utilities, property taxes, payroll taxes, and super-expensive tools and equipment (commercial-grade saws, lathes, lasers, drills, boring machines, etc.) necessary to build the chairs-- usually purchased at great risk by the employer who, more often than not, had to get loans from banks to pay for all this stuff. The workers didn't take this great risk, the employer did. Yes, the workers added part of the value AND WERE PAID TO DO SO. It's risk/reward. This is so basic I can't believe anyone allows themselves to be sucked into what this guy purports. It's why Communism and true Socialism fail every time.
Lmao you have terrible looking I here. You say "workers are paid," but this video clearly explains that workers who actually provide labor are not paid enough. That's basically the point of the video and you managed to completely miss the only point of the video 😆
All of the things you list here that the capitalist provides can be rolled into the EL value. They are reimbursed for that, the cost, the investment, the risk, all of that, in full. Then, afterwards, they take every cent of value that employees provided/produced, and keep the vast vast majority of all of it as their own.
The issue is to what EXTENT the employees are paid- not that they are not paid nothing as you suggest: Look in the news in Winter 2022 with the United States Major League Baseball Lockout- where the players union wanted the rookies to have a higher minimum pay, and the executives & governors of the team insisted the players were already giving fair share and didn't want to concede more of their surplus / profits. Many in the media and those that side with the teams' higher ups say the players are complaining about the difference between making 10 million and 12 million a year (a slap to face of everyday workers to which I say, pay them more too- it is not mutually exclusive- the players train their entire life while you and I get to work and chill after a long day watching them try to not embarrass themselves on TV) . Reality is, Televised Sports Channels make those executives billions++ , whether Regional Sports Nets like Bally Sports, Comcast-NBC, OR the national CBS Sports Net , ESPN or FoxSports, they charge the highest shares of money from your cable bill, even more than CNN, Fox News, or any other broadcaster. The baseball executives have the platform that allows them to make more money off advertising, whereas there are very few athletes who can make money solely off the companies that sponsor them. And before you say- why do we have unions and laws for... It isn't that easy and the hope is dwindling because former corporate executives find their way and influence upon lobbying firms, politics AND unions. Where is the means for justice in all this?! It's the inconvenient, ignored and insufferable truth about capitalism.
The point is that the wage system that forms the basis of a capitalist mode of production is bullshit. Workers will always produce more value then they are compensated for with there wage. The wages make it seem as if all the work done in the time working is paid labor when really there are to parts to the labor process. They are necessary labor and surplus labor. The surplus is any value created by the worker over and above the value of the wage they are getting paid. Everything past the point is surplus labor value which is the source of profit for the owner that they get to claim because they own the means of production and is therefore a form of unpaid labor, thus making it the root of exploitation in a capitalist mode of production.
I agree, but my question is how would a completely democratic, and socialistic worker co op start from scratch. Doesn't it need to be built off of capitalism, because this is the reality. Just a hypothetical question. Because hasn't then capitalism been the path to socialism, as it is evolving.
Prof. Wolff offers here a time slice at a specific moment, but yes the socialism has to evolve from capitalism, same way as capitalism had to evolve from feudalism or some other earlier system. Think about that like the ecological succession.
Yes correct, this guy is a buffoon. Can you even imagine workers all agreeing on how profit/surplus is spent democratically, ridiculous. Also that surplus goes into building and maintaining the factory along with the materials. This is usually done in the real world with investors money taking a gamble you will be successful.
@@piotrczubryt1111 Can you link examples of successful cooperatives in this context. I know of several successful cooperatives but they are vastly different to what's described here. Interested to see your examples.
It is so simple it is completely wrong!!! First, who had the idea of building the chair? Who paid for the factory? who paid for the insurance? Who bought the equipment in the factory? Who bought the goods to make the chair? who put up the cash to float the construction until the final customer pays? Who paid for the accounting system? who did the filings with the government? Who does the compliance with the EPA and many other government agencies? Who paid the taxes? Who funded the cash flow required to pay the bills until the money comes in? His analysis leaves out most of the costs and bears no relationship to reality. Wolff takes people for idiots and present a story that is so wrong it is amazing that he would dare to present it.
Most of what you asked about is considered in the employers '100' of value that they put in (EL). For example, the goods to make the chair were produced at some point in the past by workers that eventually end up in the hands of the employer. The worker then adds their '100' (LL), now, where does the profit come from? It's taken from the LL side, the worker. Very simple. Government taxes and accounting systems etc. are more complex, but not necessary to mention to make the point he is making, which is that the surplus value is taken from the workers, that is where profit comes from in the capitalist mode of production.
"Who paid for the factory? who paid for the insurance? Who bought the equipment in the factory? Who bought the goods to make the chair? who put up the cash to float the construction until the final customer pays? Who paid for the accounting system?" - It's interesting how you're so concerned with WHO paid for it, as apposed to HOW it was paid for. This is one-track thinking at it's finest. Placing the means of production in the hands of private ownership consolidates all of the power and surplus, thus creating the class division that is so prevalent. The most interesting contradiction to the capitalist mindset is that without the worker, the capitalist is worthless, as they must employee people to actually produce the product that they can profit from. Exploitation is the entire cornerstone of capitalism as it literally can't function otherwise.
He just said that... Embodied labour (the thing that capitalist adds to the production). In addition to that, there is the living labour, added by the worker(s). It is understood that all commodities, including money that's being used, the raw materials that were extracted, and the factory, are all products of various forms of labour in various times. This embodied labour is then worked upon by the living labour to create the end product.
This clown keeps on signing the same thing but he never says that the employees should pay to keep their job if the company runs at a loss. He is living in lala land
"runs at a loss"? Under socialism? Work under socialism is for the communities not for profit, if you don't have a need to satisfy you don't engage in the production. Similarly if the produced commodities are essential, they get subsidesed, if they aren't and the labor force required is too high for the good it produces, it's not done at all, for environment's sake
I guess the best way for American readers to start to enjoy reading Marx because he is an amazing writer and takes the reader into a places people never go before, is to understand historical materialism as a method of investigation and as theory of presentation.
HM sees all the phenomena of the universe as matter. Matter appears in reality in a gazillion forms. Matter in the form of a sea, land or air, is matter in general. Our air quality, water quality, and soil quality is produced by the hand of man. Air, water and soil from the dawn of man up to industrialization is produced by universal laws of physics, nature herself. But from the point where the inter-relating actions between tools and labor become mechanized actions on the landscape this action has made our planet is entirely man -made including the wild preserves and conservation lands. Composition and recombination is the action of the planet's matter and the universe, the earth, the soil , water, air. Here we get a glimpse of the way the ancient philosophers saw life and I think for this reason Marx is the last of the greatest classical philosophers of all history with one foot into the modern era. Indispensable reading.
@@MrDXRamirez philosophy and economics were closely intertwined in all the earlier economic thought. Nowdays, econ is more into politics and math. Seems more scientific but we can see marx and engels trying to take philosiohy into a scientific examination of socioeconomic reality. Seems more useful that way,than modern econ, but we really need all those tools together,to use objectively.
@@drphosferrous All ancient reality is labor. Past and present labor. This is the principal of archeology, examining the object and form to arrive at the labor it contains.
All modern reality is labor. Concrete and Abstract Labor. This is a principal of Marxian economics, examining the objects and social forms of modern industry for the two types of labor they contain.
Deep.
@@MrDXRamirez if there were only 100 people in the world and only 50 worked, i wonder how much work it would take to get everyone food,water,and shelter? In a decent ecosystem, might take 20hr work weeks. With 40, they could also afford an upper ruling class and historic wage conflict.
@@drphosferrous they do not willingly line up at the door to support a ruling class with their labor. The ruling class has to win their hearts and minds. If the Shaman does not end the drought he recommends not enough people are being sacrificed to appease the God of Rain, if that fails to end the drought, the priest has to sacrifice himself is the responsibility that comes with the job. That’s the deal. If that fails the city-states are abandoned and are swallowed up by the jungle.
If it takes a modern working class 6 hours to earn their keep but are working 12 hour days the entire social system is dependent on 6 hours work per person. Death and Taxes. A lot of hours. Never ending surplus labor assuming of course the working day is reduced to 6 hours in which case the fixed amount people are paid to work is enough to live happily which, in reality, it can be but is not.
the organisation functions as we know from the Japanese business school, so that the authoritarian relations in society are in accord with the organization's intentions. Aspects insofar as taxation, intellectual property, zones, prices of commodities are set demands to be met. There no other reason to study, but to enter the company as a junior companyman. Now bow..!
💚💙🧡
what happens to that surplus without an autocratic overlord? if a hunter-gatherer finds enough to feed 10 people for 3 days, she doesn't sell it to another tribe. human instinct has most people volounteer it to their people. a large portion feeds children, and others who dont hunt or gather. this is how socioeconomic organization is without a class scam. its how humans worked for most of our existence on earth
Kids,elderly,and disabled. Thats the right and natural place for all labor surplus. Since the neolithic, an upper class has interjected themselves into that exchange by convincing us we need them.
"she" doesn't do the hunting tho.
The last time I checked , when somebody sells something they should get paid for doing so. In the example given by dr. Wolff above, the only person he mentions selling something is the employer (5:17), the laborer sold nothing other than his labor-power. The employer used what was sold by the laborer to make or provide something of greater value in the marketplace than just the laborer`s labor-power. He sold what was produced, NOT the laborer. The laborer should be paid for how much the marketplace values that specific labor and NOT for how much the marketplace values the product or service they help produce, in which the employer sells.
"The laborer should be paid for how much the marketplace values that specific labor"
- To what marketplace are you referring to? Exactly HOW does that specific labor get valued and WHO places value on said labor? I can assure you, it's not the laborer. Which is the entire point.
@@jaym10918 Basically the laborer and marketplace I was referring to, is the one Dr. Wolf was using in his example, the laborers who get employed to make stuff (i.e., chairs), but have nothing to do with the marketing and sales of what they make ... To the laborer, he's getting paid to make chairs, not market and sell chairs. So as I see it as a laborer in that specific market, he is being paid according to how much an employer is willing to pay for them to do that specific job, and not necessarily how much an employee can get for his work, if he could personally sell the chairs he made.
@@davidmeyersonestep So you are ok with the emoyer dictating the financial lives of the people who make it possible for said employer to make such tyrannical decisions in the first place? That is authoritarian and actually goes against human nature. The problem with your mindset is that in many cases, the employer doesn't have the employees best interest at heart. The employers primary motivation is to profit and the only way to do that is to pay the employee less than what they produce. This is the cause of inequality and poverty. Others must suffer so a small group can make all the profit. The relationship is parasitic.
@@jaym10918 No, I`m not okay with that!! (NOT MY MINDSET)... That`s just the way it is, IF you`re an employee, and you better learn what`s going on, IF you want to do something better!
@@davidmeyersonestep Oh, I see. So then you're just complacent. Got it.
Prof Wolff undoubtedly has a pension and other investments in the CAPITALIST stock market. So when HIS investments in the market have a positive growth, that would be considered PROFIT. Profit that was earned in the stock market off the backs of his financial advisor, employees of the company where his money is invested and so many more. What does Prof Wolff do with HIS PROFIT from the capitalist stock market ? Does he donate it to charity ? Does he give it back ? Does he refuse accept it ? With run away inflation the value of his home has sky rocketed. His home is worth double or triple what he paid for it years ago. When he sells his home what will he do with the PROFIT he earned on the value of his home through inflation. Will he donate it to charity? This guy is a lunatic
Even if we suppose all of this is true it does absolutely nothing in refuting this accurate description of capitalism. All you guys have is trying to point out hypocrisy as though that negates the argument being made - it doesn't. Capitalism is a mode of production that funnels the surplus profit not to labor but to the capitalist. This breeds greed and a belief that nothing else (environment, family, human well-being, etc.) matters except for endless profit and infinite growth on a finite planet.
The logic Richard Wolf attempts to use is so unbelievably flawed to the degree that it absolutely boggles the mind. What does he mean the workers didn't get to keep what they made? They are PAID to make what they made using the land, building, utilities, property taxes, payroll taxes, and super-expensive tools and equipment (commercial-grade saws, lathes, lasers, drills, boring machines, etc.) necessary to build the chairs-- usually purchased at great risk by the employer who, more often than not, had to get loans from banks to pay for all this stuff. The workers didn't take this great risk, the employer did. Yes, the workers added part of the value AND WERE PAID TO DO SO. It's risk/reward. This is so basic I can't believe anyone allows themselves to be sucked into what this guy purports. It's why Communism and true Socialism fail every time.
Lmao you have terrible looking I here. You say "workers are paid," but this video clearly explains that workers who actually provide labor are not paid enough. That's basically the point of the video and you managed to completely miss the only point of the video 😆
All of the things you list here that the capitalist provides can be rolled into the EL value. They are reimbursed for that, the cost, the investment, the risk, all of that, in full.
Then, afterwards, they take every cent of value that employees provided/produced, and keep the vast vast majority of all of it as their own.
The issue is to what EXTENT the employees are paid- not that they are not paid nothing as you suggest:
Look in the news in Winter 2022 with the United States Major League Baseball Lockout- where the players union wanted the rookies to have a higher minimum pay, and the executives & governors of the team insisted the players were already giving fair share and didn't want to concede more of their surplus / profits.
Many in the media and those that side with the teams' higher ups say the players are complaining about the difference between making 10 million and 12 million a year (a slap to face of everyday workers to which I say, pay them more too- it is not mutually exclusive- the players train their entire life while you and I get to work and chill after a long day watching them try to not embarrass themselves on TV) .
Reality is, Televised Sports Channels make those executives billions++ , whether Regional Sports Nets like Bally Sports, Comcast-NBC, OR the national CBS Sports Net , ESPN or FoxSports, they charge the highest shares of money from your cable bill, even more than CNN, Fox News, or any other broadcaster. The baseball executives have the platform that allows them to make more money off advertising, whereas there are very few athletes who can make money solely off the companies that sponsor them.
And before you say- why do we have unions and laws for... It isn't that easy and the hope is dwindling because former corporate executives find their way and influence upon lobbying firms, politics AND unions. Where is the means for justice in all this?!
It's the inconvenient, ignored and insufferable truth about capitalism.
The point is that the wage system that forms the basis of a capitalist mode of production is bullshit. Workers will always produce more value then they are compensated for with there wage. The wages make it seem as if all the work done in the time working is paid labor when really there are to parts to the labor process. They are necessary labor and surplus labor. The surplus is any value created by the worker over and above the value of the wage they are getting paid. Everything past the point is surplus labor value which is the source of profit for the owner that they get to claim because they own the means of production and is therefore a form of unpaid labor, thus making it the root of exploitation in a capitalist mode of production.
I agree, but my question is how would a completely democratic, and socialistic worker co op start from scratch. Doesn't it need to be built off of capitalism, because this is the reality. Just a hypothetical question. Because hasn't then capitalism been the path to socialism, as it is evolving.
Prof. Wolff offers here a time slice at a specific moment, but yes the socialism has to evolve from capitalism, same way as capitalism had to evolve from feudalism or some other earlier system. Think about that like the ecological succession.
Yes correct, this guy is a buffoon. Can you even imagine workers all agreeing on how profit/surplus is spent democratically, ridiculous. Also that surplus goes into building and maintaining the factory along with the materials. This is usually done in the real world with investors money taking a gamble you will be successful.
@@404errorpagenotfound.6
You are wrong, workers are not stupid and can make decisions democratically. The proof is the existence of the cooperatives.
@@piotrczubryt1111 Can you link examples of successful cooperatives in this context. I know of several successful cooperatives but they are vastly different to what's described here. Interested to see your examples.
It is so simple it is completely wrong!!! First, who had the idea of building the chair? Who paid for the factory? who paid for the insurance? Who bought the equipment in the factory? Who bought the goods to make the chair? who put up the cash to float the construction until the final customer pays? Who paid for the accounting system? who did the filings with the government? Who does the compliance with the EPA and many other government agencies? Who paid the taxes? Who funded the cash flow required to pay the bills until the money comes in? His analysis leaves out most of the costs and bears no relationship to reality. Wolff takes people for idiots and present a story that is so wrong it is amazing that he would dare to present it.
Most of what you asked about is considered in the employers '100' of value that they put in (EL). For example, the goods to make the chair were produced at some point in the past by workers that eventually end up in the hands of the employer. The worker then adds their '100' (LL), now, where does the profit come from? It's taken from the LL side, the worker. Very simple.
Government taxes and accounting systems etc. are more complex, but not necessary to mention to make the point he is making, which is that the surplus value is taken from the workers, that is where profit comes from in the capitalist mode of production.
"Who paid for the factory? who paid for the insurance? Who bought the equipment in the factory? Who bought the goods to make the chair? who put up the cash to float the construction until the final customer pays? Who paid for the accounting system?"
- It's interesting how you're so concerned with WHO paid for it, as apposed to HOW it was paid for. This is one-track thinking at it's finest. Placing the means of production in the hands of private ownership consolidates all of the power and surplus, thus creating the class division that is so prevalent. The most interesting contradiction to the capitalist mindset is that without the worker, the capitalist is worthless, as they must employee people to actually produce the product that they can profit from. Exploitation is the entire cornerstone of capitalism as it literally can't function otherwise.
He just said that... Embodied labour (the thing that capitalist adds to the production). In addition to that, there is the living labour, added by the worker(s). It is understood that all commodities, including money that's being used, the raw materials that were extracted, and the factory, are all products of various forms of labour in various times. This embodied labour is then worked upon by the living labour to create the end product.
This clown keeps on signing the same thing but he never says that the employees should pay to keep their job if the company runs at a loss. He is living in lala land
"runs at a loss"? Under socialism? Work under socialism is for the communities not for profit, if you don't have a need to satisfy you don't engage in the production. Similarly if the produced commodities are essential, they get subsidesed, if they aren't and the labor force required is too high for the good it produces, it's not done at all, for environment's sake