If you are working hard and not enjoying the fruit of your labor (profit) it means that (companies) are stealing it from you in the form of exploitation, Governments are stealing it from you in the form of taxes and debasing the currency, banks are stealing it from you in the form of interest and fractional reserve lending or you are stealing it from your future in the form of reckless and foolish living.
So the evil in capitalism is it forces people to compete with one another to produce products at the lowest possible cost with the highest possible value. How much better it would be if we just let a monopoly of some sort do away with any competition and let the monopolist set prices. Naturally the consumer is forgotten man in this line of thinking.
@dogbreath34 No, the evil in capitalism is that capitalist profits are made through the exploitation of the working class, and that those who work own nothing, and those who own anything don't work. And no, it would not be better if we "just let a monopoly of some sort do away with any competition". It would be better if the means of production were owned collectively by the working class, and production would be for need rather than for profit.
Yes and who decides what any of us needs? I for one don't want anyone telling me what I need or don't need. If I need something bad enough I'll pay money to buy it, not apply to some workers committee to decide if my need is justified.
@dogbreath34 What if you don't have any money? Take food, for example. We are already now producing more than enough to feed the entire planet. Yet, 16,000 children starve every year. Why is that? Because there is no profit in feeding them. Corporations rather throw out food than give to people who are starving. Let's pretend that in socialism, production wouldn't go up: There would still be enough for everyone, but this time, everybody would actually have enough to eat. (cont)
@SomeoneCrazy2 (cont) And now, if you take into account, that in socialism, production would even rise: You could simply go into a store and take what you need (maybe you would be voting on products or completing surveys on the internet, in order for demand to be better measured - just an idea of mine). Don't think like there's going to be a shortage of everything.
THE CAPITALISTS HAS TO SELL HIS COMMODITIES TO GET RICHER AND THIS BENEFITS THE WORKING CLASS WHO NOW HAS AN ABUNDANCE OF PRODUCTS THAT CAME ABOUT BY THE PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL AND LABOR OF THEMSELVES.
Capitalism. the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL scarcity and distortions, to perpetuate wage-slavery/exploitation in the interest of the OWNING/RULING CLASS. A socio-economic modality of production for profit as the sole consideration with devastating consequences of perpetual war,enviornmental destructions,animalcruelty and sufffering, a social reality of fear,insecurity,devaluation and dehumanisation.
BTW thanks for answering me. I know it can get annoying but I am trying to understand the basis for the argument so I can better understand the theory.
Do you have a video yet that demonstrates that only labor creates value? That seems to be the underlying assumption for Marx but I have not seen that supported.
@Benwoodruff. Well that is the topic of my law of value series- still not complete. You might try the Fetishism video (which I guess you already saw) or video 4:Value. Or you might wait till I get around to the "Value and Price" video. I suppose that you are maybe conflating value and price. Many things affect prices and there are different types of prices: day-to-day, long-run, etc. Marx's that value is what is being measured by price, yet there are many factors that mediate this relationship.
@brendanmcooney I am using price as a measure of the value as determined by the market, the "exchange value" in other words. I fully agree that it is different than the use value of an item. I guess where I am having difficulty is on the "socially-necessary labor time" value and the value there being the only "True" value.
If SNLT Value is the true value because it is defined as such then it is just a tautology but if there is a reason for asserting that then that is what I am looking for.
And if and when we completely automate an industry, say agriculture, (personal, automated farms in everyone's backyard), value will not be produced because no value was produced?
We went over this in the comments of your other video. Labor is productive, yes.. but labor's productivity is multiplied by capital. Capital is a productivity multiplier. Thus the capital is integral to the process and saying otherwise is nothing less than idiocy.
yes, automated industries produce no value. They appropriate value in exchange.
Re. capital multiplying productivity: This is true in physical terms but not in value terms. It is important to understand the difference between use-value and value.
the same people who push labor theory also draw an arbitrary distinction between monetary profit and non-monetary profit and then point at one and say "bad."
@Chrisnoscrub047 Yes, it's a type of greed. Tell others what they have is "bad" or merely having it is "greedy" so the greedy person can have it instead.
However, our current money system itself is bad and greedy, but can use the greediness of people to "altruistic" ends. Proof of this is LEGAL TENDER "laws" (bad) and The Federal Reserve Cartel (greedy anti-productive monetary monopoly).
no matter what the "market price" of something is a person still decides whether the marginal utility of that something is worth more than that which he would use to acquire that something.
So let me get this straight: What explain price: marginal utility of the commodity. The marginal utility is result of subjective psychology and this psychology is quantified in price?
The example that I've heard that made sense to me was: hotdogs are $1 they usually go for $2. At $1 they seem like a bargain and the subject buys more hot dogs then he would have otherwise, however, at some point keeping 1 more$ in his pocket is more attractive then 1 more hotdog. the amt of labor to produce each pack of hot dogs has not changed yet the value of the hotdogs has--to the subject.
Great comment, capitalism is not a negative thing itself, but it does compel people to do scummy things to outbeat their opponent. There are good capitalists out there just like there are bad ones.
I think you misunderstood a point in the video maybe. Capitalism is a system which reproduces certain types of relationships. These relationships involve exploitation of one group by another. The problems with capitalism are not a result of individual people being good or bad. They are the result of the structure of these relationships.
No I do understand. I just happend to add a little more to the point. Capitalism is not good or bad, its the person and their emotions that are good or bad. Im saying that capitalist sometimes use their position to to evil, and some do good. But in the long run, the capitalist uses thieir money and strategy to build profit. I think capitalism is a strategist and uses economy accordingly.
A capitalist could be a nice person or a bad person. It doesn't matter. The structure of capital is what I am talking about. In the structure of capital people that have a monopoly on ownership of the means of production appropriate value from those they employ. This is what profit is. All capitalists make a profit whether they or nice ore mean people.
In certain ways I look at capitalism in a good way like Bill Gate producing Microsoft. In some ways bad like Ray Croc producing hamburgers that cause diabetes and obesity on children.
I'd say the ox is obviously exploited. But that leads to some deeper moral and philosophical questions, like autonomy. I hope one day we reach a point where we're no longer comfortable exploiting the ox, but I think we're going to remain speciesist at least until we resolve human exploitation. Treating the ox humanely will have to be sufficient until then. I'm aware how creepily similar that argument is to that of the slave owner. I hope one day we'll find it equally abhorrent.
It's not compulsory, it's just that value is social, that is, it doesn't actually form an objective part of a use-value, but rather is a product of human social relations. People act like it exists, but not one atom of the use-value goes into it. As such, when 'value' is discussed, we're describing human social relations, and while one can draw normative conclusions from this, 'value' is an economic rather than normative category. As such, the answer can only be, "That's how things are."
Again, the exploitation theory of labor stems from a self-evidently wrong premise, namely the labor theory of value. Value is purely subjective, there is no absolute measure of value. A Hummer may cost $30,000 to produce, but try selling it for that much when gas is $30 a gallon. A baseball card may cost $1 to produce, but to a baseball card collector it may be "worth" a lot more. The reason why people are allowed to charge more than the marginal cost is due to time preference, ie interest.
Of course there is no absolute measure of value, but the labor theory of value is a model of the source of real value. There is no REAL value in money made through interest, the real value is in the labour time that went into producing the commodity, for example mining the ore, there are miners all over the world earning pennies a day in dreadful conditions. THERE is the value.
Baseballll card collectors and oil price fluctuations are irrelevant to the thrust of the argument surely?
Profit is simply receiving something of more value to you than that which you are giving. Both traders in an exchange profit, whether it's goods, money, or labor being traded.
Yes that makes total sense if you think that value is subjective and that property relations and productive relations have no bearing on the production of social value.
This very much reflects the process of rationalization inherent in western civilization; something elucidated by Weber. In short individuals are mere components of the whole and are compelled to act in accordance with the dictates and inner logic of the system. That is the quest for efficiency and efficacy, a feature of the iron cage.
Great post Brendan. What i found particularly compelling was your assertion that capitalism is not greedy, immoral and scummy because people are so inclined. But because capitalism makes them so.
A worker with capital is much more productive than a capital-less worker. Someone needs to provide the capital -- investors. If you can make 10 potatoes without a shovel and 20 potatoes with a shovel, sure you would pay a shovel-provider (investor) 5 potatoes in order to gain a shovel -- win-win. That's what investors do: They _create_ (sure, some inherit), save and lend capital (e.g. shovels, computers, trucks, robots, calculators, tools); but the monetary system often confuses people.
Yes capital is necessary for the capitalist labor process. But capital doesn't create value. Only labor can create value. Exploitation is the difference between the value of the product and wages paid to the makers of that product. Capitalist put capital in motion so that it can expand and create more value but they don't create value. Yes money gives these transactions the appearance of free and equal exchange and thus obscures the process of exploitation.
"capital doesn't create value.". That's just absurd. You're crazy. The more capital (e.g. shovels, computers, trucks, robots, calculators, tools) per worker a country has the more productive it is. It's not labor that has made the west wealthy--it's capital accumulation. But I'm not going to waste my time responding again to this ridiculously obvious fact.
1. An increase in physical productivity is not the same as an increase in value productivity. That's why prices fall when the production process gets more efficient.
2. Capital is value in motion- value that expands via exploitation in the labor process. To say capital creates value is like saying value creates value. It's tautological.
3. Not being willing to discuss something with someone you disagree with and labeling them as crazy is usually a sign of insecurity.
Labour creates all productive capital. Although productive capital such as a shovel has exchange value in and of itself, cannot create any new exchange value (commodities) without labour.
Jocke1984 makes the common mistake (I'm being kind; it's often intentional propaganda) of taking for granted that the worker must rent the capital she works with from her capitalist overlord. This is a false assumption.
Capital isn't inherently evil -- it's just stuff. The question is, "Who owns (and controls) the stuff?"
A benevolent capitalist (LOL) would help workers to build capital of their own, so they wouldn't have to rent his.
A benevolent state (ROFL) would legislate to that effect.
"A worker with capital is much more productive than a capital-less worker"
Uhh.... workers don't have capital, only the wages they're paid to subsist. The only reason the worker engages in a material relationship in which he'll be dependant on the capitalist (investor as you call it) is to be provided the means to labor, and therefore survive. So it's not a win for the laborer, it's just a necessary loss, in order to prevent a bigger loss; of course i mean losing his life....
you forget that every piece of machinery that a capitalist may have bought from someone that exploited in order to create that machinery so on and so on. think of it like this. hypothetically in a society of independent artisans, every person make their own products and all. each person doing something separate. No capital is invested in order to do w.e. they need to do they just sow or w.e. and then sell their produce. the value of their produce is not determined by capital but by their labour.
The value of land which is completely created 100% by the community as a whole and not by anything the land/natural resource owner does by labor or capital investment. The private collection of land value via rents and sale prices is a wholly unearned income to land/natural resource owners and is a better explanation of the disparity of wealth than exploitation by capital. Land is not capital. You lump 100% unearned land rent in with earned returns from capital investment and muddy the waters.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Socialism does not solve the problem of greed. It only allows those greedy people to gravitate toward positions of power in the socialist government. Some people are just greedy, and no form of government can change that.
Capitalism takes that greed into account and uses it. A smart business owner will take care of his employees. He will pay them well because he wants good workers. He will take care of them because he wants healthy workers. If not, his business goes under.
I don't think the problem is greed. If you have a system and a culture that rewards greed instead of integrity and solidarity. Why would people stop being greedy? You seem to assume people are greedy by nature. No behavior is unchangeable, it all depends on the culture.
I'm more like trying-to-see-life-from-multiple-views boy.
the irony is that in church I've heard the same apocalyptic discourse of zeitgeist. you know, stuff like the microchipping of people with the number of the beast, the rise of one world government headed by the anti-christ.
Re. zeitgeist... granted I haven't watched the addendum but I can assure you that there is nothing in the original film that is remotely marxist in analysis. I would be curious as to your source for this claim. If they do consider themselves Marxists they should start doing some studying in political economy instead of wasting their time on conspiracy documentaries.
The essence of Marxism fully emerges in the addendum. It comes as a surprise given the first one. However, slight glimpses of Marxism can be found in the first one, through its demonization of private profits. The addendum presents the 'Venus Project,' advocating a 'resource-based economy' followed by the abolition of monetary rationing and re-education to eventually de-necessitate a state.
I have since checked out the venus project and read the wikipedia description of the addendum and still see nothing remotely marxist about either or in your above description. So you don't actually have a source that they are marxists? People call Obama a marxist. That doesn't make him one. There is a lot of misinformation out there about marxism. Perhaps you don't know nearly enough about marxism as you may think you do. Have you read anything written by Marx?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I don't know much about Marxism. But I understand elements of the ideology---abolition of the monetary system---government granting ownership of means of production to the working class---utilization of scientific method in central planning-allocation of resources---and eventual removal of state. Explain which elements of my description don't match with actual Marxism.
All of them. Karl Marx wrote very little if anything about what would replace capitalism. His entire life's work was devoted to unraveling the mysteries of capitalism, developing a critique of bourgeois political economy and history. Marxists use his theoretical framework to further deepen this analysis as capitalism continues to evolve. Some of them also develop theories of post-capitalist societies based on this analytical framework. Their ideas are very diverse and still evolving.
It would be interesting or should I say amusing to hear your interpretation of the STV. However, before you start thinking about that and I mean really START THINKING instead broadcasting your Marxist claptrap, here's a question for you:
they say that there's not enough money to create promote equality. right?
well, during the Cold War the USA and USSR spent 11 trillion dollars or more in weapons and wars. Enough money to rebuild the whole planet, you know new roads, hospitals, schools, child-care centers.
I do not understand why people like you just agree with this fucking people. This is NOT the best of all possible worlds, you've been told that it is, but it is not.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You are right, labor does create profit, but the business has to make money or it can't pay LABORERS, the people who drive the economy. If the government takes the profit, how does the business give raises, offer less expensive health care, hire more people, buy new equipment?
What are you trying to say? That we should all sit around and do nothing and let the government take care of us? Did you just graduate? Are you regurgitating? Been there done that, the government took my T-shirt.
What am I trying to say? This video is part of a series of videos in which I try to explain the way in which value is created in a capitalist society and all of the ramifications of value. If you are interested in knowing more about these arguments it would be good for you to refrain from trying to put words into my mouth or trying to equate my arguments with some sort of simplistic stereotype like the latter half of your comment suggests. I am always open to reasoned discussion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Here is what I am trying to say: I didn't go to college until I was a 30 year old mother of two. Before I majored in psychology, with a minor in sociology, I majored in real life and motherhood. When I heard my first sociology prof. touting the wonders of socialism I objected. He and I had many friendly arguments on the front steps of the Psych building at FSU.
There were many times in my Psych and Soc classes when I had to bite my tongue. Life taught me the truth, before I went to college.
And what is this truth that you are referring to and what does it have to do with the topic of this video? Thus far you have only made some reference to progressive taxation and social welfare- topics this video has nothing to do with.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Ok. You believe Capitalism is evil. I don't. The only BIG industry in America that I see as having exploited it's workers in our society is the professional sports industry. These owners truly produce nothing and exploit the abilities of their employees. (Although the players make more in a year than any of us will see in a lifetime). The small business owner is what drives America. We are not all greedy just because we are capitalists. My husband is a small business owner. (cont...)
Nowhere have I said that capitalism is "evil". I think you are trying to argue with a strawman instead of actually watching my video and dealing with the argument as I present it.
He works just as hard as his men. He pays them a good wage. And we are no where near rich. We might have money one day, but when we do we will still be the same. My husband's dream is that his building business will one day make enough money that we can donate our time and money to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. Capitalism doesn't just breed greed, it also breeds philanthropy.
If you agree that labor creates value, then profit must come from a difference between the wages paid to workers and the value of the products they create. That's what the theory of exploitation says. Are you proposing an alternative explanation of profit? Or are you immediately jumping to a moral argument about the subjective character of specific business owners. I am not making any arguments about specific people being good or bad people.
So you are telling me that mothers in the USA have an easier time than mothers in Norway or Sweden? really?
At least you go to go to college, while over half of the planet lives on 1 or 2 dollars a day.
Capitalism is so wonderful, you can buy a lot of cheap shit made front the exploitation of other human beings who were born under a different set of circumstances than most of us.
So when others say that the market is flooded with a particular commodity (eg.too many cell phones etc), that commodity then devalues, it's use value (subjectively) remains about the same, however it's exchange value (objective) is devalued?
Q: It cannot be exchanged at the same rate it was previously exchanged for?
Mostly. The increasing efficiency of the labor process drives down the price of commodities by reducing the amount of labor that goes into them. Meanwhile, the use value stays the same- as you mentioned.
Yes, labor literally creates commodities, thus giving them their value. If something requires no labor to make (sunlight) it is free. It is necessary to distinguish between use-value and exchange-value. A commodity has subjective value to us depending on how much use it has for us. It's exchange value is objective- it costs the same to everyone, regardless of their subjective preferences for the commodity. The marxist argument is that labor is the basis of exchange value.
Could it be argued that capitalists buy labor-power from wage-workers but labor (no power) when they buy slaves from somewhere? And what exactly defines "labor-power"?
after an exchange with HebaruSan on my What is CApital video I think that in the case of both slaves and wage workers it's labor power that is being purchased. Labor power is the capacity to do work. The amount of labor that you get out of the worker is still undetermined. that is why labor is the ultimate source of profit- it's the only variable element in the equation.
I would say that value is subjective and that individual wants would be the nucleus of your economic atom. Electrons, then, we might say are money, a medium of exchange. What you might call exploitation then, I might call exchange, but we could both agree that what is created is either a bond or instability.
well this is a basic difference between marxist and bourgeois theories of value. I think that were value to be completely related to use value then we would have no common basis for exchange at all. use-value is quite helpful in explaining money prices via supply and demand. but it is not so useful when explaining the exchange ratios between commodities or the social relations between people. For these we need objective categories related to labor. I do not think exploitation comes from exchange
I fear my background in bourgeois economics is not that sophisticated. Tell me your understanding of Solow's work. As far as I understand it is a question about what causes economic growth- how labor productivity rises with technical change. The question of productivity and the composition of capital is a big topic in marxist theory and i hope to make some videos about it soon. But I don't know enough about translating it into the language of neo-classical economy.
Thanks for preaching Proverbs 14:23
If you are working hard and not enjoying the fruit of your labor (profit) it means that (companies) are stealing it from you in the form of exploitation, Governments are stealing it from you in the form of taxes and debasing the currency, banks are stealing it from you in the form of interest and fractional reserve lending or you are stealing it from your future in the form of reckless and foolish living.
set4lyf 6 months ago
So the evil in capitalism is it forces people to compete with one another to produce products at the lowest possible cost with the highest possible value. How much better it would be if we just let a monopoly of some sort do away with any competition and let the monopolist set prices. Naturally the consumer is forgotten man in this line of thinking.
dogbreath34 7 months ago
@dogbreath34 No, the evil in capitalism is that capitalist profits are made through the exploitation of the working class, and that those who work own nothing, and those who own anything don't work. And no, it would not be better if we "just let a monopoly of some sort do away with any competition". It would be better if the means of production were owned collectively by the working class, and production would be for need rather than for profit.
SomeoneCrazy2 7 months ago
@SomeoneCrazy2
Yes and who decides what any of us needs? I for one don't want anyone telling me what I need or don't need. If I need something bad enough I'll pay money to buy it, not apply to some workers committee to decide if my need is justified.
dogbreath34 7 months ago
@dogbreath34 What if you don't have any money? Take food, for example. We are already now producing more than enough to feed the entire planet. Yet, 16,000 children starve every year. Why is that? Because there is no profit in feeding them. Corporations rather throw out food than give to people who are starving. Let's pretend that in socialism, production wouldn't go up: There would still be enough for everyone, but this time, everybody would actually have enough to eat. (cont)
SomeoneCrazy2 7 months ago
@SomeoneCrazy2 (cont) And now, if you take into account, that in socialism, production would even rise: You could simply go into a store and take what you need (maybe you would be voting on products or completing surveys on the internet, in order for demand to be better measured - just an idea of mine). Don't think like there's going to be a shortage of everything.
SomeoneCrazy2 7 months ago
Capitalist need illegal salve labor to grind working peoples wages down. this is why the USA will never stop the endless supply of illegals.
TheThedot 1 year ago
THE CAPITALISTS HAS TO SELL HIS COMMODITIES TO GET RICHER AND THIS BENEFITS THE WORKING CLASS WHO NOW HAS AN ABUNDANCE OF PRODUCTS THAT CAME ABOUT BY THE PRODUCTIVE CAPITAL AND LABOR OF THEMSELVES.
ivanjrt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Capitalism. the wage slavery of immense humanity in a politically manipulated,tyrannical MARKET SYSTEM OF ARTIFICIAL scarcity and distortions, to perpetuate wage-slavery/exploitation in the interest of the OWNING/RULING CLASS. A socio-economic modality of production for profit as the sole consideration with devastating consequences of perpetual war,enviornmental destructions,animalcruelty and sufffering, a social reality of fear,insecurity,devaluation and dehumanisation.
arzoyan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW thanks for answering me. I know it can get annoying but I am trying to understand the basis for the argument so I can better understand the theory.
I look forward to future videos.
Benwoodruff 1 year ago
Do you have a video yet that demonstrates that only labor creates value? That seems to be the underlying assumption for Marx but I have not seen that supported.
Benwoodruff 1 year ago
@Benwoodruff. Well that is the topic of my law of value series- still not complete. You might try the Fetishism video (which I guess you already saw) or video 4:Value. Or you might wait till I get around to the "Value and Price" video. I suppose that you are maybe conflating value and price. Many things affect prices and there are different types of prices: day-to-day, long-run, etc. Marx's that value is what is being measured by price, yet there are many factors that mediate this relationship.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney I am using price as a measure of the value as determined by the market, the "exchange value" in other words. I fully agree that it is different than the use value of an item. I guess where I am having difficulty is on the "socially-necessary labor time" value and the value there being the only "True" value.
If SNLT Value is the true value because it is defined as such then it is just a tautology but if there is a reason for asserting that then that is what I am looking for.
Benwoodruff 1 year ago
Comment removed
Benwoodruff 1 year ago
How exactly is it that you determine commodity value?
Mauser9513 1 year ago
And if and when we completely automate an industry, say agriculture, (personal, automated farms in everyone's backyard), value will not be produced because no value was produced?
We went over this in the comments of your other video. Labor is productive, yes.. but labor's productivity is multiplied by capital. Capital is a productivity multiplier. Thus the capital is integral to the process and saying otherwise is nothing less than idiocy.
ijust1 1 year ago
@ijust1
yes, automated industries produce no value. They appropriate value in exchange.
Re. capital multiplying productivity: This is true in physical terms but not in value terms. It is important to understand the difference between use-value and value.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
Profit comes from Mutually beneficial exchange.
If you mean, I exchange with you, exploiting the fact that you have video, and I exchange in return sound reason and logic, you will exploit my mind.
"exploitation" in a literal sense is involved. You exploit the air for respiration. Perjoratively "exploitation" is not required for profit.
Profit can not be viewed limited only to "finances." (most of which are fake anyway, there we'll find agreement likely).
Mutually Beneficial Exchange
tuberesponder 2 years ago
the same people who push labor theory also draw an arbitrary distinction between monetary profit and non-monetary profit and then point at one and say "bad."
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
@Chrisnoscrub047 Yes, it's a type of greed. Tell others what they have is "bad" or merely having it is "greedy" so the greedy person can have it instead.
However, our current money system itself is bad and greedy, but can use the greediness of people to "altruistic" ends. Proof of this is LEGAL TENDER "laws" (bad) and The Federal Reserve Cartel (greedy anti-productive monetary monopoly).
tuberesponder 2 years ago
wait, there are still people pushing the labor theory of value? lulz. god damn.
It is abundantly clear that value is subjective.
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Really? Explain that to me please.
MrEverpresent 2 years ago
no matter what the "market price" of something is a person still decides whether the marginal utility of that something is worth more than that which he would use to acquire that something.
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
So let me get this straight: What explain price: marginal utility of the commodity. The marginal utility is result of subjective psychology and this psychology is quantified in price?
MrEverpresent 2 years ago
Is this your argument Chrisnoscrub047?
MrEverpresent 2 years ago
I think that sounds like a fair way to put it. However, I would emphasize that price isn't necessarily reflected in [insert name of currency here].
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
Cant you see the circular reasoning in this argument?
MrEverpresent 2 years ago
The example that I've heard that made sense to me was: hotdogs are $1 they usually go for $2. At $1 they seem like a bargain and the subject buys more hot dogs then he would have otherwise, however, at some point keeping 1 more$ in his pocket is more attractive then 1 more hotdog. the amt of labor to produce each pack of hot dogs has not changed yet the value of the hotdogs has--to the subject.
Chrisnoscrub047 2 years ago
I dont think that the value in your example changed. In my opinion demand and supply changed the price.
MrEverpresent 2 years ago
Great comment, capitalism is not a negative thing itself, but it does compel people to do scummy things to outbeat their opponent. There are good capitalists out there just like there are bad ones.
snackman1993 2 years ago
I think you misunderstood a point in the video maybe. Capitalism is a system which reproduces certain types of relationships. These relationships involve exploitation of one group by another. The problems with capitalism are not a result of individual people being good or bad. They are the result of the structure of these relationships.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
No I do understand. I just happend to add a little more to the point. Capitalism is not good or bad, its the person and their emotions that are good or bad. Im saying that capitalist sometimes use their position to to evil, and some do good. But in the long run, the capitalist uses thieir money and strategy to build profit. I think capitalism is a strategist and uses economy accordingly.
snackman1993 2 years ago
A capitalist could be a nice person or a bad person. It doesn't matter. The structure of capital is what I am talking about. In the structure of capital people that have a monopoly on ownership of the means of production appropriate value from those they employ. This is what profit is. All capitalists make a profit whether they or nice ore mean people.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
In certain ways I look at capitalism in a good way like Bill Gate producing Microsoft. In some ways bad like Ray Croc producing hamburgers that cause diabetes and obesity on children.
snackman1993 2 years ago
i know its a dumb question and irrelevant but . . . why must it be only human labor that produces value? what about an ox pulling a plow for example?
pypman 2 years ago
I'd say the ox is obviously exploited. But that leads to some deeper moral and philosophical questions, like autonomy. I hope one day we reach a point where we're no longer comfortable exploiting the ox, but I think we're going to remain speciesist at least until we resolve human exploitation. Treating the ox humanely will have to be sufficient until then. I'm aware how creepily similar that argument is to that of the slave owner. I hope one day we'll find it equally abhorrent.
QuestionPower 2 years ago
"treating the ox humanely"
what a laughable thing to say!
senorfarqueso 2 years ago
It's not compulsory, it's just that value is social, that is, it doesn't actually form an objective part of a use-value, but rather is a product of human social relations. People act like it exists, but not one atom of the use-value goes into it. As such, when 'value' is discussed, we're describing human social relations, and while one can draw normative conclusions from this, 'value' is an economic rather than normative category. As such, the answer can only be, "That's how things are."
allhailtuna 2 years ago
soon our parts will be on the shelf
its not only evil for that but wealth replaces survival of the fittest by
survival of the wealthiest and what compels the weathiest of people but absolute amoral disregard of everything else but money even life
xlightwavex 2 years ago
Thanks, this is great. Your comment about Marxism evolving was good to see, got me going it did!
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago
You're confusing profits with interest.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
you are confusing and argument with a statement.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Again, the exploitation theory of labor stems from a self-evidently wrong premise, namely the labor theory of value. Value is purely subjective, there is no absolute measure of value. A Hummer may cost $30,000 to produce, but try selling it for that much when gas is $30 a gallon. A baseball card may cost $1 to produce, but to a baseball card collector it may be "worth" a lot more. The reason why people are allowed to charge more than the marginal cost is due to time preference, ie interest.
Questfortruth86 2 years ago
Of course there is no absolute measure of value, but the labor theory of value is a model of the source of real value. There is no REAL value in money made through interest, the real value is in the labour time that went into producing the commodity, for example mining the ore, there are miners all over the world earning pennies a day in dreadful conditions. THERE is the value.
Baseballll card collectors and oil price fluctuations are irrelevant to the thrust of the argument surely?
trifelgeputinage 2 years ago
That's all very true, but don't confuse price and use-value with exchange-value.
CajunCommie 2 years ago
Profit is simply receiving something of more value to you than that which you are giving. Both traders in an exchange profit, whether it's goods, money, or labor being traded.
Individualistico 2 years ago
Yes that makes total sense if you think that value is subjective and that property relations and productive relations have no bearing on the production of social value.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Part 2
This very much reflects the process of rationalization inherent in western civilization; something elucidated by Weber. In short individuals are mere components of the whole and are compelled to act in accordance with the dictates and inner logic of the system. That is the quest for efficiency and efficacy, a feature of the iron cage.
1HarveyBirdman 2 years ago
Part 1
Great post Brendan. What i found particularly compelling was your assertion that capitalism is not greedy, immoral and scummy because people are so inclined. But because capitalism makes them so.
1HarveyBirdman 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
1HarveyBirdman 2 years ago
Can we add creativity/thought to the list of things that cost less then the value they eventually produce?
charronfamilyconnect 3 years ago
A worker with capital is much more productive than a capital-less worker. Someone needs to provide the capital -- investors. If you can make 10 potatoes without a shovel and 20 potatoes with a shovel, sure you would pay a shovel-provider (investor) 5 potatoes in order to gain a shovel -- win-win. That's what investors do: They _create_ (sure, some inherit), save and lend capital (e.g. shovels, computers, trucks, robots, calculators, tools); but the monetary system often confuses people.
Jocke1776 3 years ago
Yes capital is necessary for the capitalist labor process. But capital doesn't create value. Only labor can create value. Exploitation is the difference between the value of the product and wages paid to the makers of that product. Capitalist put capital in motion so that it can expand and create more value but they don't create value. Yes money gives these transactions the appearance of free and equal exchange and thus obscures the process of exploitation.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
"capital doesn't create value.". That's just absurd. You're crazy. The more capital (e.g. shovels, computers, trucks, robots, calculators, tools) per worker a country has the more productive it is. It's not labor that has made the west wealthy--it's capital accumulation. But I'm not going to waste my time responding again to this ridiculously obvious fact.
Jocke1776 3 years ago
1. An increase in physical productivity is not the same as an increase in value productivity. That's why prices fall when the production process gets more efficient.
2. Capital is value in motion- value that expands via exploitation in the labor process. To say capital creates value is like saying value creates value. It's tautological.
3. Not being willing to discuss something with someone you disagree with and labeling them as crazy is usually a sign of insecurity.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Labour creates all productive capital. Although productive capital such as a shovel has exchange value in and of itself, cannot create any new exchange value (commodities) without labour.
yeahwotevaman 3 years ago
Jocke1984 makes the common mistake (I'm being kind; it's often intentional propaganda) of taking for granted that the worker must rent the capital she works with from her capitalist overlord. This is a false assumption.
Capital isn't inherently evil -- it's just stuff. The question is, "Who owns (and controls) the stuff?"
A benevolent capitalist (LOL) would help workers to build capital of their own, so they wouldn't have to rent his.
A benevolent state (ROFL) would legislate to that effect.
vktrsx 3 years ago
Capital isn't 'stuff', it's a social relation that comes to stand independent of and over the people engaged in it, and take the form of stuff.
allhailtuna 2 years ago
Jocke1776:
"A worker with capital is much more productive than a capital-less worker"
Uhh.... workers don't have capital, only the wages they're paid to subsist. The only reason the worker engages in a material relationship in which he'll be dependant on the capitalist (investor as you call it) is to be provided the means to labor, and therefore survive. So it's not a win for the laborer, it's just a necessary loss, in order to prevent a bigger loss; of course i mean losing his life....
RedJacobin 3 years ago 2
you forget that every piece of machinery that a capitalist may have bought from someone that exploited in order to create that machinery so on and so on. think of it like this. hypothetically in a society of independent artisans, every person make their own products and all. each person doing something separate. No capital is invested in order to do w.e. they need to do they just sow or w.e. and then sell their produce. the value of their produce is not determined by capital but by their labour.
prjctcivilian 2 years ago
you look like a cool guy to smoke one with
arn0ldaar0n 3 years ago 4
The value of land which is completely created 100% by the community as a whole and not by anything the land/natural resource owner does by labor or capital investment. The private collection of land value via rents and sale prices is a wholly unearned income to land/natural resource owners and is a better explanation of the disparity of wealth than exploitation by capital. Land is not capital. You lump 100% unearned land rent in with earned returns from capital investment and muddy the waters.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Socialism does not solve the problem of greed. It only allows those greedy people to gravitate toward positions of power in the socialist government. Some people are just greedy, and no form of government can change that.
Capitalism takes that greed into account and uses it. A smart business owner will take care of his employees. He will pay them well because he wants good workers. He will take care of them because he wants healthy workers. If not, his business goes under.
bookhound63 3 years ago
Where in any of my videos do I talk about socialism? Have you actually watched this video?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I don't think the problem is greed. If you have a system and a culture that rewards greed instead of integrity and solidarity. Why would people stop being greedy? You seem to assume people are greedy by nature. No behavior is unchangeable, it all depends on the culture.
tristanXIV 3 years ago
zeitgeist boy.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I'm more like trying-to-see-life-from-multiple-views boy.
the irony is that in church I've heard the same apocalyptic discourse of zeitgeist. you know, stuff like the microchipping of people with the number of the beast, the rise of one world government headed by the anti-christ.
tristanXIV 3 years ago
nothing to do with conspiracy documentaries at all. Not even remotely.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I wasn't referring to you as zeitgeist boy. I was referring to tristanXIV as a zeitgeist boy.
---what do you think of zeitgeist?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I think it's almost as retarded as the subjective theory of value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
the value of a commodity is instilled by the perception of an individual(s) Nothing retarded; only fundamental.
--You know the zeitgeist boys are die-hard Marxists.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Re. zeitgeist... granted I haven't watched the addendum but I can assure you that there is nothing in the original film that is remotely marxist in analysis. I would be curious as to your source for this claim. If they do consider themselves Marxists they should start doing some studying in political economy instead of wasting their time on conspiracy documentaries.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The essence of Marxism fully emerges in the addendum. It comes as a surprise given the first one. However, slight glimpses of Marxism can be found in the first one, through its demonization of private profits. The addendum presents the 'Venus Project,' advocating a 'resource-based economy' followed by the abolition of monetary rationing and re-education to eventually de-necessitate a state.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I have since checked out the venus project and read the wikipedia description of the addendum and still see nothing remotely marxist about either or in your above description. So you don't actually have a source that they are marxists? People call Obama a marxist. That doesn't make him one. There is a lot of misinformation out there about marxism. Perhaps you don't know nearly enough about marxism as you may think you do. Have you read anything written by Marx?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I don't know much about Marxism. But I understand elements of the ideology---abolition of the monetary system---government granting ownership of means of production to the working class---utilization of scientific method in central planning-allocation of resources---and eventual removal of state. Explain which elements of my description don't match with actual Marxism.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
All of them. Karl Marx wrote very little if anything about what would replace capitalism. His entire life's work was devoted to unraveling the mysteries of capitalism, developing a critique of bourgeois political economy and history. Marxists use his theoretical framework to further deepen this analysis as capitalism continues to evolve. Some of them also develop theories of post-capitalist societies based on this analytical framework. Their ideas are very diverse and still evolving.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Lol in Addendum, it claims that the United States is a socialist country XD
seigneurvoland666 2 years ago 4
It would be interesting or should I say amusing to hear your interpretation of the STV. However, before you start thinking about that and I mean really START THINKING instead broadcasting your Marxist claptrap, here's a question for you:
What came first; profit or wages?
kurt44mg42 2 years ago
they say that there's not enough money to create promote equality. right?
well, during the Cold War the USA and USSR spent 11 trillion dollars or more in weapons and wars. Enough money to rebuild the whole planet, you know new roads, hospitals, schools, child-care centers.
I do not understand why people like you just agree with this fucking people. This is NOT the best of all possible worlds, you've been told that it is, but it is not.
tristanXIV 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You are right, labor does create profit, but the business has to make money or it can't pay LABORERS, the people who drive the economy. If the government takes the profit, how does the business give raises, offer less expensive health care, hire more people, buy new equipment?
What are you trying to say? That we should all sit around and do nothing and let the government take care of us? Did you just graduate? Are you regurgitating? Been there done that, the government took my T-shirt.
bookhound63 3 years ago
What am I trying to say? This video is part of a series of videos in which I try to explain the way in which value is created in a capitalist society and all of the ramifications of value. If you are interested in knowing more about these arguments it would be good for you to refrain from trying to put words into my mouth or trying to equate my arguments with some sort of simplistic stereotype like the latter half of your comment suggests. I am always open to reasoned discussion.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Here is what I am trying to say: I didn't go to college until I was a 30 year old mother of two. Before I majored in psychology, with a minor in sociology, I majored in real life and motherhood. When I heard my first sociology prof. touting the wonders of socialism I objected. He and I had many friendly arguments on the front steps of the Psych building at FSU.
There were many times in my Psych and Soc classes when I had to bite my tongue. Life taught me the truth, before I went to college.
bookhound63 3 years ago
And what is this truth that you are referring to and what does it have to do with the topic of this video? Thus far you have only made some reference to progressive taxation and social welfare- topics this video has nothing to do with.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ok. You believe Capitalism is evil. I don't. The only BIG industry in America that I see as having exploited it's workers in our society is the professional sports industry. These owners truly produce nothing and exploit the abilities of their employees. (Although the players make more in a year than any of us will see in a lifetime). The small business owner is what drives America. We are not all greedy just because we are capitalists. My husband is a small business owner. (cont...)
bookhound63 3 years ago
Nowhere have I said that capitalism is "evil". I think you are trying to argue with a strawman instead of actually watching my video and dealing with the argument as I present it.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
He works just as hard as his men. He pays them a good wage. And we are no where near rich. We might have money one day, but when we do we will still be the same. My husband's dream is that his building business will one day make enough money that we can donate our time and money to build houses for Habitat for Humanity. Capitalism doesn't just breed greed, it also breeds philanthropy.
bookhound63 3 years ago
If you agree that labor creates value, then profit must come from a difference between the wages paid to workers and the value of the products they create. That's what the theory of exploitation says. Are you proposing an alternative explanation of profit? Or are you immediately jumping to a moral argument about the subjective character of specific business owners. I am not making any arguments about specific people being good or bad people.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
So you are telling me that mothers in the USA have an easier time than mothers in Norway or Sweden? really?
At least you go to go to college, while over half of the planet lives on 1 or 2 dollars a day.
Capitalism is so wonderful, you can buy a lot of cheap shit made front the exploitation of other human beings who were born under a different set of circumstances than most of us.
tristanXIV 3 years ago
ok thx, good answer.
So when others say that the market is flooded with a particular commodity (eg.too many cell phones etc), that commodity then devalues, it's use value (subjectively) remains about the same, however it's exchange value (objective) is devalued?
Q: It cannot be exchanged at the same rate it was previously exchanged for?
Guevaristas 3 years ago
Mostly. The increasing efficiency of the labor process drives down the price of commodities by reducing the amount of labor that goes into them. Meanwhile, the use value stays the same- as you mentioned.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
great vid. ok Labour creates "value", i have difficulty with this general rule(?).
Surely labour produces an object (a commodity), then others, attribute to that object a metaphysical "value"? Thus, these others create the value.
But labour, from a very literal perspective, does not actually create value.
Guevaristas 3 years ago
Yes, labor literally creates commodities, thus giving them their value. If something requires no labor to make (sunlight) it is free. It is necessary to distinguish between use-value and exchange-value. A commodity has subjective value to us depending on how much use it has for us. It's exchange value is objective- it costs the same to everyone, regardless of their subjective preferences for the commodity. The marxist argument is that labor is the basis of exchange value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Could it be argued that capitalists buy labor-power from wage-workers but labor (no power) when they buy slaves from somewhere? And what exactly defines "labor-power"?
topicalone 3 years ago
after an exchange with HebaruSan on my What is CApital video I think that in the case of both slaves and wage workers it's labor power that is being purchased. Labor power is the capacity to do work. The amount of labor that you get out of the worker is still undetermined. that is why labor is the ultimate source of profit- it's the only variable element in the equation.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
another impressive video, im deffinately amazed by the simplicity of some of your explanations, ill pass your channel around. =)
nauselom 3 years ago
I would say that value is subjective and that individual wants would be the nucleus of your economic atom. Electrons, then, we might say are money, a medium of exchange. What you might call exploitation then, I might call exchange, but we could both agree that what is created is either a bond or instability.
ericrolofson 3 years ago
well this is a basic difference between marxist and bourgeois theories of value. I think that were value to be completely related to use value then we would have no common basis for exchange at all. use-value is quite helpful in explaining money prices via supply and demand. but it is not so useful when explaining the exchange ratios between commodities or the social relations between people. For these we need objective categories related to labor. I do not think exploitation comes from exchange
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
were you baked?
sylvain11 4 years ago 2
how could you tell?
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
Can you explain the Solow equation?
thetubeinsideyou 4 years ago
I fear my background in bourgeois economics is not that sophisticated. Tell me your understanding of Solow's work. As far as I understand it is a question about what causes economic growth- how labor productivity rises with technical change. The question of productivity and the composition of capital is a big topic in marxist theory and i hope to make some videos about it soon. But I don't know enough about translating it into the language of neo-classical economy.
brendanmcooney 4 years ago
Do you know what Common Wealth is?
geniusloch 4 years ago