its not immediately clear to me that a worker-owned cooperative necessarily implies escape from exploitation when enmeshed in capitalist society. intuitively it seems they might even be involved in larger exploitation depending on how societys surplus value is distributed in competitive exchange
@mistersix420 That may be true; however, as an anarchist, my primary question is how to fight exploitation? By strengthening the power of the state (which capitalists will always find ways to subvert), or by turning the notion of "bourgeois freedom" into something positive and actually enlightening more people about genuine bottom-up cooperation and fair exchange?
We don't have to consume according to prices alone. We are free to examine the labor structure behind capitalism and do what's fair.
It's interesting to see how many people involved in identity politics know nothing about class struggle and the bigger picture. I notice this mostly in bourgeois Gay and Lesbian groups and "greens" (I am a devoted environmentalist, don't get me wrong). I find something profoundly annoying when people say me, me, me, and we want this or we want that without seeing there collective place in the overall architecture and the root of the coercion and exploitation that they and others suffer.
Yay, well done Brendan. Glad you included the part about the unions. I know a few people here in Pennsylvania that are in the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). I try to explain that trade unions are there to keep workers in line more or less even though they do help in some ways. But it's impossible to get through to them.
Excellent video, I’ve been thinking about capitalism and free markets for a while now; about how they are both self perpetuating systems that need no propaganda or media control to engrain themselves in society
Eh, co-operatives still employ wage labour, and indeed an economy of co-ops as they are would still be subject to the laws of motion of capitalism, the profit motive, falling rate of profit and so on.
Either "Yes" or "No" might have been a correct answer. But instead, you've attempted to evade the question -- even though the question was originally yours. So let's try it again.
Do worker-owners of the Mondragon Cooperatives receive wages or not?
Actually the question was originally mine, not allhailtuna's. The answer is yes.
I have the suspicion that 98Camels is actually David Kendal in disguise (again). If that is the case I will continue to refrain from dialogue with him b/c we've seen how pointlessly out-of-control that has gotten in the past.
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response, Brendan.
With a "yes" answer, you suggest that worker-owners of the Mondragon Cooperatives do indeed receive wages. Now, please explain why you believe this is true.
lat communique ever to DK: b/c they receive money in return for their socially necessary labor time. It's not the private ownership that makes it capital. It's the C-M-C.
In a self-managed worker cooperative, the income of a worker-owner is comprised of the amount of money that is socially necessary to reproduce his labor-power PLUS a share in surplus value.
More importantly, the statement in your video is incorrect; i.e., "We are not free to choose our way out of wage-labor". Worker Cooperatives like the Mondragon are solid evidence that we can.
"The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted" ~ Michael Parenti
Michael Parenti on "pure socialists"/ Anarchists continued:
"Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed."
"We cant... not sell our labor to a capitalist"... "We are not free to challenge the basic form of markets and private property that lay behind this world of bourgeois freedom"... "We are not free to choose our way out of... wage-labor."
United Steelworkers in the US and Canada are collaborating with the Mondragon Cooperatives of Spain to "choose" their way out of wage labor, right now. Sorry if real-world events disrupt your abstract theory, Brendan, but I'm afraid you're mistaken.
Worker-owners of the Mondragon have no employers, and their productive surplus is democratically distributed amongst the worker-owners, one person one vote.
So you tell me, do those workers receive "wages" or not?
"As long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, then there are striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of democracy very limited, if even meaningful", (Noam Chomsky, Wikipedia: Wage Slavery).
Great quote. I hope you are not implying that this video is a critique of Chomsky. It isn't. I have a disclaimer to that effect on the video description.
wait a minute. Is this David Kendal again? Man, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas. Get a grip dude. Get a serious grip. You really need to learn how to relax and take some perspective when people disagree with you. I don't usually get personal with people online, but... dude... relax.
I agree, the success of the movements listed at the end of the video have been universally been limited by the pervasiveness of capitalist games. For instance, as a result of the civil rights movement, the black area of my city is no longer called "niggertown," as it was fifty years ago. But it is entirely unchanged in nearly every other way: poor, drug ridden and full of crime. So if any real progress is to be made, capitalism must be first seen for what it is by the masses. That will be tough.
Thanks for your video, it's much clearerer now. I think though there is a big difference between Unions in the US and the ones in Europe, or at least there was. In the Us they are much weaker and pro government. In Europe they still manage to get a lot of people out during strikes. But, since they were tied to Leftist parties, they have lost much of their power and authority lately over workers just like the Left has.
excellent point on unions contributing towards our system of capital exploitation over labor, instead of the common misperception that unions are in someway liberating for the worker.
I gave you a thumbs down, but I was aiming for a thumbs up!
It's a good point that the big unions of today in most countries, which are both strictly hierachial and bureaucratic will neither threaten capitalism in a serious manner nor function as a mean of class struggle.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
FAIL. It seems that Socialists are building their ideology upon the false premise that workers have no choice other than selling their labour. To them, they are either forced to work in exchange of a wage, or starve to death, to the Socialists, the worker doesn't have the capacity of selling their labour power voluntarily, therefore, they say the consent is involuntary. The reality is a shade of grey and it rest upon each individual worker, which it seems are leaned more to the voluntary side.
It seems you have trained yourself to think collectively. But an individual person does have the option to not sell his labor power for a wage and does have the option to not consume. Humans did this for millions of years and there are still areas on this planet where that kind of lifestyle still apply, the skimos just to give one of many examples. if invididuals wanted to chose a similar lifestyle individually they could achieve collectively what you describe as impossible. but they don't want
Yes I did but being self-employed is not the only way out the circuit of capital and also this concept is an oxymoron within the socialist context as you're not paying yourself a wage, exploiting yourself and sustaining an antagonistic relationship with yourself all at the same time. If you admit that Wage Labor is in most cases superior than being Self employed, then why not save a step and just admit the superiority of capitalism altogether. If people want other forms, then let them form them.
I have not claimed that self employed people exploit themselves. That would be ridiculous. Creating surplus value is only exploitative if someone is appropriating that surplus. I think self-employment is much more desirable than wage labor if one is able to truly escape the circuit of capital and still provide for one's self.
What are these other modes of living that don't involve wage-labor?
So they don't exploit themselves and the point is moot therefore by your own admission individuals do have the option of escaping their wage for labour relationship, that's one, and the second, is the possibility and probability, that even in their full "class consciousness" awareness, to voluntarily agree to what you call their exploitation, by virtue of being a superior lifestyle than joining the friendly skimo clan and live off fishing and skinning animals or throwing yourself to the street
tetraedronico - First off you are pulling parts of Brendan's argument either out of context or out of thin air; at least try and use what he acually says against him. Secondly, your logic is both restricted and biased to your own immediete environment, capitalistic and oportunistic in nature and therefor limited in understanding. Straw man arguments about Skimo Clans are not valid. Try making an argument based observation and study instead of becoming blinded by subservience to your environment.
Again, I refer you to footnote #1 which discusses how difficult it is for the self-employed to actually escape the circuit of capital.
I next refer you to my above comment that stated self-employment is more desirable than wage labor only if one can fully escape the circuit of capital. Please don't make me repeat myself again.
I read your footnote 1 two times but frankly it seems very unconvincing the idea that the worker cannot escape the circuits of capital and that therefore the consent to the system is forced down their throats. 6% of the population (from 300 to 350 million people) are still living in the same survivalist lifestyle that the homo sappiens evolved with, one must ask an indigenous person why do they choose survivalism over wage labor in order to really appreciate the soundness of manufactured consent
That's the alternative you speak of? Moving to the jungle of another continent and joining a primitive hunter-gatherer society? I can't take that as a serious argument.
Why not? what criteria did you use to arrive at the conclusion that wage labor is better than survivalism?
You're passing your own personal judgement about what kind of lifestyle is better than the others and then saying that workers don't have the option to not be consumers and not sell their labor.
If Socialism is based on the premise that choosing an "inferior" lifestyle is not really an option at all, then the argument of Manufactured Consent is by necessity selfrighteously true.
@tetraedronico Haha right, we do have a choice outside of participating in the capitalist system, lets just become hunter gatherers!
This argument defeats itself. You try to give an example of people successfully living outside of capitalism, and you end up pointing to people who had to sacrifice basic luxuries and live as survivalists instead. This is not a viable alternative. Just surviving is not freedom, whether it be by receiving a wage, or worse, living in the wild as a hunter gatherer.
I we one day wake-up in a socialist utopia, the opposition will claim that the socialist utopia is manufacturing its own consent too, rendering the whole idea of manufactured consent... meaningless.
The point is clear. The wage for labour lifestyle, just because it's superior over their alternatives (i.e. most cases of being self employed, survivalist, living in communes and cooperatives) doesn't mean it's compulsory, that they "don't have other choices", they do and that's the point.
Any social order requires consent. But not all social orders create this consent in the same way. This video is about a specific type of consent generated by capitalism.
I don't agree that wage labor is superior over all other alternatives, but that's not the point of this video and so I won't enter into a hypothetical argument about this here. But, again, what are these alternatives to wage labor that you speak of?
This choice you speak of doesn't actually exist for MOST of our society because they never learn how to think critically.
I don't think you can have the discussion you are trying to have unless you discuss the indoctrination system that some people call our education system.
Choice implies the ability to make good decisions, which requires being able to think well.
So far though, I haven't seen any Socialist making any good suggestion whatsoever about what can people do today to help change the world for the better, other than the usual joining a political party. which for anarchists is seen as part of the problem and to the people who believe that governments are good they see this as a regression.. I've seen socialists political parties running on 300 votes for almost a century... I would like to hear if you have any better suggestion.
I think that we can't change the world until we understand it. Thus I focus my efforts on studying capitalism. This video, for instance, paints a rather pessimistic view of the way capitalism creates its own ideology. It is meant to be a challenge to those who want to change the world to think good and hard about how hard it is to penetrate bourgeois ideology.
that's a rather narrow point of view.. you don't fight something by joining it. this is what the socialists want to do, in their heads they believe they can infiltrate the government and turn it against their constituent and groups interests, very similar to what Ron Paul wants to do. There's no evidence that that sort of thing can be achieved, it's just a romantic notion. the lawyer and the teacher are just gatekeepers of the state. I want to abolish not reform it.
my focus is on education, which I believe to be the ONLY solution.
Sure, there could be a revolution...but then what? You would still have a population hopelessly ignorant of history and politics- and all you would get from a revolution would be a dictatorship, which would be WORSE.
I believe thinking we can overthrow this govt, yet not fall into a worse trap, with our idiotic citizenry is a bit naive.
I think the more knowledge and information people have the better we all are as a whole..this can be music ,art,history,anything, it all connects and brings awareness...I'm glad Brendan does these great videos they are very informative and helpful...
well I agree with education alright. but not the sort that requires giving Ron Paul or Ralph Nader money to educate the masses, or the one that requires you to be a public school teacher talking about the virtues of socialism or libertarianism while he or she herself are participating the greatest machinery of violence and coercion ever set a foot on this planet, people are judged by their actions not their words.
What? I don't understand- Nader and Paul support and condone violence? I don't understand. Both of those men have been INCREDIBLY consistent speaking out against our foreign policy.
Actions- Nader has taken on big business for working and middle class Americans for over 40 years. The man's actions are commendable, and deserve the utmost respect from all Americans.
Ron Paul I don't know as well- I didn't vote for him.
I will vote for Nader again in 2012. He backs up his words with actions.
That old fart Nader has been trying for 40 years to be president, he must be doing something terribly wrong to only achieve failure after failure. Oh yeah! perhaps because he wants to crack down the relationship between the government and big corporations...not saying he's evil, but naive. People like him or Paul, only give romantic people the illusion that the govn't really is to serve the people, don't let anyone fool you, the government is only to serve itself.
yeah, Nader is doing something wrong- it's called not selling out. All the more reason to continue to support him.
Who are you voting for? You are probably staying home. I empathize- but I feel it is important to vote- even if the vote has no chance of being meaningful.
Nader isn't naive- he fully understands what he is up against; his analysis of our political system is as astute as anyone else's.
You are degrading him because he hasn't been successful. He is one dude- give him a break.
Yeah I totally agree that we need more people good at CRITICAL THINKING... but running an entire education system on TAXATION (which is nothing more than COERCION and VIOLENCE) will actually impair the students ability to think critically, because the teachers being servants of the state will teach the students one thing while they do the total opposite.
The same can be said if the education system is funded by the private sector- that students would be indoctrinated into a corporate world view.
Right now, we have the best of both worlds- a publicly funded system that acts on behalf of the private sector- mostly by keeping people from thinking critically.
Keeping people ignorant can serve either big government or private sector desires. We must remain vigilant of BOTH.
Private schooling is funded voluntarily by the free market, if you don't like what your children is learning then the parent has the option to either homeschool the child or put it into another private school more akin to the parent's values. that's not true with public school where you're coerced into paying your taxes to support the public education system, that judged by its fruits, it totally sucks.
really? parents have the option to home school or put in another private school?
What world do you live in? Most Americans are now two income homes- no home schooling- and most Americans are deeply in debt- no paying for private school.
Sure, your answers are fine for rich people- but I am concerned with the overall health of society and believe everyone needs to be relatively educated if we are to be a good one- as did Thomas Jefferson, to name a fellow educationalist.
people wouldn't be so poor if the government wouldn't be coercing almost 50% of their entire income through mandatory coerced taxation in the first place. People are forced to pay their taxes, otherwise goons with blue costumes will show in their front doors with sticks in hand.
people wouldn't be so poor if they got value for their taxes. In parts of Europe, taxation is very high, but personal debt is not. Health care, college- all paid for.
Govt is evil- we all agree- but it is also necessary- and we might as well strive to have one that works FOR us rather than as oppressors. I think the foundation of that society HAS to start with a good education system- and countries like Finland and japan prove my point- I think.
The Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders have not stopped the machinery of government growth, that kind of politic philosophy has only actually achieved the opposite, instead of making the government small and better, it has grown bigger and worse, despite all the activism and all the millions of dollars in campaign money, not even they have educated the people as they claim. The Libertarians and the Socialists have tried for a hundred years to infiltrate the government and wield it against their interest
Your claim is baseless- the Ron Pauls and Naders have never BEEN in power- so your assertion that they grow govt and make it worse is based on what exactly?
Yes, those two people have not managed to overthrow our corrupt system and educate everyone about the truth- they cannot compete with nbc and fox.
However, they ARE trying and they ARE part of the solution- so instead of knocking them, why not HELP???
Ron Paul will never be part of any solution to the problems of capital as he is a total proponent of the unleashing of the forces of capital. A country run on Ron Paul politics would be a scary, reactionary place to live.
Political Libertarianism has help the government grow precisely because of his long history of failures. Ron Paul has been in office for a long time. It's a failure because it never accomplishes the objectives they claim they will. They say for example that they will privatize the Post Office and the Department of Education, etc, that's why they never will be in power. You simply cannot infiltrate a MAFIA and turn it against it's own interests. Take Care
Ron Paul is one human being in a congress of over 500. It would be one thing if at one point libertarians had actually been in charge- THEN you could say they had failed.
As of now, you are calling them failures when, as far as I can tell, they have never had the opportunity to either fail or succeed.
They been having many decades and millions of dollars to educate the people in order to vote for their candidates and Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, the most charismatic of all Libertarians or Independents, fail spectacularly. If Paul or Nader claim to have the power to turn the Government away from EVIL, perhaps they can prove it by joining a local mafia and turn it into a charity or the Minute-man and turn it into an immigration loving organization, something smaller, not 40 million people organiza
decades and millions of dollars educating people to vote for nader and Paul?
That does not make sense. Period.
Nader was censored from the presidential debates. Had he been allowed on the debates in 2000, 2004, or 2008- he would have MOPPED THE FLOOR with the demublicans, and received 20-30% of the vote.
It's called "ross perot syndrome"- and now, nobody else is ever allowed on the debate anymore.
he received 0.5% of the votes.... and he's been running for president since 1972.. almost 40 years. almost his entire life dedicated to failure after failure... now he want to run for senate. I wonder what's wrong with them, trying to infiltrate the government and turn it against their own members, it must be total HELL, if I was religious I would consider them great MARTYRS, there's no way they can deal with that leviathan called government. it's just too big for anyone to handle.
Waste of time is to spend 40 years of your precious life hoping that joining the mafia-like organization called Gvn't and trying to wield it against it's own interest will one day work... Waste of time is to support people like this... The question is WHY DO YOU SUPPORT the government VIOLENCE against ME? I just want to be left alone yet I'm still being coerced to pay taxes, I believe that if you think the government is necessary that you pay and I don't.
"Consent to the rules" There are a lot of ways that people implicitly or covertly or get a person to consent to rules presented ambiguously that they wouldn't if they understood the consequences, this frustrates me because I don't want to be pressured into doing something I don't believe in or that I find unethical. Ive never known how to word that before (consent to rules),
For me, It is hard to know where to begin as an individual how to get out of the muck that i have been indoctrinated to, and surrounded by from an early age. People can be very hostile to those who are different or who visibly are not in compliance with the status-quo. There is a strong coercive force throughout society that reinforces the walls of conformity. If one is outside those bounds they are easily recognized and can be prey to those various negative societal forces.
You bring up a really important point- that society tends to resent people who try to live outside of it, and those people are constantly demeaned and marginalized.
Your sentence "There is a strong coercive force throughout society that reinforces the walls of conformity" could have come straight out of Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance".
1.Thanks...it is probably in my sub-conscious because I have read that at some point...I've also experienced it first hand in my life, also I see it reflected all the time in peoples attitudes on a continual basis....I think you are right on about education...Ive thought that there could be a teachers channel on the internet where professors and teachers give free lectures on various topics for free and leave open a place to post (continued above)
2. a place to post questions on any topic, that the teacher can answer directly,like this format with brendanmcooney...only this channel would be specifically for that and students could make requests on things that they would like to have lectured on...maybe it could be a long lecture,or short & concise or the teacher (or teachers,maybe multiple teachers would answer single questions, and students could compare answers) this would be helpful for language also...
I think that risk is an important part of any market interaction. that is how social labor is apportioned in the market. One does not know the value of a commodity until the labor entering that commodity is equated, through a network of exchanges, w/ all other labors. This is what the law of value seeks to explain- the way market interactions funnel productive behavior. This is an essential part of "the formulae". It is what lies behind Marx's notion of socially necessary labor time.
Thanks Brendan for all these video's. I have been thinking about your comment on the LTV and the connection to production functions. I'm figuring out more of the picture by watching your video's and reading up on Richard Wolff, David Harvey, Marcuse and Marx. Any tips on the relationship between growth, the falling rate of profit (and maybe ecological constraints)?
For my master's thesis next year, I'm trying to conceptualise how the limits to growth, our credit money system (probably crashing again in current and future 'Keynesian' attempts to stimulate consumption), and capitalist crisis from the falling rate of profit will work out. I'm beginning to suspect that the true tragedy might be that capitalism will not even revert to the 'normal upcycle' times when ecological restraints on production limit growth, leaving capitalism in permanent crisis.
If this is true, than we can indeed show 'liberals', as Zizek is putting forward right now, that only radical politics can save even liberal-democratic social values and liberties.
growth is connected to the FRP in that the mass of surplus value is growing but profitable opportunities for the reinvestment of that SV are shrinking due to the falling rate of profit (that the composition of capital contains less and less labor relative to machines). I don't think Wolff is any good on crisis theory. I recommend Harvey and I recommend the TSSI guys on the FRP: Carchedi, Kliman, Freeman.
In terms of ecological limits I am not so sure. I think Katrina showed us that environmental disaster can be great for capital. The FRP and overaccumulation of capital requires a massive devaluation of capital in order for accumulation to begin anew. Ecological crisis can do just this.
Also, calls for a new green deal could redirect state spending in ways that boost accumulation in the same way the interstate/suburban boom did after WWII in the US.
If ecological crisis does not form an absolute limit to capitalist growth this means that the green left needs to articulate a more specifically anti-capitalist message rather than just hoping that ecological crisis will force a change in capitalism. We need to demand free, collectively owned energy and to focus our critique on the fact that markets and private production in energy do not serve the public good.
Hey Brendan. Thanks for the response. I am not calling for a green new deal, but arguing that the 'green issues' to necessitate widening the scope of the political and radical politics. I think that reaccumulation will come back, but rather in a situation of permanent economic crisis, making accumulation possible only in disposession and bankrupty of others. I think this because there will not just be soft ecological crises like climate change or katrina (made more likely by cc).
These are the familiar stereotype of 'green' problems. But there are also harder 'ecological' It is important to distinguish between problems with ecological 'sinks' and ones with 'sources'. To understand the complexity and urgency of this, it's simply necessary to read up on peak oil, gas, alternative fuels and electricity sources, and possibilities for reducing consumption. Understanding the general lessons from peak oil means that growth will not be possible
without a radical replacement of capital stock and economic infrastructure. Judging from the likely decline percentages and export volumes, within the current capitalist framework, there has to be massive government keynsian wartime like effort to do this. But we are already in a general crisis, and low raw material prices will quickly be driven up in keynesian stimulation of consumption. so to avoid this recurring crisis prospect which will not adjust the real economy
to ecological limits and, as always, human needs, we have to go beyond capitalist relations of production and the liberal-democratic conception of politics, collective action, post-modern 'capitalism with a human face' green ideology, etc. I do not want to imply that you need to go read up on that, but since I have been busy with these questions for a long time already I thought a connection to radical politics and marxian analysis is what I could concentrate on.
I think it's a good topic and I'm interested to hear more about what you have/ will have to say about it. I agree that changing the energy infrastructure is a massive project- why do you think such a green new deal isn't possible in a crisis? I would think that WWII shows that a new deal can come out of a crisis after enough devaluation has happened.
Also- does your account of peak oil take into consideration changes in extractive/refining technology?
The sociologist Basil Bernstein has a similar argument to the one of Burawoy, although he focuses his atttention to the educational system. He and his fellow researcher argues that social relations of production effects the way in which parents interacts with their children. To simplify his argument: Working class parents teacher their children to obey while middleclass parents make dialogs and approach a personal and individual parenting style.
another great vid here, and it ends with the basic conundrum of the modern leftist movement. do we push for more representation of the working classes within the context of the 'game'? or do we flip the monopoly board over and play a new 'game', as it were. but the latter then poses a different problem in and of itself. what will the nature and the rules of this new 'game' be? i've only recently gotten into the concrete theories of social and political economy. hopefully in time we'll know.
I was doing the student job on quotas a few days ago and I seen exactly what you are talking about.
Although this part-time jobs are supported by the state, payment is equal or worse. And the ''free'' market advocates are trying to sell me the sorry how much we would gain if there was no minimum wage, taxation, benefits etc.
Gray market have open my eyes that ''free'' market promises are lies.
It's a good video, with some good information, but I think the balance in the music was out. There were a couple of times when the music was dawning out your cometary and it was hard to make out what you were saying.
Well, I tried fielding with my sound equalizer in my sound card, witch helped a little but the music was still very overpowering, specially the trumpet (or was is a saxophone, not sure but some brass instrument).
It was a baritone. It's good to hear your feedback b/c I tried it out on my computer first, boosted the vocal sound some more after the first listen, remixed it and it was fine. I will try to make a better mix in the future anticipating the diverse nature of computer speakers. If you have problems in the future try headphones.
I'm using headphones actually I haven't had any speakers on my PC for ages. Anyway maybe you have better sound equipment than me.
Also, did you change this video? The balance between the music and the voice over is a lot better now. I can't emagin it's just becouse I updated my sound driver.
The flip side of the gloom is, since "we" produce it, theoretically "we" could choose at any minute to stop producing it or to start producing something else, if we were organized. In that narrow material sense, the system is quite vulnerable, which can be a source of a sense of immanent collective power and potential.
Of course, that's a very big "if"; arguably it's been heretofore insurmountable. But this can still serve as a counterpoint to despair.
That's what makes Marx's method a radical social theory. It understands that material forces are only social relations in an alienated form. If we consciously take control of these social relations we can effect real change. But how to do this.... that is the question. I think that is what makes Marxism so simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic.
The main idea, I think, is morality. Production by exploitation is immoral of course. The game is immoral.
Equality is morality, of course. Production for the needs of society equally, as opposed to the sake of producing as much profit as possible, is moral.
What I think is the more fundamental question, as you raise at the end of the video, is essentially, what are the other options?
Unions only go so far.
Socialism is far too often misunderstood and underestimated: France & Sweden? USSR?!
Okay, in my opinion, we cannot exactly look at examples of the past and try to work with them. This seems to be what a lot of communists and anarchists now days do. Paris Commune, Spanish Revolution, and so forth, if examined, probably would not have turned out as expected (I suppose that's a vast topic in it's self).
In this light, I think that your analysis of teleology in the modern sense is probably the most realistic view point. The desperation for an expedient may be desired however.
Minqi Li, in Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy points out clearly that the environment will not be sustainable for the next 50 years and will only further devastate the economy, any hopes at slowing it down will most likely be futile.
So, back to my last point, an expedient such as a world organization of socialism may be needed in order to organize an efficient and moral economy. Or we will be going to a near feudal level within the next century.
good video, thanks for posting it. still i don't see anything insidious about the system, per se. i'm sure you'll all say i'm a fool.
boynamedblue 3 days ago
its not immediately clear to me that a worker-owned cooperative necessarily implies escape from exploitation when enmeshed in capitalist society. intuitively it seems they might even be involved in larger exploitation depending on how societys surplus value is distributed in competitive exchange
mistersix420 1 year ago
@mistersix420 That may be true; however, as an anarchist, my primary question is how to fight exploitation? By strengthening the power of the state (which capitalists will always find ways to subvert), or by turning the notion of "bourgeois freedom" into something positive and actually enlightening more people about genuine bottom-up cooperation and fair exchange?
We don't have to consume according to prices alone. We are free to examine the labor structure behind capitalism and do what's fair.
ConscientiousMind 1 year ago
It's interesting to see how many people involved in identity politics know nothing about class struggle and the bigger picture. I notice this mostly in bourgeois Gay and Lesbian groups and "greens" (I am a devoted environmentalist, don't get me wrong). I find something profoundly annoying when people say me, me, me, and we want this or we want that without seeing there collective place in the overall architecture and the root of the coercion and exploitation that they and others suffer.
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
Yay, well done Brendan. Glad you included the part about the unions. I know a few people here in Pennsylvania that are in the SEIU (Service Employees International Union). I try to explain that trade unions are there to keep workers in line more or less even though they do help in some ways. But it's impossible to get through to them.
You get a star on your forehead for this one.
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
07:15
And also 'THE GAME'.
Elephantintheroom01 1 year ago
Excellent video, I’ve been thinking about capitalism and free markets for a while now; about how they are both self perpetuating systems that need no propaganda or media control to engrain themselves in society
cheeseit126 1 year ago
Eh, co-operatives still employ wage labour, and indeed an economy of co-ops as they are would still be subject to the laws of motion of capitalism, the profit motive, falling rate of profit and so on.
allhailtuna 2 years ago
Either "Yes" or "No" might have been a correct answer. But instead, you've attempted to evade the question -- even though the question was originally yours. So let's try it again.
Do worker-owners of the Mondragon Cooperatives receive wages or not?
98Camels 2 years ago
Actually the question was originally mine, not allhailtuna's. The answer is yes.
I have the suspicion that 98Camels is actually David Kendal in disguise (again). If that is the case I will continue to refrain from dialogue with him b/c we've seen how pointlessly out-of-control that has gotten in the past.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Thanks very much for your thoughtful response, Brendan.
With a "yes" answer, you suggest that worker-owners of the Mondragon Cooperatives do indeed receive wages. Now, please explain why you believe this is true.
96Camels 1 year ago
lat communique ever to DK: b/c they receive money in return for their socially necessary labor time. It's not the private ownership that makes it capital. It's the C-M-C.
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney I mean, M-C-M
brendanmcooney 1 year ago
@brendanmcooney Incorrect, Brendan.
In a self-managed worker cooperative, the income of a worker-owner is comprised of the amount of money that is socially necessary to reproduce his labor-power PLUS a share in surplus value.
More importantly, the statement in your video is incorrect; i.e., "We are not free to choose our way out of wage-labor". Worker Cooperatives like the Mondragon are solid evidence that we can.
91Camels 1 year ago 6
@91Camels
"The pure socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted" ~ Michael Parenti
CONTINUED ABOVE
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
@91Camels
Michael Parenti on "pure socialists"/ Anarchists continued:
"Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed."
busybuzzbuzz 1 year ago
"We cant... not sell our labor to a capitalist"... "We are not free to challenge the basic form of markets and private property that lay behind this world of bourgeois freedom"... "We are not free to choose our way out of... wage-labor."
United Steelworkers in the US and Canada are collaborating with the Mondragon Cooperatives of Spain to "choose" their way out of wage labor, right now. Sorry if real-world events disrupt your abstract theory, Brendan, but I'm afraid you're mistaken.
99Camels 2 years ago 2
Do Mondragon employees not receive wages?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Worker-owners of the Mondragon have no employers, and their productive surplus is democratically distributed amongst the worker-owners, one person one vote.
So you tell me, do those workers receive "wages" or not?
99Camels1 2 years ago 3
"As long as individuals are compelled to rent themselves on the market to those who are willing to hire them, as long as their role in production is simply that of ancillary tools, then there are striking elements of coercion and oppression that make talk of democracy very limited, if even meaningful", (Noam Chomsky, Wikipedia: Wage Slavery).
99Camels 2 years ago 2
Great quote. I hope you are not implying that this video is a critique of Chomsky. It isn't. I have a disclaimer to that effect on the video description.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
wait a minute. Is this David Kendal again? Man, you have a chip on your shoulder the size of Texas. Get a grip dude. Get a serious grip. You really need to learn how to relax and take some perspective when people disagree with you. I don't usually get personal with people online, but... dude... relax.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I agree, the success of the movements listed at the end of the video have been universally been limited by the pervasiveness of capitalist games. For instance, as a result of the civil rights movement, the black area of my city is no longer called "niggertown," as it was fifty years ago. But it is entirely unchanged in nearly every other way: poor, drug ridden and full of crime. So if any real progress is to be made, capitalism must be first seen for what it is by the masses. That will be tough.
fozzymandias8128 2 years ago 8
Thanks for your video, it's much clearerer now. I think though there is a big difference between Unions in the US and the ones in Europe, or at least there was. In the Us they are much weaker and pro government. In Europe they still manage to get a lot of people out during strikes. But, since they were tied to Leftist parties, they have lost much of their power and authority lately over workers just like the Left has.
68generation 2 years ago
excellent point on unions contributing towards our system of capital exploitation over labor, instead of the common misperception that unions are in someway liberating for the worker.
binjahmon 2 years ago
I gave you a thumbs down, but I was aiming for a thumbs up!
It's a good point that the big unions of today in most countries, which are both strictly hierachial and bureaucratic will neither threaten capitalism in a serious manner nor function as a mean of class struggle.
satisatisati 2 years ago
Fuckin hell i need sleep its 4 in the morning and I been drinkin too much wine and I am most likely making little or no sense...
bluarr.
MaxyPadUltra 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
FAIL. It seems that Socialists are building their ideology upon the false premise that workers have no choice other than selling their labour. To them, they are either forced to work in exchange of a wage, or starve to death, to the Socialists, the worker doesn't have the capacity of selling their labour power voluntarily, therefore, they say the consent is involuntary. The reality is a shade of grey and it rest upon each individual worker, which it seems are leaned more to the voluntary side.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
see footnote one of the text version of this video posted on my blog (link posted to the right).
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
It seems you have trained yourself to think collectively. But an individual person does have the option to not sell his labor power for a wage and does have the option to not consume. Humans did this for millions of years and there are still areas on this planet where that kind of lifestyle still apply, the skimos just to give one of many examples. if invididuals wanted to chose a similar lifestyle individually they could achieve collectively what you describe as impossible. but they don't want
tetraedronico 2 years ago
Did you read footnote #1?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Yes I did but being self-employed is not the only way out the circuit of capital and also this concept is an oxymoron within the socialist context as you're not paying yourself a wage, exploiting yourself and sustaining an antagonistic relationship with yourself all at the same time. If you admit that Wage Labor is in most cases superior than being Self employed, then why not save a step and just admit the superiority of capitalism altogether. If people want other forms, then let them form them.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
I have not claimed that self employed people exploit themselves. That would be ridiculous. Creating surplus value is only exploitative if someone is appropriating that surplus. I think self-employment is much more desirable than wage labor if one is able to truly escape the circuit of capital and still provide for one's self.
What are these other modes of living that don't involve wage-labor?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
So they don't exploit themselves and the point is moot therefore by your own admission individuals do have the option of escaping their wage for labour relationship, that's one, and the second, is the possibility and probability, that even in their full "class consciousness" awareness, to voluntarily agree to what you call their exploitation, by virtue of being a superior lifestyle than joining the friendly skimo clan and live off fishing and skinning animals or throwing yourself to the street
tetraedronico 2 years ago
tetraedronico - First off you are pulling parts of Brendan's argument either out of context or out of thin air; at least try and use what he acually says against him. Secondly, your logic is both restricted and biased to your own immediete environment, capitalistic and oportunistic in nature and therefor limited in understanding. Straw man arguments about Skimo Clans are not valid. Try making an argument based observation and study instead of becoming blinded by subservience to your environment.
MaxyPadUltra 2 years ago
Again, I refer you to footnote #1 which discusses how difficult it is for the self-employed to actually escape the circuit of capital.
I next refer you to my above comment that stated self-employment is more desirable than wage labor only if one can fully escape the circuit of capital. Please don't make me repeat myself again.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I read your footnote 1 two times but frankly it seems very unconvincing the idea that the worker cannot escape the circuits of capital and that therefore the consent to the system is forced down their throats. 6% of the population (from 300 to 350 million people) are still living in the same survivalist lifestyle that the homo sappiens evolved with, one must ask an indigenous person why do they choose survivalism over wage labor in order to really appreciate the soundness of manufactured consent
tetraedronico 2 years ago
That's the alternative you speak of? Moving to the jungle of another continent and joining a primitive hunter-gatherer society? I can't take that as a serious argument.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Why not? what criteria did you use to arrive at the conclusion that wage labor is better than survivalism?
You're passing your own personal judgement about what kind of lifestyle is better than the others and then saying that workers don't have the option to not be consumers and not sell their labor.
If Socialism is based on the premise that choosing an "inferior" lifestyle is not really an option at all, then the argument of Manufactured Consent is by necessity selfrighteously true.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
That is the most pathetic attempt at an argument I've ever heard. Please don't waste my time anymore.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
@tetraedronico Haha right, we do have a choice outside of participating in the capitalist system, lets just become hunter gatherers!
This argument defeats itself. You try to give an example of people successfully living outside of capitalism, and you end up pointing to people who had to sacrifice basic luxuries and live as survivalists instead. This is not a viable alternative. Just surviving is not freedom, whether it be by receiving a wage, or worse, living in the wild as a hunter gatherer.
stayelusive 2 years ago
@stayelusive, why not? so do you think that being a wageslave is better than being a survivalist?
tetraedronico 2 years ago
I we one day wake-up in a socialist utopia, the opposition will claim that the socialist utopia is manufacturing its own consent too, rendering the whole idea of manufactured consent... meaningless.
The point is clear. The wage for labour lifestyle, just because it's superior over their alternatives (i.e. most cases of being self employed, survivalist, living in communes and cooperatives) doesn't mean it's compulsory, that they "don't have other choices", they do and that's the point.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
Any social order requires consent. But not all social orders create this consent in the same way. This video is about a specific type of consent generated by capitalism.
I don't agree that wage labor is superior over all other alternatives, but that's not the point of this video and so I won't enter into a hypothetical argument about this here. But, again, what are these alternatives to wage labor that you speak of?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
This choice you speak of doesn't actually exist for MOST of our society because they never learn how to think critically.
I don't think you can have the discussion you are trying to have unless you discuss the indoctrination system that some people call our education system.
Choice implies the ability to make good decisions, which requires being able to think well.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
So far though, I haven't seen any Socialist making any good suggestion whatsoever about what can people do today to help change the world for the better, other than the usual joining a political party. which for anarchists is seen as part of the problem and to the people who believe that governments are good they see this as a regression.. I've seen socialists political parties running on 300 votes for almost a century... I would like to hear if you have any better suggestion.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
I think that we can't change the world until we understand it. Thus I focus my efforts on studying capitalism. This video, for instance, paints a rather pessimistic view of the way capitalism creates its own ideology. It is meant to be a challenge to those who want to change the world to think good and hard about how hard it is to penetrate bourgeois ideology.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I find this is an important point. How can the mode of
production change if the ideology of capitalism is so much
part of our daily life that we do not even see it?
Capitalism seems necessary, natural. People are not able
to imagine something else.
giorgioxyzb 2 years ago
If you want to try and make the world a better place, I suggest one of two routes:
become a lawyer and kick some corporate ass! or become a teacher and inspire young people to THINK.
You have your suggestions.
I hope you act on them.
Adios.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
that's a rather narrow point of view.. you don't fight something by joining it. this is what the socialists want to do, in their heads they believe they can infiltrate the government and turn it against their constituent and groups interests, very similar to what Ron Paul wants to do. There's no evidence that that sort of thing can be achieved, it's just a romantic notion. the lawyer and the teacher are just gatekeepers of the state. I want to abolish not reform it.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
my focus is on education, which I believe to be the ONLY solution.
Sure, there could be a revolution...but then what? You would still have a population hopelessly ignorant of history and politics- and all you would get from a revolution would be a dictatorship, which would be WORSE.
I believe thinking we can overthrow this govt, yet not fall into a worse trap, with our idiotic citizenry is a bit naive.
Have a great day.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I think the more knowledge and information people have the better we all are as a whole..this can be music ,art,history,anything, it all connects and brings awareness...I'm glad Brendan does these great videos they are very informative and helpful...
thanks!
catgumart 2 years ago
well I agree with education alright. but not the sort that requires giving Ron Paul or Ralph Nader money to educate the masses, or the one that requires you to be a public school teacher talking about the virtues of socialism or libertarianism while he or she herself are participating the greatest machinery of violence and coercion ever set a foot on this planet, people are judged by their actions not their words.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
What? I don't understand- Nader and Paul support and condone violence? I don't understand. Both of those men have been INCREDIBLY consistent speaking out against our foreign policy.
Actions- Nader has taken on big business for working and middle class Americans for over 40 years. The man's actions are commendable, and deserve the utmost respect from all Americans.
Ron Paul I don't know as well- I didn't vote for him.
I will vote for Nader again in 2012. He backs up his words with actions.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
That old fart Nader has been trying for 40 years to be president, he must be doing something terribly wrong to only achieve failure after failure. Oh yeah! perhaps because he wants to crack down the relationship between the government and big corporations...not saying he's evil, but naive. People like him or Paul, only give romantic people the illusion that the govn't really is to serve the people, don't let anyone fool you, the government is only to serve itself.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
yeah, Nader is doing something wrong- it's called not selling out. All the more reason to continue to support him.
Who are you voting for? You are probably staying home. I empathize- but I feel it is important to vote- even if the vote has no chance of being meaningful.
Nader isn't naive- he fully understands what he is up against; his analysis of our political system is as astute as anyone else's.
You are degrading him because he hasn't been successful. He is one dude- give him a break.
:)
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
I also never said I wanted education to be a socialist indoctrination rather than a corporate indoctrination.
I don't condone exchanging one indoctrination system for another.
No.
The education system I envision focuses primarily on teaching students a single skill: CRITICAL THINKING.
Once students possess that skill sufficiently, the conclusions they want to arrive at must be their own.
Take care.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Yeah I totally agree that we need more people good at CRITICAL THINKING... but running an entire education system on TAXATION (which is nothing more than COERCION and VIOLENCE) will actually impair the students ability to think critically, because the teachers being servants of the state will teach the students one thing while they do the total opposite.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
The same can be said if the education system is funded by the private sector- that students would be indoctrinated into a corporate world view.
Right now, we have the best of both worlds- a publicly funded system that acts on behalf of the private sector- mostly by keeping people from thinking critically.
Keeping people ignorant can serve either big government or private sector desires. We must remain vigilant of BOTH.
Have a nice evening.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Private schooling is funded voluntarily by the free market, if you don't like what your children is learning then the parent has the option to either homeschool the child or put it into another private school more akin to the parent's values. that's not true with public school where you're coerced into paying your taxes to support the public education system, that judged by its fruits, it totally sucks.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
really? parents have the option to home school or put in another private school?
What world do you live in? Most Americans are now two income homes- no home schooling- and most Americans are deeply in debt- no paying for private school.
Sure, your answers are fine for rich people- but I am concerned with the overall health of society and believe everyone needs to be relatively educated if we are to be a good one- as did Thomas Jefferson, to name a fellow educationalist.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
people wouldn't be so poor if the government wouldn't be coercing almost 50% of their entire income through mandatory coerced taxation in the first place. People are forced to pay their taxes, otherwise goons with blue costumes will show in their front doors with sticks in hand.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
people wouldn't be so poor if they got value for their taxes. In parts of Europe, taxation is very high, but personal debt is not. Health care, college- all paid for.
Govt is evil- we all agree- but it is also necessary- and we might as well strive to have one that works FOR us rather than as oppressors. I think the foundation of that society HAS to start with a good education system- and countries like Finland and japan prove my point- I think.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
you are right that MANY lawyers and teachers act on behalf of and protect the state, often unwittingly (and just as often, not so unwittingly)
The teachers and lawyers I want to inspire are the GOOD ones- and those people make a HUGE difference in our society.
Ralph Nader has made a tangible difference and stands as an excellent example of what an honorable lawyer can achieve if he maintains integrity.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
The Ron Pauls and Ralph Naders have not stopped the machinery of government growth, that kind of politic philosophy has only actually achieved the opposite, instead of making the government small and better, it has grown bigger and worse, despite all the activism and all the millions of dollars in campaign money, not even they have educated the people as they claim. The Libertarians and the Socialists have tried for a hundred years to infiltrate the government and wield it against their interest
tetraedronico 2 years ago
Your claim is baseless- the Ron Pauls and Naders have never BEEN in power- so your assertion that they grow govt and make it worse is based on what exactly?
Yes, those two people have not managed to overthrow our corrupt system and educate everyone about the truth- they cannot compete with nbc and fox.
However, they ARE trying and they ARE part of the solution- so instead of knocking them, why not HELP???
Unless you have better answers.
Take care again.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Ron Paul will never be part of any solution to the problems of capital as he is a total proponent of the unleashing of the forces of capital. A country run on Ron Paul politics would be a scary, reactionary place to live.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Political Libertarianism has help the government grow precisely because of his long history of failures. Ron Paul has been in office for a long time. It's a failure because it never accomplishes the objectives they claim they will. They say for example that they will privatize the Post Office and the Department of Education, etc, that's why they never will be in power. You simply cannot infiltrate a MAFIA and turn it against it's own interests. Take Care
tetraedronico 2 years ago
Ron Paul is one human being in a congress of over 500. It would be one thing if at one point libertarians had actually been in charge- THEN you could say they had failed.
As of now, you are calling them failures when, as far as I can tell, they have never had the opportunity to either fail or succeed.
Have a nice night.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
They been having many decades and millions of dollars to educate the people in order to vote for their candidates and Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, the most charismatic of all Libertarians or Independents, fail spectacularly. If Paul or Nader claim to have the power to turn the Government away from EVIL, perhaps they can prove it by joining a local mafia and turn it into a charity or the Minute-man and turn it into an immigration loving organization, something smaller, not 40 million people organiza
tetraedronico 2 years ago
decades and millions of dollars educating people to vote for nader and Paul?
That does not make sense. Period.
Nader was censored from the presidential debates. Had he been allowed on the debates in 2000, 2004, or 2008- he would have MOPPED THE FLOOR with the demublicans, and received 20-30% of the vote.
It's called "ross perot syndrome"- and now, nobody else is ever allowed on the debate anymore.
Have a nice evening.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
he received 0.5% of the votes.... and he's been running for president since 1972.. almost 40 years. almost his entire life dedicated to failure after failure... now he want to run for senate. I wonder what's wrong with them, trying to infiltrate the government and turn it against their own members, it must be total HELL, if I was religious I would consider them great MARTYRS, there's no way they can deal with that leviathan called government. it's just too big for anyone to handle.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
So what is your answer? Until a better answer is found, people like Nader are martyrs- but they are also heroes and they deserve our respect.
In an age of ubiquitous apathy, to knock people that are out there trying to help is a total waste of time.
Take care.
Viva Shakespeare!
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
Waste of time is to spend 40 years of your precious life hoping that joining the mafia-like organization called Gvn't and trying to wield it against it's own interest will one day work... Waste of time is to support people like this... The question is WHY DO YOU SUPPORT the government VIOLENCE against ME? I just want to be left alone yet I'm still being coerced to pay taxes, I believe that if you think the government is necessary that you pay and I don't.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
well, move to your own island and then you can have a governmentless society.
until then, your bitching about paying taxes is a waste of time.
people like nader have made a tangible difference for american consumers.
what have people like you ever done besides bitch?
It's tired. give it up.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
since you openly imply to support the violence against me, then I'm not going to pretend to have a civilized debate..
tetraedronico 2 years ago
you're funny.
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
White collar Taylorism is equally as morally bankurpt
PMishkin 2 years ago
"Consent to the rules" There are a lot of ways that people implicitly or covertly or get a person to consent to rules presented ambiguously that they wouldn't if they understood the consequences, this frustrates me because I don't want to be pressured into doing something I don't believe in or that I find unethical. Ive never known how to word that before (consent to rules),
catgumart 2 years ago
For me, It is hard to know where to begin as an individual how to get out of the muck that i have been indoctrinated to, and surrounded by from an early age. People can be very hostile to those who are different or who visibly are not in compliance with the status-quo. There is a strong coercive force throughout society that reinforces the walls of conformity. If one is outside those bounds they are easily recognized and can be prey to those various negative societal forces.
catgumart 2 years ago
You bring up a really important point- that society tends to resent people who try to live outside of it, and those people are constantly demeaned and marginalized.
Your sentence "There is a strong coercive force throughout society that reinforces the walls of conformity" could have come straight out of Emerson's essay "Self-Reliance".
tristramshandy3 2 years ago
1.Thanks...it is probably in my sub-conscious because I have read that at some point...I've also experienced it first hand in my life, also I see it reflected all the time in peoples attitudes on a continual basis....I think you are right on about education...Ive thought that there could be a teachers channel on the internet where professors and teachers give free lectures on various topics for free and leave open a place to post (continued above)
catgumart 2 years ago
2. a place to post questions on any topic, that the teacher can answer directly,like this format with brendanmcooney...only this channel would be specifically for that and students could make requests on things that they would like to have lectured on...maybe it could be a long lecture,or short & concise or the teacher (or teachers,maybe multiple teachers would answer single questions, and students could compare answers) this would be helpful for language also...
catgumart 2 years ago
Investing kapital has a risks on lossing it and getting a reward for taking that risk is not included in formula's.. Do you think that mathers?
Mikannika 2 years ago
When a burglar takes money from someone else he risks his freedom. Does he deserve a reward for taking that risk?
When a capitalist takes money from his workers he risks some capital. Does the capitalist deserve a reward for taking that risk.
The idea that risk justifies a stealing is silly. The burglar and capitalist are both thieves and should be treated as such.
johnptg 2 years ago
I think it's a silly comparisson and it does not take in to account the way people have become after millions of years of evolution.
Mikannika 2 years ago
What? Your reply makes no sense.
Please explain how risk justifies stealing.
johnptg 2 years ago
Why should i explain that? I just ASKED a question about the current situation... I have never said i agreed with it...
Mikannika 2 years ago
I think that risk is an important part of any market interaction. that is how social labor is apportioned in the market. One does not know the value of a commodity until the labor entering that commodity is equated, through a network of exchanges, w/ all other labors. This is what the law of value seeks to explain- the way market interactions funnel productive behavior. This is an essential part of "the formulae". It is what lies behind Marx's notion of socially necessary labor time.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
But the risk is not what creates the value. It's the mechanism through which value is established.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
With all your videos you could've just made 3 full length movies, A Huge Trilogy.
bigsteelguy 2 years ago
A great video! Thanks :)
madcatzy 2 years ago
Thanks Brendan for all these video's. I have been thinking about your comment on the LTV and the connection to production functions. I'm figuring out more of the picture by watching your video's and reading up on Richard Wolff, David Harvey, Marcuse and Marx. Any tips on the relationship between growth, the falling rate of profit (and maybe ecological constraints)?
sickliberal 2 years ago
For my master's thesis next year, I'm trying to conceptualise how the limits to growth, our credit money system (probably crashing again in current and future 'Keynesian' attempts to stimulate consumption), and capitalist crisis from the falling rate of profit will work out. I'm beginning to suspect that the true tragedy might be that capitalism will not even revert to the 'normal upcycle' times when ecological restraints on production limit growth, leaving capitalism in permanent crisis.
sickliberal 2 years ago
If this is true, than we can indeed show 'liberals', as Zizek is putting forward right now, that only radical politics can save even liberal-democratic social values and liberties.
sickliberal 2 years ago
growth is connected to the FRP in that the mass of surplus value is growing but profitable opportunities for the reinvestment of that SV are shrinking due to the falling rate of profit (that the composition of capital contains less and less labor relative to machines). I don't think Wolff is any good on crisis theory. I recommend Harvey and I recommend the TSSI guys on the FRP: Carchedi, Kliman, Freeman.
A good essay: Google:
carchedi the return from the grave
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
In terms of ecological limits I am not so sure. I think Katrina showed us that environmental disaster can be great for capital. The FRP and overaccumulation of capital requires a massive devaluation of capital in order for accumulation to begin anew. Ecological crisis can do just this.
Also, calls for a new green deal could redirect state spending in ways that boost accumulation in the same way the interstate/suburban boom did after WWII in the US.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
If ecological crisis does not form an absolute limit to capitalist growth this means that the green left needs to articulate a more specifically anti-capitalist message rather than just hoping that ecological crisis will force a change in capitalism. We need to demand free, collectively owned energy and to focus our critique on the fact that markets and private production in energy do not serve the public good.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Hey Brendan. Thanks for the response. I am not calling for a green new deal, but arguing that the 'green issues' to necessitate widening the scope of the political and radical politics. I think that reaccumulation will come back, but rather in a situation of permanent economic crisis, making accumulation possible only in disposession and bankrupty of others. I think this because there will not just be soft ecological crises like climate change or katrina (made more likely by cc).
sickliberal 2 years ago
These are the familiar stereotype of 'green' problems. But there are also harder 'ecological' It is important to distinguish between problems with ecological 'sinks' and ones with 'sources'. To understand the complexity and urgency of this, it's simply necessary to read up on peak oil, gas, alternative fuels and electricity sources, and possibilities for reducing consumption. Understanding the general lessons from peak oil means that growth will not be possible
sickliberal 2 years ago
without a radical replacement of capital stock and economic infrastructure. Judging from the likely decline percentages and export volumes, within the current capitalist framework, there has to be massive government keynsian wartime like effort to do this. But we are already in a general crisis, and low raw material prices will quickly be driven up in keynesian stimulation of consumption. so to avoid this recurring crisis prospect which will not adjust the real economy
sickliberal 2 years ago
to ecological limits and, as always, human needs, we have to go beyond capitalist relations of production and the liberal-democratic conception of politics, collective action, post-modern 'capitalism with a human face' green ideology, etc. I do not want to imply that you need to go read up on that, but since I have been busy with these questions for a long time already I thought a connection to radical politics and marxian analysis is what I could concentrate on.
sickliberal 2 years ago
I think it's a good topic and I'm interested to hear more about what you have/ will have to say about it. I agree that changing the energy infrastructure is a massive project- why do you think such a green new deal isn't possible in a crisis? I would think that WWII shows that a new deal can come out of a crisis after enough devaluation has happened.
Also- does your account of peak oil take into consideration changes in extractive/refining technology?
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
The sociologist Basil Bernstein has a similar argument to the one of Burawoy, although he focuses his atttention to the educational system. He and his fellow researcher argues that social relations of production effects the way in which parents interacts with their children. To simplify his argument: Working class parents teacher their children to obey while middleclass parents make dialogs and approach a personal and individual parenting style.
dagstidning 2 years ago
Well Brendan you did it again. Super awesome.
jroubidoux 2 years ago
another great vid here, and it ends with the basic conundrum of the modern leftist movement. do we push for more representation of the working classes within the context of the 'game'? or do we flip the monopoly board over and play a new 'game', as it were. but the latter then poses a different problem in and of itself. what will the nature and the rules of this new 'game' be? i've only recently gotten into the concrete theories of social and political economy. hopefully in time we'll know.
mandroid87 2 years ago
Have you come across any Situationist International texts? The concept of the spectacle adds to this. All of the stuff is free online.
LovexandxRage 2 years ago
I was doing the student job on quotas a few days ago and I seen exactly what you are talking about.
Although this part-time jobs are supported by the state, payment is equal or worse. And the ''free'' market advocates are trying to sell me the sorry how much we would gain if there was no minimum wage, taxation, benefits etc.
Gray market have open my eyes that ''free'' market promises are lies.
organdva 2 years ago
It's a good video, with some good information, but I think the balance in the music was out. There were a couple of times when the music was dawning out your cometary and it was hard to make out what you were saying.
Disthron 2 years ago
Good to know, thanks. I suppose different computer speakers sound different.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I've had the same comments on my videos. I didn't have any problems hearing you but thats just me.
TheLeftLibertarian 2 years ago
Well, I tried fielding with my sound equalizer in my sound card, witch helped a little but the music was still very overpowering, specially the trumpet (or was is a saxophone, not sure but some brass instrument).
Disthron 2 years ago
It was a baritone. It's good to hear your feedback b/c I tried it out on my computer first, boosted the vocal sound some more after the first listen, remixed it and it was fine. I will try to make a better mix in the future anticipating the diverse nature of computer speakers. If you have problems in the future try headphones.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I'm using headphones actually I haven't had any speakers on my PC for ages. Anyway maybe you have better sound equipment than me.
Also, did you change this video? The balance between the music and the voice over is a lot better now. I can't emagin it's just becouse I updated my sound driver.
Disthron 2 years ago
No I can't change it once it's posted. Maybe the sound driver did the trick.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
I agree, Chomsky definitely should have read Burawoy's book prior to putting one out under the same name.
Very, very good job!
nuclearnight 2 years ago
The flip side of the gloom is, since "we" produce it, theoretically "we" could choose at any minute to stop producing it or to start producing something else, if we were organized. In that narrow material sense, the system is quite vulnerable, which can be a source of a sense of immanent collective power and potential.
Of course, that's a very big "if"; arguably it's been heretofore insurmountable. But this can still serve as a counterpoint to despair.
HebaruSan 2 years ago
That's what makes Marx's method a radical social theory. It understands that material forces are only social relations in an alienated form. If we consciously take control of these social relations we can effect real change. But how to do this.... that is the question. I think that is what makes Marxism so simultaneously optimistic and pessimistic.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
Not often makes someone a verbal case that is so right in content and so dreadfull in reality. I hate and adore you. Take your pick.
Piett2 2 years ago
The main idea, I think, is morality. Production by exploitation is immoral of course. The game is immoral.
Equality is morality, of course. Production for the needs of society equally, as opposed to the sake of producing as much profit as possible, is moral.
What I think is the more fundamental question, as you raise at the end of the video, is essentially, what are the other options?
Unions only go so far.
Socialism is far too often misunderstood and underestimated: France & Sweden? USSR?!
yadsik 2 years ago
Okay, in my opinion, we cannot exactly look at examples of the past and try to work with them. This seems to be what a lot of communists and anarchists now days do. Paris Commune, Spanish Revolution, and so forth, if examined, probably would not have turned out as expected (I suppose that's a vast topic in it's self).
In this light, I think that your analysis of teleology in the modern sense is probably the most realistic view point. The desperation for an expedient may be desired however.
yadsik 2 years ago
Minqi Li, in Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy points out clearly that the environment will not be sustainable for the next 50 years and will only further devastate the economy, any hopes at slowing it down will most likely be futile.
So, back to my last point, an expedient such as a world organization of socialism may be needed in order to organize an efficient and moral economy. Or we will be going to a near feudal level within the next century.
But I am no expert!
yadsik 2 years ago
In that regard, I may be exaggerating and unrealistic, who knows. Maybe you Brendan.
yadsik 2 years ago
Captivating...good job!
PallaAurinkoon 2 years ago