Karl Marx's "Capital" Vol. 1 (Part 1/4)
Vložit
- čas přidán 10. 09. 2021
- In this episode, I begin my presentation of Karl Marx's "Capital" Vol. 1. This episode covers part 1 and therefore chapters 1-4.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/ - Hudba
Certified legend if you'll do volume 3. I've never come across anything on youtube that goes into depth into it.
Oh don't you worry
@@TheoryPhilosophy you are based
Coming now!
Reading "Capital" is like reading the most breathtaking thriller ever written. I'm listening to your podcast while ironing. Don't want to stop. May the pile of laundry grow!!!
Been waiting for your Capital recapitulation. Very clear, cogent, and to my mind accurate analysis of what you've divided into Pt. I. Thank you for getting to Marx.
What an amazing channel this is, you keep at it, my friend!
Happy you're finally getting to Capital with the podcast. Guess I'll relisten to the Smith and Ricardo episodes first.
This must have taken ya hella time
This one is going to be a ride
Perfect speed , clear and less formal
hi, thanks for your videos and playlists. This playlist needs rearranging so that part 1/4 plays first :) thanks
WE LOVE YOU DAVID
Videos are definitely great to sleep too. Definitely also informative. But if I need to sleep I just chuck on something i find dry like Adam smith and just snooze away
Awesome Video!
Thank you for this resource
Thanks for this 🖤
Thank you 👍
perfect timing lol
"and I buy pot......for cooking"
Great work. The last few decades have shown that Marx was totally right.
Lol
:0 you're so cool!!!
Yaaaaaaas
Holy smokes!
Bro that intro FUCKS
Marxism by dream state, capitalism by day
15:00
30:00
The labor theory of value is obviously wrong. Smith, Ricardo, Marx - all wrong! Market price is not based on labor - it’s determined on how much the seller is willing to take for and how much the buyer is willing to pay for it. Which in turn depends on the utility of the commodity to the buyer and the cost of production or acquisition to the seller. Marx’s distinction between use value and exchange value is a mistake - the latter depends on the former.
Lol
Marx treats “value” as if it’s something tangible and objective. But it’s not. It’s entirely subjective.
@@TheoryPhilosophy Is that your idea of an intelligent response? Really?
@@syourke3 hahahaha omg this is youtube
Youre right. Marx made an interpretation of reality. An interpretation is not reality is just a way of seeing things. The mistake is taking an interpretation as if it were hard science, which is not. Marx made interpretations on capitalism, he invented a system and definitions, He applied dialectics to it, a complete exercise of immagination.
Marx mistakes equivalence between goods. In exchange theres no equivalence, if there was equivalence no exchange would be made ever. Exchange comes from the mismatch of valuations on something between exchangers.
Yes, the barter system of trade may be very complicated. The value demand of one product is hard to determine in such a system. Marx failed so much in determining the "cost-time" of labor of products.
So Marx never worked in a factory and was notoriously bad with money but you guys trust him about he economy. 😂😂😂
“Your non plus ultra professional wisdom became enormously foolish from the moment when the watchmaker Watt invented the steam engine, the barber Arkwright the loom, the jeweler Fulton the steamship.” - Karl Marx
Even in death he dismisses your "criticism", that's why he's the 🐐
This is what is known as an ad hominem attack. You are the attacking the person and not the arguments directly friend. Try again, you're better then that.
That's why papa Engles had to double check his math. Such a power couple
Do you think the average modern day economist has even set foot in a fucking factory?
Marx's work was a culmination of years actual first-hand research
Marxism is no longer about economics, Marx wasn't an economist, he was more or less an unemployed, angry man with a bunch of wrong, unscientific, and often stupid assertions, such as his dogma theory of value. He had ideological terror thoughts, you can read the manifesto of communism for the real definition of terrorism.
I have not yet listened to this gentleman, but I doubt he believes in Marxism, classical or modern. People who believe in such dogma are usually either clueless about modern data-and-graph based economics, i.e. economics that's based on empirical data, or they just follow a religion.
Having said that, when reading Marx, you'll have to remember he lived in 1800s, and the world was so different back then that you would not be able to imagine it without a great deal of knowledge about history, especially history of ideas and science. Marx also didn't invent communism, the movement was already established. He didn't invent socialism, worker's right and women and children rights either, on the contrary, he attacked them for being decent and soft. He called them bourgeois socialists.
Marx wasn't a philosopher either, as he didn't bring anything new, except for a silly term called historical materialism and dialectical materialism, basically it's a fart philosophy.
But I am definitely going to listen to this podcast and appreciate that it exists, why? I am open to new angles of thoughts about the world.