haha very welll done brendan, the illustrations and all. The ending was my favourite part. And i did answer some questions to be true :$. Guess i need to keep on learning
There is an error in the quiz. Question eight needs to be reworded. "Marx's theory of value doesn't work in free markets" needs to be restated "Marx's theory of value was belived by Marx (or Marxians) not to work in free markets". As it stands, since a theory of value based on labor inputs doesn't work under ANY conditions (and was refuted before Marx even espoused it), the answer to question eight as it appears in the video is absolutely true.
The origins of the LTV are often misattributed to Adam Smith (who provided confusion on the issue) but responses to Ricardo's errors already showed the fallacies of any input-related valuation system. Subsequently, Schumpeter, Bohm-Bawerk and others expanded upon those criticisms demonstrating, most notably, its failure to incorporate the relationship of time to value (a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from now) which makes input-based valuations completely untenable.
Yes, I mentioned only one. Several exist dating all the way back to Smith's diamonds/water paradox. And, of course there's the wild vs. cultivated apple example. I admit that I have not read Hilferding's response, but both Rubin's and Bukharin's attempted responses to marginal utility theory fail to conform to observable phenomena (Bukharin's in particular). It is no accident that Marx promised a positive proof of LTV in Capital that ultimately NEVER appeared.
@FletchforFreedom. How is the diamond/water paradox a refutation of the LTV? I thought the LTV was meant to solve the diamond/water paradox. When did Rubin write about Marginal utility theory? What observable phenomenon did Bukharin not account for? And, most importantly, please tell me where Marx promises a "positive proof" of the LTV in Capital? Actually can you cite any passage in Capital where Marx even uses the phrase "labor theory of value"?
I am currently going through Hilferding's response now and the logicla fallacies are already quite evident proceding immediately after his reiteration (less than perfect) of Bohm-Bawerk's critique and arguing that exchange does not take place until an item no longer has utility for the individual willing to exchange rather than simply lesser utility than that for which he can exchange it. And, no, the LTV was not designed to address the diamond/water paradox.
@FletchforFreedom. Actually I think that point of Hilferding's is extremely important. Perhaps instead of speed reading the text online after already having formed your opinion of it in advance you should take the time to actually read it, think about it and challenge yourself to think critically.
It's obvious that capitalist production is not production for personal use, with the surplus product being exchanged. It is production entirely for exchange, the product having no use to the maker.
I'll ultimately reply later but I AM reading Hilferding's text (and conceded at the outset that it was just the beginning). Yes, it's obvious that [most] capitalist production is not for personal use (an irrelevant point), but there is nothing obvious about the specious concept of "surplus value" that could only be valid if the underlying intrinsic valuation under the LTV were valid (which it is not).
@FletchforFreedom. It is a very relevant point because it undermines the Austrian concept of a subjective profit in exchange as well as the many of the assumptions behind marginal utility. You dismiss it as irrelevant without reason and then try to change the topic by talking about SV. Yes SV requires a theory of intrinsic value but merely stating it is not obvious does not disprove it nor do I see what that has to do with production for exchange.
Further, the final product of capitalist production virtually never has "no use" to the maker - there often being consumer products for which the worker has a use albeit not in the quantities produced. But here you make another needless (and useless) distinction between capitalist production (within the framework you provide) and proletarian production in the absence of invested capital (as performed by pre-IR domestic industry).
@FletchforFreedom. "proletarian production in the absence of invested capital"? How do you have a proletariat w/out capital? I assume you mean simple commodity vs. capitalist production. This is a relevant distinction. Most of human history prior to capitalism has seen some form of trade. But this has always been of surplus product, which is very different than production for exchange. For one, in capitalism exchange value becomes the motivating factor in production, rather than use.
Neither expressly named the marginal utility theory per se so far as I am aware. Still, the two competing theories were ultimately the crux of the debate. It is well documented that Marx promised to provide a positive proof of the LTV by the time he completed "Capital". One does not exist to this day as he could not - perhaps explaining the absence of the phrase in his magnum opus.
@FletchforFreedom. Rubin never wrote about MU at all as far as I know- at least never in anything translated into english. He did respond to BB's critique of Marx and I think his response still stands the test of time, even better than Hilferding on a few points (like simple commodity production).
I have never heard of Marx promising a "positive proof" of the LTV or of him ever even using the phrase "labor theory of value". Please provide a citation for this claim or stop making it.
One last for now: Now you are being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the assertion that he never used the phrase "labor theory of value" is a cheap dodge. Marx put forth a theory of value based upon labor inputs he described as "socially necessary labour values". No one - not even devout Marxists - argue that this is not a labor theory of value and there remains no support in the real world for its existence.
@FletchforFreedom. I actually think that the fact that Marx never used the phrase is a useful starting point for understanding the radical differences between Marx and Ricardo. Rubin, for instance, argues that it would be better called a "value theory of labor".
It's also relevant to our discussion since you claim that Marx promised a positive proof of the labor theory of value. Have you found your source for this claim yet or were you just making this up?
I'll get you specifics on Bukharin once I'm finished with Hilferding (tomorrow, perhaps - it's admitedly been a while) but the probem of an intrinsic value system has never been solved and the maintenance of a distinction between types of value (use vs. exchange) rather the diverse valuations among parties pursuing their own interests has never been consistent with human activity.
This is classic, absolutely classic. I know too many people who would crash and burn on that quiz and still claim to know all there is to know about Marx, and they all have university educations too - that's capitalist propaganda for you.
Loving these new videos--all your videos---Though I definitely choose the left over the right, when I think about Marxism and communism, what comes to mind is how countries have used it as a vehicle for totalitarianism---Is there a way that Marxist beliefs can be implemented while avoiding the errors of Stalin, Mao---Where do they go wrong? Can those areas be recognized, isolated and avoided so as to avoid any type of misuse that could lead to oppression?
@catgumart Marx wrote comparatively little about communism or socialism (+- 1% of his oeuvre). The link between Stalin, Mao and Marx is not straight forward. I would even say non existent... One should better interpret Marx his work as a firm scientific critique of capitalism.
I believe what happened in the Soviet Union or China can go wrong in capitalism and does to a great extent in our own country--but this stuff can happen in any system----any type of corruption, totalitarianism, oppression, needs to be examined and well understood--and it takes a lot of honesty and self reflection on behalf of well educated and informed people--one problem in our society is that education is to expensive and peoples focus is too career oriented-in my oppinion
In my opinion we should examine other ways for people to exist that are productive/positive--when I say productive I don't mean in creating profit--& I don't even mean employment--I mean people self cultivating, staying healthy, continually growing at their pace in a healthy, non-coercive environment -where they have their rights guaranteed-not the right to be super wealthy and powerful bu-
cont-Not the right to be super wealthy or powerful but freedom of expression,speech, more options and choices when it comes to work--like how much time you want to put towards labor --and how much time you want to expend self cultivating, working at keeping family or household in good shape, ---I believe all people should have equal access to tools and resources that aid in self cultivation--
No matter how adamant we are about our beliefs Marxist,Libertarian,Republican whatever-we need to acknowledge that life isn't black and white and that oppression and confusion sneaks in to all human endeavor and we should be as keen to this as we can--
@MrEverpresent It's a myth that Marx never wrote about socialism. While he never left a detailed blueprint of a communist society, he talks about its character as a "free association of producers" quite often, even in the 3 vols of Capital. Take a look at the The Paris Manuscripts, Civil War in France or Critique of the Gotha Programme. He also wrote a lot criticising other forms of socialism (eg Proudhon). From these, it's easy enough to see what Marx's concept of socialism was.
All got them all right ;)
ZYKLONBKILLSHITLER 1 year ago
haha very welll done brendan, the illustrations and all. The ending was my favourite part. And i did answer some questions to be true :$. Guess i need to keep on learning
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
There is an error in the quiz. Question eight needs to be reworded. "Marx's theory of value doesn't work in free markets" needs to be restated "Marx's theory of value was belived by Marx (or Marxians) not to work in free markets". As it stands, since a theory of value based on labor inputs doesn't work under ANY conditions (and was refuted before Marx even espoused it), the answer to question eight as it appears in the video is absolutely true.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom.
And for the record which refutation are you referring to?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
The origins of the LTV are often misattributed to Adam Smith (who provided confusion on the issue) but responses to Ricardo's errors already showed the fallacies of any input-related valuation system. Subsequently, Schumpeter, Bohm-Bawerk and others expanded upon those criticisms demonstrating, most notably, its failure to incorporate the relationship of time to value (a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from now) which makes input-based valuations completely untenable.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. Are you just referring to time-preference theory? You seem to be referencing multiple "refutations" though you've only listed one.
Also you don't mention any of the responses to Schumpeter and/or Bohm-Bawerk most notably Rubin, Hilferding, and Bukharin.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Yes, I mentioned only one. Several exist dating all the way back to Smith's diamonds/water paradox. And, of course there's the wild vs. cultivated apple example. I admit that I have not read Hilferding's response, but both Rubin's and Bukharin's attempted responses to marginal utility theory fail to conform to observable phenomena (Bukharin's in particular). It is no accident that Marx promised a positive proof of LTV in Capital that ultimately NEVER appeared.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. How is the diamond/water paradox a refutation of the LTV? I thought the LTV was meant to solve the diamond/water paradox. When did Rubin write about Marginal utility theory? What observable phenomenon did Bukharin not account for? And, most importantly, please tell me where Marx promises a "positive proof" of the LTV in Capital? Actually can you cite any passage in Capital where Marx even uses the phrase "labor theory of value"?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
I am currently going through Hilferding's response now and the logicla fallacies are already quite evident proceding immediately after his reiteration (less than perfect) of Bohm-Bawerk's critique and arguing that exchange does not take place until an item no longer has utility for the individual willing to exchange rather than simply lesser utility than that for which he can exchange it. And, no, the LTV was not designed to address the diamond/water paradox.
cont.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. Actually I think that point of Hilferding's is extremely important. Perhaps instead of speed reading the text online after already having formed your opinion of it in advance you should take the time to actually read it, think about it and challenge yourself to think critically.
It's obvious that capitalist production is not production for personal use, with the surplus product being exchanged. It is production entirely for exchange, the product having no use to the maker.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
I'll ultimately reply later but I AM reading Hilferding's text (and conceded at the outset that it was just the beginning). Yes, it's obvious that [most] capitalist production is not for personal use (an irrelevant point), but there is nothing obvious about the specious concept of "surplus value" that could only be valid if the underlying intrinsic valuation under the LTV were valid (which it is not).
cont.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. It is a very relevant point because it undermines the Austrian concept of a subjective profit in exchange as well as the many of the assumptions behind marginal utility. You dismiss it as irrelevant without reason and then try to change the topic by talking about SV. Yes SV requires a theory of intrinsic value but merely stating it is not obvious does not disprove it nor do I see what that has to do with production for exchange.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Further, the final product of capitalist production virtually never has "no use" to the maker - there often being consumer products for which the worker has a use albeit not in the quantities produced. But here you make another needless (and useless) distinction between capitalist production (within the framework you provide) and proletarian production in the absence of invested capital (as performed by pre-IR domestic industry).
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. "proletarian production in the absence of invested capital"? How do you have a proletariat w/out capital? I assume you mean simple commodity vs. capitalist production. This is a relevant distinction. Most of human history prior to capitalism has seen some form of trade. But this has always been of surplus product, which is very different than production for exchange. For one, in capitalism exchange value becomes the motivating factor in production, rather than use.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Forgive any further delay in reponding as I devote my attention to Hilferding as suggested.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
Neither expressly named the marginal utility theory per se so far as I am aware. Still, the two competing theories were ultimately the crux of the debate. It is well documented that Marx promised to provide a positive proof of the LTV by the time he completed "Capital". One does not exist to this day as he could not - perhaps explaining the absence of the phrase in his magnum opus.
cont.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. Rubin never wrote about MU at all as far as I know- at least never in anything translated into english. He did respond to BB's critique of Marx and I think his response still stands the test of time, even better than Hilferding on a few points (like simple commodity production).
I have never heard of Marx promising a "positive proof" of the LTV or of him ever even using the phrase "labor theory of value". Please provide a citation for this claim or stop making it.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
One last for now: Now you are being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the assertion that he never used the phrase "labor theory of value" is a cheap dodge. Marx put forth a theory of value based upon labor inputs he described as "socially necessary labour values". No one - not even devout Marxists - argue that this is not a labor theory of value and there remains no support in the real world for its existence.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
@FletchforFreedom. I actually think that the fact that Marx never used the phrase is a useful starting point for understanding the radical differences between Marx and Ricardo. Rubin, for instance, argues that it would be better called a "value theory of labor".
It's also relevant to our discussion since you claim that Marx promised a positive proof of the labor theory of value. Have you found your source for this claim yet or were you just making this up?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
I'll get you specifics on Bukharin once I'm finished with Hilferding (tomorrow, perhaps - it's admitedly been a while) but the probem of an intrinsic value system has never been solved and the maintenance of a distinction between types of value (use vs. exchange) rather the diverse valuations among parties pursuing their own interests has never been consistent with human activity.
FletchforFreedom 1 year ago
This is classic, absolutely classic. I know too many people who would crash and burn on that quiz and still claim to know all there is to know about Marx, and they all have university educations too - that's capitalist propaganda for you.
blackiron60 1 year ago
Please change the ''video thumbnail'' into more peasant colors.
organdva 1 year ago
You forgot, "Marx was anti-semitic."
XMonsieurMeursaultX 1 year ago
You should put the questions in text in the info box.
shameoncanada 1 year ago
A HAPPY PENGUIN WAITER!!!!!!!!!!!!
Xenu 1 year ago
YES!
how do you know he didn't hate babies?
nuclearnight 1 year ago
Loving these new videos--all your videos---Though I definitely choose the left over the right, when I think about Marxism and communism, what comes to mind is how countries have used it as a vehicle for totalitarianism---Is there a way that Marxist beliefs can be implemented while avoiding the errors of Stalin, Mao---Where do they go wrong? Can those areas be recognized, isolated and avoided so as to avoid any type of misuse that could lead to oppression?
Thanks again!
catgumart 1 year ago
@catgumart Marx wrote comparatively little about communism or socialism (+- 1% of his oeuvre). The link between Stalin, Mao and Marx is not straight forward. I would even say non existent... One should better interpret Marx his work as a firm scientific critique of capitalism.
MrEverpresent 1 year ago
@MrEverpresent
I believe what happened in the Soviet Union or China can go wrong in capitalism and does to a great extent in our own country--but this stuff can happen in any system----any type of corruption, totalitarianism, oppression, needs to be examined and well understood--and it takes a lot of honesty and self reflection on behalf of well educated and informed people--one problem in our society is that education is to expensive and peoples focus is too career oriented-in my oppinion
catgumart 1 year ago
@MrEverpresent
In my opinion we should examine other ways for people to exist that are productive/positive--when I say productive I don't mean in creating profit--& I don't even mean employment--I mean people self cultivating, staying healthy, continually growing at their pace in a healthy, non-coercive environment -where they have their rights guaranteed-not the right to be super wealthy and powerful bu-
catgumart 1 year ago
@MrEverpresent
cont-Not the right to be super wealthy or powerful but freedom of expression,speech, more options and choices when it comes to work--like how much time you want to put towards labor --and how much time you want to expend self cultivating, working at keeping family or household in good shape, ---I believe all people should have equal access to tools and resources that aid in self cultivation--
catgumart 1 year ago
@MrEverpresent
No matter how adamant we are about our beliefs Marxist,Libertarian,Republican whatever-we need to acknowledge that life isn't black and white and that oppression and confusion sneaks in to all human endeavor and we should be as keen to this as we can--
catgumart 1 year ago
@MrEverpresent It's a myth that Marx never wrote about socialism. While he never left a detailed blueprint of a communist society, he talks about its character as a "free association of producers" quite often, even in the 3 vols of Capital. Take a look at the The Paris Manuscripts, Civil War in France or Critique of the Gotha Programme. He also wrote a lot criticising other forms of socialism (eg Proudhon). From these, it's easy enough to see what Marx's concept of socialism was.
barrymarshall 1 year ago
@barrymarshall I didn't say he never wrote about socialism. I have read the three volumes, grundrisse many times.
MrEverpresent 1 year ago
Comment removed
barrymarshall 1 year ago
Hahaha, cool outro. I actually got two of them wrong awell...
Ilikenuman 1 year ago