The Political Economy of Superman

[thegreattravo]

^_^ Superman is an ILLEGAL ALIEN! Stealing our newspaper jobs... scarce as they are! Conquering our women... indomitable as they are! Superman is an ILLEGAL ALIEN! ...Speaking our language, but using our sun for his own gain! Fighting for our safety, but invading our privacy! Superman is an ILLEGAL ALIEN! How is it trouble always finds you? How do your exploits impact our foreign policy? What are you connections to local firms that rebuild that which you destroy?

[Ryukikon]

There are some good general points which I have been talking about for years now, which I dubb supermanism. I am put of at the Freudian Economics that you present in this video. Very good video, I think you are in the ball park but not in the game on the ideas.

[1KMPLX]

When we buy a widget, we're not buying the labor. We're buying the widget and all the subjective value WE put into that widget. End of story. The "big evil corporation" is at the beck and call of the true master, the consumer. It's the ultimate form of democracy. Central planning by some all wise government overlord can't account for that. That is the main reason communism can't help but fail. Pol Pot tried to run a cashless society. Look how well it worked out for him.

[bapyou]

@1KMPLX "When we buy a widget, we're not buying the labor. We're buying the widget & all the subjective value WE put into that widget."

When buying a widget, you're paying its exchange value; you aren't investing anything in the widget. A car part composed of rubber, steel & copper is raw materials, until labor gives them value by transformation.

And corporations are not at the "beck & call" of the consumer. Corporations are production process monopolies which most of us are bound to patronize.

[1KMPLX]

CajunCommie: Also, it's historical fact that the USSR actually had to send spies here to America to find out what they should charge for goods internally. That is a systemic admission of failure. Without capitalism to leach off of (even on the most basic level) communism fails. It has no REAL way of understanding the price structure. Things are worth whatever people are willing to spend on them and sell them for. That's it. Subjective pricing.

[1KMPLX]

CajunCommie: you're the Satist not me. I'm on the complete other end of the spectrum.

[1KMPLX]

the thing that gives value to something is not the cost of labor. Human labor is not what gives something value. Put another way, value is purely subjective. there is no objective value for objects or labor. It is purely what each individual involved in the transaction chooses it to be. Marx never understood that and that's why socialism (of every sort - including fascism) and communism fail.

[CajunCommie]

@1KMPLX were you grown in some kind of government troll vat

[xasia1000]

to the commentor- do you belive the things you say? I could understand if you do it as an experiment or exercice.

[mrnugget1234]

Alright guys just found the greatest thing to do. First get really high. Second put some tech-no music on and watch as superman destroys ROBOTS!!!

[bmaghi]

Great stuff. Marx pointed out in the Grundrissa that the ultimate contradiction in advanced capitalism is the expulsion of living labor from the production process itself through machinery and automation. This expulsion decouples the link between the production of wealth and the production of value.  Machines can produce wealth and exch. value but not value. As your film shows the only way out is to destroy wealth to reanimate value production. Better still, revolution and the end of work.

[adnauseam81]

Excellent stuff, I have those kind of thoughts as an internal monologue when I'm watching TV as well! Subscribed!

[conquesimo]

After the 5-minute marker, I couldn't stomach just how many fallacies the creator was trying to put forth as fact.

"The one thing that robots can't do is create value." If a human worker can legitimately create value and is replaced by a machine that can do the exact same work, why are you saying that the output of the machine is suddenly without value?

"Once we eliminate labor from a task, the task ceases to have economic value." An automated assembly creates valuable items, doesn't it?

[brendanmcooney]

Good question. The distinction here is between use-value and exchange value. Prices fall with automation. This is empirically observable.

[conquesimo]

So, if I understand what you're saying, does that mean that nobody can trade for a machine? Can I not trade something valuable for an electric razor? Can I not give something to receive an automobile? Is it impossible for Honda to buy GM's manufacturing plants?

Value is value. Your apparent distinction between use-value and exchange-value seems to be conditional upon the buyer's intention. What does it matter what the buyer intends to do with the item? Seems entirely inconsequential to me.

[brendanmcooney]

You don't understand. Exchange value has nothing to do w/ the buyer's subjective valuation. I may find a tooth brush very useful but it has a low exchange value.

The price of a commodity is formed by the price of inputs plus the value added by labor. As labor is removed from the production process that value shrinks. Price comes to just represent the cost of inputs. If labor is also being removed from production of inputs price falls further. This is empirically observable.

[conquesimo]

I didn't address that point previously because it is mostly true. Yes, technology makes things easier to afford. Instead of weighing the cost of materials plus the cost of labor, however, I would argue that what people choose to pay is what sets a price of a commodity.

Either way, that has no bearing whatsoever on my original questions. Please answer them.

[brendanmcooney]

But it has total bearing on your question. When a machine replaces a task it looses exchange value. Take the tasks that computers do: calculating and duplicating information. People used to have to duplicate books by writing them out by hand or setting type and printing them. That took a lot of labor and set a high price. No labor is required for these tasks anymore. They are free. Computers cost money but that is b/c labor goes into the making of computers and computer parts.

[conquesimo]

So... the labor that used to go into solving mathematical problems has been freed up -- it has been reallocated to building computers and other things of economic value, right? Why is this bad?

[brendanmcooney]

Who said it was bad?

[conquesimo]

Weren't you trying to show how capitalism ends up exploiting workers?

[brendanmcooney]

It does. But I wasn't bringing up falling prices with rising productivity as some sort of "proof" or even explanation of exploitation. If I remember the text of this video correctly exploitation doesn't play much of a role in this video at all except in the way it is expressed in the conflict between man and machine.

[conquesimo]

I see. Well, I take issue with this last comment, too, but I've kind of lost the desire to go back and forth here. Thanks for the quick and polite convo though :-)

[TheNomadicMonad]

Oh god,this is what I call over-analysing. Do you seriously believe that the artists brain actually subconsciously created all those symbolical connections while he was inventing the plot? More likely it was something like "who will superman fight this time" "how about an evil genius" "cool idea mate, lets give him some spooky cronies and a classical lair". Sure, many of those concepts have an ideological background, but like a conspiracy loon you're connecting dots that have no causal relation.

[brendanmcooney]

Of course not. I am using the cartoon to explain some concepts in economics. I don't think there is any conscious attempt to convey these ideas. You have misunderstood my intentions.

[TheNomadicMonad]

Oh ok, I'm sorry in that case :)

[DonJack1776]

Would you say that John Connor is a Super Luddite as well? "The Political Economy Of Terminator" perhaps?

[PMishkin]

Again, a very cogent video. Wondering your take on mass entertainment as a diversionary tactic to deflect criticism away from the state and alienation of the work week.

[tiredkid]

i loved the vid but i didnt get the whole cauldron?vagina thing or louis representing the motherland can you elaborate?

[cccmarkgreene]

You are seeing way too much into Superman. Its like a rorshach test. you can see what you want to see.

[brendanmcooney]

I am seeing the things we don't know we know.

You should watch "the pervert's guide to cinema". That'll really fuck you up.

[really12345]

You should read Marx's explanation of the fetishism of commodities in Captial.

[ArchonAlarion]

you should read a book about economics

[brendanmcooney]

I read a lot of books about economics. Any particular book you had in mind?

[ArchonAlarion]

how bout The Machinary of Freedom?

Lemme aska ya this. Do ya like it when people hold a gun to your head and demand things from you? Do you think actions like this are oppressive or "A-OK"?

[brendanmcooney]

Ah brilliant. "free market"=freedom. critique of capitalism=putting guns to people's heads. simplistic, rhetorically catchy, and totally devoid of any actual familiarity with marxist theory. Before you launch in to an Hayekian rant against something it might be useful to actually learn something about the topic.

[ArchonAlarion]

Ah okay. So communism has succeeded both theoretically and empirically.

That's right, I forgot. Oopsie.

Oh and yeah Freedom means freedom, so if thats "rhetorically catchy" then whatever ya say.

Value is subjective. Communism loses. again.

[brendanmcooney]

There is nothing in any of my videos about communism. I think it is important to separate political projects from developing an understanding of capitalism.

In terms of value theory, there is no better demonstration of the law of value than a capitalist crisis- like the one we are faced with now after 30 years of free-market ideology and deregulation. Value theory is separate from communist theory. I would love to discuss value at any time. Feel free to watch some of my videos on the topic.

[ArchonAlarion]

Capitalism is a package deal term, so it is confusing to use.

In your video it seems you use it as a curse word like," Stop bein a capitalist, Mary" or, "Yo, don't get that capitalist all over me."

And also it is absolutely ridiculous to say that we are living in a freemarket or in relative deregulation. Its just so false, I can't believe anyone can confuse Fascist-mercantilism with a voluntary cooperation and trade. Like, do you really think this is a freemarket? Seriously?

[brendanmcooney]

So obviously we have different definitions of capitalism. When this happens, the constructive thing to do is to weigh the relative merits of the two definitions and to see what they can explain about the world that other definitions can't. I think that the definitions of capitalism, markets and value that I use in my videos explain the world quite accurately and powerfully in ways that other theoretical perspectives fail. It's not to say that other definitions might not also explain other things

[brendanmcooney]

It seems to me that the definition of capitalism that most libertarians use is of a society where there is no interference at all in the market. I think this is an un-useful definition in many ways. If we've never had, and arguably never will have, such a society how can we test the merits of the claims that it would be a desirable society?

In contrast marx's definition of capitalism is one of specific social relations within a system of general commodity exchange, private ownership...

[brendanmcooney]

of means of production, and wage labor. From these starting points we derive all the basic descriptions of how capitalism works- the inner mechanism of the system. Only later in the analysis are the state and other market-regulating mechanisms brought into the picture. In other words, we don't need market interference to discuss crisis and exploitation. But as the model expands and becomes more complex we start to see how different systems of regulation come about-ie. all sorts of state forms.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well I don't agree with the LTV, altruism, historical materialism, or Marx's view on the nature of private property.

I'm a voluntarist (anarchist) so I'm against violence, coercion, and fraud. I also see private property as solving far far more problems than it creates.

[ArchonAlarion]

However, if you'd like to go buy up some land, or homestead unowned land and try out a voluntary worker's collective, than be my guess. I'm not against this in an absolute way at all (although preference wise, its not for me). The problem is when you tell me and others to give up our possesions(for whatever reason) to others.

Marxism is full of holes. For instance, a natural monopoly is extremely temporary because as soon as demand rises above supply then oppurtunity arises for competitors.

[brendanmcooney]

Again, you demonstate a basic lack of knowledge of some of the fundamental aspects of the marxist critique of capitalism. Marx's analysis of capital is not based on a theory of monopoly. It is based on a model of free and voluntary exchange and perfect competition in which supply and demand are in balance. Monopoly enters the analysis of at different stage after the concepts of exploitation and crisis have been developed.

[brendanmcooney]

When you assert that altruism has some place in Marxist analysis you demonstrate that you understand very little at all about MArxist theory at all except what you have read in various libterarian accounts. There is no basis for asserting that altruism has any place within marxist theory.

furthermore, merely asserting your beleifs is far different from being able to defend them. Being against coersion is different than being able to prove that markets aren't coercive or backed by violence.

[brendanmcooney]

Lastly, nowhere in any of my videos do I advocate any political positions about seizing property from people. My videos are strictly about an analysis of the way capitalism operates. If you want to debate something you have to debate about those arguments. You can't just slap straw-man political positions on to me because you aren't capable of addressing economic arguments.

[ArchonAlarion]

"a model of free and voluntary exchange and perfect competition in which supply and demand are in balance"

a market that has no elements of aggression is what I advocate. That is NOT what ANY communist has EVER advocated. Marx was against private property and so are communists. Private property is a system designed to distribute and divide matter based on possession. Views on legitimate possession can range from very conservative (socialistic) or very liberal (anarcho-capitalism)

[ArchonAlarion]

Private property is one answer on how to allocate possessions most fairly. I believe other ways are going to be far less fair. Maybe markets NOW have lots of coercive elements but thats because we have a fascist-mercantilist state.

its difficult to explain economic theory in any detail via comments.

and what is the economic argument? I haven't seen any actual arguments

[brendanmcooney]

Again, you completely misunderstand. I didn't say Marx advocated a particular market- he analyized markets in their abstract forms, apart from disequillibriums, states, etc. Through this analysis he developed the ideas of exploitation and crisis which describe the motion of capitalism in history. This is not a political argument about what "should be" or what anyone "advocates". It's a descriptive argument!

these "actual arguments" are in my 30 or so videos on these topics.

[ArchonAlarion]

fine.

BUT I do understand Marx's descriptions of history and I disagree. Marx advocated the LTV, so do his followers, and I absolutely disagree with it. the value of something is not intrinsic and "necessary labor" is arbitrary and like all values subjective. Marx did see free markets as leading to monopolies, which I understand to be false.

A voluntary exchange is positive sum because both parties profit (or at least believe they do) otherwise they would not partake in it.

[ArchonAlarion]

I'll watch some of your videos, but if I already understand and disagree with fundamental tenants of marxism...

[ArchonAlarion]

also, I do like how at least you seem to be focused on actual economic theory rather than morality and rhetoric. Although I disagree with you at least it might make exchanges between us easier.

[yadsik]

Could you explain how such an exchange takes place?

[catgumart]

As I read this I wonder what you would think of the Beingist Folks' arguments for alternatives to capitalism, Beingism is another youtube channel that I like a lot, where they confront myths about socialism and put fourth arguments against Libertarianism, and they do it very cogently and in a well articulated organized format I'd like to see what you sir, would think about what they have to say..

[topicalone]

Who the hell is "Z-Zeck"?

[brendanmcooney]

Slavoj Zizek- slovenian, lacanian, marxist, cultural critic, intellectual extraordinaire. He likes to psycho-analyze film. Check out his movie "A pervert's guide to cinema".  It's on youtube.

[LordImmolation]

Ah, I've not yet checked into him. Although some anthropology student I met at marxism in london couldn't recommend him highly enough.

[luka55555]

You should look out that they dont delete your video.:

[brendanmcooney]

this cartoon is in the public domain (i think).

[nickglais]

It is public domain like a lot of 1940's cartoons - I have a copy of this Superman Cartoon from Internet Archive and think your creative use of it is fine - but my favourite is still Matrix and the Machines.

[gbg112]

if it comes from

1950's - it is 90% public domain

1960's + it is 90% not public {thats with dos games}

but should applie with cartoons