@DesecrateConformity Perhaps for Smith and Ricardo but for Marx it is a theory of social relations: it asks "why do the products of labor take the form of commodities?" or "What type of society makes value relations between the products of labor possible"?
The one thing that I find hard to wrap my brain around is when people go on about antique items or luxury goods. They usually say, well a painting that cost $10, if people really want it, will pay $100. And in many cases they do.
@prolelog Price can be above or below value. When this happens value is transferred in exchange. The distance between price and value can tell us many things about the specific social relations behind certain commodities. A rare painting, for instance, is not a freely reproducible commodity- prices can't effect the production of it because it is only produced once. This causes it's price to be a function of demand.
@brendanmcooney Thanks I look forward to this video! I remember reading in Ricardo where he talks about the price of antiques and wondered how that held according to Marx. I always argued that Marx was more concerned with *generalized* commodity production, but was never quite satisfied with that answer.
Unless people recognize the threat of pathocrats the different systems of economics will not matter. A Pathocracy will always emerge unless the threat of psychopathy is understood.
aha! havent visited in a while - did some housecleaning i see - man, this video KICKS ASS!! this approach is far superior than starting with the basics of marxism. jumps right into the fray. i can hear the asswipes in Cato already: "you realize, of course, that this means WAR!" lol - great job, bren. this will be a terrific resource, to be distributed through the many occupations mushrooming this coming "american spring"
I like the video. But far right winged people would disagree with you that there is a crisis of capitalism. Libertarians /ron paul fans would say the problem is socialism. Bailing out the banks with tax payers money, regulations and restrictions on the free market. They call that socialism.
None the less, their sollution to this problem is compleatly absurd.
@Tougemaster06 Well the an extent it is. But it is true that in a fully capitalist society you wouldnt bail out banks or pass regulations on corporations. So in other words, while your bank is collapsing and all your money is all of the sudden gone, the owner of the factory you work out forced you to back to 10 hour days, for 5 dollar an hour= Fully capitalism.
@gulbirk I think the dichotomy between free markets and state interference is a false one. Markets always require some degree of state involvement. The more capitalism develops the greater its contradictions and thus the more it must rely on the state to attempt to regulate these contradictions. The fact that the state has to bail out banks is a great example of the way the logic of the state and the logic of the market are inextricably intertwined.
@brendanmcooney Im not sure if I would say its required though. YOu could have a capitalist money system without any sort of help or regulation from any state couldnt you?
@gulbirk. No. Who would guarantee the sanctity of contracts? Who would back-up the inherent violence of private property in the means of production? Who would guarantee the validity of currency? Without a state the capitalist class would just band together and create their own police, army, central banks, and court system.
@brendanmcooney Yes exactly. Everything would be privatised. I am not saying it would work out fine, it would be a living hell I suppose. Contracts for example probably wouldnt be required. You could probably just be hired by anyone and paid anything. No laws, no regulation, no system.
@gulbirk A State is the armed organization which one class uses to oppress another. So a Private Defense Agency is a State. A Proletarian Army is a Proletarian State.
@gulbirk Libertarians and Stalinists actually agree on one critical thing: the level of state involvement in the economy determines whether an economy is socialist or capitalist.
and yes, you need to make abstractions id say. In order to understand the complex whole, you need to break it down into its individual atoms and then work out how they relate to one another.
We dont need to carry the scale round, nobody suggests such a thing. If its a conscious decision in our heads then we dont need one. and it would be pretty useless to write the list, given that marginalists believe our wants and needs change over time given new variables...
it has good man, ive been reading von mises's theory and history, he totally misses the point in his critique of marx's theory, sharing know on facebook!
This has been flagged as spam show
I want to study from and learn from you. lol. Thank you for these videos. but seriously... I want to learn from you
mckenn25 7 hours ago
Many people don't realize that the LTV is a theory of cost, not price.
DesecrateConformity 1 month ago
@DesecrateConformity Perhaps for Smith and Ricardo but for Marx it is a theory of social relations: it asks "why do the products of labor take the form of commodities?" or "What type of society makes value relations between the products of labor possible"?
brendanmcooney 1 month ago
The one thing that I find hard to wrap my brain around is when people go on about antique items or luxury goods. They usually say, well a painting that cost $10, if people really want it, will pay $100. And in many cases they do.
prolelog 1 month ago
@prolelog Price can be above or below value. When this happens value is transferred in exchange. The distance between price and value can tell us many things about the specific social relations behind certain commodities. A rare painting, for instance, is not a freely reproducible commodity- prices can't effect the production of it because it is only produced once. This causes it's price to be a function of demand.
brendanmcooney 1 month ago
@brendanmcooney I will have a video on this topic later in this LAw of VAlue series.
brendanmcooney 1 month ago
@brendanmcooney Thanks I look forward to this video! I remember reading in Ricardo where he talks about the price of antiques and wondered how that held according to Marx. I always argued that Marx was more concerned with *generalized* commodity production, but was never quite satisfied with that answer.
prolelog 3 weeks ago
This is the first time I've ever watched one of your videos, I've been looking for a Marxist economist on youtube. I'm really impressed.
Magicwillnz 1 month ago
Unless people recognize the threat of pathocrats the different systems of economics will not matter. A Pathocracy will always emerge unless the threat of psychopathy is understood.
genanmer 2 months ago
aha! havent visited in a while - did some housecleaning i see - man, this video KICKS ASS!! this approach is far superior than starting with the basics of marxism. jumps right into the fray. i can hear the asswipes in Cato already: "you realize, of course, that this means WAR!" lol - great job, bren. this will be a terrific resource, to be distributed through the many occupations mushrooming this coming "american spring"
Jpom22 3 months ago
5:11 - 5:40
Best part of the video :)
okayillgonow 3 months ago in playlist Imbalance
I like the video. But far right winged people would disagree with you that there is a crisis of capitalism. Libertarians /ron paul fans would say the problem is socialism. Bailing out the banks with tax payers money, regulations and restrictions on the free market. They call that socialism.
None the less, their sollution to this problem is compleatly absurd.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk That's called word games.
Tougemaster06 3 months ago 2
@Tougemaster06 Well the an extent it is. But it is true that in a fully capitalist society you wouldnt bail out banks or pass regulations on corporations. So in other words, while your bank is collapsing and all your money is all of the sudden gone, the owner of the factory you work out forced you to back to 10 hour days, for 5 dollar an hour= Fully capitalism.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk I think the dichotomy between free markets and state interference is a false one. Markets always require some degree of state involvement. The more capitalism develops the greater its contradictions and thus the more it must rely on the state to attempt to regulate these contradictions. The fact that the state has to bail out banks is a great example of the way the logic of the state and the logic of the market are inextricably intertwined.
brendanmcooney 3 months ago 2
@brendanmcooney Im not sure if I would say its required though. YOu could have a capitalist money system without any sort of help or regulation from any state couldnt you?
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk. No. Who would guarantee the sanctity of contracts? Who would back-up the inherent violence of private property in the means of production? Who would guarantee the validity of currency? Without a state the capitalist class would just band together and create their own police, army, central banks, and court system.
brendanmcooney 3 months ago 4
@brendanmcooney Yes exactly. Everything would be privatised. I am not saying it would work out fine, it would be a living hell I suppose. Contracts for example probably wouldnt be required. You could probably just be hired by anyone and paid anything. No laws, no regulation, no system.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk That would be a State. Just one without democratic control.
cogar488 3 months ago in playlist More videos from brendanmcooney
@cogar488 What would be a state? It would be a society, but it wouldnt be any governing force would it?
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk A State is the armed organization which one class uses to oppress another. So a Private Defense Agency is a State. A Proletarian Army is a Proletarian State.
cogar488 3 months ago
@cogar488 Who said the rich class owned the police? Private police simply works like insurence.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk Libertarians and Stalinists actually agree on one critical thing: the level of state involvement in the economy determines whether an economy is socialist or capitalist.
RedJackPhilly 3 months ago
and yes, you need to make abstractions id say. In order to understand the complex whole, you need to break it down into its individual atoms and then work out how they relate to one another.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
We dont need to carry the scale round, nobody suggests such a thing. If its a conscious decision in our heads then we dont need one. and it would be pretty useless to write the list, given that marginalists believe our wants and needs change over time given new variables...
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
it has good man, ive been reading von mises's theory and history, he totally misses the point in his critique of marx's theory, sharing know on facebook!
shuvit90 3 months ago
It wasnt just Austrians though. the marginalists werent all austrians, not even the early ones.
InvincibleNumanist 3 months ago
I hope we get to see more of Eugene the island barbarian!
Cheers mate, great to see more of your vids.
silversalvo 3 months ago 4
@silversalvo haha cute illustration, brendan fucking ruls i really appreciate his channel.
seigneurvoland666 1 month ago
you mispronounced "Mises".. no idea if you pronounced the other guy's name right... Mises is pronounced "me" not "my"
love these videos
djancak 3 months ago
good work Brendan! thanks!!
starkhalo 3 months ago
Thanks so much for this. It's sad to see radicals rejecting the LTV.
juliaisafilmbuff123 3 months ago
<3 Brendan M Cooney!
pulsatingremedy 3 months ago
FINALLY ITS OUT!!!!!!!!! *fanboy squee*
Tougemaster06 3 months ago