thank you for saying that!

I'm currently turning it into a paper(s) because nobody is watching it!

even after I do though, I think the KZbin videos will be better

we are assuming the following in the model: 1. that the composition of capital, ie the technological state of each department, is constant. Ie technology is frozen 2. that the state of play between labor and capital is also frozen, Ie a constant societal rate of exploitation With those assumptions, the answer to your question is yes: the per unit of time rate of profit is the same and constant from one period to another. That said, the actual society wide rate of profit can and will still vary from period to period within our model. The reason for this is that society is going back and forth in their bias towards one of the two departments. If department 1 is where all of the action is and it has a higher composition of capital than department 2, then the rate of profit will be lower than if society favored department 2. This oscillation however only hovers between the two fixed rates of profit for the departments. Hope that helps!

​@@TexTalksSometimesyep this is helpful 👍I really liked this video, do you think that finance capital, interests would change much in this circulation?

Oh cool, jealous you're taking a class on this stuff. May I ask what school?

@@TexTalksSometimes Sure! Its the Evergreen State College, I'm doing an independent learning contract on volume 3 (I've read bits sporadically but never fully through), doing a study of debates on the falling rate of profit and a public facing presentation, and then a paper diving into the importance of the concept of fetishism in volume 3 and Marxs philosophical critique of capitalism, pulling mostly from II Rubin and Ian Wright. I was gonna do another paper on the complexities of crisis theory and simultaneously defend the falling rate of profit fanatics and the idea that crises can happen due to different complexities leading to oscillation within the system, but got very caught up in whats been taking the nation by storm.

No, C as I'm defining it here is only the amount of labor required for reproducing means of production given the current requirements of production that day. It is certainly possible that all of S could be reinvested and used to scale up production (if you're willing to starve the capitalists!) but I'll leave it up to you as to whether that's actually happening in our reality. Most economists estimate 3% gdp growth per year as a healthy capitalist system (and we don't even usually achieve that). Also just as a little nitpick: a single worker isn't spending some of their time on C, some on S and some on V. Most workers are only producing one thing all day which falls into one of the 3 categories. It's only in aggregate, looking over all labor done by all workers in a day, that this kind of accounting is reasonable.

​@@TexTalksSometimesI was using the generalization you used in episode 2 (I think) for simplicities case, where we imagine theres just one worker who does all work. To rephrase my question: According to the Coercive laws of Competition argument, capitalists need to push S more and more into V. This isn't simply a matter of greed, but of need. They need to have higher profits than other capitalists because in a crisis the large eat the small. So, what is labor actually making when it makes S? It cant just be the means of subsidence. That's part of S, but since theres more workers than capitalists, that only justifies S being, at minimum, a small fraction of V. It cant be luxury goods either. That's what the Coercion within Competition argument argues against. Capitalists want to spend their money, but they cant. Because they need to spend it on making their company the strong. S also can't be capital goods. That's what C represents. If capitalists dont need to push S into V more and more, past the point of their own necessity, that removes the foundation of many future arguments. Episode 4 argues that in order to maintain profits, capitalists need to exploit workers more and more as C grows, but if capitalists dont need to push S, then falling rates of profits are much less of an incentive to exploit. This push of S into V is supposed to represent more and more time which the workers produce goods for S, and the coercive laws of competition claims that these goods are goods which companies use to make themselves larger. So what are those goods? By the way, I do like the series so far (I'm on episode 4) I'm just having a hard time jumping between the layers of abstraction present.

​@@TexTalksSometimesok, I found some equations in your later videos which I think might help. I'm just doing this math for the first time, writing this comment, so I'm not sure what the results will be. Δ(C+V)=aS For production cycles: t-1 t [C|V|S][C|V|S], Cy(t-1)=C₁y₁(t)+C₂y₂(t) Cy(t)=V₁y₁(t)+S₁y₁(t) Ly(t)=V₂y₂(t)+S₂y₂(t) These equations come from the first accumulation video and the second reproduction schema respectively. The first thing we can observe is that, where a+b=1, where a represents reinvestment and b represents luxury goods, is that every coercive force that makes the capitalists raise S must come from the need for aS. Although the capitalists need some bS to survive, there isn't any systematic force which makes them raise b. Its just want. So we'll set a to 1. The second thing we realize is that the equalities given above can be visualized. For the following equations, the columns represent what they do in the earlier array [C, V, S][C, V, S] and the rows represent total production, department 1, and department 2. The highlighted boxes represent the equalities in the second set. Cy(t-1)=C₁y₁(t)+C₂y₂(t) ⬜⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ============= ⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛ Cy(t)=V₁y₁(t)+S₁y₁(t) ⬛⬛⬛⬜⬛⬛ ============= ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ Ly(t)=V₂y₂(t)+S₂y₂(t) ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜ ============= ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛⬛ ⬛⬛⬛⬛⬜⬜ Taken all together, we can color code this as ⚪⬛⬛🔵🔴🔴 ============= ⬛⬛⬛⚪🔵🔵 ⬛⬛⬛⚪🔴🔴 The first thing we can see from here is that C+V+S isnt the same bar as just the two departments summed. Overall C is department 1s labor, but C₁+C₂ is yesterday's overall capital production. To me, maybe I'm reading this wrong, but this seems to imply the upper bar is actual labor, measured in hours, done each day, macro scale. The department bars represents exchange itself. The labor and capital the capitalist gets through purchase and for free. I kind of feel like this is how we've been using the bars so far anyway, but its nice to write them out. The first thing we realize is that, in the instance of global labor, new value is being created at C, since C represents the labor that's going to die, not the labor that's dead. From the perspective of the capitalist, however, an increase in C makes it harder to exploit. I dont believe this shakes any notions, but I'll have to think on it some more. The second thing we realize is that the global labor bar and the exchange bar feeds each other. Yesterdays global labor feeds tomorrow's exchange capital, and today's labor exchange feeds today's labor. The third thing we notice is those 8 missing squares. I'm going to write out the table 1 more iterations to see what happens. ⚪⬛⬛🔵🔴🔴⬜🔳🔳 =================== ⬛⬛⬛⚪🔵🔵🔵⬜⬜ ⬛⬛⬛⚪🔴🔴🔵🔳🔳 I derived this result through these means: 1. We can use ⚪'s pattern to imply 🔵's. 2. We cant imply anything else about the continuation of 🔴 and ⚪, so we have to use new symbols to represent the new cycle. The new pattern we see is that capital continues throughout, but labor, in this model, lives paycheck to paycheck. This makes sense, seeing as we assumed that a laborer being paid represented hours worked by labor for labor, in the same cycle. Now let's try to fit in that first equation. Δ(C+V)=aS; we've decided earlier that a=1, for simplicity. The change in C and V, in context, represent additional t provided by the labor reserve. Let's write out the graph as an extension of our last graph, but with a final 3x3 representing not a new day, but Δt. t-2. t-1 t Δt ⚪⬛⬛🔵🔴♦️⬜🔳🔳🔺️🔻♦️ ========================== ⬛⬛⬛⚪🔵🔵🔵⬜⬜🔸️🔺️❌ ⬛⬛⬛⚪🔴🔴🔵🔳🔳🔸️🔻❌ 1. First we seperate global labor surplus from all other labor goods as ♦️, broken up into 🔺️, 🔸️ 🔻. This makes sense, as department 2 makes bS, not aS. 2. Now we want to make a call. Do we make a department 3, representing reinvestment goods? For now, I'll say no. 3. Now we insert 🔺️into Δ(C+V). Where exactly is tricky. I'll say it goes into both departments, since you can reinvest in both industries. 4. We match up the symbols by the pattern. 5. Nothing is reinvested into S in either department, as that's not implied by the equation. 6. However, we do get some labor for free from the new workers as S, from both departments. This all leads us to the above chart. What does this chart tell us? Well, it tells us that aS is used to exchange for new capital and new labor. This is just what our equation says, anyway. This new C terminates, as it's dead labor. Dept 1 and 2 both provide more C and S for future cycles and a bit of profit. So, it seems that C is work done to reproduce capital, V is work done to reproduce labor, and aS is work done to grow both capital and labor. Which I guess is just what Δ(C+V)=aS says. This seems to imply something a lot less cynical about the rate of profit, that it's simply more work done for laborers and capital goods. Work done in S is farming for immigrant workers and expanding the industrial apparatus. Neither of these, by themselves, seem like the worst things in the world. Maybe theres a study out there. or some argument, that reinvestment into the workforce hurts workers. Maybe the harm is that more and more money is spent only on a very large groups first paycheck. Maybe there is a systematic force making bS rise, such as outsider shareholders. I dont know. What do you think?

There r so many little cool similarities & duelites in the class & aspects system I’m glad u where able to find hope is to rage as life is to doom and so on not many people see that where u can have some very cool strifes & conflicts/altercations in character dynamics through them

it's there in the description? I just double checked

sure, feel free to reach out to me through a twitter DM!

Can I email you?

@@Drforbin941 sure!

@@TexTalksSometimes What's your email?

@@Drforbin941 check my about page of my channel

labour power is a commodity in that it has a use value and can be exchanged for money commodity

@@Poizn0 Labor-POWER, not labor itself.