Money is a commodity. In a free banking regime, currency, or "notes" would represent a specific amount of a specific commodity, such as gold, silver, or wheat. Notes are redeemable on demand. Currency would not be based on the "full faith and credit of the US government" but on the ability of a private bank to honor its notes. The moment a bank can not honor its notes, is it placed into receivership, and its assets are auctioned off with the proceeds going to depositors first.
As workers do not receive equal energy (monetary) value for labor and/or the owners of the means of production sell products/services above the embodied energy value, the sum nominal value of all goods and services always exceeds the sum energy income of the worker/consumer. Every product sold for profit extracts energy (money) from the labor class. The profit system was never and can never be in energy equilibrium. Its over, growth and thus profit is tapped out. Entropy always wins.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The issue is not really capitalism at all. It is corporatism (business partnering with gvmt). Also the idea you can borrow and print your way out of recessions, better know as Keynesian economics just put off the inevitable. The FED can monetize debt, and other countries like China want Americans to have credit so they will consume. The core of the issue really is the Federal Reserve Act, as they manipulate the market. They create too much credit, print money and devalue savings. Support HR1207!
How do external costs of the capitalist (such as corporate tax, local council rates, rent on factory land) fit into the C-V-S formula? as often the capitalist would rais the price of a good to make up for these external costs.
Taxes and rent are a deduction from S (profits). The ability of a capitalist to raise prices above values depends on the amount of competition in the industry. Raising prices above values does not raise the total net profit of society. It only redistributes profits from some capitalists to others.
What does currency have to do solely with a capitalist society? All societies use currency! At the same time, extra value can also come from increased prices on goods sold. When you go to a mechanic, the part will cost more than when you go to Auto Zone by yourself, but that is a voluntary exchange. This video completely ignores wage equilibrium through market pressures. It also ignores that governments are capitalists as well! Actually, the worker is benefitting off the employer as well.
There is no claim in this video that currency is unique to capitalism. You must be misunderstanding something in the argument which is about the way money functions within a circuit of capital to represent the expansion of value.
Yes increased prices are a representation of an increase in value. But to reverse this and say value comes from an increase in price is tautology.
What does equilibrium wage have to do w/ this video?
How can states be capitalist if they don't sell commodities?
Within the model, you insist that the Capitalists (producers) profit at the expense of the working class. This isn't the case. The worker is just as Capitalist as the Employer; the worker is producing labor and exchanging it with the Employer for income. Also, the profit margin isn't equated with labor surplus value. It corresponds to the value associated with innovation, elaborate organization, and direction produced by the entrepreneaur.
You confuse labor with labor power. The worker sells the capitalist labor power- his capacity to do work in return for a wage. The amount of value a worker produces and the wage are entirely separate entities by definition. Thus the struggle over how productive to make labor. If the worker only sold the capitalist a distinct amount of value there would be no need for innovation in the production process because there would be no way of increasing the output relative to the wage.
The two (labor and labor power) are intimately related. I understand the root of your ideas---the education system and media inject marxist social commentary into society (some points are valid, most arent.) --- The amount of value a worker produces is exchanged for the wage (both benefit from the exchange--it wouldn't occur otherwise. Like any product, the quanity and quality of labor (workers) and the demand for labor (firms) interact to determine the price of labor (the wage.)
I'm not sure you do understand. The wage is determined by the supply and demand for workers, the prices of the commodities workers need to buy to live in a given society, and of course class struggle between workers and capitalists. The amount of value a worker produces has to do with how hard they work relative to other workers, the efficiency of the production process, the length of time they work, etc. These are two distinct sets of variables.
Explain how you believe the price of commodities affects the wage. Also, once again, the workers are just as capitalist as the employers or firms. They are producing labor and exchanging for income provided by the employer.
When the prices of consumer commodities fall workers require less wages and vice versa if commodity prices rise.
"Capitalist" refers to a person who owns the means of production and thus receives the surplus value produced by a workforce. By definition workers can't be capitalists. They must sell their labor power to a capitalist because they don't own their own means of production.
I understand the connection. --- The worker (the capitalist) owns his capacity to work and uses it to produce labor to exchange for income with the employer (the capitalist.) The worker owns the means of production (the capacity to work) and exchanges the result (the labor) with the firm who also owns its means of production (the labor among other forms of capital) and sells the result to consumers.
No. The means of production are the factories/companies/raw materials necessary to produce a commodity- things the working class doesn't own. They only own their capacity to work which they sell to the capitalist. They do not sell the product of their work to the capitalist. They sell their capacity to work. The capitalist owns all that they produce. The value of their product is not the same as the value of the wage.
The factories, raw materials, human labor (they become the means of production for the firm after being sold by other 'capitalists' (in the factors and labor market.) The value of the worker's product (in its isolated form) does correspond to the wage. The value of the worker's product doesn't correspond to the value of the final product. The value of the final product is the summation of the values of factors of production (the labor, factories, raw materials) and the facilitation (entre.)
Value of the product=cost of inputs+wages+surplus value. You again neglect the difference between labor power and other commodities:labor power can produce more value than it's paid- by definition! Merely asserting workers are paid for the full value of their work is not an argument against the fact that there's no logical correlation between wages and the value labor produces. For instance I could get paid $10 or $15 to do the same job. Are you saying I produce more value in the 2nd case?
You're neglecting the value of the necessary capital in coordinating the resources and capital into fulfilling one specific purpose---This value equates with profit. You assume that inputs and labor are the only capital necessary in production. Without the entrepreneaur (without the profit) these forms of capital (inputs and labor) wouldn't interact to fulfill consumer demand in a coordinated fashion.
Yes there must be a capitalist in order to have a capitalism. Duh. This doesn't prove that the capitalist adds any value to the product. If the capitalist actually does some work (some do, many don't) this can add value to the product. But this can't account for profits. The work of a capitalist can't add enough value to account for the magnitude of profit a firm makes.
Also, you haven't answered my above question regarding the lack of correlation between wages and the value workers produce.
The entreprenaur facilitates the coordination of capital and resources into fulfilling consumer demand--without the entrepreneur, such coordination doesn't occur--this value may be less tangible than labor or raw materials, but it certainly is value. --Are you referring to your question of the worker who can be paid 10 or 15 for the same work?
These tasks that you list under "entrepreneur" can be done by a multitude of people, not all of the capitalists: mangers, marketing departments, accountants, etc. Secondly, there are many tasks that are necessary in a capitalist society that don't actually create exchange value(for instance a janitor working at an auto plant.) I would put "coordinating capital" into that list of unproductive labor. See my video "who is exploited" for more on this distinction.
Firstly, ownership of capital facilitates the coordination of all these positions (marketing, accounting,etc) into working harmoniously to fulfill consumer demand. Secondly, exchange value isn't the only type of value produced through labor. Thirdly, the value of labor isn't fixed; it varies in response to various factors (supply of labor, demand for labor, etc) For instance, a bar-tending position is more valuable in an urban area than a rural area due to higher demand (same work-different wage
Ownership is not an act of labor. It does not generate any value. Exchange value is the entire goal of capitalist production- to make something in order to sell it. Yes wages fluctuate that's the whole point- the value produced is not equal to the wage. This difference is the sole source of profit.
You are merely repeating the same mistakes over and over again w/o ever explaining your 2 claims: 1. that the value workers produce always equals their wages (a clear misunderstanding of the basic nature of wage labor.) 2. that merely owning capital creates value in and of itself (a clear misunderstanding of how exchange value is produced.)
If the value workers produce always equals wages than why do firms try to drive down wages in order to make profits?
You continue to assume that raw labor is the only source of value. Value requires of frame of reference. Allowing supply and demand to constitute this frame of reference, the wage does reflect the value of labor. This isn't to say that the wage reflects the final product's value. The final product's value is a summation. I never said that ownership, in itself, generates value. The entrepreneur isn't merely involved in ownership; he is the facilitator (without this role, no production .
You still are avoiding the difference between the value of labor power (wage) and the value produced by labor. Saying labor has value is like saying value has value. Labor creates value. The capacity to labor is purchased by the capitalist and used to generate profits.
Ownership of capital is all that is necessary in order to get profit from capital. One does not have to perform any productive task in order to get profit.
I'm not avoiding the difference. Labor time is sold to the employer on a specified, agreed upon basis. But, for you, this leads to the notion that labor value (generated by milking the tit of the labor time) equates with the final product's value.
You also continue to work under a framework that assumes the firm,the entrepreneur(the capitalist) has total control over the wage value. Both supply and demand (the interaction between firms (consumers in this case) and workers (producers in this case) determine the wage value. To assume that profit is merely extracted from wage value is to assume that the entrepreneurial role (the ultimate facilitator of capital) isn't necessary to production when, in actuality, it's essential.
No I specifically listed a variety of factors that influence the determination of wages. Read them.
Capital is necessary for capitalist production. So is the state, money, oxygen.. but these don't create value either. You fail to show any correlation between necessity and value creation.
The ideas formed by the entrepreneur certainly have value --not exchange value, but a less tangible value. --this is where you fail to distinguish between varying forms of value
Sure, there are different forms of value, but, for you, this difference leads to invalid conclusions. ---Objectively, you observe individuals exchanging money for commodities, this exchange conveys value, subjectively placed upon the object of exchange. (from subjective to objective) You're arguments no longer seem to connect to your point. Sure, janitors don't create exchange value, but how does that support your point, and exactly, what is your point?
Objectively we observe exchange ratios between commodities that correspond with the need to apportion social labor through some value mechanism. The subjective value of consumers cannot explain how social labor is apportioned/organized.
The Janitor example, if you care to remember, was a direct response to the claim that capitalists created value b/c they were a necessary precondition to capitalist production. There are many jobs that may have a use value that don't create value, like janitors.
Capitalists don't merely create value by means of owning capital. The entrepreneur creates a less tangible value through facilitating the coordination of capital/resources and producing ideas. Sure, they're isn't an entrepreneur role within a corporation, but in a truly free, unregulated market, there would be no corporation, as it is a legal entity and exists as such by means of the government.
That is the foundation of your argument, the foundation that I'm challenging. Do you assert that the entrepreneur shouldn't receive any income for producing ideas (value) and facilitating the coordination of resources and capital (value?)
...which you have failed in challenging now you've conceded that 1.wages and the value a worker produces are two different magnitudes determined by different forces and 2.capital does not create value.
Whether or not a capitalist "should" receive "income" is a moral question. My purpose here is to explain how value is created and what the relation of different social classes are to this process. Of course capitalist DO receive massive profits b/c they DO own capital, not b/c they create value.
The value of a final product is a summation between the values of constant capital foundational to production, labor capital instrumental to the arrangement of constant capital, intellectual capital (ideas formed by entrepreneur) and entrepreneurial capital associated with facilitating the coordination of all the three forms of capital (constant capital, labor capital, and intellectual capital.) Profit corresponds to the value of the entrepreneurial capital involved in the process.
That's funny b/c you just said that "entrepreneurs" can't create exchange value.
Also- the value of constant capital was created by the labor of workers in other firms. Labor always remains the sole source of value. But this isn't really related to our discussion.
It boggles my mind why we have been debating this for 4 days when you keep conceding all of my points.
No. Man. I never said that. Entrepreneurs contribute to exchange value (final product's value) by producing foundational ideas and facilitating the coordination of capital. What points do you feel I'm conceding, because your feeling is a result of a misunderstanding
Yes. The entrepreneurial role produces an intangible value, a value that, in itself, couldn't be sold on the market, but, when added to the value produced by labor, contributes to the exchange value.
The value produced by labor capital is a more direct value, as it is purchased (in its isolated form) directly by the consumer (the employer.) Entrepreneurial value is a more subtle value; its not bought and sold in its isolated form, rather, it interacts with labor capital to ultimately contribute to exchange value. It doesn't extract from labor value, but rather adds on to labor value.
In sum, you're arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial exploitation of labor value to increase exchange value, while I'm arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial addition to labor value to increase exchange value.
The addition is metaphysical in nature, merely because it can't be bought and sold in its isolated form on the market, but it isn't metaphysical enough to provoke a yoga session accompanied by grateful-dead music
So capital adds exchange value-but it doesn't add exchange value? Does the labor of a janitor also add metaphysical exchange value to a commodity? And what theoretical tradition are you drawing from in this theory?
And the difference between wages and value produced by labor- this doesn't become profit? What happens to this money?
Entrepreneurial capital contributes to exchange value, to the extent that it interacts with labor value. ---I don't believe the janitor's labor affects the final product's exchange value. ---Primarily, I draw from the Austrian school.-- The difference between the labor value and the final product's value is the entrepreneurial value--which corresponds to the profit. So, ultimately, this difference does become profit--never said that it didn't. Also, once again, is that your argument?
No my argument is that the difference between the capacity of labor to create value and the wage is the source of profit as I've state clearly over and over and again in this maddeningly repetitive debate in which you just state the same vague argument over and over again based on the a priori assumption that a capitalist can create value that isn't exchange value but that the worker turns into exchange value. How is this substantively different than the janitor (I ask once again)?
you're arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial exploitation of labor value to increase exchange value, while I'm arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial addition to labor value to increase exchange value. The janitor simply does fit into the argument.
1. Capital hires managers to do it's job of coordination. It does not "coordinate" itself.
2. Wages and the value produced by labor are not the same thing by definition.
3. How can a capitalist who doesn't create an actual use-value embodying exchange value be creating value merely by purchasing variable and constant capital?
4. How is the unproductive work of a capitalist (if they work at all) different than the unproductive work of janitors?
1. Never said 'capital' in itself coordinates. The entrepreneur facilitates the coordination and produces foundational ideas. There is no 'entrepreneur' in a corporation, but a corporation wouldn't emerge in a free market.
2. by what definition? The final product's value isn't equal to the labor value (which you've failed to challenge), but rather the labor value combined with the entrepreneurial value.
3. Refer to #1.
4.The janitor has nothing to do with task mentioned in #1
1. So a capitalist needn't do anything but invest- and that initial investment is worthy of a continual production of value each production period even though he could be out on the beach for the rest of his life not even thinking about work? And you call that a plausible theory of value?
2. The definition of wage labor: That a capitalist buys labor power not labor. This necessarily means a gap.
4. It has everything to do w/ it. It's work that doesn't create anything to be exchanged.
1. Is that a question? Once again, the entrepreneur is involved in much more than mere capital investment. Your looking at a corporation, which, once again, wouldn't emerge in a free market.
2. The employer buys labor power to be used to on specified (and agreed upon) basis (specified time, specified intensity, etc.)
4. The janitor has nothing to with the task (facilitating the coordination of resources and producing foundational ideas.) He's irrelevant to the argument.
1. What requires a capitalist to do anything at all other than make an investment? And what could be more free-market than 30 years of neoliberalism- an ideology founded on the ideals of Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Popper? oh-right... a capitalism w/ not state at all- funny how that always ends up in more authoritarian states. Maybe there's a MASSIVE CONTRADICTION in the concept of free market?
2. The wage can change while the amount of labor doesn't.
Ideas form the foundation of a firm.Twice again, the entrepreneur forms ideas. He also facilitates.Are you suggesting that markets have been free for the last 30 years?The free market model is like no other societal model, in that it lacks a particular design. The model allows any design to freely emerge, by individuals freely interacting.The free market is merely voluntary exchange, unrestricted by any coercive power.A state is necessary to, using its granted coercive power, prevent coercion.
"ideas form the foundation of a firm". The foundation of a firm is the labor that creates profit. You can buy the ideas- they are called intellectual property.
Attempt to blame the state for capital's failure are absurd at the end of the Neoliberal era.
The state, in attempting to maintain a properly functioning market gets entangled in the basic contradictions of the market and is forced to exert increasingly authoritarian influence over markets whether via Keynesianism or Neoliberliasm.
No, you entered that territory by saying: "Your looking at a corporation, which, once again, wouldn't emerge in a free market." The typical excuse that the present analysis doesn't matter b/c we aren't dealing enough with a free market. This is a total cop out. The laws of capital are the laws of capital regardless of what state form accompanies/facilitates them. You were claiming the relation between capital and the state effects whether or not a capitalist contributes "ideas" to a firm.
Yes. State involvement is a necessary condition for the emergence of a corporation. A corporation is the only firm that lacks a solid entrepreneur who actively facilitates the coordination of capital. Ideas do form the basis of final consumer products which have exchange value. Whether or not these ideas are intellectual property or free-collective property isn't relevant to their serving as this basis.
State involvement is necessary at any stage of capitalism. There is nothing more or less pure about corporation in terms of the way it exemplifies the law of value, the wage-relation, the circuit of capital. All of these basic observations about capitalism remain unchanged regardless of the decade.
Your whole point about a "solid entrepreneur" is an attempt to claim that in "real capitalism" ideas create value.
Man, you could have made an entire video with the time you wasted debating that guy! I've read a bit if the Austrians schools stuff, and he didn't even understand their theories correctly.
Ideas are essential to the firm's structure, whether or not they are considered to be intellectual property (such consideration doesn't refute the argument anyway.)
The state has increasingly tampered with markets.
The state's initial involvement is usually sparked by special interests that seek the reduction of competition, subsidies, or cartelization that couldn't occur without enforcement provided by a coercive power. Don't assume the state's primary objective is stabilizing markets.
Ideas that can garner exchange value are intellectual property. We have an extensive legal system for regulating these ideas. Other ideas are free- collective property. These cannot be the basis of exchange value.
Still you have not shown that the wage relation can't generate surplus value. (yawn)
The obligation lies on your side of the table to prove the existence of 'surplus value' in the first place. The worker doesn't merely sell his labor power to be used in any way, for any time, to any extent by the employer, but rather on a specified way, for a specified time, to a specified extent by the employer. The amount of labor power (an abstraction) sold by workers varies from worker to worker, as do wages.
Profit implies the existence of surplus value b/c free exchange implies equivalence of exchange. Thus profit cannot be made merely from exchanging commodities. For the total amount of value to grow there must be a commodity capable of creating more value than it costs. This commodity is labor power- the only commodity which possesses this unique distinction between its use-value and its exchange value. The use-value is that it creates value. The exchange value (wage) is an unrelated magnitude.
A firm's revenue exceeds its costs (labor, raw materials, etc.) due to entrepreneurial facilitation of resources and production of foundational ideas. Seeing labor surplus value requires seeing value produced by labor as equivalent to final product's value; they aren't by definition.
Yes revenue exceeds costs. Surplus value exceeds outlay on variable and constant capital. Revenue equals surplus value. The total value of the product equals the total labor that has gone into producing a product through all of its stages of production, including those in other firms.
What definition are you referring to? Are you saying that labor doesn't account for raw materials? These are obviously the products of past labor in other firms.
No man. I'm saying that the final product's value doesn't equate with constant capital and variable capital. The additional value that causes revenue to exceed costs (the profit, what you consider surplus value) corresponds to the value associated with entrepreneurial facilitation of resources and production of ideas. You know this by now.
I'm not convinced by this repetitive a priori assertion and will not waste any more time with it unless you can give a more substantial argument for how profit can be created through managerial labor and ideas.
The value of the wage attached to the specific labor power being sold isn't merely determined by the employer who can exploit the labor to what ever extent he pleases (like you claim) but rather by supply and demand, like any commodity.
Its not a cop out; its merely deeming coercive power as the source of market imbalances calamities.
I've already listed the factors determining wages. I will not repeat myself. You still haven't shown a necessary correlation between the wage and the value produced. If i do the same amount of work but my wage drops; or if my company downsizes and a smaller amount of workers have to do more work for the same wages; or if I am forced to work overtime w/o pay; or if my boss withholds my wages... do these alterations in wages change the amount of value being produced?
This significance of this distinction (more work, same wages, etc.) is built upon a fallacy that consists of viewing value as a fixed objective property when, in actuality, it is dependent upon factors. Such alterations in wage don't change the quantity or quality being produced, but do change the value being produced by definition. Such a change in value is reflected in change in prices of final product; in other words, labor is valued differently in the given conditions that you describe.
Changes in wages do not change the value labor produces. Changes in time and intensity of work do. You work for more or less time at more or less intensity and get the same wage. The wage merely needs to reproduce labor power. The factors determining wages and the factors determining value production are different factors. Unless you can show a direct connection between the use-value and exchange-value of labor power I refuse to waste any more time with this discussion.
We are working from two entirely different foundations of thought (you view value as a fixed objective property while I view it as a variable subjective property. This discussion will remain stagnant and never advance.
Wouw Brendan, your videos are really educational. I'm learning alot, have watched 4 of your videos now.
Not sure i understand all of it, but it definitely gives me alot of good information, that also gives one an insight in the huge inbalances that capitalism is creating.
Keep up the work!, your doing a great thing to wake people up
Stalin's Russia and Mao's China were much freer than societies that allowed markets to emerge. I realize that no society has yet to allow market emergence under no constraint, but there's certainly an inverse relation between the degree of constraint, and the society's standard of living.
Wow that's a real tangential distraction. Now we are supposed to be debating Stalinist central planning vs. Neoliberalism in terms of "freedom" and standard of living. Let's try to stay on topic. This debate is tiresome enough as it is.
You also continue to insist that exchange value is the only form of value. Value isn't a fixed objective property. It is solely determined by subjective forces transmitted by individuals.
No exchange value is objective. Subjective theories of value cannot explain anything about the social relations of capitalism.
If value is subjective then how can you even argue that capitalists create value? If value is subjective then the consumer creates all the value and it has nothing to do with production at all.
Value is determined by perception; its not created by perception -those are two different statements. If an individual is willing to give up resources (material, intellectual energy, time, etc) for a commodity, the commodity has value, whether or not this commodity can be sold for money on the market.The janitor's position is valued by the employer, otherwise he wouldn't be hired. Exchange value merely holds an objective property (money.) But the exchange of money depends on subjective value.
Subjective value does not explain the objectively observable value relations between commodities (exchange value). It only explains use-value. Failing to understand the interplay between use-value and value is causing you logical problems in your argument.
My janitor example is meant to point out that there are lots of jobs which are necessary that don't create exchange value. Ford has janitors but it doesn't sell clean toilets. It sells cars. People who make cars for Ford create exchange value
Remember, what you consider as the surplus value (the profit margin) is really the intellectual capital provided by the entrepreneaur (the owner of the means of production. For the profit to equate with labor surplus value, you must assume that labor is the only capital involved in the production.
To the extent that a capitalist does labor, intellectual or not, that adds value to the product. But this is not the source of profit. Many capitalists do no work at all and many workers do intellectual work. How do you propose that the value of a capitalist's intellectual work creates so much more value than that of a worker's labor, intellectual or not? How could one person's labor represent such a disproportionate amount of value?
The value of the intellectual work doesn't create more value than the worker's labor. The revenue created by factors of production (labor, raw materials, etc equate with the cost of factors of production--equates with the value of factors of production. The margin of revenue above the total cost (the profit margin) equates with the value of the capital produced by the entrepreneaur (the intellectual capital.) Surely, the worker produces intellectual capital but that's covered by the revenue.
Think of it this way---look at the value components that make up the price of one final consumer good. A piece of the price corresponds to the cost of raw materials instrumental to the production and the cost of the factory in which it is produced--Another piece is proportional to the cost of human labor necessary to the production (wages/salaries.) --while yet another equates with the capital necessary to coordinate all of these resources and capital into fulfilling a specific purpose (profit)
The cost of raw materials, etc. is equal to the amount of labor embodied in these commodities. The cost of the worker is NOT equal to the value they produce. It is determined by other factors before they even start work. Yes, managers and other coordinating functions are part of the cost of running a business and sometimes these jobs add value to the product as well; to that extent these jobs are also working class jobs. But merely owning the means of production does not add value.
Fantastic as always brendan. You make a really good point about the right libertarians never acknowledging that capitalism creates crisis and its always down to "socialism". I see you also really want to get the C-M-C/M-C-M into people's heads so they understand more Marxist terms. Really good effort comrade.
The only problem here is that capitalism isn't a zero-sum game
mart83648 7 months ago
@mart83648
Nobody said anything about an eternal zero-sum game.
pulsatingremedy 1 week ago
There is a difference between "money" and "currency".
mikemat3307 7 months ago
Money is a commodity. In a free banking regime, currency, or "notes" would represent a specific amount of a specific commodity, such as gold, silver, or wheat. Notes are redeemable on demand. Currency would not be based on the "full faith and credit of the US government" but on the ability of a private bank to honor its notes. The moment a bank can not honor its notes, is it placed into receivership, and its assets are auctioned off with the proceeds going to depositors first.
mikemat3307 7 months ago
As workers do not receive equal energy (monetary) value for labor and/or the owners of the means of production sell products/services above the embodied energy value, the sum nominal value of all goods and services always exceeds the sum energy income of the worker/consumer. Every product sold for profit extracts energy (money) from the labor class. The profit system was never and can never be in energy equilibrium. Its over, growth and thus profit is tapped out. Entropy always wins.
johnTconover 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The issue is not really capitalism at all. It is corporatism (business partnering with gvmt). Also the idea you can borrow and print your way out of recessions, better know as Keynesian economics just put off the inevitable. The FED can monetize debt, and other countries like China want Americans to have credit so they will consume. The core of the issue really is the Federal Reserve Act, as they manipulate the market. They create too much credit, print money and devalue savings. Support HR1207!
3DNC 2 years ago
How do external costs of the capitalist (such as corporate tax, local council rates, rent on factory land) fit into the C-V-S formula? as often the capitalist would rais the price of a good to make up for these external costs.
Catholicboy4life 2 years ago
Taxes and rent are a deduction from S (profits). The ability of a capitalist to raise prices above values depends on the amount of competition in the industry. Raising prices above values does not raise the total net profit of society. It only redistributes profits from some capitalists to others.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago 2
Was that Amy Goodman at 30 seconds?
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
Yes. That's her getting arrested at the RNC.
brendanmcooney 2 years ago
What a legend.
jumpnjza2 2 years ago
What does currency have to do solely with a capitalist society? All societies use currency! At the same time, extra value can also come from increased prices on goods sold. When you go to a mechanic, the part will cost more than when you go to Auto Zone by yourself, but that is a voluntary exchange. This video completely ignores wage equilibrium through market pressures. It also ignores that governments are capitalists as well! Actually, the worker is benefitting off the employer as well.
shanklinmike 3 years ago
There is no claim in this video that currency is unique to capitalism. You must be misunderstanding something in the argument which is about the way money functions within a circuit of capital to represent the expansion of value.
Yes increased prices are a representation of an increase in value. But to reverse this and say value comes from an increase in price is tautology.
What does equilibrium wage have to do w/ this video?
How can states be capitalist if they don't sell commodities?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Within the model, you insist that the Capitalists (producers) profit at the expense of the working class. This isn't the case. The worker is just as Capitalist as the Employer; the worker is producing labor and exchanging it with the Employer for income. Also, the profit margin isn't equated with labor surplus value. It corresponds to the value associated with innovation, elaborate organization, and direction produced by the entrepreneaur.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
You confuse labor with labor power. The worker sells the capitalist labor power- his capacity to do work in return for a wage. The amount of value a worker produces and the wage are entirely separate entities by definition. Thus the struggle over how productive to make labor. If the worker only sold the capitalist a distinct amount of value there would be no need for innovation in the production process because there would be no way of increasing the output relative to the wage.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The two (labor and labor power) are intimately related. I understand the root of your ideas---the education system and media inject marxist social commentary into society (some points are valid, most arent.) --- The amount of value a worker produces is exchanged for the wage (both benefit from the exchange--it wouldn't occur otherwise. Like any product, the quanity and quality of labor (workers) and the demand for labor (firms) interact to determine the price of labor (the wage.)
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I'm not sure you do understand. The wage is determined by the supply and demand for workers, the prices of the commodities workers need to buy to live in a given society, and of course class struggle between workers and capitalists. The amount of value a worker produces has to do with how hard they work relative to other workers, the efficiency of the production process, the length of time they work, etc. These are two distinct sets of variables.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Explain how you believe the price of commodities affects the wage. Also, once again, the workers are just as capitalist as the employers or firms. They are producing labor and exchanging for income provided by the employer.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
When the prices of consumer commodities fall workers require less wages and vice versa if commodity prices rise.
"Capitalist" refers to a person who owns the means of production and thus receives the surplus value produced by a workforce. By definition workers can't be capitalists. They must sell their labor power to a capitalist because they don't own their own means of production.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I understand the connection. --- The worker (the capitalist) owns his capacity to work and uses it to produce labor to exchange for income with the employer (the capitalist.) The worker owns the means of production (the capacity to work) and exchanges the result (the labor) with the firm who also owns its means of production (the labor among other forms of capital) and sells the result to consumers.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
No. The means of production are the factories/companies/raw materials necessary to produce a commodity- things the working class doesn't own. They only own their capacity to work which they sell to the capitalist. They do not sell the product of their work to the capitalist. They sell their capacity to work. The capitalist owns all that they produce. The value of their product is not the same as the value of the wage.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The factories, raw materials, human labor (they become the means of production for the firm after being sold by other 'capitalists' (in the factors and labor market.) The value of the worker's product (in its isolated form) does correspond to the wage. The value of the worker's product doesn't correspond to the value of the final product. The value of the final product is the summation of the values of factors of production (the labor, factories, raw materials) and the facilitation (entre.)
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Value of the product=cost of inputs+wages+surplus value. You again neglect the difference between labor power and other commodities:labor power can produce more value than it's paid- by definition! Merely asserting workers are paid for the full value of their work is not an argument against the fact that there's no logical correlation between wages and the value labor produces. For instance I could get paid $10 or $15 to do the same job. Are you saying I produce more value in the 2nd case?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
You're neglecting the value of the necessary capital in coordinating the resources and capital into fulfilling one specific purpose---This value equates with profit. You assume that inputs and labor are the only capital necessary in production. Without the entrepreneaur (without the profit) these forms of capital (inputs and labor) wouldn't interact to fulfill consumer demand in a coordinated fashion.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Yes there must be a capitalist in order to have a capitalism. Duh. This doesn't prove that the capitalist adds any value to the product. If the capitalist actually does some work (some do, many don't) this can add value to the product. But this can't account for profits. The work of a capitalist can't add enough value to account for the magnitude of profit a firm makes.
Also, you haven't answered my above question regarding the lack of correlation between wages and the value workers produce.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The entreprenaur facilitates the coordination of capital and resources into fulfilling consumer demand--without the entrepreneur, such coordination doesn't occur--this value may be less tangible than labor or raw materials, but it certainly is value. --Are you referring to your question of the worker who can be paid 10 or 15 for the same work?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
These tasks that you list under "entrepreneur" can be done by a multitude of people, not all of the capitalists: mangers, marketing departments, accountants, etc. Secondly, there are many tasks that are necessary in a capitalist society that don't actually create exchange value(for instance a janitor working at an auto plant.) I would put "coordinating capital" into that list of unproductive labor. See my video "who is exploited" for more on this distinction.
Thirdly- yes that was the question.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Firstly, ownership of capital facilitates the coordination of all these positions (marketing, accounting,etc) into working harmoniously to fulfill consumer demand. Secondly, exchange value isn't the only type of value produced through labor. Thirdly, the value of labor isn't fixed; it varies in response to various factors (supply of labor, demand for labor, etc) For instance, a bar-tending position is more valuable in an urban area than a rural area due to higher demand (same work-different wage
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Ownership is not an act of labor. It does not generate any value. Exchange value is the entire goal of capitalist production- to make something in order to sell it. Yes wages fluctuate that's the whole point- the value produced is not equal to the wage. This difference is the sole source of profit.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
You are merely repeating the same mistakes over and over again w/o ever explaining your 2 claims: 1. that the value workers produce always equals their wages (a clear misunderstanding of the basic nature of wage labor.) 2. that merely owning capital creates value in and of itself (a clear misunderstanding of how exchange value is produced.)
If the value workers produce always equals wages than why do firms try to drive down wages in order to make profits?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
You continue to assume that raw labor is the only source of value. Value requires of frame of reference. Allowing supply and demand to constitute this frame of reference, the wage does reflect the value of labor. This isn't to say that the wage reflects the final product's value. The final product's value is a summation. I never said that ownership, in itself, generates value. The entrepreneur isn't merely involved in ownership; he is the facilitator (without this role, no production .
gilbretto1 3 years ago
You still are avoiding the difference between the value of labor power (wage) and the value produced by labor. Saying labor has value is like saying value has value. Labor creates value. The capacity to labor is purchased by the capitalist and used to generate profits.
Ownership of capital is all that is necessary in order to get profit from capital. One does not have to perform any productive task in order to get profit.
What of the janitor example?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
I'm not avoiding the difference. Labor time is sold to the employer on a specified, agreed upon basis. But, for you, this leads to the notion that labor value (generated by milking the tit of the labor time) equates with the final product's value.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
You also continue to work under a framework that assumes the firm,the entrepreneur(the capitalist) has total control over the wage value. Both supply and demand (the interaction between firms (consumers in this case) and workers (producers in this case) determine the wage value. To assume that profit is merely extracted from wage value is to assume that the entrepreneurial role (the ultimate facilitator of capital) isn't necessary to production when, in actuality, it's essential.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
No I specifically listed a variety of factors that influence the determination of wages. Read them.
Capital is necessary for capitalist production. So is the state, money, oxygen.. but these don't create value either. You fail to show any correlation between necessity and value creation.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The ideas formed by the entrepreneur certainly have value --not exchange value, but a less tangible value. --this is where you fail to distinguish between varying forms of value
gilbretto1 3 years ago
You must be conceding defeat on this point b/c If they don't have exchange value then they can't be a source of profit.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Sure, there are different forms of value, but, for you, this difference leads to invalid conclusions. ---Objectively, you observe individuals exchanging money for commodities, this exchange conveys value, subjectively placed upon the object of exchange. (from subjective to objective) You're arguments no longer seem to connect to your point. Sure, janitors don't create exchange value, but how does that support your point, and exactly, what is your point?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Objectively we observe exchange ratios between commodities that correspond with the need to apportion social labor through some value mechanism. The subjective value of consumers cannot explain how social labor is apportioned/organized.
The Janitor example, if you care to remember, was a direct response to the claim that capitalists created value b/c they were a necessary precondition to capitalist production. There are many jobs that may have a use value that don't create value, like janitors.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Capitalists don't merely create value by means of owning capital. The entrepreneur creates a less tangible value through facilitating the coordination of capital/resources and producing ideas. Sure, they're isn't an entrepreneur role within a corporation, but in a truly free, unregulated market, there would be no corporation, as it is a legal entity and exists as such by means of the government.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
If they don't create exchange value it can't be a source of profit.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
That is the foundation of your argument, the foundation that I'm challenging. Do you assert that the entrepreneur shouldn't receive any income for producing ideas (value) and facilitating the coordination of resources and capital (value?)
gilbretto1 3 years ago
...which you have failed in challenging now you've conceded that 1.wages and the value a worker produces are two different magnitudes determined by different forces and 2.capital does not create value.
Whether or not a capitalist "should" receive "income" is a moral question. My purpose here is to explain how value is created and what the relation of different social classes are to this process. Of course capitalist DO receive massive profits b/c they DO own capital, not b/c they create value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The value of a final product is a summation between the values of constant capital foundational to production, labor capital instrumental to the arrangement of constant capital, intellectual capital (ideas formed by entrepreneur) and entrepreneurial capital associated with facilitating the coordination of all the three forms of capital (constant capital, labor capital, and intellectual capital.) Profit corresponds to the value of the entrepreneurial capital involved in the process.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
That's funny b/c you just said that "entrepreneurs" can't create exchange value.
Also- the value of constant capital was created by the labor of workers in other firms. Labor always remains the sole source of value. But this isn't really related to our discussion.
It boggles my mind why we have been debating this for 4 days when you keep conceding all of my points.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
No. Man. I never said that. Entrepreneurs contribute to exchange value (final product's value) by producing foundational ideas and facilitating the coordination of capital. What points do you feel I'm conceding, because your feeling is a result of a misunderstanding
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Exact quote from 1 day ago:
"The ideas formed by the entrepreneur certainly have value --not exchange value, but a less tangible value."
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Yes. The entrepreneurial role produces an intangible value, a value that, in itself, couldn't be sold on the market, but, when added to the value produced by labor, contributes to the exchange value.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
wow. that's metaphysical man. Now I feel like doing yoga and listening to the Dead.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
That is your argument, correct?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
The value produced by labor capital is a more direct value, as it is purchased (in its isolated form) directly by the consumer (the employer.) Entrepreneurial value is a more subtle value; its not bought and sold in its isolated form, rather, it interacts with labor capital to ultimately contribute to exchange value. It doesn't extract from labor value, but rather adds on to labor value.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
In sum, you're arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial exploitation of labor value to increase exchange value, while I'm arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial addition to labor value to increase exchange value.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
The addition is metaphysical in nature, merely because it can't be bought and sold in its isolated form on the market, but it isn't metaphysical enough to provoke a yoga session accompanied by grateful-dead music
gilbretto1 3 years ago
So capital adds exchange value-but it doesn't add exchange value? Does the labor of a janitor also add metaphysical exchange value to a commodity? And what theoretical tradition are you drawing from in this theory?
And the difference between wages and value produced by labor- this doesn't become profit? What happens to this money?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Entrepreneurial capital contributes to exchange value, to the extent that it interacts with labor value. ---I don't believe the janitor's labor affects the final product's exchange value. ---Primarily, I draw from the Austrian school.-- The difference between the labor value and the final product's value is the entrepreneurial value--which corresponds to the profit. So, ultimately, this difference does become profit--never said that it didn't. Also, once again, is that your argument?
gilbretto1 3 years ago
No my argument is that the difference between the capacity of labor to create value and the wage is the source of profit as I've state clearly over and over and again in this maddeningly repetitive debate in which you just state the same vague argument over and over again based on the a priori assumption that a capitalist can create value that isn't exchange value but that the worker turns into exchange value. How is this substantively different than the janitor (I ask once again)?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
you're arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial exploitation of labor value to increase exchange value, while I'm arguing that profit reflects an entrepreneurial addition to labor value to increase exchange value. The janitor simply does fit into the argument.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Let's recap.
Points you've failed to respond to:
1. Capital hires managers to do it's job of coordination. It does not "coordinate" itself.
2. Wages and the value produced by labor are not the same thing by definition.
3. How can a capitalist who doesn't create an actual use-value embodying exchange value be creating value merely by purchasing variable and constant capital?
4. How is the unproductive work of a capitalist (if they work at all) different than the unproductive work of janitors?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
1. Never said 'capital' in itself coordinates. The entrepreneur facilitates the coordination and produces foundational ideas. There is no 'entrepreneur' in a corporation, but a corporation wouldn't emerge in a free market.
2. by what definition? The final product's value isn't equal to the labor value (which you've failed to challenge), but rather the labor value combined with the entrepreneurial value.
3. Refer to #1.
4.The janitor has nothing to do with task mentioned in #1
gilbretto1 3 years ago
1. So a capitalist needn't do anything but invest- and that initial investment is worthy of a continual production of value each production period even though he could be out on the beach for the rest of his life not even thinking about work? And you call that a plausible theory of value?
2. The definition of wage labor: That a capitalist buys labor power not labor. This necessarily means a gap.
4. It has everything to do w/ it. It's work that doesn't create anything to be exchanged.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
1. Is that a question? Once again, the entrepreneur is involved in much more than mere capital investment. Your looking at a corporation, which, once again, wouldn't emerge in a free market.
2. The employer buys labor power to be used to on specified (and agreed upon) basis (specified time, specified intensity, etc.)
4. The janitor has nothing to with the task (facilitating the coordination of resources and producing foundational ideas.) He's irrelevant to the argument.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
1. What requires a capitalist to do anything at all other than make an investment? And what could be more free-market than 30 years of neoliberalism- an ideology founded on the ideals of Hayek, Mises, Friedman, and Popper? oh-right... a capitalism w/ not state at all- funny how that always ends up in more authoritarian states. Maybe there's a MASSIVE CONTRADICTION in the concept of free market?
2. The wage can change while the amount of labor doesn't.
4. They both contribute... but not value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Ideas form the foundation of a firm.Twice again, the entrepreneur forms ideas. He also facilitates.Are you suggesting that markets have been free for the last 30 years?The free market model is like no other societal model, in that it lacks a particular design. The model allows any design to freely emerge, by individuals freely interacting.The free market is merely voluntary exchange, unrestricted by any coercive power.A state is necessary to, using its granted coercive power, prevent coercion.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
"ideas form the foundation of a firm". The foundation of a firm is the labor that creates profit. You can buy the ideas- they are called intellectual property.
Attempt to blame the state for capital's failure are absurd at the end of the Neoliberal era.
The state, in attempting to maintain a properly functioning market gets entangled in the basic contradictions of the market and is forced to exert increasingly authoritarian influence over markets whether via Keynesianism or Neoliberliasm.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
But regardless of the source driving the change in debate, the debate has entered that territory.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
No, you entered that territory by saying: "Your looking at a corporation, which, once again, wouldn't emerge in a free market." The typical excuse that the present analysis doesn't matter b/c we aren't dealing enough with a free market. This is a total cop out. The laws of capital are the laws of capital regardless of what state form accompanies/facilitates them. You were claiming the relation between capital and the state effects whether or not a capitalist contributes "ideas" to a firm.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Yes. State involvement is a necessary condition for the emergence of a corporation. A corporation is the only firm that lacks a solid entrepreneur who actively facilitates the coordination of capital. Ideas do form the basis of final consumer products which have exchange value. Whether or not these ideas are intellectual property or free-collective property isn't relevant to their serving as this basis.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
State involvement is necessary at any stage of capitalism. There is nothing more or less pure about corporation in terms of the way it exemplifies the law of value, the wage-relation, the circuit of capital. All of these basic observations about capitalism remain unchanged regardless of the decade.
Your whole point about a "solid entrepreneur" is an attempt to claim that in "real capitalism" ideas create value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
How do you feel about the 'Venus Project?'
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I know nothing about the venus project.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Man, you could have made an entire video with the time you wasted debating that guy! I've read a bit if the Austrians schools stuff, and he didn't even understand their theories correctly.
ZakeD3 3 years ago
where do you find an incorrect understanding of Austrian theory in my arguments?
gilbretto1 2 years ago
You should go check it out. You would love it.
BDRPr0ducti0ns 2 years ago
Ideas are essential to the firm's structure, whether or not they are considered to be intellectual property (such consideration doesn't refute the argument anyway.)
The state has increasingly tampered with markets.
The state's initial involvement is usually sparked by special interests that seek the reduction of competition, subsidies, or cartelization that couldn't occur without enforcement provided by a coercive power. Don't assume the state's primary objective is stabilizing markets.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Ideas that can garner exchange value are intellectual property. We have an extensive legal system for regulating these ideas. Other ideas are free- collective property. These cannot be the basis of exchange value.
Still you have not shown that the wage relation can't generate surplus value. (yawn)
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The obligation lies on your side of the table to prove the existence of 'surplus value' in the first place. The worker doesn't merely sell his labor power to be used in any way, for any time, to any extent by the employer, but rather on a specified way, for a specified time, to a specified extent by the employer. The amount of labor power (an abstraction) sold by workers varies from worker to worker, as do wages.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Profit implies the existence of surplus value b/c free exchange implies equivalence of exchange. Thus profit cannot be made merely from exchanging commodities. For the total amount of value to grow there must be a commodity capable of creating more value than it costs. This commodity is labor power- the only commodity which possesses this unique distinction between its use-value and its exchange value. The use-value is that it creates value. The exchange value (wage) is an unrelated magnitude.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
A firm's revenue exceeds its costs (labor, raw materials, etc.) due to entrepreneurial facilitation of resources and production of foundational ideas. Seeing labor surplus value requires seeing value produced by labor as equivalent to final product's value; they aren't by definition.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Yes revenue exceeds costs. Surplus value exceeds outlay on variable and constant capital. Revenue equals surplus value. The total value of the product equals the total labor that has gone into producing a product through all of its stages of production, including those in other firms.
What definition are you referring to? Are you saying that labor doesn't account for raw materials? These are obviously the products of past labor in other firms.
Ideas require labor to be valorized.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
No man. I'm saying that the final product's value doesn't equate with constant capital and variable capital. The additional value that causes revenue to exceed costs (the profit, what you consider surplus value) corresponds to the value associated with entrepreneurial facilitation of resources and production of ideas. You know this by now.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I'm not convinced by this repetitive a priori assertion and will not waste any more time with it unless you can give a more substantial argument for how profit can be created through managerial labor and ideas.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The value of the wage attached to the specific labor power being sold isn't merely determined by the employer who can exploit the labor to what ever extent he pleases (like you claim) but rather by supply and demand, like any commodity.
Its not a cop out; its merely deeming coercive power as the source of market imbalances calamities.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
I've already listed the factors determining wages. I will not repeat myself. You still haven't shown a necessary correlation between the wage and the value produced. If i do the same amount of work but my wage drops; or if my company downsizes and a smaller amount of workers have to do more work for the same wages; or if I am forced to work overtime w/o pay; or if my boss withholds my wages... do these alterations in wages change the amount of value being produced?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
This significance of this distinction (more work, same wages, etc.) is built upon a fallacy that consists of viewing value as a fixed objective property when, in actuality, it is dependent upon factors. Such alterations in wage don't change the quantity or quality being produced, but do change the value being produced by definition. Such a change in value is reflected in change in prices of final product; in other words, labor is valued differently in the given conditions that you describe.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Changes in wages do not change the value labor produces. Changes in time and intensity of work do. You work for more or less time at more or less intensity and get the same wage. The wage merely needs to reproduce labor power. The factors determining wages and the factors determining value production are different factors. Unless you can show a direct connection between the use-value and exchange-value of labor power I refuse to waste any more time with this discussion.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
We are working from two entirely different foundations of thought (you view value as a fixed objective property while I view it as a variable subjective property. This discussion will remain stagnant and never advance.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Wouw Brendan, your videos are really educational. I'm learning alot, have watched 4 of your videos now.
Not sure i understand all of it, but it definitely gives me alot of good information, that also gives one an insight in the huge inbalances that capitalism is creating.
Keep up the work!, your doing a great thing to wake people up
Gufberg 3 years ago
Sure, but over the course of history, when the Marxist model has been applied, it has produced much more free societies.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Stalin's Russia and Mao's China were much freer than societies that allowed markets to emerge. I realize that no society has yet to allow market emergence under no constraint, but there's certainly an inverse relation between the degree of constraint, and the society's standard of living.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Wow that's a real tangential distraction. Now we are supposed to be debating Stalinist central planning vs. Neoliberalism in terms of "freedom" and standard of living. Let's try to stay on topic. This debate is tiresome enough as it is.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
You provided the distraction by presenting the supposed outcomes of application of the free market model consisting of authoritarian states.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
doesnot
gilbretto1 3 years ago
You also continue to insist that exchange value is the only form of value. Value isn't a fixed objective property. It is solely determined by subjective forces transmitted by individuals.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
No exchange value is objective. Subjective theories of value cannot explain anything about the social relations of capitalism.
If value is subjective then how can you even argue that capitalists create value? If value is subjective then the consumer creates all the value and it has nothing to do with production at all.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Value is determined by perception; its not created by perception -those are two different statements. If an individual is willing to give up resources (material, intellectual energy, time, etc) for a commodity, the commodity has value, whether or not this commodity can be sold for money on the market.The janitor's position is valued by the employer, otherwise he wouldn't be hired. Exchange value merely holds an objective property (money.) But the exchange of money depends on subjective value.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Subjective value does not explain the objectively observable value relations between commodities (exchange value). It only explains use-value. Failing to understand the interplay between use-value and value is causing you logical problems in your argument.
My janitor example is meant to point out that there are lots of jobs which are necessary that don't create exchange value. Ford has janitors but it doesn't sell clean toilets. It sells cars. People who make cars for Ford create exchange value
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Remember, what you consider as the surplus value (the profit margin) is really the intellectual capital provided by the entrepreneaur (the owner of the means of production. For the profit to equate with labor surplus value, you must assume that labor is the only capital involved in the production.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
To the extent that a capitalist does labor, intellectual or not, that adds value to the product. But this is not the source of profit. Many capitalists do no work at all and many workers do intellectual work. How do you propose that the value of a capitalist's intellectual work creates so much more value than that of a worker's labor, intellectual or not? How could one person's labor represent such a disproportionate amount of value?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
The value of the intellectual work doesn't create more value than the worker's labor. The revenue created by factors of production (labor, raw materials, etc equate with the cost of factors of production--equates with the value of factors of production. The margin of revenue above the total cost (the profit margin) equates with the value of the capital produced by the entrepreneaur (the intellectual capital.) Surely, the worker produces intellectual capital but that's covered by the revenue.
gilbretto1 3 years ago
Again, by definition I can own capital and it can turn a profit for me without me doing anything at all. How can that be intellectual capital?
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Think of it this way---look at the value components that make up the price of one final consumer good. A piece of the price corresponds to the cost of raw materials instrumental to the production and the cost of the factory in which it is produced--Another piece is proportional to the cost of human labor necessary to the production (wages/salaries.) --while yet another equates with the capital necessary to coordinate all of these resources and capital into fulfilling a specific purpose (profit)
gilbretto1 3 years ago
The cost of raw materials, etc. is equal to the amount of labor embodied in these commodities. The cost of the worker is NOT equal to the value they produce. It is determined by other factors before they even start work. Yes, managers and other coordinating functions are part of the cost of running a business and sometimes these jobs add value to the product as well; to that extent these jobs are also working class jobs. But merely owning the means of production does not add value.
brendanmcooney 3 years ago
Whered u get educated?
Rudidood 3 years ago
Very nicely done.
JFMJJ 3 years ago
Fantastic as always brendan. You make a really good point about the right libertarians never acknowledging that capitalism creates crisis and its always down to "socialism". I see you also really want to get the C-M-C/M-C-M into people's heads so they understand more Marxist terms. Really good effort comrade.
Long Live the Revolution!
SonnyMarxist 3 years ago
You keep getting better and better at explanations
nickglais 3 years ago
very cool a nice effort :)
headancer 3 years ago
thank you so much for this video, it is incredibly important to have this video for understanding the nature of capitalism.
nuclearnight 3 years ago 3
Thank you
poblamente 3 years ago
showin support:)
jsphbjmn 3 years ago