This amply demonstrates the vacuity and sheer muddle-headedness of bourgeois economics, and it's naive Panglossian nature. Not only is this confused about the real nature of profit-making, it totally fails to take into account previously existing power differentials that effect outcomes. That is, it takes no reckoning of class structures. It derives from its ingeniously false and out-dated premises an utterly wrong conclusion.
Obviously, one cannot begin to deconstruct Marx's view on exploitation in a 10 minute video, especially given the disjointed format, the interjection of unsubstantiated premises, and a general ignorance of what modern Marxists believe about exploitation.
Are you trying to argue that capitalism is the fairest form of social organisation simply because Marx did not take into account the fact that present goods are worth more than future goods, IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY?
Capitalist investors are only essential in a capitalist society. In a fairer world, where a much greater proportion of the world than the current 1% will own 90% of the world's total wealth, this role will be undertaken by central govt FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE RATHER THAN A FEW.
I don't get it. So, workers don't sell their products, they sell their labor, and in a hypothetical no-cost economy, everything would be profit? That's true, but this redefinition isn't an argument against exploitation, this redefinition IS exploitation, clearly. Everything is profit at some zero-level, ok... but then a bunch of people don't get to have any because they don't really own the commodities. This is purely by definition, not some fundamental truth. The definition IS the problem
@HoRostam In a capitalist society, Marx's theory of exploitation erroneously posits that workers unjustly receive a smaller sum for the products they produce than the capitalist receives in selling them. Hence, he believed this difference or 'surplus value' rightly belongs to the worker. However, the theory fails to take into account the discount of future goods over present goods. See the video, "Socialist Theory of Interest Crushed by Boehm-Bawerk!" for more details.
@kurt44mg42 I'm not sure Marx is making a moral argument to the extent that you're implying. At least in Capital, he is more interested in showing how the capitalist economy works and the observable effect it has on the worker.
The argument that always derives from these sorts of debates comes down to a single ethical concern: is it morally okay to rent another human being's labor for the purpose of your own self-interest? I find it irrelevant on whether or not a human wants to be rented. Is it okay to claim, for a period, ownership of another human being's labor? We don't accept prostitution or slavery, but these are also factions of the same kind. Namely, can a human be owned (the timeframe is irrelevant).
@ 335jmb335 In a historical sense, Austrians do not disagree with Marxists that there has been one class of people that have exploited another class; i.e., slave-owners exploiting slaves and fuedal lords exploiting serfs. However, Marx's theory was deeply flawed when he wrote in "Das Kapital" that the exploited were the workers (proleteriat) and the exploiters were the capitalists. Type, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis | Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the search bar for...enlightenment!
The argument that always derives from these sorts of debates comes down to a single ethical concern: is it morally okay to rent another human being's labor for the purpose of your own self-interest? I find it irrelevant on whether or not a human wants to be rented. Is it okay to claim, for a period, ownership of another human being's labor?
Whether you call the worker's incomes "wages" or "profits" is irrelevant. under capitalism the income of the worker is still marginal in proportion to the surplus generated by their labour, even if we minus the surplus created by "constant capital" as Marx would put it. Profit is always comes at the expense of someone, or something
@chartrand wages are paid before the product is finally sold. Profits are the result of the final product sale minus the costs of production—including wages.
In capitalism the wage of a single worker maybe minimal in relation to the profit of a whole enterprise, but all workers must get paid. Also, by profiting the company can continue to employ the workers in time.
There is no argument to support that profit always comes at the expense of someone or something. It is available as investment.
Its always the same crap with marxists. None of them have the guts to admit the reality of things as they are. Its hard to tell if marxism gives rise to the aspect of jealousy or is it jealousy that makes individuals well suited to be a marxist. Marx (who was a bum) is like the one guy who wrote about the greatness of feces fetish, for the future feces fetishists to look up to. Thumbs up if you see the marx fetishists in the proper light.
Its always the same crap with marxists. None of them have the guts to admit the reality of things as they are. Its hard to tell if marxism gives rise to the aspect of jealousy or is it jealousy that makes individuals well suited to be a marxist. Marx (who was a bum) is like the one guy who wrote about the greatness of feces fetish, for the future feces fetishists to look up to. Thumbs up if you see the marx fetishists in the proper light.
Marx REJECTED the so-called "iron law of wages." Ferdinand Lassalle was the one who came up with the term. Mocking Lassalle's desire to do away with "the wage system" and the "iron law of wages" Marx wrote,
'If I abolish wage labor, then naturally I abolish its laws also, whether they are of "iron" or sponge.'
0:33, I agree that capitalists are exploitive middle men but workers do not get paid in wages in the absence of capitalism. They get paid in profit. If they weren't paid profit there would be no point in working.
0:51, this is what I was talking about. If no profit why even work? It also fails to realize the possibility of workers spending money to buy capital thus making their exchanges M-C-M-C.
1:09, not universally true. The capitalist's profit is either a deduction from wages or he is simply increasing the price of products above the prices the workers themselves would of set.
Not only have you failed to grasp the points being made in the video, you have seemingly contradicted yourself as well. Please compare this statement:
"...workers do not get paid in wages in the absence of capitalism. They get paid in profit."
To this statement:
"The capitalist's profit is either a deduction from wages..."
I suggest you look at the video several more times. Then, maybe, the penny will drop!
In the your first quote of my mine I was talking about something IN THE ABSENCE OF CAPITALISM. When I was talking about capitalist's profit, obviously I was talking about something WHERE CAPITALISM EXISTS. I did not contradict myself. Plus in your second quote of mine you took my comment out of contex.
My point was I don't Karl Marx's theory of exploitation but I don't think you really get to the crux of the socialist arguements against capitalism.
4)Socailism(Worker's control of the means of production.
We can reject 1) and 2) right off the back since there would be no free market and they would be distasterously inefficient. But why 3) instead of 4)? What necessary business function do capitalists fulfull that workers cannot? If there is none, then why not have workers control of the means production in the contex of a free market?
In a free market capitalist society people are free to form workers cooperatives if they so wish. However, it stands to reason that these cooperatives must face the test of market competition. If, as you imply, these workers cooperatives are just as if not more efficient than entrepreneurial capitalist enterprises, then where are they? Why do we not see these cooperatives competing against and beating their evil capitalist counterparts?
Your example that workers' cooperatives can succeed in a free market context by citing what is happening in Argentina today is a strawman argument my friend. Free markets (and you need to fully grasp what that term means!) have never really existed in Argentina prior and subsequent to the economic collapse that occurred in 2001.
Furthermore, in order to understand why these less efficient cooperatives have emerged, you need to familiarise yourself with the ruinous socialistic economic policies that were pursued by successive Argentine governments during the 1990s. As a clue, find out why Argentina was able to attract so much foreign capital and who the main beneficiaries of these loans were - certainly not small and medium sized Argentine businesses!
Pus, alot of your arguements require worker co-ops to fight an uphill battle within the capitalist system. That's like trying to start a private fire department when the state is taxing everyone to fund their fire department.
Well, if they can succeed in the midst of statism that is just all the more reason to conclude they are more efficient than capitalist run workplaces. They are not recieving benefits from the government. Quite the opposite. The government is trying to get the workplaces back to the capitalists. The workers are keeping them out.
And yes I kow Argentina never was a true free market but how dare you imply these co-ops are some kind of statist construct when the state is trying to destroy them.
I think our little dialogue here is beginning to evolve into two inter-related but nonetheless different economic arguments. One of which is significantly more important to examine than the other: 1. The efficiency or effectiveness of self-sufficient production in a modern or developing economy. 2. The fact that these self-sufficient cooperatives emerged in the aftermath of a boom/bust business cycle created solely by statist (government/central bank) monetary and fiscal intervention.
Point number 1 is a direct effect of point number 2. Therefore, in a macroeconomic sense, the argument boils down to a simple but often misunderstood case of cause and effect: it is the cause that is worthy of further study and examination rather than simply the sum of its economic effects or one microeconomic effect taken or looked at in isolation.
Rather than attempting to promote the so-called merits of your simplistic brand of socialism and excoriating capitalism, I suggest you devote more time to examining the cause of boom/bust cycles as I have alluded to above.
I aready know where your trying to lead me. You're trying to say that capitalist workplaces would be more efficient than worker co-ops if there was no statist intervention and what I say to that is "of course". Within the capitalist system, capitalist workplaces will always look more efficient than worker co-ops since they will have the benefit of recieving outside investments while worker co-ops will not. Why invest somewhere where the workers believe you only deserve a profit if you work?
You answer your own (attempted) rhetoric when implying that 'work' must be done physically. You've missed the point of this simple but informative video essay, somehow. ALL income is low without capital to defer the sale of final goods by buying producer goods purposed to create commodities for sale that could not be created by the process of labour+freely available resource but can be created by labour+purchased resource. Freely available resource is that which is unclaimed so u NEED exchange.
The point I was making was that Capitalists are those who buy resource not for their own personal needs per se but to produce goods for income that includes buying labour to produce goods for income, and without this capital applied to production, without extended capital structures enabled by deferring consumption and saving to add stages of production, income and quality of goods produced and living standards must be low. Buying goods as means of production is vital to produce effectively.
There is one part of capitalism that never changes regardless of the economic theory. That is the part that gives power to one individual to deny another the things they need to survive. That is, if a person does not somehow satisfy the needs of society either by working for a cappie or selling his/her products then he does not get to eat... This is collectivism! No different than being arrested by Bolsheviks for resisting taxation.
Not to mention that a capitalistic society is a statist society. In a fully competitive market, capitalists don't have a monopoly on anything, right? Wrong! They have a monopoly on wages. You have to be a capitalist in order to have the authority to pay wages. And of course, I define a state as any institution, person or group that has a monopoly on anything!
And unlike in a mutualist society, not everyone has control over the means of production, making self-employment impossible for some.
If everyone had control of and access to the means of production (collectively or a MOP for each), then we would not need capitalists, and people would be able to survive by selling their labor through fully self-employed means. This is, by my standards a much better way to live than to be in a society where everyone is a slave to someone: the people are slaves to the capitalists and the capitalists are slaves to the people...
I'm glad you enjoyed this video. I have two more that I'm planning to make. I hope you'll take a look at them once they've been finished and uploaded. The first title is: "Boehm-Bawerk Crushes The Exploitation Theory of Interest." And the second title: "Menger Explodes The Labour Theory of Value." Thanks again for your kind comments!
Hi Kurt, first, kudos for the vid. I have one question related to Böhm-Bawerk though. Do you know what the best choice is for buying BB's Capital & Interest opus? I see that in the LVMI there are some of them, but in Amazon I found a 1959 edition with all 3 volumes (1200 pp!). Good work and thanks!
This amply demonstrates the vacuity and sheer muddle-headedness of bourgeois economics, and it's naive Panglossian nature. Not only is this confused about the real nature of profit-making, it totally fails to take into account previously existing power differentials that effect outcomes. That is, it takes no reckoning of class structures. It derives from its ingeniously false and out-dated premises an utterly wrong conclusion.
blackmichael75 2 months ago
Obviously, one cannot begin to deconstruct Marx's view on exploitation in a 10 minute video, especially given the disjointed format, the interjection of unsubstantiated premises, and a general ignorance of what modern Marxists believe about exploitation.
jonblaze32 2 months ago
Are you trying to argue that capitalism is the fairest form of social organisation simply because Marx did not take into account the fact that present goods are worth more than future goods, IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY?
Capitalist investors are only essential in a capitalist society. In a fairer world, where a much greater proportion of the world than the current 1% will own 90% of the world's total wealth, this role will be undertaken by central govt FOR THE BENEFIT OF EVERYONE RATHER THAN A FEW.
michaelevans1984 4 months ago
@michaelevans1984 in any society present goods worth more than future goods.
espaldito 2 months ago
I don't get it. So, workers don't sell their products, they sell their labor, and in a hypothetical no-cost economy, everything would be profit? That's true, but this redefinition isn't an argument against exploitation, this redefinition IS exploitation, clearly. Everything is profit at some zero-level, ok... but then a bunch of people don't get to have any because they don't really own the commodities. This is purely by definition, not some fundamental truth. The definition IS the problem
HoRostam 8 months ago in playlist Austrian economics - criticism of Karl Marx
@HoRostam In a capitalist society, Marx's theory of exploitation erroneously posits that workers unjustly receive a smaller sum for the products they produce than the capitalist receives in selling them. Hence, he believed this difference or 'surplus value' rightly belongs to the worker. However, the theory fails to take into account the discount of future goods over present goods. See the video, "Socialist Theory of Interest Crushed by Boehm-Bawerk!" for more details.
kurt44mg42 8 months ago
@kurt44mg42 I'm not sure Marx is making a moral argument to the extent that you're implying. At least in Capital, he is more interested in showing how the capitalist economy works and the observable effect it has on the worker.
Mythyval 2 months ago
The argument that always derives from these sorts of debates comes down to a single ethical concern: is it morally okay to rent another human being's labor for the purpose of your own self-interest? I find it irrelevant on whether or not a human wants to be rented. Is it okay to claim, for a period, ownership of another human being's labor? We don't accept prostitution or slavery, but these are also factions of the same kind. Namely, can a human be owned (the timeframe is irrelevant).
335jmb335 1 year ago
@ 335jmb335 In a historical sense, Austrians do not disagree with Marxists that there has been one class of people that have exploited another class; i.e., slave-owners exploiting slaves and fuedal lords exploiting serfs. However, Marx's theory was deeply flawed when he wrote in "Das Kapital" that the exploited were the workers (proleteriat) and the exploiters were the capitalists. Type, Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis | Hans-Hermann Hoppe in the search bar for...enlightenment!
kurt44mg42 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The argument that always derives from these sorts of debates comes down to a single ethical concern: is it morally okay to rent another human being's labor for the purpose of your own self-interest? I find it irrelevant on whether or not a human wants to be rented. Is it okay to claim, for a period, ownership of another human being's labor?
335jmb335 1 year ago
Comment removed
335jmb335 1 year ago
Whether you call the worker's incomes "wages" or "profits" is irrelevant. under capitalism the income of the worker is still marginal in proportion to the surplus generated by their labour, even if we minus the surplus created by "constant capital" as Marx would put it. Profit is always comes at the expense of someone, or something
chartrand 1 year ago
@chartrand wages are paid before the product is finally sold. Profits are the result of the final product sale minus the costs of production—including wages.
In capitalism the wage of a single worker maybe minimal in relation to the profit of a whole enterprise, but all workers must get paid. Also, by profiting the company can continue to employ the workers in time.
There is no argument to support that profit always comes at the expense of someone or something. It is available as investment.
espaldito 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its always the same crap with marxists. None of them have the guts to admit the reality of things as they are. Its hard to tell if marxism gives rise to the aspect of jealousy or is it jealousy that makes individuals well suited to be a marxist. Marx (who was a bum) is like the one guy who wrote about the greatness of feces fetish, for the future feces fetishists to look up to. Thumbs up if you see the marx fetishists in the proper light.
phnixpot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its always the same crap with marxists. None of them have the guts to admit the reality of things as they are. Its hard to tell if marxism gives rise to the aspect of jealousy or is it jealousy that makes individuals well suited to be a marxist. Marx (who was a bum) is like the one guy who wrote about the greatness of feces fetish, for the future feces fetishists to look up to. Thumbs up if you see the marx fetishists in the proper light.
phnixpot 1 year ago
Comment removed
phnixpot 1 year ago
Marx REJECTED the so-called "iron law of wages." Ferdinand Lassalle was the one who came up with the term. Mocking Lassalle's desire to do away with "the wage system" and the "iron law of wages" Marx wrote,
'If I abolish wage labor, then naturally I abolish its laws also, whether they are of "iron" or sponge.'
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program, 1875
LeftPolitiko 1 year ago
0:33, I agree that capitalists are exploitive middle men but workers do not get paid in wages in the absence of capitalism. They get paid in profit. If they weren't paid profit there would be no point in working.
0:51, this is what I was talking about. If no profit why even work? It also fails to realize the possibility of workers spending money to buy capital thus making their exchanges M-C-M-C.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1:09, not universally true. The capitalist's profit is either a deduction from wages or he is simply increasing the price of products above the prices the workers themselves would of set.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Not only have you failed to grasp the points being made in the video, you have seemingly contradicted yourself as well. Please compare this statement:
"...workers do not get paid in wages in the absence of capitalism. They get paid in profit."
To this statement:
"The capitalist's profit is either a deduction from wages..."
I suggest you look at the video several more times. Then, maybe, the penny will drop!
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
In the your first quote of my mine I was talking about something IN THE ABSENCE OF CAPITALISM. When I was talking about capitalist's profit, obviously I was talking about something WHERE CAPITALISM EXISTS. I did not contradict myself. Plus in your second quote of mine you took my comment out of contex.
My point was I don't Karl Marx's theory of exploitation but I don't think you really get to the crux of the socialist arguements against capitalism.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
There can be 4 systems of property.
1)State Ownership
2)Communism
3)Capitalism
4)Socailism(Worker's control of the means of production.
We can reject 1) and 2) right off the back since there would be no free market and they would be distasterously inefficient. But why 3) instead of 4)? What necessary business function do capitalists fulfull that workers cannot? If there is none, then why not have workers control of the means production in the contex of a free market?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
In a free market capitalist society people are free to form workers cooperatives if they so wish. However, it stands to reason that these cooperatives must face the test of market competition. If, as you imply, these workers cooperatives are just as if not more efficient than entrepreneurial capitalist enterprises, then where are they? Why do we not see these cooperatives competing against and beating their evil capitalist counterparts?
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
1)See video "Argentina: Turning Around" and related videos. Worker co-ops ARE beating the evil capitalist counterparts.
2)Most people haven't even come into contact with the idea of worker cooperatives.
3)Workers lack collateral. Workers would definitely get more capital in the absence of the radical economic inequalities we see today.
4)Even if they did have collateral, socialists would be acting in contradiction to their values to allow a banker to live off them through usury.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Your example that workers' cooperatives can succeed in a free market context by citing what is happening in Argentina today is a strawman argument my friend. Free markets (and you need to fully grasp what that term means!) have never really existed in Argentina prior and subsequent to the economic collapse that occurred in 2001.
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
Furthermore, in order to understand why these less efficient cooperatives have emerged, you need to familiarise yourself with the ruinous socialistic economic policies that were pursued by successive Argentine governments during the 1990s. As a clue, find out why Argentina was able to attract so much foreign capital and who the main beneficiaries of these loans were - certainly not small and medium sized Argentine businesses!
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
The worker co-ops get less investments because why would you invest somewhere where the workers believe you only get a profit if you actually work?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Pus, alot of your arguements require worker co-ops to fight an uphill battle within the capitalist system. That's like trying to start a private fire department when the state is taxing everyone to fund their fire department.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Well, if they can succeed in the midst of statism that is just all the more reason to conclude they are more efficient than capitalist run workplaces. They are not recieving benefits from the government. Quite the opposite. The government is trying to get the workplaces back to the capitalists. The workers are keeping them out.
And yes I kow Argentina never was a true free market but how dare you imply these co-ops are some kind of statist construct when the state is trying to destroy them.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
I think our little dialogue here is beginning to evolve into two inter-related but nonetheless different economic arguments. One of which is significantly more important to examine than the other: 1. The efficiency or effectiveness of self-sufficient production in a modern or developing economy. 2. The fact that these self-sufficient cooperatives emerged in the aftermath of a boom/bust business cycle created solely by statist (government/central bank) monetary and fiscal intervention.
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
Point number 1 is a direct effect of point number 2. Therefore, in a macroeconomic sense, the argument boils down to a simple but often misunderstood case of cause and effect: it is the cause that is worthy of further study and examination rather than simply the sum of its economic effects or one microeconomic effect taken or looked at in isolation.
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
Rather than attempting to promote the so-called merits of your simplistic brand of socialism and excoriating capitalism, I suggest you devote more time to examining the cause of boom/bust cycles as I have alluded to above.
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
I aready know where your trying to lead me. You're trying to say that capitalist workplaces would be more efficient than worker co-ops if there was no statist intervention and what I say to that is "of course". Within the capitalist system, capitalist workplaces will always look more efficient than worker co-ops since they will have the benefit of recieving outside investments while worker co-ops will not. Why invest somewhere where the workers believe you only deserve a profit if you work?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
You answer your own (attempted) rhetoric when implying that 'work' must be done physically. You've missed the point of this simple but informative video essay, somehow. ALL income is low without capital to defer the sale of final goods by buying producer goods purposed to create commodities for sale that could not be created by the process of labour+freely available resource but can be created by labour+purchased resource. Freely available resource is that which is unclaimed so u NEED exchange.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill I'm not a mutualist anymore, but thanks for responding.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
The point I was making was that Capitalists are those who buy resource not for their own personal needs per se but to produce goods for income that includes buying labour to produce goods for income, and without this capital applied to production, without extended capital structures enabled by deferring consumption and saving to add stages of production, income and quality of goods produced and living standards must be low. Buying goods as means of production is vital to produce effectively.
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@Nintendomanwill I'm not a mutualist anymore so there is not point you have to prove to me. I agree with you.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
There is one part of capitalism that never changes regardless of the economic theory. That is the part that gives power to one individual to deny another the things they need to survive. That is, if a person does not somehow satisfy the needs of society either by working for a cappie or selling his/her products then he does not get to eat... This is collectivism! No different than being arrested by Bolsheviks for resisting taxation.
xStil090 2 years ago
Not to mention that a capitalistic society is a statist society. In a fully competitive market, capitalists don't have a monopoly on anything, right? Wrong! They have a monopoly on wages. You have to be a capitalist in order to have the authority to pay wages. And of course, I define a state as any institution, person or group that has a monopoly on anything!
And unlike in a mutualist society, not everyone has control over the means of production, making self-employment impossible for some.
xStil090 2 years ago
If everyone had control of and access to the means of production (collectively or a MOP for each), then we would not need capitalists, and people would be able to survive by selling their labor through fully self-employed means. This is, by my standards a much better way to live than to be in a society where everyone is a slave to someone: the people are slaves to the capitalists and the capitalists are slaves to the people...
xStil090 2 years ago
I'm glad you enjoyed this video. I have two more that I'm planning to make. I hope you'll take a look at them once they've been finished and uploaded. The first title is: "Boehm-Bawerk Crushes The Exploitation Theory of Interest." And the second title: "Menger Explodes The Labour Theory of Value." Thanks again for your kind comments!
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
Hi Kurt, first, kudos for the vid. I have one question related to Böhm-Bawerk though. Do you know what the best choice is for buying BB's Capital & Interest opus? I see that in the LVMI there are some of them, but in Amazon I found a 1959 edition with all 3 volumes (1200 pp!). Good work and thanks!
chokin2 2 years ago