Could we add that the conditions of collective labor power that lead to profit, are supposedly set up by the capitalist? The capitalist argues that the profit justly belongs to the capitalist and investors because of efficiencies, whereas organized labor argues the profits belong to the workers because of cooperation. This is all based on the assumption of a neutral, or a-political social environment, which of course, is a fantasy. As well, efficiencies are distributed and refined by workers.
"The difference between the cost of LP and the amount of value produced by that labor power is profit."
I think that is not wright.
The difference between the cost of LP and the amount of value produced by that labor power is NOT profit, but surplus-value. Profit is epiphenomena of surplus-value.
I'm still a bit confused about the word capital. First the video says: "Capital: A flow between money and commodities". And then "Money and commodities are only capital when...", The second line is clear and I agree with it. To me that is obvious.
But the first line talks about 'The Flow between', so the "process" as it were matters. So what is Capital? Is it the "process itself using things"? or "Things, like machines and money, used in a process to create value and eventually new capital"?
@InterZlatan8. Capital is a social relation that is a process of value expansion. It expands value through human labor which creates things. But these things are not the goal of capital, the expansion of value is.
@brendanmcooney So, Capital is always immaterial? It's a process? even when commodities like computers and tools used explicitly to create value for the capitalist are they still not capital?
And what about money in banks that invest in something? Is that money becoming capital that way (because it's now used to make more of it), or can we only experience capital in the sphere of value-production? (like the process in wich the bank invests is capital, but not the money itself)
@InterZlatan8. No. All of those things are capital, but only when they are part of this process. Money in a paper sack at the bottom of the ocean is not capital. My computer is not. A computer at my workplace is. A caveman's hammer is not. A carpenter's hammer on the construction site next to my house is. Get it?
@brendanmcooney Well, that's exactly what I already thought.
But as I'm reading Harvey's The Enigma, there he says in chap. 2 that "Capital is not a thing, it's a process of money perpetually sent in search for more money". In his Reading Capital lectures he says "Capital is value in motion" (quoting Marx, I think)
@InterZlatan8 .....So, I am imagining a contradiction here? between capital being 1 = The process of value-creation using various types of commodities, or 2 = A Bunch of commodities stuck together used in a particular way, as you said, in a process of creating value.
If we combine those 2, we would say it's: "Capital using Capital" wich is absurd.
If it is nr. 2, as we agree, I guess, then what is the definition of the process? "Flow of Capital", "Capital-circulation", something like that?
@InterZlatan8. I don't understand the confusion. Capital is a process of value expansion through the exploitation of wage labor. Wage laborers can't just grow money out of their butts. They have to create something. They make commodities. They use other commodities to do this work. This the process/flow part. Capital thus takes many forms relating each of stages of this process: money, labor power, commodities, etc. Remember value always takes the form of a specific use-value.
@brendanmcooney I think I know now where I got confused. You see, I was thinking about the Labour-process as being Capital.
I can agree with the definition of "Value in Motion". Commodities (value) used in a labour-process (in motion). That must be Capital, right? (if it's not, I'm lost...)
@Inter: 1.Money is invested in production. 2. At the end of the day you have commodities of greater value which are 3. sold in the market. They are turned into money. This money is invested in production and the process begins anew.
so:
1. Money capital becomes productive capital. 2. Productive capital becomes commodity capital. 3. Commodity capital becomes money capital. etc.
Any money or commodities part of this circuit are capital. If they leave the circuit they cease to be capital.
@cardinalfire. Capital is the entire process. It takes the form of money and commodities. The purpose is for it to expand quantitatively- for there to be more money at the end of the day.
@cardinalfire. Money invested in commodity production is capital: Money capital. Commodities purchased as productive inputs (raw materials, machines, labor power) are capital: productive capital. Finished commodities waiting to be purchased by consumers are capital: commodity capital. These are the 3 phases of capital- the 3 forms capital takes in its circuit. But this doesn't mean that all money, inputs or commodities are capital. They are only capital when part of this circuit.
@cardinalfire. Capital accumulation is capital self-expanding thru exploiting labor power.
Money capital buys productive capital which creates commodity capital of greater value which is sold in the market for money, which is reinvested as money capital. etc.
Any money or commodity outside of this circuit is not capital. So the money workers spend on soda is not capital. The soda is not capital. But both of these things were capital when they were in the circuit.
@cardinalfire. capital takes many forms. One of these is commodity capital. Once commodities have been sold to consumers they are no longer capital because they are outside of the circuit of capital. The value of those commodities has been turned into money. The capitalist's commodity capital is now money capital.
@cardinalfire whenever you do something valuable, like improve or create a product or service, you are creating value. Any time there is "value added" there is more capital. Essentially "work" = "value added". Hope that answers your question.
money is transformed into capital that can be sold for more money.
Capital is simply a non-money medium that cause money to grow into more money. This medium can be investment, or a factory, raw materials, or anything that is non-money, as long as it is sold for a greater value than it is bought.
@InterZlatan8 well, I'll rephrase here, capitalists actually have little choice in that regard, because of competition. They must re-capitalise part of the money, or they'll be out of business soon.
The arguments in these videos are not that monopoly causes inequality or exploitation but that the structure of capital itself contains social inequality at its core. I have not even begun to address the topic of monopoly capital.
I makes me think of the Law of conservation of energy, You know that the labor isn't getting a fair transfer but there isn't an easy way to measure vital energy or caloric energy expended through labor..the workers are tired and paid enough to keep them just satisfied enough where it would be too much of an expenditure of energy to protest and make wages high enough so that they are not exploited...I hope this observation is articulated clearly enough so that you see what I'm trying to say...
I don't think it has to with calories expended- it's more abstract than that.
It has to do with the value of the product the worker is producing versus what are they are paid for the labour to pruduce that product. The difference is capitalist profit (and exploitation). That's my understanding of the video.
To Exmachine I dont think it is as ridiculous as you may think:
Workers expend calories that they get from eating food that they buy with their wages that they work for from the capitalist who earns higher profits. That seems to put the worker at some kind of difficult to measure energy debt in my oppinion, & I think it leads to them living a lower quality life especially on an energetic level. Simply they expend more then they are compensated and it takes its toll.
Simply the worker's energy is being stolen and accumulated as wealth and spent or used to the capitalist advantage.Their vital energy they expend working( maybe you could measure it in calories maybe not)...getting up going to work,the physical & psychological energy that is used to turn the turbines of production that generate profit- that qualifies as a transfer of energy I think, please criticize me if you feel this way of looking at it is flawed, I welcome responses, i learn that way,thanks!
Yes the abstract is incredibly important, but we shouldn't overlook or minimize the effects or aspects that are concrete. Workers are tired, they have less money to use for things that enhance health and vitality, they have less time to recuperate from work stress, their circumstances are more bogged down in financial stress, their lives are filled with more low quality food,health care, relationships, all this relates to their economic situations...
I said calories because it is a concrete unit of energy that can be measured.. how could we fairly compensate people-everything is a transfer of energy in some form-the workers energy is used to produce commodities that are sold for profit that comes fin part from lowering wages..I know the the abstract is incredibly important but I'm trying to see it also in the physical realm as well.
Is the money that is sitting in peoples bank accounts capital? What toll does storing enormous amounts of money (uncirculated capital) in bank accounts...like as the rich do...does that choke the flow of abundance and capital throughout the rest of humanity (humanity being like a circuit exchanging energy, energy not being able to be created or destroyed only transferred) hope to hear a response,,thanks
$ stuffed in a mattress is not capital b/c it's not being invested in production to produce surplus value.. it's not part of M-C-M.
But money in a bank is actually used as a reserve to extend credit to capitalists (or consumers) in order to invest in production. Your "savings" in a bank account are actually circulating as the loans which accrue surplus value. Your interest payment is a small portion of this surplus.
thanks for your reply it is always a pleasant surprise when I can get through...I'm so inexperienced in these areas at the same time I'm dense and a slow learner ,I'm going to have to do more studying (on the computer)I just watched your commodities videos and they are very good.. very clear and direct..I'm trying to figure out how poverty can exist simultaneously with wealth..is it fair that if wealth exists..how come it cant get to different sectors of humanity...Thanks for the response!
Becuase capital is privately owned which means that the people who own capital (factories, banks, etc.) can appropriate muchl of the value created by the working people who work for these capitalists. Hence there is a "curvature in the social space"- the flow of capital and wealth is inherently uneven and antagonistic and generates all manner of disparities and social conflict because of this.
Surplus value either goes toward the consumption of the capitalist class or is reinvested in production, thus expanding the scale of production. If capital can't find profitable investments for this surplus then it faces a problem of excess capital- or overaccumulation. This concept lies behind the theory of capitalist crisis.
my question would be how much of an effect on society does rich entities holding money and commodities in their bank accounts or as assets? could this withholding of wealth and not allowing it to flow or circulate be part of the reason why poverty exists..could the assets and bank accounts be likened to a "stuffed mattress?"
No bank deposits are loaned out as capital. This allows surplus capital to still earn a profit. When money stops flowing through the circuit of capital it ceases to be capital. So money put in banks is lent out to other people for interest so that bank money can continue to earn profit. There is a good video on youtube called "Banking4: multiplier effect and the money supply" that talks about how banks loan money. Although it comes from a different theoretical perspective it is still useful.
I wish I had your brains..all I know is that things aren't equal, fair and just in a variety of ways that are all related to economic injustice..I try to explain things the best I can when arguing about low income and wealth but no matter how good my vocabulary I cant get to the crux..I just know that I'm in pain and I see others suffering or selling their souls to keep their heads above water and It makes me wonder what can be done to improve things...
Sometimes the added value comes from the capitalist, not the worker. If a capitalist develops a streamlined manufacturing process, or a more efficient product (better solar panels for example), the same number of workers can produce more profit with the same labor inputs. This is called an increase in productivity. Granted, some of the increased profit should ideally be shared with the worker but that is a different problem.
An increase in physical productivity does not equal a proportional increase in value output. That is why prices go down when productivity increases. Less labor per unit means less value per unit. Capitalist can only add value to the extent that they perform labor- that is, to the extent that they don't function as a capitalist but as a worker.
Labour is not a commodity. It is labour, period. Why do you use the word commodity everywhere? A commodity is a specific term for a set of products that cannot be differentiated. You should be using the term 'wealth' If you make a shovel or raise a cow you have created wealth which you can exchange for other wealth via the medium of money. Capital is merely wealth used to create more wealth e.g. a shovel used to dig a vegetable plot to produce wealth in the form of vegetables.
The capacity to perform labor and to thus expand value in the production process is bought by capitalists and sold by workers. This makes it a very distinctive commodity (the only commodity which can expand value) but it is still a commodity!
Here my definition of capital is more specific than a vague notion of "something that performs work" such as your shovel example. The point is to identify the unique way value expands under capitalism. We must understand this as a process thru many stages.
He's very confused. He thinks money is capital. If we destroyed all forms of money in the world the world's capital would not reduce one jot. Nor would be any less wealthy, although there would be disputes over who owns what.
No, I think that capital is a process of the expansion of value which requires it to change form between money and commodities (both productive and consumer commodities). This change of form is the goal of capitalist production and exchange. If there was no money, this process would be impossible, just as it would be impossible without commodities. There is nothing "confused" about this. I articulating a well understood, internally consistent, economic concept from a particular discipline.
I'm sorry brendan but you're just creating more confusion. So now "I think that capital is a process" Oh dear. It's no wonder economics is called a dismal science when people don't use even basic terms consistently. Capital is not money and it's not a process. I dont know which discipline you are quoting from but I assure you that it is very confused. It doesnt understand the fundamentals.
It wouldn't be "impossible" without money it would just be a lot more difficult. If your business made spades, for example, you'd have to barter some of those finished spades with, probably, several people in order to obtain the raw materials needed to make more spades. Then exploit labour to make the raw materials into spades.
I have been very consistent in my videos and comments on the fact that capital is a process or flow of value creation. I don't understand what it is you don't get about it. Maybe you should read back through earlier comments or watch the video again. There is really no point in repeating myself. Now, we can debate the merits of different economic disciplines and their definitions of capital, but that is different than debating the consistency or coherence of my argument.
Wealth is a vague term. I would prefer to discuss value. Exchange value must be measured somehow, thus the importance of money as a measure of value as well as a medium of exchange. This dual quality, and the contradictions inherent in it are elaborated upon in several of my other videos ("what the hell is money?")
Money can be capital if it is part of the process of the expansion of value which happens in capitalist production. It is not always capital.
Thanks for the reply. I still diagree about money being capital. Accountants will call it capital but an economist should not. You can't make anything with money. You can only use it to buy real wealth which is then used as capital e.g. a shovel, in order to make more wealth.
But means of production (shovels as you say) and commodities have to be exchanged into money at some point in this circulation process if value is to be expanded. The role of money is essential in this process. The definition of capital here is that capital is a flow/process of value expansion. Thus we must recognize that capital takes the money form all the time in our society. When a commodity is sold for money that capital doesn't disappear- it just takes a different form.
I it's a process of expansion of value, and yes it accumulates. But it must stay in motion when accumulating so to remain capital. If it stays in money form it becomes a hoard and ceases to be capital. What does Bill Gates do with his money? Keep it in his mattress? no- he invests it all over the world. His capital is always working for him. It doesn't stay still.
No. It takes the form of commodities: constant and variable capital, which create commodities of greater value, and then are sold for more money. The money can't turn itself into more money just by sitting in a mattress. It has to move actively through the production process in order to expand value.
as soon as something is "held in a monetary form" it ceases to be capital. Lets say you have a hoard of money, an "accumulation of value" as you put it. lets say you fully intend, at some point, to invest that hoard into some production process so you can end up with more money in the end. that money doesn't become capital just because of something you've thought of in your head. it only becomes capital once you actually invest it in that "concrete" process with the goal of expanding it.
When I said antique slavery, I meant it in the context of neo-slavery (sweatshops, etc) and plantation slavery- I don't think there is an instance of feudalism in the united states after slavery.
Also, remember when the capitalist buys and replaces means of production along with buying more labour power and paying wages, there is a third element, the surplus leftover, the profit of the capitalist.
Also, what I think is important to remember is that Capitalists are paying a wage that supposedly allows the worker to reproduce himself for further work. In slavery, owners had to provide necessities to the slave, so it did cost the owner money on a continual basis for food, clothing, etc. So, they ARE buying labor power. The slave moment (cotton) in the U.S. coincided with (textile) factory mercantilism that gave way to capitalism (textiles move overseas), so capitalism killed antique slavery.
When I studied American economic history, slavery was always treated as a separate moment from the capitalist moment.. Slavery, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Capitalism, Communism were all treated differently and while they did overlap in many cases, they still retain their own separate definitions.
Savings aren't capital? But if you save at a bank, don't they use that to make loans to other capitalists and therefore to increase production and value?
Also, you mention slavery, which DID exist under capitalism. What are the ramifications of that, given that they're not buying labor power? Does M-C-M still hold?
both good questions. In a capitalist economy the savings of all classes are part of the money capital controlled by the banking class. And yes, this money is mobilized within the circuit of capital. I don't think I claimed in this video that money in banks wasn't capital. But money that is saved, rather than loaned out is definitely not capital. The money in my pocket is not capital.
as to slavery. I am not an expert on this topic, but I will venture the theory that economic exploitation definitely did take place, albeit under different legal guise, that the profit made by slave owners was still a result of that exploitation, that slave labor was still labor power, and that M-C-M still took place.
Perhaps you are right that it was wrong to make that distinction in this video... hmmm, I will ponder that...
But isn't slavery a throw back from the feudal mode of production were labor power was bound to the means of production, thus not really part of the bourgeois mode of production?
After pondering... I think the distinction I wanted to make in the video was this: "labor power" is used to distinguish it from "labor." When a capitalist buys LP it is not clear how much labor will be received. When paying for a slave the amount of labor that is received in return is also variable and so it was wrong for me to use slavery as an example in the vid. Slavery has existed in many different modes of production and seems to be inefficient, though possible, in capitalism.
thank you insightful videos now back to the boardroom.
tasante27 2 months ago
STINKIN AWESOME!
JoeDope813 7 months ago 2
I like it very much. Keep it up.
shorryukenctw 11 months ago
haha the cane on the door
seigneurvoland666 1 year ago
or maybe its like converting factors of production into capital
factors of production is used to produce capital
and then capital (which is non money like factors of production) is then exchanged for money
cardinalfire 1 year ago
factors of production(non-money)---->capital(non-money)----> money
basically, factors of production is used to produce capital. (both are non-money)
and then capital is sold for money.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
I think the very essence of capitalism is like this:
converting the factors of production into money
factors of production(non -money)--->money
factors of production is anything that is not money but has value.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
Could we add that the conditions of collective labor power that lead to profit, are supposedly set up by the capitalist? The capitalist argues that the profit justly belongs to the capitalist and investors because of efficiencies, whereas organized labor argues the profits belong to the workers because of cooperation. This is all based on the assumption of a neutral, or a-political social environment, which of course, is a fantasy. As well, efficiencies are distributed and refined by workers.
kokopelli314 1 year ago
Ok I understand, Brendan . thanks.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
"The difference between the cost of LP and the amount of value produced by that labor power is profit."
I think that is not wright.
The difference between the cost of LP and the amount of value produced by that labor power is NOT profit, but surplus-value. Profit is epiphenomena of surplus-value.
Well, what you said is not totally wrong...
Thanks, it is a great video.
(sorry, english isn't my thing)
Mikezepw 1 year ago
I'm still a bit confused about the word capital. First the video says: "Capital: A flow between money and commodities". And then "Money and commodities are only capital when...", The second line is clear and I agree with it. To me that is obvious.
But the first line talks about 'The Flow between', so the "process" as it were matters. So what is Capital? Is it the "process itself using things"? or "Things, like machines and money, used in a process to create value and eventually new capital"?
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8
Yea, what is the difference between money, and capital?
Does capitalist industry go from:
commodity-->capital-->money
or
capital-->commodity-->money
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8. Capital is a social relation that is a process of value expansion. It expands value through human labor which creates things. But these things are not the goal of capital, the expansion of value is.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney So, Capital is always immaterial? It's a process? even when commodities like computers and tools used explicitly to create value for the capitalist are they still not capital?
And what about money in banks that invest in something? Is that money becoming capital that way (because it's now used to make more of it), or can we only experience capital in the sphere of value-production? (like the process in wich the bank invests is capital, but not the money itself)
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 I think we should start a discussion group to study capitalism.
I am happy to share my email address if InterZlatan and brendan would join.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
maybe its capital becomes money, not money becoming capital
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8. No. All of those things are capital, but only when they are part of this process. Money in a paper sack at the bottom of the ocean is not capital. My computer is not. A computer at my workplace is. A caveman's hammer is not. A carpenter's hammer on the construction site next to my house is. Get it?
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney Well, that's exactly what I already thought.
But as I'm reading Harvey's The Enigma, there he says in chap. 2 that "Capital is not a thing, it's a process of money perpetually sent in search for more money". In his Reading Capital lectures he says "Capital is value in motion" (quoting Marx, I think)
[continued]...
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 .....So, I am imagining a contradiction here? between capital being 1 = The process of value-creation using various types of commodities, or 2 = A Bunch of commodities stuck together used in a particular way, as you said, in a process of creating value.
If we combine those 2, we would say it's: "Capital using Capital" wich is absurd.
If it is nr. 2, as we agree, I guess, then what is the definition of the process? "Flow of Capital", "Capital-circulation", something like that?
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8. I don't understand the confusion. Capital is a process of value expansion through the exploitation of wage labor. Wage laborers can't just grow money out of their butts. They have to create something. They make commodities. They use other commodities to do this work. This the process/flow part. Capital thus takes many forms relating each of stages of this process: money, labor power, commodities, etc. Remember value always takes the form of a specific use-value.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney I think I know now where I got confused. You see, I was thinking about the Labour-process as being Capital.
I can agree with the definition of "Value in Motion". Commodities (value) used in a labour-process (in motion). That must be Capital, right? (if it's not, I'm lost...)
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@Inter: 1.Money is invested in production. 2. At the end of the day you have commodities of greater value which are 3. sold in the market. They are turned into money. This money is invested in production and the process begins anew.
so:
1. Money capital becomes productive capital. 2. Productive capital becomes commodity capital. 3. Commodity capital becomes money capital. etc.
Any money or commodities part of this circuit are capital. If they leave the circuit they cease to be capital.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney
So is turning money into capital, or capital into money. What is the purpose.?
Is capital money or non-money? What is the chief objective of this prov\cess?
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@cardinalfire. Capital is the entire process. It takes the form of money and commodities. The purpose is for it to expand quantitatively- for there to be more money at the end of the day.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney
Capital:=the process of turning non-money into money?
or =process of turning money into non-money?
My theory was that non-money things was turned into capital and then into money, but apparently that isn't true.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney I understand the proces M-C-M
Money-->commodity-->money
or money-->non-money-->money
but what i don't get is what is capital really?
Is the whole proccess turning
capital (non-money)-> (directly into money)
or
turning capital (non-money means of production)--> commodites and then sell these commodities for more money
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@cardinalfire. Money invested in commodity production is capital: Money capital. Commodities purchased as productive inputs (raw materials, machines, labor power) are capital: productive capital. Finished commodities waiting to be purchased by consumers are capital: commodity capital. These are the 3 phases of capital- the 3 forms capital takes in its circuit. But this doesn't mean that all money, inputs or commodities are capital. They are only capital when part of this circuit.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney
So what is capital accumulation?
So does money buy commodities, which is turned into capital, then transformed back into money
Or does money buy capital, which is then transformed into commodites , and then back into money
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@cardinalfire. Capital accumulation is capital self-expanding thru exploiting labor power.
Money capital buys productive capital which creates commodity capital of greater value which is sold in the market for money, which is reinvested as money capital. etc.
Any money or commodity outside of this circuit is not capital. So the money workers spend on soda is not capital. The soda is not capital. But both of these things were capital when they were in the circuit.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney
So do commodities become Capital? Or does capital become commodities?
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@cardinalfire. capital takes many forms. One of these is commodity capital. Once commodities have been sold to consumers they are no longer capital because they are outside of the circuit of capital. The value of those commodities has been turned into money. The capitalist's commodity capital is now money capital.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@cardinalfire whenever you do something valuable, like improve or create a product or service, you are creating value. Any time there is "value added" there is more capital. Essentially "work" = "value added". Hope that answers your question.
jsymons1985 1 year ago
@jsymons1985 The term value is full of ambiguity.
I think its more like money-->capital-->money
money is transformed into capital that can be sold for more money.
Capital is simply a non-money medium that cause money to grow into more money. This medium can be investment, or a factory, raw materials, or anything that is non-money, as long as it is sold for a greater value than it is bought.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8; you are confused beause you do not understand its whether it is a transformation from money to non-money, or non-money to money.
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney its captial when you use it to produce commodities?
cardinalfire 1 year ago
I have been thinking about Marx's M-C-M theory.
I think Capital is just converting non-money things into money
For example look at the food industry or the operations of a restuarant:
Food-->Capital--> money
cardinalfire 1 year ago
@cardinalfire Yes, but the money you receive at the end, can be re-capitalised in order to make even more.
so, capitalists have a choice. they can take part of the money recieved and then spend it, or take another part as new capital.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 well, I'll rephrase here, capitalists actually have little choice in that regard, because of competition. They must re-capitalise part of the money, or they'll be out of business soon.
InterZlatan8 1 year ago
@InterZlatan8 Economists say Capital is a factor of production. How does it relate to all of this?
cardinalfire 1 year ago
Also, is it about turning Capital into money or turning money into Capital?
cardinalfire 1 year ago
Comment removed
cardinalfire 1 year ago
thanks for uploading, this is really understandable, plus the voice isn't annoying which helps.
TheLinc09 1 year ago
S'that a sousaphone?
Jordainio 2 years ago
yes.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
@brendanmcooney looks like you got some cool stuff there. and a good understanding of stuff also.
Jordainio 2 years ago
doesnt cost of means of production INCLUDE labour? I mean, I've read several stuff written by Marxists and this seems to be the case
orgthingy 2 years ago
Yes cost of production includes the cost of labor (wages) which is different than the value produced by labor.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
@brendanmcooney
where did you get the cartoon from? is there a link?
Thanks.
okay081 1 year ago
Very instructive especially in these times. I hope it would reach more people. Great Job!!!! Thanx!!!
chrissy25sara 2 years ago
Tremendous videos. You're doing very valuable work. Don't stop.
HSMauberley 2 years ago 10
I am glad to watch your videos. You made a good popular revolutionary education here. Long live for you.
sajanoli 2 years ago
Almost done with chapter 3 of Kapital! thanks for making these videos. great for personal study.
again. thanks, comrade.
hersheyguy 2 years ago
Youre a fucking Genius. Ive learnt a lot
Psychomatician 2 years ago
The reason for poor people and monopolies 100 years ago was from not enough CAPITAL, not CAPITALISM.
LIGHTRONIX 2 years ago
The arguments in these videos are not that monopoly causes inequality or exploitation but that the structure of capital itself contains social inequality at its core. I have not even begun to address the topic of monopoly capital.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Who would work for the capitalist investor if there weren't poorer people forced to work to live?
ExMachine 2 years ago
@ExMachine That is exactly why we are the most powerful part of the system. However, you have to do a lot to get a point across to a corporation.
Jordainio 2 years ago
I makes me think of the Law of conservation of energy, You know that the labor isn't getting a fair transfer but there isn't an easy way to measure vital energy or caloric energy expended through labor..the workers are tired and paid enough to keep them just satisfied enough where it would be too much of an expenditure of energy to protest and make wages high enough so that they are not exploited...I hope this observation is articulated clearly enough so that you see what I'm trying to say...
catgumart 2 years ago
I don't think it has to with calories expended- it's more abstract than that.
It has to do with the value of the product the worker is producing versus what are they are paid for the labour to pruduce that product. The difference is capitalist profit (and exploitation). That's my understanding of the video.
ExMachine 2 years ago
To Exmachine I dont think it is as ridiculous as you may think:
Workers expend calories that they get from eating food that they buy with their wages that they work for from the capitalist who earns higher profits. That seems to put the worker at some kind of difficult to measure energy debt in my oppinion, & I think it leads to them living a lower quality life especially on an energetic level. Simply they expend more then they are compensated and it takes its toll.
catgumart 2 years ago
Simply the worker's energy is being stolen and accumulated as wealth and spent or used to the capitalist advantage.Their vital energy they expend working( maybe you could measure it in calories maybe not)...getting up going to work,the physical & psychological energy that is used to turn the turbines of production that generate profit- that qualifies as a transfer of energy I think, please criticize me if you feel this way of looking at it is flawed, I welcome responses, i learn that way,thanks!
catgumart 2 years ago
To Exmachine
Yes the abstract is incredibly important, but we shouldn't overlook or minimize the effects or aspects that are concrete. Workers are tired, they have less money to use for things that enhance health and vitality, they have less time to recuperate from work stress, their circumstances are more bogged down in financial stress, their lives are filled with more low quality food,health care, relationships, all this relates to their economic situations...
catgumart 2 years ago
To Exmachine
I said calories because it is a concrete unit of energy that can be measured.. how could we fairly compensate people-everything is a transfer of energy in some form-the workers energy is used to produce commodities that are sold for profit that comes fin part from lowering wages..I know the the abstract is incredibly important but I'm trying to see it also in the physical realm as well.
catgumart 2 years ago
Is the money that is sitting in peoples bank accounts capital? What toll does storing enormous amounts of money (uncirculated capital) in bank accounts...like as the rich do...does that choke the flow of abundance and capital throughout the rest of humanity (humanity being like a circuit exchanging energy, energy not being able to be created or destroyed only transferred) hope to hear a response,,thanks
catgumart 2 years ago
$ stuffed in a mattress is not capital b/c it's not being invested in production to produce surplus value.. it's not part of M-C-M.
But money in a bank is actually used as a reserve to extend credit to capitalists (or consumers) in order to invest in production. Your "savings" in a bank account are actually circulating as the loans which accrue surplus value. Your interest payment is a small portion of this surplus.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
thanks for your reply it is always a pleasant surprise when I can get through...I'm so inexperienced in these areas at the same time I'm dense and a slow learner ,I'm going to have to do more studying (on the computer)I just watched your commodities videos and they are very good.. very clear and direct..I'm trying to figure out how poverty can exist simultaneously with wealth..is it fair that if wealth exists..how come it cant get to different sectors of humanity...Thanks for the response!
catgumart 2 years ago
Becuase capital is privately owned which means that the people who own capital (factories, banks, etc.) can appropriate muchl of the value created by the working people who work for these capitalists. Hence there is a "curvature in the social space"- the flow of capital and wealth is inherently uneven and antagonistic and generates all manner of disparities and social conflict because of this.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
where does that surplus value go?
catgumart 2 years ago
Surplus value either goes toward the consumption of the capitalist class or is reinvested in production, thus expanding the scale of production. If capital can't find profitable investments for this surplus then it faces a problem of excess capital- or overaccumulation. This concept lies behind the theory of capitalist crisis.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
my question would be how much of an effect on society does rich entities holding money and commodities in their bank accounts or as assets? could this withholding of wealth and not allowing it to flow or circulate be part of the reason why poverty exists..could the assets and bank accounts be likened to a "stuffed mattress?"
catgumart 2 years ago
No bank deposits are loaned out as capital. This allows surplus capital to still earn a profit. When money stops flowing through the circuit of capital it ceases to be capital. So money put in banks is lent out to other people for interest so that bank money can continue to earn profit. There is a good video on youtube called "Banking4: multiplier effect and the money supply" that talks about how banks loan money. Although it comes from a different theoretical perspective it is still useful.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I wish I had your brains..all I know is that things aren't equal, fair and just in a variety of ways that are all related to economic injustice..I try to explain things the best I can when arguing about low income and wealth but no matter how good my vocabulary I cant get to the crux..I just know that I'm in pain and I see others suffering or selling their souls to keep their heads above water and It makes me wonder what can be done to improve things...
catgumart 2 years ago
deep.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Sometimes the added value comes from the capitalist, not the worker. If a capitalist develops a streamlined manufacturing process, or a more efficient product (better solar panels for example), the same number of workers can produce more profit with the same labor inputs. This is called an increase in productivity. Granted, some of the increased profit should ideally be shared with the worker but that is a different problem.
binjahmon 3 years ago
An increase in physical productivity does not equal a proportional increase in value output. That is why prices go down when productivity increases. Less labor per unit means less value per unit. Capitalist can only add value to the extent that they perform labor- that is, to the extent that they don't function as a capitalist but as a worker.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Labour is not a commodity. It is labour, period. Why do you use the word commodity everywhere? A commodity is a specific term for a set of products that cannot be differentiated. You should be using the term 'wealth' If you make a shovel or raise a cow you have created wealth which you can exchange for other wealth via the medium of money. Capital is merely wealth used to create more wealth e.g. a shovel used to dig a vegetable plot to produce wealth in the form of vegetables.
athertg 3 years ago
The capacity to perform labor and to thus expand value in the production process is bought by capitalists and sold by workers. This makes it a very distinctive commodity (the only commodity which can expand value) but it is still a commodity!
Here my definition of capital is more specific than a vague notion of "something that performs work" such as your shovel example. The point is to identify the unique way value expands under capitalism. We must understand this as a process thru many stages.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
i'd stop where you're at. the more you write the more he owns you. why don't you learn something?
auxhernandez81 3 years ago
He's very confused. He thinks money is capital. If we destroyed all forms of money in the world the world's capital would not reduce one jot. Nor would be any less wealthy, although there would be disputes over who owns what.
athertg 3 years ago
No, I think that capital is a process of the expansion of value which requires it to change form between money and commodities (both productive and consumer commodities). This change of form is the goal of capitalist production and exchange. If there was no money, this process would be impossible, just as it would be impossible without commodities. There is nothing "confused" about this. I articulating a well understood, internally consistent, economic concept from a particular discipline.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I'm sorry brendan but you're just creating more confusion. So now "I think that capital is a process" Oh dear. It's no wonder economics is called a dismal science when people don't use even basic terms consistently. Capital is not money and it's not a process. I dont know which discipline you are quoting from but I assure you that it is very confused. It doesnt understand the fundamentals.
athertg 3 years ago
did you even watch the full video?
seigneurvoland666 3 years ago 2
It wouldn't be "impossible" without money it would just be a lot more difficult. If your business made spades, for example, you'd have to barter some of those finished spades with, probably, several people in order to obtain the raw materials needed to make more spades. Then exploit labour to make the raw materials into spades.
athertg 3 years ago
I have been very consistent in my videos and comments on the fact that capital is a process or flow of value creation. I don't understand what it is you don't get about it. Maybe you should read back through earlier comments or watch the video again. There is really no point in repeating myself. Now, we can debate the merits of different economic disciplines and their definitions of capital, but that is different than debating the consistency or coherence of my argument.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
you couldnt have been any clearer- good vid.
TangerineTangerine 3 years ago
Money isn't capital. Capital is wealth (goods) used to make other wealth (goods/services). Money is just a medium used for exchanging wealth.
athertg 3 years ago
Wealth is a vague term. I would prefer to discuss value. Exchange value must be measured somehow, thus the importance of money as a measure of value as well as a medium of exchange. This dual quality, and the contradictions inherent in it are elaborated upon in several of my other videos ("what the hell is money?")
Money can be capital if it is part of the process of the expansion of value which happens in capitalist production. It is not always capital.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Thanks for the reply. I still diagree about money being capital. Accountants will call it capital but an economist should not. You can't make anything with money. You can only use it to buy real wealth which is then used as capital e.g. a shovel, in order to make more wealth.
athertg 3 years ago
But means of production (shovels as you say) and commodities have to be exchanged into money at some point in this circulation process if value is to be expanded. The role of money is essential in this process. The definition of capital here is that capital is a flow/process of value expansion. Thus we must recognize that capital takes the money form all the time in our society. When a commodity is sold for money that capital doesn't disappear- it just takes a different form.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I am prepared to change my mind, but I think capital is more than a process it is also an accumulation of value, held in a monetary form.
CassFlower 3 years ago
I it's a process of expansion of value, and yes it accumulates. But it must stay in motion when accumulating so to remain capital. If it stays in money form it becomes a hoard and ceases to be capital. What does Bill Gates do with his money? Keep it in his mattress? no- he invests it all over the world. His capital is always working for him. It doesn't stay still.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
yes it is in motion all the time but it is also money the whole time, yes?
CassFlower 3 years ago
No. It takes the form of commodities: constant and variable capital, which create commodities of greater value, and then are sold for more money. The money can't turn itself into more money just by sitting in a mattress. It has to move actively through the production process in order to expand value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I'm not saying that it sits in a mattress. If it does that it is dead, not capital.
What I am saying is that it is not only a process, it is also at the same time concrete.
CassFlower 3 years ago
as soon as something is "held in a monetary form" it ceases to be capital. Lets say you have a hoard of money, an "accumulation of value" as you put it. lets say you fully intend, at some point, to invest that hoard into some production process so you can end up with more money in the end. that money doesn't become capital just because of something you've thought of in your head. it only becomes capital once you actually invest it in that "concrete" process with the goal of expanding it.
zvexevz 3 years ago
Awesome. I like how you show how the circuit can break down at its various parts.
rouchambeau 3 years ago
that was very informative
gbg112 3 years ago
When I said antique slavery, I meant it in the context of neo-slavery (sweatshops, etc) and plantation slavery- I don't think there is an instance of feudalism in the united states after slavery.
adimaeatsoul 3 years ago
Wow, love your Che Guevara Pic, in your back ground!
MopacMurtaza 3 years ago
Not sure if you mentioned that or not. Good and informative video!
santino666 3 years ago
Also, remember when the capitalist buys and replaces means of production along with buying more labour power and paying wages, there is a third element, the surplus leftover, the profit of the capitalist.
santino666 3 years ago
I really enoyed this one
nickglais 3 years ago
Also, what I think is important to remember is that Capitalists are paying a wage that supposedly allows the worker to reproduce himself for further work. In slavery, owners had to provide necessities to the slave, so it did cost the owner money on a continual basis for food, clothing, etc. So, they ARE buying labor power. The slave moment (cotton) in the U.S. coincided with (textile) factory mercantilism that gave way to capitalism (textiles move overseas), so capitalism killed antique slavery.
adimaeatsoul 3 years ago
When I studied American economic history, slavery was always treated as a separate moment from the capitalist moment.. Slavery, Feudalism, Mercantilism, Capitalism, Communism were all treated differently and while they did overlap in many cases, they still retain their own separate definitions.
adimaeatsoul 3 years ago
Yo Brendan, its Zach w. Im getting a clear understanding of Marx. Awsome videos. We should have a lesson soon.
bucnasty619 3 years ago
yes soon. call.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
great video, pretty solid explication of Marx.
0neironaut 3 years ago
Savings aren't capital? But if you save at a bank, don't they use that to make loans to other capitalists and therefore to increase production and value?
Also, you mention slavery, which DID exist under capitalism. What are the ramifications of that, given that they're not buying labor power? Does M-C-M still hold?
HebaruSan 3 years ago
both good questions. In a capitalist economy the savings of all classes are part of the money capital controlled by the banking class. And yes, this money is mobilized within the circuit of capital. I don't think I claimed in this video that money in banks wasn't capital. But money that is saved, rather than loaned out is definitely not capital. The money in my pocket is not capital.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
as to slavery. I am not an expert on this topic, but I will venture the theory that economic exploitation definitely did take place, albeit under different legal guise, that the profit made by slave owners was still a result of that exploitation, that slave labor was still labor power, and that M-C-M still took place.
Perhaps you are right that it was wrong to make that distinction in this video... hmmm, I will ponder that...
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
But isn't slavery a throw back from the feudal mode of production were labor power was bound to the means of production, thus not really part of the bourgeois mode of production?
Psy500 3 years ago
After pondering... I think the distinction I wanted to make in the video was this: "labor power" is used to distinguish it from "labor." When a capitalist buys LP it is not clear how much labor will be received. When paying for a slave the amount of labor that is received in return is also variable and so it was wrong for me to use slavery as an example in the vid. Slavery has existed in many different modes of production and seems to be inefficient, though possible, in capitalism.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I think you wanted to distinguish labor power from the value labor adds to the commodity.
Psy500 3 years ago