Marx Part 1: Labour & Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 03. 2016
- Philosophy and economics! Part 1 of my series on Karl Marx. We talk about capitalism, exploitation, labour, and the working class.
More like this: tinyurl.com/nljmqsu
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: www.audibletrial.com/Philosoph...
FAQ: / philosophytu. .
Facebook: / philosophytu. .
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Karl Marx, Das Kapital
Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital
Alexander Anievas, How The West Came to Rule
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Music: ‘Chiptune Anthem One,’ ‘Tek’s Abomination,’ and ‘Digital Leapfrog’ by TechnoAxe - tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg
Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX - / dvdangor2011
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. - Zábava
So you're saying... I could get the Das Kapital audiobook for free?
Truly, this is the only ethical form of consumption under capitalism.
There are plenty of free versions online
Did you ever read it?
Robin Banks, have you read a word of Marx? Do you know anything about Marx? Do you know that Marx got the Labor theory of value from Adam Smith and DAVID Ricardo ? Do you know that Marx focused on what goes on inside the enterprise, Micro economics . The Democratization of the enterprise. Do you know that Marx focused on the workers and the sense of Alienation from the enterprise.
@@stella3265 shut the fuck up loser
You actually can get it for free easily.
Holding a block of wood and increasing its value by burning forests seems on par for capitalism.
Wouldn't it increase it's price, not value?
@@maksymusatenko4338 both are somewhat inherently tied to the other, in the sense that as the value goes up the price does, but not necessarily the other way around in some cases
But this is just an econ degree analysis not a Marxist/philosophical analysis
@@maksymusatenko4338 dont confuse the like that
the memes of production :^>
We must sieze the memes of production :^>
EXACTLY
can we extent guillotine usage to people who make puns
Funny!!!
Also remember to teach your kids that you always need to seize the means of productions.
I've been trying to understand Marx for years. But only until finding this video did it become so clear!
Best explanation of Marx ever.
@Cybersix How so? I know that there are quotes which have been taken out of context but Marx was not a racist
@@jayfeather6749 Cyber is mad, lollypop licking moron. Some will never ever understand or try to understand Marx and it's fact. And facts are never ever wrong.
@@tickle296 Ok
I’m sure Marx was a racist..that’s why he sent a letter to Lincoln thanking him after the emancipation proclamation
@@jayfeather6749 I honestly wouldn't worry about that, he lived in the 19th Century, it's really not surprising even if he was
Listening to this while at my shitty factory job lmao
A revolution is inevitable, comrade.
Are y'all unionized at least? If not, then I implore you to pursue a union if it's within your power. :)
@@AngryGeekling there was a union there. Now I'm at a different factory that does not have a union. C'est la vie
Same :c
@@Gigachad-mc5qz stay strong comrade
He was smart dude, now we have monopolies in every industry and they are far more powerful than our governments.
There is not much difference between feudalism and capitalism
well in english it's hard to express the difference, because there is still a bit of a difference, though in practice, it doesn't change much:
in feudalism: "Man darf reich nicht werden wenn man arm ist"
in capitalism: "Man kann reich nicht werden wenn man arm ist"
AmazingBotato Kaiser applaud you for your effort my friend, but there have been monopolies in free market systems. They weren’t harmful monopolies like many have come to believe, but they were monopolies nonetheless.
AmazingBotato Kaiser a monopoly is just exclusive ownership of a particular industry or commodity. Even assuming that the definition was more specific as you’re saying, there have been situations in which companies could have increased prices and reduced quality. They didn’t because they knew that it would generate competition in a cornered market, but they could have.
AmazingBotato Kaiser Nothing is the problem. I’m not a socialist. I applaud individuals who can consistently keep their products above the rest so much so as to keep a monopoly. Just pointing out that they are/were monopolies nonetheless.
This is why I refer to libertarians and conservatives as neofeudalists.
This channel makes me so happy and optimistic. Open discussion of views and ideas. Giving people the tools and knowledge to think critically about the world, and draw their own conclusions. Sometimes the comment section scares me, with the amount of zealots for both sides these arguments produce. People who forgot how to reason years ago when they bought a dogma. The smart ones still out weigh the fools though. Ollie fans are the best.
+David Harris awwwwwww! You sweetie!
+Langelier Fabrice are we still talking about me? Or at some point did I get confused with Marx himself? Either way I have become quite lost in regards to this thread.
@Cybersix why df r u replying to a 4 year old comment
@@ab_khanayy why am I replying to your 2 year old comment t on a 6 year old comment?
I studied science all my life and always felt that something was lacking. Some connection. I’ve just finished my MS thesis on microbiology of oral contamination, so I thought I was quite clever. I’m trying very hard to understand this philosophy thing, and I feel that I come here in order to feel stupid 🤣 and it’s somehow very much liberating! I’ve watched all the videos that are available now in 2021 and I’ll be damned if Abby is not the best thing that happened to me in a long, long time. All my respect to you, miss ♥️
Who is Jesus Christ to you?
@@Psalms-fr8yywhy does it matter? Why should she care enough to tell you?
I'm so glad it's been so helpful.
@@gwyn2151 it matters because truth matters.
@@Psalms-fr8yy that depends, truth is subjective. All things are relative, nothing is certain.
As somebody not familiar with philosophy, I spent hours today reading about Marx and his theories for a project and struggled to understand a lot of it. This video was the clearest explanation of some of these ideas I've seen yet. Thanks!
You've come so far in 4 years =] Very inspiring and I love your content 😁💜💙
\o/ Been excited for this. Marx is my shit. No war but class war.
Lol, ur profile pic
Glass war
Class war fought with nonviolence, behind an entertainment box propagandized and reduced mentally to children, cheering stateist cucks who have no idea they are cannon fodder...
No way to calculate value on a grand scale?
...
Some one most likely right claim things dont have a value based on the labour made to build it.
You failed in both sides of the coin here.
After Marx you should do the Anarchist philosophers: Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin. :)
+Matt Bonaccio As an anarchist, I'd very much enjoy that. Folks don't really understand anarchist philosophy, and it's led to it being much maligned.
+Mr. Boogaloo Yay, someone agrees! Olly would be a good guy to debunk the the doublespeak used when referring to anarchism, that anarchism means "chaos" or "lawlessness" in addition to being a socio-political ideology. Philosophy Tube would be a great platform for educating folks about what it really means!
Matt Bonaccio Yup! Even if you don't agree with it as a political system, anarchism as a way of life is pretty beautiful - challenging hierarchy whenever it proves itself unjust and whatnot.
+Mr. Boogaloo I do agree with it haha, I consider myself a libertarian socialist. I only have the Bernie logo instead of the red and black star as my avatar because he mostly aligns with my views, and the alternatives are just so, *SO* bad. Hard to be an anarchist when your president is a horribly corrupt war hawk and/or a fascist dictator.
Matt Bonaccio Aye, that's fair. I'm prone to bouncing between anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-socialism myself. I'm rooting for sanders as well. Even though I disagree with a lot of his policies (his stance on immigration, for instance,) he's the closest thing we've had to a reasonable leftist with a chance of getting in the white house for quite some time. My politics are closer to Jill Stein, but unfortunately no one takes the Greens seriously 'round here.
I've been so pumped for this video
"Every time one of you signs up, I get a tiny bit of money." Does the sponsor controlling the means of production get a greater profit than the laborer?
Michael Crowe yes
Once published he is no longer the laborer, it's some poor dude keeping the lights on for Google.
This proves trickle down economics
Great video. I have always wanted to learn about Marx since I studied the Cold War at GCSE and he likes to pop-up on the corners of my A2 courses.
You gotta admit, "lighting" is putting it nicely ;)
+Penny Lane I'll happily admit that haha
A clarification on the concepts behind class conflict is called for:
Ownership of the means of production and Labour are two roles that even a single person can occupy. In many cases business owners will also work for their business: so their work is applied to increase the value of said business and the businesses activity - however it is only by virtue of their capacity as owners that they can extract surplus value (from all workers).
So the rewards of ownership, as opposed to the fruits of one's work, distinguish the economic classes in this framework.
The situation is analogous to the critique of early classical economists against rent-seeking behaviour. So surplus value can be interpreted as rent that the owners charge in order to grant access to the means of production - a rent that workers pay through surplus labour.
It is truly humbling to see that my ideas are still being spread. Remember this, a truly equal society must be educated and push for fairer change.
The industrial soundtrack on this series is absolute gold for this context.
hey Abi, I dont know if you can stomach watching your own videos; I know I wouldnt :P but as a long time fan I want to say how much I appreciate that you left us your earlier work.
its all great stuff :-)
Thank you for doing Mad Marx March, Olly! I love Marx, can't wait to see more.
I’ve read Marx and my ADHD made it extremely difficult to understand. I came away understanding little of what I read. This helped so much. I was able to connect your explanation to what I read and things clicked. Thank you so much.
Olly! Your clarity on these complex topics is unparalleled. You put everything into a context that just makes sense. I tutor philosophy and I often refer people to your videos when they're struggling with certain concepts. You have a gift for making philosophy accessible and your humor makes it fun as well! Thank you for all the knowledge you bring to us!
+Jacob Goldman Awww, thank you!
Reading The Communist Manifesto as we speak, its a good and slender read, well worth a buy :)
Wait, you watch philosophy tube?
+String.Epsilon Get it from the library! :)
+String.Epsilon Just read it on Marxist Internet Archive.
I got it for a Quid!
+BadMouseProductions Buy? Just read the pdf
brilliant, nice preview before I start reading the literature
Thanks for this video. I am working at studying politics, various political beliefs and talking about these with other interested people. I am learning a lot from this.
I find his concept that goods have inherent value fascinating. Most economists would probably agree that preferences, be they individual or aggregate, really are the only determinants of the value of a product. Great video! I'm looking forward to the rest of the series.
With as deep a dive as you've done here for Marxism, and with your other series on Liberal Capitalism, I'd love to see a deep, multi-part, analytical dive into Feudalism.
Thank you for this! Am studying Marxism and the history of Communism right now and this was very helpful
What you have learnt until now?
Omg thank you for this I missed a week of school and I had no idea what everyone was talking about so this helpedddd :)
Abigail... I'm obsessed with your channel
1:13
Please tell me I'm not the only one who almost clicked the X?
no you weren't the only one
3:38 "Might be ways around it" LoL it's so easy to tear apart! The first obvious answer to the so called "great contradiction":
*Why aren't the most lucrative goods/services necessarily the most labor-intensive to produce?*
Because our market makes little effort to determine the *prices* (what the market uses to represent value) of goods and services proportional to their true value in labor hours and specialized skills.
The fact that *prices* aren't necessarily determined by labor in our capitalist system doesn't mean that labor isn't the true source of *value* , on the contrary, it simply proves that Marx was also right about *price* and *value* being two distinct things that don't always match.
If you can put a lot of labor into something and have a hard time selling it (or put a little labor into something and sell it easily), what that tells you is that the *price* of your good or service is not necessarily attached to the labor involved in producing it, at least in your local market (you might have better luck selling it somewhere else) but you know from your experience in making it how valuable it is because if someone wanted exactly what you can produce, you know exactly what kind of labor it would involve and have a good idea of how exhausting, time-consuming, frustrating, etc. it could be.
Maximum profit in our system is produced by extracting the maximum amount of labor from workers while paying them the lowest possible wage. Even if the prices of the goods/services did sometimes theoretically sync up with their true value in labor, you would still have the problem of lopsided distribution where the actual laborers do not see hardly any of that value.
Consider:
--> Things like price-gouging and competitive price hikes couldn't happen if our economy actually made an effort to set prices to their value determined by labor.
--> Labor vouchers that never expire (in the same sense traditional currency doesn't expire) and are void upon use (in the sense that they are spent once and do NOT continue to circulate unlike traditional currency) would prevent gambling with the currency that's supposed to be tied to the value of the goods and services built by the laborer who receives the voucher.
Thanks dude, awesome class, can't wait for the others.
This was such a great video, great job Olly
Despite my legitimate fascination with all things Marxist, I just came here to read the comments.
They are not as inflammatory as I was hoping.
Well done comrade
ameya lol this vid is about Marx so u will have many commies liking it. Also by commenting you make CZcams promote this vid more.
olly, you and david harvey are literally saving my life, i chose to write an essay about das kapital and i didn't know what i was getting into :-))))))
I'm pretty sure you didn't make this mistake, but it also wasn't super clear. Surplus-value is not the same as profit, though all profit does comes from surplus-value. Some of the worker's surplus labor time could be used to pay other costs, such as lighting the factory, before reaching 'profit'. These sorts of costs are subtracted out of surplus value before we reach what we call profit because profit is money generated after all costs are paid. And while yes, we can criticize mainstream economics for assuming that labor is a cost, but when we talk about profit, we are talking from this bourgeois frame. Though since profit is almost always smaller than surplus value, equating them is wrong.
Plus there is the obvious concern that when we talk about profit, the value is measured through the lens of marginalism, whereas surplus-value is measure through the labor theory of value, and there isn't a clean way to translate the two since the former, according to Marx, can only at best estimate the latter.
Solid thinking unlike most on here regarding Marx.
This is where i'm struggling to get on board. If the surplus value which is "use value" ie labour value not "exchange value" ie prices and profit is not a measure of this value then how is the labour value and the surplus value calculated. If there are only losses made from a product does that mean there was no surplus value taken? It seems like the gap of the gods fallacy and circular reasoning.
@@VesicantMorgues Then it could be simply that the exchange value of the product is lower than the exchange value of the labor ? Your labor for i.e. can worth more in exchange value in USA than China. Or that the product is in excess demand unlike your labor. Plus even in the common sense in that case it would be wise even in mainstream economic to shut it down
just realized my 1st grade teacher was a marxist. thank god she got to me a little early
I started moving to close the fake ad at 1:13 without realizing.
+RoboDragonn Hee hee, gotcha!
Great explanation of means of production using your stuff. Nice.
Engineering lad here ! You just helped me complete my sociology assignment dude. I was a goner if it weren't for you and a few other dudes on youtube.
Are you going to cover Dialectical/Historical Materialism more thoroughly later on? It's pretty much the foundation of Marxism in that it's the lens through which we analyze society. You totally glossed over it. Other than that, I really enjoyed this. Also, random question: Have you read State and Revolution and, if so, what are your thoughts on it?
+Chris x I was thinking an entire dialects series or video. Comparing hegal and marx and shit
I seize the means of production most nights. Sometimes more than once.
SUPER VIDEO. CLEAR AND WELL PRESENTED EXAMPLES OF THE LTV
always wanted to see this video
the progress isn't assumed to be inevitable march to communism, it has to be instigated by especially class conscious workers with an organic relation to the people.
Marx pointed out that when class societies fail, they can transform into something new, or there can be general social disintegration. this isn't controversial.
it's thought that if the working class seized exclusive economic/political power, we could learn to build a system for us, and by conscientiously organizing work, eliminate classes and therefore the state.
but I'd add to that the additional conscientious abolition of patriarchy and white supremacy/national chauvinism is also a prerequisite of statelessness
Thank you so much for making this video, I'm studying Marxist theory as part of an English Literature and Critical Theory course and you have no idea how helpful it is for someone to explain Das Kapital to me in plain English. GG, son. GG. :)
Great video! Keep them coming.
Reminds me of resource theory in physics, labour is an allowed operator, and by applying this operator to a free state, turns it into a resource
I could listen to you talk about--wait, economics is about as boring as it gets, and I just listened. :)
"Cuz what I get ain't half of what I give; and half don't suit me anyway" - Karl Marx
It's an amazing video!! you were a great help!! :)
Hey babyface! Your philosophy is stronk! Keep it up dude, these videos are fun to watch :)
Can anyone help me out here? I don't understand the theory of surplus value (around 4:18) as explained. If the first 4 hours of your labour covers the cost of your needs (food, clothes, shelter), wouldn't the other 4 hours of the day (the surplus value) just be extra money for you? It seems like in that example, you get the surplus value (i.e. your wages minus your cost of living).
Side note: I feel like this theory of value does not allow for the possibility that the person employing you adds value through other means (organizing a work force, establishing points of sale, advertising, etc.).
dude im so confused about that too...i just keep thinking "but don't they get compensated for their extra labor through more pay...?"
To some degree yes, but the point is that for capitalism to function, they are always compensated LESS than their work.
@@seamoose9039 Do you mean less than their work is WORTH? If so, who determines that? Or is the problem that a superior determines it and not the individual worker?
Hello philosophers.
+Marvelous Quasar Pork Man Hello hello!
Haha as soon as you had the Advertisment pop up on as an example, I instantly move my mouse to try to close it lol
pretty amazing someone took the time to read Kapital out loud for an audiobook
I hope he got paid the full value of his work.
Wow. You really explained many concepts like surplus labuor, that I only vaguely understood in "1844 manuscripts". How do you know all 'this'? Like do you just understand the weird style of writing or do you find other sources.
+The Anti-social-Socialist I read Das Kapital as well as the 1844 manuscripts and some other stuff. There's recommended readings in the descriptions of all the videos, including this series, if you like :) Also typing it out into a script really helps you get to grips with it.
Oh the Classics that explains these things are a given even marx himself accept the fact that his view was to conservative. It was to be changed via others preeching his view in albeit other more varied views.
awwwww the video is over already =[
my favourite teacher
Great video, love the mad max-ness if it
this is my procrastination from school
same :/
i should get to work
I squealed a bit when you referenced Rosa Luxemburg.
Speaking of meteorology, Steve Keen used meteorological-inspired algorithms to accurately model the dynamics of markets in his "Minsky" model (obviously based on Hyman Minsky's Financial Instability Hypothesis).
Great Explanation!
“Every time you sign up I get a Tiny bit of money” Capitalism at its finest.
Can your videos support Turkish subtitles? Believe me, there are many people watching you from Turkey (I am one of them)
Excellent video!
I tried to read some Marx recently and didn't even understand the first page.
You've got my back though.
no, marx does not think that the abolition of classes is inevitable, if that were true then marxists wouldn't do any political activism. He clearly said it would take a conscious effort on the part of the socialist/communist movement to sublate capitalism. also, capitalism isn't solely defined by wage labor, it's also defined by capital itself. capital is defined by marx as the process by which value is used to expand itself (ie: the process by which value created in production is uses to reinvest in production to expand it ability to produce). you also did not explain the reasoning marx uses to conclude that labor is the only source of value (or even what he means by value). both of which he goes over in capital (ch1-3 if I remember right). but to summarize, he says that a commodity has use values (their utility), and exchange value (the ratios at which commodities trade for each other, ie: 5 apples for 1 book) and since utilities are purely qualitative while exchange value is clearly a quantitative relation between commodities that expresses some equality, there must be a third thing (value). Value is the average labor put into it.
+phatlaluke PirateDude_4 You are on CZcams. Holy Fucking shit. You saved Ifunny, save CZcams now! Revolution of the pirates is necessary. Please do it. (Same name for Ifunny if you wonder who I am).
This is the Krainian
I appreciate your candor, comrade, but that delves a little too deep for the CZcams crowd. Higher-level Marxism will likely only ever be understood at the academic level, and it will likely always be misunderstood by the masses. I trust that Olly understands Marx at a deeper level than a few 10-minute videos, but at a certain point, it becomes less entertaining and more droll.
+Bobby McCullough Hey, academics use youtube to though? No need to limit the exchange of knowledge people can benefit from because of stigma.
@Dalal Alami Lahjouji the meaning of Marxism and communistical values it entails
First has no intrinsic value.
Love it Oliy thanks for the educational video!
very clear expression of those theory, thank you so much.
Finally some dialectical shit!. Great first video. Can't wait to see where the later videos end up going, hopefully focussed on Marxism rather than Marx himself.
RICARDO! RICARDO! RICARDO! Marx himself attributes the surplus value theory to David Ricardo!
Also the labour theory of value is foundational in classical economics! It is found in the Wealth of Nations and even predates Adam Smith!
Historical materialism needs to be taken seriously by anyone who has any interest in the interpretation of history. In fact anyone making anything resembling a model for the evolution of civilisations or economies will always be making it consistent with the materialistic dialectic. The comparison with Hegelian dialectics is also (historically and substantively) interesting (even though Hegel was a broadly known direct influence on Marx's thinking on history)
So good video, but a broader context for these ideas would have improved it.
+Jason93609
Wut? Are you living in the 19th century? Marx with his historical materialism made consistent wrong predictions about almost everything in economics ever since he invented it. Not saying that his theory is useless, it's just clearly obvious his theory in its original form is simply false. One can't deny this. Economic or historical theories don't need to be consistent with falsehoods to be good. This is of course not to say that there has been no class conflict or exploitation or alienation, its just that Marx theory was very bad science.
Yes, the specific details of the theory were mistaken, but still that does not mean that the materialist dialectic as a concept is wrong, just that details of its description was wrong. Any quantitative model has to be materialistic - in that it must describe forces and principles of time evolution, which in themselves will constitute a 'dialectic'.
It's not just the details, if a theory consistently provides completely wrong predictions it's probably deeply flawed. Marx's own theory is decisively falsified (as long as its supposed to be scientific).
Now I highly doubt it's possible to model complete societies scientifically. They're just way too complex and the monetary system, transactions, let alone individual consumer behaviour and interaction cannot be known well enough. Thats exactly why central planning didn't work. Economic models are already arguably useless if not dangerous, let alone a complete model of society.
Now here its important what materialistic means. If you want to ban supernatural influences etc, thats a great methodological idea. But for Marx this means that the material states of affairs - the base - are the only important things to consider (production relations and ownership etc). The superstructure is just a product of this. That's just extremely simplistic and dangerous, as if ideas, intellectual activities, philosophy, have no independent influence. Ideas can be at least as powerful as any materialistic structure, which Marxism arguably is one of the best examples of (with Christianity). If you want to understand society you will need to study its ideas and culture as independent forces, as well as its material conditions.
We may state about how "ideas and culture" are important as emphatically as we wish however such a discussion will not undo the fact that economic planning in western countries is more technocratic than ever.
I don't think that we understand the materialist dialectic in the same way. Essentially what I am trying to arrive to is that any deterministic set of equations can be interpreted as a 'dialectic'. In short I am making the connection between dynamics and the philosophy of history.
As for historical materialism, I am not sure how anyone who is interested in the philosophy of history can possibly ignore it.
Finally, I completely disagree with the claim that modern economies cannot be modelled. Modern simulations of physical systems may include billions of particles and run for billions of time-steps, including the calculation of many-particle interactions at each step. So the computational resources for carrying out a detailed complete simulation of the global economy already exist. Now, do I think that policy must be decided naively on the basis of such models? No, of course not. However that does not mean that the models themselves shouldn't be ambitious.
Technocratic planning, sure. But on what basis do they plan? On the basis of their misguided, flawed economic theories...
Both parts count, that's my only point here.
Alright, I was not sure what you meant there by dialectic. I know it mainly from Hegel.
I'm not saying we should ignore historical materialism, I've read Marx myself. I just want to deny the much stronger claim that our theories must be compatible with it. But I guess you meant 'materialistic dialectic' in a much broader sense, maybe something like deterministic materialism/naturalism? Materialism is usually the idea that matter is all there is, that's not a scientific idea though, and an unnecessary assumption in economics.
Finally, a misunderstanding: I dont want to claim its impossible to model economies, since that's what many economists do all the time. I just deny they can model it correctly. These models dont even come close to capturing the breathtaking complexity of the real world and are for practical purposes completely useless if not seriously dangerous. They are extreme simplifications, and they are based on a neo-classical neo-Keynesian understanding of the economy. This is not objective. They consistently make wrong predictions and the policy prescriptions of the theories and models don't work either. Like you say, you can try to improve them, sure. It might take omniscience to make them work, but doesn't prevent economists from trying. Maybe some day they might work. The problem is, as you say, that economists DO naively rely on their models for policy prescriptions. And that's my problem with these models.
I was searching for a good video on Marx, saw this and was like "Abigail from 6 years ago will definitely explain this better than these other boring videos.".. I was correct.
It should be noted that Marx defined three types of value: "Value" as in the labour value you described, "Use Value" as the (objective or subjective) use that the user has from a project (like nutrition, housing, clothing, or fun), and "Exchange Value" which effectively is price.
That leaves the question what this labour value even is. In my opinion its a baseline for exchange value which then gets modified by supply and demand, but most importantly an ETHICAL value. It represents the basic concept of fairness. All other things considered even, trading goods by the amount of work effort that went into them (my three work hours for a ladder for your three work hours of twenty eggs) is simply the fair thing to do. In smaller communities, people will often trade like that even if its an uneven trade according to supply and demand.
@ T33K3SS3LCH3N: There are four elements that constitute value in Marx analysis of a commodity found in Vol.I of Capital. You entirely skipped over them completely repeating and regurgitating false thinking on the subject. Do you know what they are? Of course, you don't or you would have listed them simply like this:
1. Use-Value
2. Value
3. Useful labor
4. Abstract labor
These four elements define what a commodity is. This definition allows Marx to conclude with a scientific presentation of the first concrete form in which labor appears in capitalist production, is the prima facie general component in capitalist production. Therefore, the commodity is the most abstract form of the concrete makes Marx a stone cold materialist and not an idealist.
The fair thing to do you say that guides trade really pertains to what all economists noted as the Law of Value, which had guided trade down through the ages is not violated by capitalism leads Marx into an odyssey to find out why this law is not violated when labor exchanges money for labor-power. Here you missed the problem economist could not solve and Marx had solved it.
How then is this magnitude of value to be measured is the problem to solve. The solution had to stick to social reality not fantasy. "Value is measured by its duration in labor-time and finds its standard in weeks, days and hours." Vol I Chapter I, Capital. A time element is needed to determine how much value is materialized in commodities. Note also there is no mention of as yet of the form of value or exchange-value here a category not a part of what defines commoditeis.
Exchange value is not effectively price. Man you are confused. I am being hard on you because this is propaganda you spew not science and I am a scientist. Price is the expression of exchange-values. Exchange value is the concrete form of value which has now become abstract labor whereas in the analysis of commodities useful labor of some kind creates value and useful labor creates abstract labor defining commodities. When we are looking at commodities as exchange-values now money as a new category that is involved as a price tag. The sticker price is how these values are expressed. You know, those little oval stickers that indignity fruit with a bar code and price. That is their language, their tongue, the way they communicate to you and relate to each other to get bought with money, of course. You can see there is a logic to his analysis, theory of inquiry and method of presentation you unfortunately butcher. To drive my point home to the confused reading this here is a concrete example of the theory.
The price of a car (A) = $50,000 USD (B). This is the value equation, A=B. So simple it goes over everyone's heads because they are looking for something more to it. Marx knows this which is why he added a section on the fetishism of commodities and the secret thereof to close the first chapter of the book. The value of the car is measured by the value equivalent of another commodity, A=B, or C, D, E, etc. and then money is used to express this fact. Price is the active side of the relation, while the commodity is the passive side of equation when the simple elementary equation take a money form. Therefore, the US dollar is not backed by a universal equivalent in gold but, rather, the dollar is backed by commodities, the car's price tag reflects 'relative value', because the logic of change is mutual exclusion that commodities and are never on the same side of each other but are on opposite sides of the equation.
Can you go into depth on Althusser's argument that Marx flips Hegel on his head and creates a shift where we now look at how systems affect people instead of people existing in a vacuum and just creating systems out of nowhere?
I'm so glad we're finally doing this. Marxism is great. ❤️
hi
amazing explanation
Nice to see Michael Fish’s “don’t worry, there’s no hurricane” is still a thing.
Ouch, that JonTron meme did not age well.
Oh and the theory of marginal utility is a theory based on (a) scarcity and (b) the mathematical fallacy of "the law of diminishing returns". The latter is a CONTRADICTION so the fact that mainstream economics is based on it pretty much shows the dismal state of the subject.
+Jason93609 The law of diminishing returns is not a contradiction. It's when you put down that last cookie after feeling too full. It's when you decide to buy "8" oranges at the grocery store and NOT "9". It's when you decide your marriage isn't working for your benefit anymore and you decide to call it quits etc. etc.
asdfjk; It becomes paradoxical when there it is applied in situations where it does not apply. See for example two cases (1) investing resources that are not scarce (2) money. In both cases the "law of diminishing returns" shouldn't apply - but if you force its validity in such cases you get paradoxical results. So it is contradictory due to its lack of generality. Any principle that is foundational for a theory of value must be general; otherwise it cannot lead to a useful and universally applicable theory.
In general the concept of utility wouldn't lead to any sort of interesting model if it was completely determined by the whims of fundamentally unpredictable agents.
+Jason93609 can you give me an example of a resource that I can invest in that isn't scarce? How does the law of diminishing returns not apply to money?
Air and water are not considered scarce. There is an argument to be had on whether labour is a resource and a scarce one at that, but in any case it's not at all clear. Also, and this is interesting, computational power is quickly becoming a resource that is not scarce.
The law of diminishing returns does not apply to money, there is no maximum gain that you reach the more money you have; in fact the more money you have increases your income, linearly, and the permutations of things you can buy / invest in increases FACTORIALLY.
It is actually interesting to note how many principles of economics are not applicable to money.
+Jason93609 Water is scarce which is why you have a water bill and why India and other countries undergo clean water shortages. Air is scarce too otherwise pollution wouldn't make sense. If the air is an infinite resource emitting Co2 into the atmosphere should do nothing. Also, air ends at the exosphere (space) and at the Earth's crust. It's TOTALLY clear that labor is a scarce resource. Given that you sleep 1/3 of your life away the time you spend making money is limited and varies from person to person. Also, finite number of workers. "there is no maximum gain that you reach the more money you have;" Incorrect, you would eventually have all the money in circulation and that would be the maximum amount. "in fact the more money you have increases your income, linearly, and the permutations of things you can buy / invest in increases FACTORIALLY." Does the apply to lottery winners too (who almost all end up going broke eventually)? What about people who inherit a lot of money but don't know how to spend it? As for computational power, this is not "quickly" becoming an unlimited resource but until physicists can even agree that a legitimate Quantum Computer exists I would keep quiet about this.
I found Das Kapital hard to understand, thanks for the summary!
Most likely no one is going to read this, as the video is 6 years old, but the video did get one key thing wrong. About half way through the video, it is said that under wage labor, you sell your labor power and time, but that is incorrect. In both "Wage Labor and Capital" and in "Capital" it is described that you are selling yourself, not your time. It is pointed out that it seems to be a minor change in wording, but it actually changes how wage labor should be discussed and acts under capitalism.
das capital being on audible feels equivalent to torries selling trans flags
Oh boy, I really hope you go through some critiques of Marx. Hannah Arendt has some great critiques of Marxism, especially how she re-imagines work and labour in her book The Human Condition.
This is my theory on value. I call it the Absolute Value Theory. It says that there is a defined value to everything in society based on how everything contributes to society. The total of the absolute value only changes when we find out ways to use this value in a better way, when we discover resources, consumption or when we destroy anything of value.
When we talk about marginal value we are just talking about perceived value. This is only the inflation and -deflation of the actual value of things. Thinking in the ways of marginalism doesn't change the actual value, it just creates an unstable system around the absolute value. Marginalism is a psychological phenomenon.
I feel you missed some things out so I will add them in for a better understanding of Marxism.
1:50 When you say value, it is actually use value Marx talks about
2:16 the labour theory is a theory of exchange value
(continued in the next video probably)
Olly isn't acting both as Marx and Jordan Peterson, under colored lighting. This video _sucks._
I'm watching this for the first time in 2020 and OMG you look so different! lololol I'm used to thinking of you as the male contra points, you look like you just stepped in off the street here
wow, only 71 dislikes
personally, I'm here because I don't understand species-being from our class readings, and I remember this series helped a lot
I love Ollies understated nose tweaks! Lol
I think you glossed over the labor theory of value way too quickly. It's the basis of the rest of Marx yet is also the most contentious and I would argue the least matching to reality.
Value is completely subjective. Things simply do not have inherent value just for existing...they only have a price people are willing to pay for it. I would agree with anyone that ignores value over price because value is meaningless.
Because value is a subjective, useless thing, it really can't be tied to an objective quantity such as labor.
+SorienAAAA A lot of people might agree with you there. I think Marx might say ask though on what basis people decide how much they're willing to pay for something. The Labour theory can also explain some other stuff, like how water is less valuable economically than diamonds normally, even though water is way more useful.
+SorienAAAA Look, you may value something any way you like, but that does not change the exchange relations beween avtual commodities on the market. A car will still exchange for several (hundred) thousand pencils, no matter how you "value" them, that is their value-realtion seen reflected in their price. Also, in order to be put in this relation, commodities have to have something in common, they have to be of the same kind. The only thing that unites all comodities in this way is that they are products of human labor. This is what value is. Weight is perhaps a decent analogy; you can not say that a chair weighs as much as the syllable "ah" for example.
TIL hours have 100 minutes in them. Fr tho great vid even tho it's old still great!
I’m fond of ‘The ontology of production’ by Nishida Kitaro and didn’t find that it would lend itself to politicization like Marx’s content ( a neat introduction like section in a recent edition aside), even though it was influenced by Marx to a extent.
This video explains it better than my professor.