Marxist Exploitation vs. the Marginal Revolution

The foundational concept of Karl Marx socialist critique of capitalism is capitalist exploitation of surplus value created by workers. What if that foundation is on shaky ground? Learn more at misesvsmarx.aie...

[@XyntXII]

AIER is a think tank financed by Exxon, the Koch Brothers and others. So while I don't want to say, that the labour theory of value has to be correct in all cases please take this video with a grain of salt. This is essentially the moneyed class propagating their ideas using the money they have to do so. Their interests might not be yours. Marginalism is presented here as if it had no flaws and as if academia today would see no point in thinking about value through the lense of the labour theory of value. They are also not distinguishing between value and price and they are also conflating socialism with the LTV. While Marx, due to LTV being dominant in his time started in that framework one can still critizize the inequalities in todays society even if one rejects the LTV.

[@7_red24]

Not only do two individuals gain via voluntary exchange, but their gains are perceived, by each respectively, as _maximized_ relative to all other potential actions vis-a'-vis the resources in question, at the moment of exchange.

[@raqueljacobs1542]

Voluntary exchange can only happen when both parties have equal negotiating power. If one party can leave the negotiation or abandon the endeavor without fear of repercussion, then it is mutually beneficial. The definition of the proletariat is that they have nothing to barter but their labor and that the repercussion is poverty that might lead to their demise. They have the power to leave any single negotiation but if they do not endeavor to obtain employment, then the only options they have are poverty and criminality. This is not an individual exchange or coercion, but the quality of their liberty is severely limited by the amount of property or amount of capital that individual has. Also the limitations of the liberty guarantee that any negotiation that the individual engages in represents a greater benefit for the capitalist than for the individual. Because labor is negotiated against the threat of criminality or poverty and either can end in the demise of the individual laborers cannot engage in mutually beneficial agreements that don’t imply exploitation, because the negotiations imply that the employer will receive more value than is imparted to the laborer. That is the nature of profit.

[@raqueljacobs1542]

7_Red when labor is exchanged with capitol the expectation is that labor gets the short stick. Since there is necessarily more labor being traded in a capitalist system than is demanded by the capitalist class, it’s a matter of supply and demand. The question of mutual benefit isn’t the right question, it’s whether making a deal where the other party makes it out of desperation is coercion or not. It’s exploitative because the alternative to accepting a job is going hungry or sleeping in the cold.

[@7_red24]

@@raqueljacobs1542 You obviously care about people, and are legit seeking to correct problems you see in the world. I have to disagree with you, though, about the nature of the problems you're talking about in your posts. (1) Capital, that is to say "working capital" or "money capital" (as opposed to "capital goods" --- machinery and equipment), is accumulated savings. Your concern is that capitalists/employers have more negotiating power, due to their accumulated money capital---their need for labor is less than labor's need for employment. The capitalist has more savings, therefore more time before hunger sets in, and thus can "drive a hard bargain" relative to his potential workers. On its face, indeed your concern seems critically important, because the situation appears extremely dire for the average worker. Indeed, while there ARE good people in the world, and surely this would apply to AT LEAST A FEW capitalists as well, as a rule it seems the wage earner in capitalism is f ** ed. But there's a fallacy in the thought. The situation ISN'T that there's a single capitalist employer, and therefore ZERO competition among employers for labor. With competition, the longer any SINGLE capitalist holds out for a better bargain, (1) the fewer his/her choices will be among potential candidates, and (2) the less money he will be making while he waits. Even the GREEDIEST, and BEST POSITIONED capitalist will at some point have to adapt his behavior to these facts. While he is waiting, he will be losing out on the production that missing worker would be creating, after all. To make matters WORSE for him, his LESS-CHOOSY competitors are meanwhile fully staffed and reaping his foregone profits. In short, the GREEDY capitalist is getting progressively weaker, and his COMPETITORS progressively stronger. Further, in the longer run, the GREEDY capitalist will have to settle for workers who his competitors (for whatever reason) have passed on. Neither is THIS fact going to make him stronger relative to his competitors. Thus, the more competition/producers which exist in any particular labor market, the better for the average worker in that market. (Now, if you believe Marx's thesis that capitalists extract so-called "surplus value" from labor, and that laborers are thus forever doomed to "subsistence wages," this is a different problem.)

[@raqueljacobs1542]

7_Red First, I want to thank you because you actually did the work to understand Marx’s criticism of capitalism. Most people don’t try to do the work. The answer isn’t as simple as you would hope, the negotiation between worker and capitalist is how much “surplus value” can you extract. The better a worker is at doing his job, the more value is apparent and can be extracted. The worker doesn’t have an option for “no surplus value” if he lacks the capital to start his own business. Therefore, his options are limited based on the amount of capital he can conjure. But the capitalist doesn’t have to be bad either. He’s just responding to a system and doing the best to navigate it. You have to consider the enormous amount of pressure from competition that they experience. Every time that the competition lowers wages represents a threat to all of their rivals. Therefore, subsistence wages are the logical conclusion to any conflict in the realm of perfect competition. There are acceptable compromises, but every single one would come at great cost because every concession would have to come through force. I feel your pain, the conflicting goals inherent in the system are a clear conflict of interest for both parties. It’s best just to be productive and enjoy the family you have around you. Until there are “No classes” we cannot experience that quality of life.

[@e.y.4710]

@Jason Bonaparte 🤦‍♂️

[@gerardnfarrell]

This misrepresents Marx's theory. He did account for materials, land etc. He refereed to it as constant capital.

[@comradetrip5958]

Lol its literally in Chapter 1 of Capital, shows how much Marx these guys have read.

[@Itsmespiv4192]

They don't need to read Marx, bootlickers would believe them anyway

[@comradetrip5958]

Dude Marx covers the Value of natural resources and land in Chapter 1 of Capital, did you skip that part? There is still the expenditure of human labor in the collection of these resources, they don't exist in a vacuum. This whole 'subjective idea of value' refutes the biggest criticism of the labor theory of value coming from the utility theory of value stating just because you expended labor on a mud-pie doesn't mean that there is any value in the mud pie-- but what you are saying is someone could fetishize any commodity, including mud-pies and place exorbitant value them. This isn't just mud-pies, look at Modern Art and how what someone values as a $10M mud-pie can be used as a philanthropic donation, tax write-off, and the ability to overstate your assets and allow you to engage in money laundering. Your example of Scotch doesn't make any sense as the Scotch that supposedly just sits for two years "doing nothing" has to sit in a warehouse that had to be constructed by labor, has to be rotated, has to be accounted for by labor while the product finishes aging, that is to say it is still Capital in motion. You can't make a 16 year scotch in 18 years, even if you use some Schumpeterian ingenuity to create an artificial environment to alter the temperature, pressure, humidity to speed up the aging process-- you can't call a young whiskey a scotch-- and you cannot negate the labor that went into creating the capital necessary for storing and aging the scotch, or the labor that went into the creation of the artificial environment. Artificial diamonds vs real diamonds are another example. Artificial diamonds can be chemically identical to ones formed naturally, they take far less time than the millions of years required to form them naturally, but are valued much less-- but when you look at the mode of production for natural diamond mining, and the actual value of a diamond if you were to buy a plane ticket to Africa, buy a massive uncut rock, privately contract a diamond cutter and jeweler to polish and set the stone-- all costs included would still be far cheaper than if you found an equivalent stone at Zales. Diamonds are just rocks, in the grand scope of the universe wood is fare more rare and should be far more valuable according to the laws of supply and demand. Whether we look at scotch or diamonds, only reason why someone would differentiate two products that are identical on the molecular level would be what Marx calls Commodity Fetishism. Marx spends a great deal of time differentiating between Labor, Labor Power, Labor Value, Labor Time, Necessary Labor Time, and Socially Necessary Labor Time. You should really give him a read and critique him yourself instead of relying on a 10 minute youtube video with a soundbite that says 'haha Marx never thought about the value of time, what a dumbass" Lastly, this idea that exchange creates value is exactly why we are seeing so many rug-pulls with crypto-currency and NFTs. Imagine two businessmen trapped on a desert island with a briefcase. They trade the briefcase back and forth until it's value is the same of a small boat. Someone with a boat comes along and trades their boat for the briefcase. The man is now stranded on a desert island with a worthless briefcase while the two businessmen take off in his boat. Marx knew there would be major problems with fictitious capital way before any of us heard of NFTs or Synthetic CDOs. If you really want a critique of Marx from the Marginalist perspective you really need to look at Walras and Schumpeter and the value that is created by the Capitalist in the form of innovation and their own labor, as well as the idea of tâtonnement. There are some good arguments against this point of view as to how Capital is able to control both the supply and the demand of labor and manipulate its value through the implementation of time saving technology, as well as how it is labor (not Capital) on the shop floor that is constantly innovating and looking for ways to save time, be more efficient, and to make things easier for itself in hitting the absurd production quotas that are imposed on them by capitalists-- but this wasn't even touched in this video.

[@skaza74]

Comrade, your ideas are very thought provoking. Could you recommend some books or summarizations of your critiques?

[@alexlinna4434]

I greatly appreciate this video. Thanks for making it!

[@processpsych]

The thing that's fascinating is that these economic intellectuals didn't actually do their homework.... Marx was rejecting the labor theory of value in Capital. He was arguing, using the labor theory of value as an assumed reality to reveal the problem with the paradigm. He states in Capital, volume 1 that the value emerges from what is deemed SOCIALLY NECESSARY. He was using the acceptable language of the day to show the implications. He also didn't have linear algebra as an available tool to explain what he was intuiting in mathematical terms. The value of goods (wherein he used the language of the day "exchange value" vs "use value") was determined in an ongoing process of exchanges. What the marginal revolution did was attempt to divorce economics from social and economic class and, namely, politics, as if the market EVER exists and functions separately from THOSE dynamics. The Marginalist Revolution was a REACTIONARY movement, that sought to preserve the hierarchies of nobility and lordship, etc etc, to counteract the recent realization that economy is ALWAYS political, and if democracy is really a value, subjectivism is the enforcement of class location, with the full force of law and executive function....aka the judicial and police enforcement of property. So, the Marginal Revolution as "free market economy" is the backlash against the democratization of society by ruling classes. Notice that even that excerpt from the rap video narrows the attention to "bourgeois" exchange, not working class. If two men [sic] of class and means make an exchange, then both have benefitted. However...if a payday lender charges 300% interest for an advance on low wages...that hits different, because there is not equal freedom between the two choices, because one can't genuinely argue that choosing between starvation or homelessness and 300% interest in a week or two...is remotely fair or unpolitical. The worker gets Caught up in the slavery of a contract that repeats eternally on a loop, why? Because if wages aren't a real, living wage then the individual is forced to choose between enslavement to a "freely chosen" contract that they valued more than starvation or homelessness. What Marx was showing was that there is surplus value in labor, because the value of the materials are preserved in the equation and, so long as there is a surplus of materials somewhere in the equation, the surplus of materials allows for the creation of a surplus in the price. Therefore, given the social and political difference between the classes, the one who has the power to frame the term of the negotiations always has the upper hand and exploits that privilege position by controlling the wages and...means of production.

[@lv4077]

Oh yeah,like Government policies that set an arbitrary value in your labor regardless of your productivity

[@rappakalja5295]

​@@lv4077 oh yeah, read Marx before you make up bullshit

[@lv4077]

@@rappakalja5295 Oh,so you’re an expert on Marx?

[@rappakalja5295]

@@lv4077 No, but unlike you I've actually read him and understand how socialist economies worked - something you fellas refuse to do.

[@lv4077]

@@rappakalja5295 Oh really, OK ,I’d like to know what you think. What is it exactly that you think socialism has to offer? How does Central planning by socialist governments work? Do you see a very powerful centralized government as being the answer to individual problems in society? What do you see is the great benefit with socialism?

[@rystushocklefard9536]

You guys! I just walked out onto my front lawn and found a bunch of diamonds! They’re right, labor doesn’t factor at all into diamond mining and their value! I’ve been blinded by Marx this whole time!

[@GUILLOTINE_GANG]

❤✊

[@santosd6065]

@@clumsyclicker3199 Respectfully, clicker, I think you have it exactly backwards. Marx didn't "try to get around" anything on this point. Marx didn't invent the Labor Theory of Value. He was following Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who pretty much took it for granted that value (not price) is only realized when labor is invested in natural resources (including the human mind, which would account for inventions). This point was so obvious to philosophers that it was taken for granted all the way back to Aristotle (think about it for two seconds and you'll see what I mean. Try to make breakfast without investing any labor into scrambling the eggs or even unwrapping the bacon package). Marx went further to point out that Capital is simply labor that was expended in the past and accumulated. Whether any of this is useful to understand things is not my point... my point is that the Marginalists are the ones that were trying to "get around" the Labor Theory of Value (which everyone took for granted up to that point) because they were living at a time where Capital was supreme (it had crushed feudalism) but labor was organizing and gaining ground. Capitalists didn't need theoretical understanding (why would they? They were winning), what they needed was an ideological weapon to bludgeon the rising labor movements. Just like scientific race theories were being invented around the same time to justify slavery and colonialism. Go back and read Othello. Even in Shakespeare's time he didn't think Africans (or Moors, rather) were biologically inferior. Those "scientific" ideas had to be manufactured to justify the FACT that non white people were being exploited. The facts came first, the ideas came afterwards to try to justify who those in power SHOULD be in power. Explain to me where Im wrong here please.

[@santosd6065]

@@clumsyclicker3199 This is pretty long, and pretty interesting actually. I appreciate it. A bit busy now, but will try to reply soon. Thanks for taking the time.

[@santosd6065]

@@clumsyclicker3199 Just to be clear, I'm not a Marxist. I just like to read, and, as I work for a living, I'm more pro labor than I am pro capital. Having said that, Marx was not making a moral argument, but one on political economy. Slaveholders also argued that they lived only for the benefits of their slaves, caring for their well being and so on, and argued the Northern Abolitionists were the immoral ones. The point being, self professed sentiments of morality and good intentions are not relevant. The point I'm making here is that value comes from labor. True, value may exist inherently in land, resources and even human beings, this value is inert until labor acts upon it. > "Using Marx's exact logic, you will conclude instead that the entirely unproductive and leisure worker class exploits the unrewarded and oppressed capitalist class. Basically, to avoid this pitfall, you had to finish the transformation problem using labour values and also state why you should use labour and not capital." This begs the obvious question "what is capital and where did it come from". The obvious answer: From Labor. It doesn't work the other way around. You cannot say "Labor comes form capital" any more than you can say "Interest produces savings". You can have savings without interest but you cannot begin the process of accumulating interest without initial savings. There's simply no way around it, labor creates capital. The marginalists tried to wave this away by obfuscating, and doing a sleight of hand and replacing "price" for "value". But exchange cannot produce value, it can only exploit momentary opportunities for arbitrage. As for "life, liberty and property" and the rest... I would put it a different way. Laissez Faire argues for respect of Property, liberty and life... IN THAT ORDER. If property (meaning the property of big capital) is ever threatened by organized labor (ie, if labor resists its own exploitation by the capitalist class), then the capitalists are always more than happy to throw liberty and life overboard in favor of a Pinochet or a Trump. As for Capitalists being in favor of state restrictions... I agree with you there. Laissez Faire was only taken seriously from the time of Adam Smith until around the 1830s, when the Bourgeoise was struggling for power against the landholding aristocracy. Once the capitalists won political power, Laissez faire was put aside in practice (You can hardly say imperialism followed the principles of freedom and respect for liberal values), but maintained as a valuable propaganda ideology, which remains the case to this day. Anyone who had any deluded notions that laissez faire could possibly work had those ideas knocked out of their heads by the Great Depression. We've been living under a de facto state capitalist system ever since, in spite of the ideological rhetoric about Free Markets.

[@santosd6065]

@@clumsyclicker3199 One more note. There is a well known Ludwig Von Mises quote, I'm sure you've heard of it: "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history." Granted, this was before the Holocaust, but still, his meaning was clear - liberty and respect for life were completely expendable. The only thing that matters is that the relationship of subservience by labor to capital MUST be maintained, by crushing democracy and resorting to torture, mass murder and genocide if necessary. Not a new idea, but the history of the past eight decades is evidence that this sentiment is alive and well among the elites of capitalist democracies.

[@trishtinagodoy7703]

Thank you for the video, I was really looking to understand the arguments against LTV. Where I struggle with the marginalist critique of LTV, is in the last part of the video where the proof given in why exploitation does not occur is because of voluntary exchange. This is something that was discussed by many classical economists at great length because can labor exchange be considered voluntary if laborers have no direct access to their means of subsistence or means of production (land)? In other words.... labour produced through coercion still considered voluntary if there is no other alternative? If your only choice is to be a beast can you call it voluntary? Would love to see this addressed in another video.

[@karisvenner3892]

You posted this a few weeks ago but maybe I can help you with your questions. - First, there is no such thing as a free meal, you're not being coerced simply by not being given stuff. If you want something from your baker, you need to offer him something in exchange, paid labour is not a way to feed your employer, it's a way to feed the people you're buying goods and services from. - Second, it is false to say that laborers have no access to the means of subsistence. They could sell their work directly, work as an artisan, baby-sitter, dogwalker, gardener, ... I'm specifically choosing low capital-investment jobs because we assume the person is poor and the banker stupid. But if you're better off, or that investors see value in your business you could also become and entrepreneur yourself. When it comes to becoming the source of your own subsistence, government regulations and personal character will be your two biggest obstacles, not a bourgeois conspiracy to keep you in chains. The fact is being an paid worker is incredibly easy compared to being an entrepreneur. It takes a special character to become an entrepreneur in the first place. People choose to be employees because it alleviates large portion of the doubt in their life, allows them to raise families and get loans with a fixed income regardless of the market-situation. Yet, when individuals decide to take their income into their own hand and free themselves from "bourgeois" owners, they do just that. Most of the time they fail. And most of the time, their main enemy are the Socialists in government who want to control the economy. Who wish to decree what constitutes a "living wage", "decent conditions", "fair contract", ... and run small-business owners into the ground. You must make a difference between what is best, and what is preferable. Most people begrudgingly go to work, not because they think it is best, but because it is better than the alternative. You can become an entrepreneur tomorrow if you want, resign from you job, start a small business providing your skills and services to your community. You don't do that, not because you're kept from doing it, but because you quickly realise, that unless you really know what you're doing you'll not be able to make it. You'll just drown in government regulations, taxes and fees, you'll have a hard time selling your services and being competitive vs the big companies with well optimised processes, ... Liberalism seeks to free the people from employee status by lowering the burdens on entrepreneurs so that more people decide to go freelance. Socialism wants to do that by increasing the burden on successful entrepreneurs. Liberals want you to be free to choose whether you're willing to take the risk of starting a business or keep working as an employee to have more stability. Socialists want to make it ever harder to be an entrepreneur, dragging everyone down into employee-status, by providing ever increasing social benefits. Liberals want to break the employee's chains and let them stay in the factory or walk away to build their own. Socialist want to gold-plate the shackles and make the entrepreneurs pay for it. Which system will have more factories ? Which system will have more freedom ? Which system will have more prosperity ? Which system will have more competition for labour, driving up the working conditions and pay ? I think it's fairly clear, from both a logical standpoint as well as an historical one.

[@veryfitting]

True but there's no such thing as voluntary exchange in the context of mass society. To me, this is because you'd end up with a situation where you say "I want out of this system, where's the other one? Oh I'll move there.....shit no I don't like this one let's try the other one.....shit" you'd always run into problems with systems and to try to critique an entire global system because there's nothing else around to jump ship to when you don't like is a bit futile.

[@veryfitting]

@@karisvenner3892 1st you're wrong slightly because if that was true then charity wouldn't exist at all because no one would give things for free to anyone. You'd see homeless people mowing the lawn of picket fenced desperate housewives. 2nd is wayyyy off because to be hired you must be able to sustain the work load being agreed upon, therefore if the system is designed in such a way that your basic needs ie food and water are not met then your sickness level is likely to skyrocket as opposed to a healthier lifestyled person.

[@karisvenner3892]

@@veryfitting About the first point I don't see how you could come up with this idea from what I said. Donations to charities are not free ... they are people willingly sacrificing some of their wealth to the benefit of the charity, this is why donating to charities is seen as a moral act, you are sacrificing your own enjoyment, to provide for others. It doesn't change my point, there is nothing free in the world. Claiming you're being coerced by *not* being given stuff is *in fact* asking for people *to be* coerced into giving you stuff. If you want something from someone, you need to get them to agree to the exchange, otherwise, it's called stealing. In the case of charities you don't get anything (aside from moral gratification, which is just as valid of a goal as money) but you still agreed to the exchange. Now onto the second point, I don't even understand where you're going with it. Basic needs are met in all Capitalist societies and life-expectancy has never stopped growing, so what are you getting at ? The fact is, jobs lose worth when new ways to do things better and faster appear. These ways of producing better and faster also massively expand the offer, which drives down the price. A low-wage worker with little qualifications might not be able to afford the latest and greatest, but he will always be able to get access to basic goods, he will also have access to a strong second-hand market of extremely modern devices. The idea that a singularity will open between Hyper-rich living in Gold-Plated marbles castles and continent-spanning slums of people unable to feed themselves is just a fantasy almost exclusively derived from Marx prophecies. It has nothing to do with the real world, in fact, every single time innovation happened, it lifted people OUT of poverty not the other way around. Jobs will probably become much more centred around services as the % of workers needed in factories will decrease with automation, and they will also become much more flexible with our quickly evolving world, but saying the middle-class will disappear and Proletariat and Bourgeois will split apart is just ridiculous, and is in fact the perfect description of most *Socialist* regimes. Death of the Middle-Class, Consolidation of Power by an Elite Class, and Reduced access to even the most basic necessities.

[@trishtinagodoy7703]

@@karisvenner3892 I think you bring up an interesting point regarding burden and how different systems allocate responsibility for the greater social burden. I think it is a bit off topic from my original comment, but maybe consider this... The existence of entrepreneurs does not suggest there will be less factory work. Also, if we allow entrepreneurs to be completely unregulated, well we saw what happened both in the peasant revolts and in the rise of unions from mass strikes. I never suggested, nor does LTV suggest, that anyone is looking for a "free meal". In simply begs the question, what is a "fair exchange" for contribution. Under the current liberal-capital-socialist system, accumulation of money is valued about all else. Entrepreneurs with capital outsource labour to impoverished nations because it is cheaper. It is akin to playing poker with a billionaire while you only have $100, except you don't really have a choice on whether you play. We used to be able to grow enough food to support our own populations (with turbulence of course), but now countries that are resource rich are among the poorest. That comes down to the fact that the locals simply don't have access to the means of production within their own countries. For various reasons, but really it comes down to it not being in the interest of capitalists/industrialists/entrepreneurs (whatever you want to call them), to make it accessible. Why on earth would they want to open themselves up to competing for the means of production with billions of people? In the spirit of competition? It's not logical to on one hand, claim people are self-interested, and on another, claim they are interested in losing in competition, it just doesn't make sense. And what did we learn from judge Judy.....If it doesn't make sense, it's probably not true. THINK MCFLY! THINK! Let's not ignore the repetition of history. I am not for any existing system the way that it is. I believe when it comes to science, we don't put a ceiling over our heads, we open-mindedly consider the existing problems and without prejudice seek to solve them. But denying the problem exists is no different then trying to keep the world standing still.

[@spatia367]

It is easier to be an entrepreneur when your dad got lots of money.

[@yydd4954]

No it's not actually Entrepreneurship just needs a good idea and implementation. Whether u have rich dad or not u will get a investor U clearly don't understand business world. Do you? Entrepreneurs who started from very average and now investors! Entrepreneurship is special thing, it not beneficial for capital accumulation but also brings new ideas which creates new industries which leads to more job opportunities and more economic prosperity with more innovations!

[@spatia367]

@@yydd4954 like what... Great idea are you talkin' delivering fast food in 10 mins or selling coconut water in plastic bottles. 😅. Or selling clothes at exorbitant price because branding. Or selling high sugar carbonated drinks... Great ideas no.

[@yydd4954]

@@spatia367 like Flipkart in India Two students together made a delivery app that competed with Amazon! And tbf it was ahead of Amazon in India. Excuses are many and keep making excuses 🤷🏻‍♂️. U really think likes of bill gates, mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk etc lacked ideas and we're consistent? Also about products u talking about. What about gym excessory, herbal products, etc etc. It all depends on consumer what he/she wants! Adam Smith talked about education and said the consumer need to be educated because according to them only the market will actually work.

[@spatia367]

@@yydd4954 after all everything we see around has been made by people, who is refuting that? But to say that flipkart is an innovation is overstreching. All of this can be replaced by public institutions. And most of tech that you see today from internet to touch screens to your softwares were created by public funding. Capitalistic profit seeking do not create innovation in long run. Yes you can make money and become rich, if that is your only goal. But all this entrepreneurs saving or running the world is utter bullshit.

[@yydd4954]

@@spatia367 it creates innovation in long run It has created Innovation in long run! Ur argument has no point other than saying "no u r wrong" Stop being in denial and if u can then prove me wrong with facts Public sector, a monopoly won't bring any innovation u r expecting. It's just going to be bad allocation of resources. It's capitalist countries that have brought innovation more than any other system. Ask other systems to first feed their people properly and to make them work. Entrepreneurship is very important which people like u won't understand. Understandable, u people like a lazy and unemployed personality like karl Marx more than hardworking entrepreneur. 🙂

[@afgor1088]

i genuinely look forward to the day i hear a real critique of marx and not just "i've not read marx, here's what a i think he wrote, what a silly man huh?"

[@SlickSimulacrum]

Good luck with that... For these illiterate m*r*ns, it is far easier to let somebody else who also didn't do the reading tell the story, and then copy their work... The fake attempt at legitimate context is pathetic, because most readers of the heterodox and classical theories already know the better criticisms, to which this illiterate presenter doesn't even know.

[@kurt44mg42]

Karl Marx, amongst others, based his theory of value on the amount of labour that went into producing a product. If the worker did not receive 100% of the final price or "full value" of the product he made, he was being "exploited". However, the problem with all such efforts to conceive value as dependent on some "objective" factor is that they are viciously circular. If, for example, the value of a chair is dependant on the amount of labour that goes into producing it, then how do we determine the value of that labour? Marx himself could not resolve this problem. He understood that someone who laboured all day long vigorously smashing up chairs could not expect the same pay as someone who's making them. Therefore, he declared -- most likely as an afterthought -- that it was only "socially useful" labour that determined value. But how on earth do we characterise "socially useful" labour other than by the fact it produced "socially useful" things? In other words, we're stuck in the same circle by explaining the value of products by the amount of labour that went into producing them and the value of that labour by the products produced.

[@bly998]

this is brilliantly explained in Carl Menger's principles of economics

[@Joel-eu6vt]

The price of commodities is determined by competition according to Marx (competition between: 1.sellers 2.buyers 3.sellers and buyers) in other words, price is determined by supply and demand and not the amount of labour that went into producing it. The socially necessary labour time is what dictates value, which you seem to be conflating with price, two different things in Marxian terms. Marx did adress the "value of labour" in Wage Labor and Capital, Chapter IV. He explains, The price of wages (or the price of the labor power of the worker) is determined by the price of the means of subsistence or the means of life (the conditions of keeping the worker in working condition) and by the price of the reproduction of the working class. So for Marx, labor power is also a commodity, which is exchanged by workers for money and finally for the means of subsistence. This is of course a very simple explanation of wage labour, there are also other aspects of Wage in Marxist theory, see norminal, real and relative wages for example.

[@kurt44mg42]

@@Joel-eu6vt "The socially necessary labour time is what dictates value, which you seem to be conflating with price". Who's talking about prices?

[@Joel-eu6vt]

@@kurt44mg42 There is no such thing as "full value" let alone being synomimous with price.

[@kurt44mg42]

@@Joel-eu6vt "There is no such thing as "full value" let alone being synomimous with price". Who's talking about prices?

[@RedSoulful]

Well... I think that what explains "value" is the rule 101 of Economics: Offer VS Demand. Labour and raw materials are important factors, but demand is clearly the most important one. A Louboutin pair of shoe it may cost more than 10 regular pairs of shoes even though it takes less time to produce (than the combine amount of time used to produce 10 decent pairs of shoes) and it consumes way less materials. The price is defined by the costumers who are willing to pay $700 for it and not by the workers who produce the shoe. As for raw materials, take crude oil as an example: a few years ago a barrel of oil used to cost more than $100 and now it cost less than the half of that. Why? Because the demand decreases every year (especially due to the rise of green energy).

[@benjamindetry1131]

I would say that labor and raw materials play a factor In the sense that no one will produce something and sell it for lower that the labor and raw material costed (that are subjectively valued) unless they want to make charity.

[@trishtinagodoy7703]

crude oil is not a good example because it's price is relatively inelastic due to oligopoly alliances setting and maintaining prices. The price of oil plummeted because OPEC flooded the market with supply to slash prices. It was deliberately aimed to price gauge new producers whose breakeven point is above $40/barrel. Why OPEC? Because, their oil is closer to the surface and does not require expensive methods to extract bitumen (oil), they still make a profit at $40/barrel, meanwhile new producers are most likely going to be extracting from places that are hard to reach, thus are reliant upon inelastic prices. Decline in demand due to green energy has nothing to do with it. Most green companies are subsidiaries of oil and gas firms.

[@adityasharma-ox6re]

I haven't read any Marx book but by the way these people explained it can anyone tell me if I'm wrong about this " I think as for the example of 12 yrs scotch and 18 yrs scotch the reason why the 18 year scotch is more in price can be explained by labour theory cuz you will have to keep it under some conditions and in a barrel which is made by a labour and then as for the conditions I think labour would be required to protect it from different things and preserve it "

[@Gray-dr2ri]

Alcohol is definitely a more unique example bc it does appear to be an exception at first glance. But ultimately it would be fixed capital (typically seen as machines, tools, or, in this case, harnessed resources) imparting their value onto itself.

[@GUILLOTINE_GANG]

Aditya Sharma You should read some Marx😁 And you are right, the example of aged alcohol is very flawed.

[@defaultlogos2976]

@@GUILLOTINE_GANG I prefer Hagle's and Keynesian works

[@GUILLOTINE_GANG]

@@defaultlogos2976 right on man. Keynesians are good people in my book. Not everyone has to agree on the solution, sometimes it is nice just to have allies who are critical of capitalism.

[@defaultlogos2976]

@@GUILLOTINE_GANG Definitely, I am personally a fan of the Austrian School(specifically Hayek and Mises) though and the Chicago School.The Keynesian school is just something everyone needs to learn due to it prevalence in modern economics and the 20th century. My problem with Capitalism isn't the system itself but rather the schools fail to properly teach people how to succeed in said system. No one knows what they are voting for in the U.S., the Democratic Election of Biden over Andrew Yang is pretty evident of that. Basic things, like financial literacy isn't taught or basic economics and it is easy for economically illiterate people to be swept up in a bunch of fringe-theories of economics. We don't teach the political incentives behind modern economics or how most modern economics are screwed over by political parties making use of their political superiority just to pass their laws that would fuck up the economy. Edit: Guess I should clarify I'm a filthy cappy, but I enjoy reading the other works of Marx or Hegel, though I disagree with them and feel as if Marx's transition to Communism is paradoxical.

[@muhammadbinjamil9998]

I do think free markets are better than govt intervention but I can't answer this question from my friend. He says, "I agree government enterprise is inefficient than private enterprise. But what is wrong if government taxes middle class and rich to provide affordable things for poor like education and health, even if it is inefficient? If you remove so-called inefficient government programs, the poor wouldn't be able to afford basic necessities." What is wrong with that line of thinking? How would Thomas Sowell respond?

[@gabbar51ngh]

@Spartan 506 how are they hoarding?

[@agent99._.53]

@Jason Bonaparte it’s funny communism is known for starving and you have no right to their food you just feel entitled

[@agent99._.53]

@Jason Bonaparte it’s not the nations land lmao it’s the farmers and sounds like your a fed bootlicker I thought you were communist

[@agent99._.53]

@Jason Bonaparte there’s a reason the government has to buy private property before building on it it’s not theirs

[@agent99._.53]

@Jason Bonaparte we don’t even live in capitalism💀

[@Butters-ly3hq]

Maybe no-one gonna actually reply but still, "is it not true what Ricardo said that in the long run prices are gonna depend on the effort went into creating them, I mean the marginal price fluctuate but shouldn't those be atleast closer to average price??"just a thought

[@enderfoglia8248]

So Mises won the rap battle

[@Andystuff800]

Only because the judges were biased in his favour.

[@Nightshift10000]

Mises always wins

[@franktotten3783]

Economics, politics and ecology are three words for the same set of mathematical processes; free market has inherit feedback controls,(complete with utter collapse and reset); communism and corporatism are differing control functions for the same game-set outcome; consume all resources until resource exhaustion occurs. Ever notice how China is externally capitalist, yet internally communist? How could that be?

[@yydd4954]

Because there's no freedom in China Yes china economically good but what about people's freedom? Why can't we be like Hong Kong or Singapore or Finland or Germany or Australia or New Zealand or Sweden or Switzerland etc... These are free market But nope people rather would love to be like Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe 😀

[@franktotten3783]

@@yydd4954 The mathematics are not socially relative; but absolute. China, Switzerland, Sweden, Canada and even the U.S. have the same kind of engineered economy, the only difference being the branding and labels. In 17 million years before the KT impact, the number of large land animal went from 37 to 11. Any damn thing could have happened and dinosaurs would have died; just due to a lack of dynamic interchange. So the rumors and stories go, there are 7 international trade compacts, regulated by one international bank and two corporations linked like siamese triplets. The parallel should be obvious.

[@yydd4954]

@@franktotten3783 they aren't as engineered as u think And am not talking about usa Also Chicago thought is also scientific but it follows free market and that's the case in these countries! Covid ruined it and took them backwards but these countries are slowly and gradually following the path of liberty. China isn't that good as u think. China doesn't have innovation. They are copycats and only good for manual labour which other low populated countries Don't have. Japan and China distinguish here even Korea. Korea and Japan bring innovation and entrepreneurship more.

[@franktotten3783]

@@yydd4954 There is a misunderstanding......all these great structures have been built around the same principles, economic scaling. Bigger is better, it knocks down cost of production. This has resulted in monolithic governments, monolithic corporations, monolithic thought. Bigger, however, means slower to react, and less precision in course corrections. China, Germany, Babylon, England; all have resorted to industrial slaughter to enforce conformity......the problem never was an ungrateful and greedy population, but subtle changes that the wealthy can't see. Political suppression, dirty business, targeted assassination, these are all signs of a ship that has hit an iceberg. All the industrialized nations are equally fucked, locally the reasons differ, but the root cause is the same.....big ideas and disregard of anything that upsets the order. What we are witnessing is staggering, mummified dinosaurs trying to stomp mammals, while still trying to eliminate their equals.....but second rankers, Korea, the Uraine, Turkey, Egypt; they're trying to bootstrap themselves into the big boys club, completely blind to the collapse. Sad, but funny. Kinda like a grand opera written by the Three Stooges.

[@yydd4954]

@@franktotten3783 who told u bigger is better? Who told the more produced is better? Don't u know about marginal productivity? And the countries that have been f**ked is by crony capitalism not free market. Keynesian economics is what led us here, cronies got fatter and they by shaking hands with government became monolithic. U need to understand free market first! U want a system like China but let me tell u that it's people like u who are aganist the freedom of people.

[@veryfitting]

Either I'm misunderstanding something or both explanations seem to be right in isolation of the other. Labour theory of value: workers make the shit, they create its value. Critique: you're missing the consumer input in your calculations, here's an entire theory to justify my point but there's nothing else involved. Just that you're missing an input type.

[@jorgemachado5317]

You're right and Marx was too. Contrary to what the video suggest, Marx never has missed that consumers desire things differently. Nobody has, even Adam Smith knew this. Marx's point is that there's a social dimension to the commodity which cannot be explained by nature. To say it in other words: the value is objective AND subjective at the same time. It is a social relation. In capitalism this social relation manifest itself in the form of labor because it is the way that productive forces are organized. Capital is the precise movement that transforms money (which has no value in an of itself) into more money. This "more money" is the surplus value. This "more money" is in reality the labor transferred from the workers to the one that invested the money

[@vcalv9354]

@@jorgemachado5317 money has no value? Money clearly has exchange value and gold and silver clearly both have direct use and exchange uses.

[@jorgemachado5317]

@@vcalv9354 VALUE and EXCHANGE VALUE are different things. Even in Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Those are two different aspects of value. Use value is a third aspect. Money has only USE value which is to exchange QUALITATIVELY different commodities. Has i said to you: money EQUATES the substance of any commodities. Marx is not that difficult to read

[@Gray-dr2ri]

I love how marginalists never understand the role of use value in Marxian economics.

[@gabbar51ngh]

Marxian economics is an oxymoron

[@Andredias164]

"Marxian economics"

[@ArthKryst]

The issue with Marx's theory as a businessman is that he underestimates what the guy sitting behind the desk has to deal with. If sitting behind the desk and ordering was the only thing he did then he wouldn't have had any value would he? The man sitting behind the desk takes decisions, he makes choices and therefore takes the reward for the risk involved in those choices. This is solely from a business perspective being one myself

[@thanasdjango4394]

Marx wasn't writing his book with the image of a 21st century businessman sitting in front of a computer screen getting stressed about some deadline or debt he was writing his book for the people described in this quote from Capital Vol. 1. Mind you this was in Europe: “The rooms are generally the ordinary living rooms of small cottages, the chimney stopped up to keep out draughts, the inmates kept warm by their own animal heat alone, and this frequently in winter. In other cases, these so-called school-rooms are like small store-rooms without fire-places.... The over-crowding in these dens and the consequent vitiation of the air are often extreme. Added to this is the injurious effect of drains, privies, decomposing substances, and other filth usual in the purlieus of the smaller cottages.” With regard to space: “In one lace-school 18 girls and a mistress, 35 cubic feet to each person; in another, where the smell was unbearable, 18 persons and 24½ cubic feet per head. In this industry are to be found employed children of 2 and 2½ years.”

[@thanasdjango4394]

“The rooms are generally the ordinary living rooms of small cottages, the chimney stopped up to keep out draughts, the inmates kept warm by their own animal heat alone, and this frequently in winter. In other cases, these so-called school-rooms are like small store-rooms without fire-places.... The over-crowding in these dens and the consequent vitiation of the air are often extreme. Added to this is the injurious effect of drains, privies, decomposing substances, and other filth usual in the purlieus of the smaller cottages.” With regard to space: “In one lace-school 18 girls and a mistress, 35 cubic feet to each person; in another, where the smell was unbearable, 18 persons and 24½ cubic feet per head. In this industry are to be found employed children of 2 and 2½ years.”

[@ArthKryst]

@@thanasdjango4394 Again, even in 18th century businessmen were much more frustrated and also weren't any better than today.

[@thanasdjango4394]

@@ArthKryst Again, Marx was only minutely interested in your entitled individualist middling intelligence ass. He was interested in the little children whose parents were forced to send them to work in the coal mines for a few shillings.

[@collins9708]

I value month old milk more that Year old milk

[@Megaritz]

Many recent socialists have rejected the assumption that Marx's theory of exploitation relies on the Labor Theory of Value. Example: G A Cohen. I also note that it's possible to make socialist arguments that don't even rely on Marx's theory of exploitation. It's a needlessly complex theory which makes the baseless allegation that capitalism is tainted top to bottom. Socialists should instead make the more modest argument that (a well-designed version of) socialism can help ensure that people's vital needs are met better than capitalism can. Also, note that the people in this video are switching casually back and forth between *descriptive* claims (e.g. how economics works, what determines prices, etc.) and *normative* claims (e.g. the *moral* theory that workers in sweatshops are really giving *consent* AND that this consent means they are not being exploited-- there is no scientific study or model that can prove or disprove these sorts of claims!). That is slippery argumentation. Serious libertarian philosphers are much more carful than these guys.

[@Anon-yz1xr]

My one issue with this, is the assumption of voluntary exchange. Can exchanges be considered equal when bargaining power is so unequal? Take medical care, for example. If your paramedic could start haggling you, (or more likely, your insurance tries to deny you treatment) you'd have no choice but to accept whatever price they gave you because your health depends on that treatment. This is why regulation and a government option are so important. And then there's jobs. When you're starving you don't really have much of a choice to pick and choose your employment arrangement, you just take whatever you can to eat, and companies that know this can exploit that desperation.

[@thiagofelipe3229]

1) No. Government is what makes these prices go up in the first place, through lobbying, restrictions and regulations. 2) In a pure capitalistic system, insurance does not make long term profit through haggling or denying treatment. Entrepreneurs make profit by making people happy and better off. If you don’t do that, competition will take your costumers. 3) Your last paragraph starts at the halfway point and completely dismisses the first half of the story: Every human needs food. If you don’t hunt, farm or collect food yourself, you’re relying on someone else who does. This someone else is sacrificing his time and his physical and mental capacities for providing food. He would like to get something in return for that so that a) he can sustain his own life and b) he can continue providing the work that he does. You’re not entitled to the fruit of someone else’s labor, and since you’re probably not providing food for yourself on your own, you better find a way to compensate this someone else whos providing that food for you.

[@agent99._.53]

@@thiagofelipe3229 facts

[@e.y.4710]

@@thiagofelipe3229 You better find a way in "pure" capitalistic system!

[@leongremista95]

If a doctor is trying to use your health as blackmailing, not only you're going to sue him, but you're also going to find a doctor that will not do this. The first doctor is worse off

[@redlorax5380]

This doesnt take away that capitalism causes class conflict. Even if the value is based on a different thing, the worker and the capitalist have different interests. If democracy gets to the economy, the boss, who is an elector of the workers, the interests of worker and " boss" dont conflict anymore. They are the same. People can still vote to use a part of surpluss value to benefit the company. But they vote for it, when times are hard, you just as easily get wages back to the people.

[@trivo508]

the rich guy you speak of, because of exploiting resources and property and politics, is part of a class of rich guys who shorten and diminish the quality of life for all the people he exploits.

[@redlorax5380]

@madwtube and how do you know?

[@gabbar51ngh]

You are free not to work for an employer if you don't want. There's no class conflict. It's you who have conflict.

[@МихаилДанарин]

3:15 "Labor theory of value is never going to explain the value of minerals in the ground" lolwhat? It's explained in Chapter 1. "Diamonds are of very rare occurrence on the earth’s surface, and hence their discovery costs, on an average, a great deal of labour time. Consequently much labour is represented in a small compass." Value of minerals is the amount of labour time, that sociaty spending to locate (discover) that mineral, plus the labour time to extract it from the ground (if he talking about extracted minerals). 3:22 "It's never going to explain the value of land, cuz land wasn't produced by labour" - Explained in Volume 3. Marx never said that land have value. Land doesn't have value, it have a price. Land have a form of comodity, and therefore it have a price, but it doesn't have the value itself. This professor don't even know what the difference between value and the price. 4:22 "You find a diamond, that take a second to make, and people value it's a lot." Oh really? And what going to happend if we can produce one diamond per second? Did he even try to think about it? "If we could succeed at a small expenditure of labour, in converting carbon into diamonds, their value might fall below that of bricks." Where did you get this professors? Anyway, thank you for the video, it's very entertaining to watch how bourgeois professors embarrassing themselves!

[@_wipfy3731]

Then why does your system fail every time? Value is subjective.

[@MaoTseFunkadelic]

@@_wipfy3731 'Your system' being....what? Marx analyzed capitalism, he did not offer a pre-planned utopian alternative. *Value* is not subjective. *Price* is impacted by subjective assessments in the short-term. Value and price are different concepts. You are being mis-educated on what Marx's LTV even is, as exemplified by this video. Specifically, by being trained to mis-interpret Marx's theory of value as a theory of price, so that you will automatically accept the marginalist assumptions.

[@MrKasenom]

You didn't address the issue with determining the value of aged wine.

[@MaoTseFunkadelic]

@@MrKasenom I think it was whiskey, but it is sleight of hand. First, the assumption that aging the alcohol is costless is not true. Secondly it makes no sense. Selling something before it is done being produced doesn't disprove anything. Aged alcohol is a different commodity than non-aged, just as seed is a different commodity than maize. It is true that long-term aging would require returns to be above total inflation, and the relative return of just, say putting money an in index fund. This is a question of turnover time and the average rate of profit. Again, addressed by Marx.

[@MaoTseFunkadelic]

@The Random Guy Those only appear as contradictions if you misconstrue 1) value as price and 2) mistake concrete labour time (Smith) for socially abstract labour time (Marx). Masterpieces and antiques are special and rare, their reproductions are not. Which is why the former sell for millions and the latter pennies. They have different labour processes. If marginalism were true, than identical reproductions should be worth millions. They aren't. Land can't be produced, it has no value. It's price is related to what can be produced on it, and relative scarcity. Vol 3 of Capital. Marx doesn't deny supply and demand forces impact price. He conceptually controls for them to explain value dynamics - you might think of it as the explanation and dynamics for the equilibrium price, to use marginalist language. Marginalist can't explain differences in equilibrium prices because they assume value doesn't exist. The video isn't a serious engagement with Marx. It is disinformation. Which is why they didn't bring on a single respected Marxist professor.

[@themelancholia]

Glad they at least know how Marxism works

[@tinkletink1403]

🤣

[@marcossantana4259]

assim não tem como eu compartilhar com meus amigos cara... precisa colocar legenda em português...

[@mechamedegeorge6786]

Ola fellow br

[@LeftistJesus]

Price = value? That seems a little simplistic. Value is subjective, but price needs to account for the labour and materials, with the addition of what the capitalist believes the market will value that product for. Is there a difference between a Pontiac G5 and a Chevrolet Cobalt? Yet they are priced very differently. They both fulfill the same needs, but the market states they have different values. Also; Marx never said that all labour has value, or that all labour should be valued equally, but with your pie scenario, it was the labour that went from taking raw materials to baking a pie that makes the pie more valuable than the material. I could sell you a pile of steel and plastic for the same price as a car, and if labour doesn't add value to the product, it should be worth the same as the car, right?

[@gabbar51ngh]

No one's stopping you and someone might even buy it in times of crisis. Simply because it's subjective. To make it even more obvious some corporations deliberately sell products at losses to gain customers. Pretty good example is Amazon's streaming service or some of Costco's products. Both often sell below the market value and the amount they invested to have subscribers for the long run. If we stick to your theory then it's completely impossible for someone sell it at a lower price yet it happens all the time in the market. It could be for numerous reasons. One of them like quick cash. Value is subjective and so is price. If we started using labour to decide value then a vase from ancient China and vase from Modern Times must have the same value and price based upon the amount of labour. Yet an ancient vase Would have much more value in the market. Why? Cause it's subjective. Simply because someone is willing to pay huge sums of money for it and not fir sone regular vase. He or she doesn't Care how much labour you put into it.

[@LeftistJesus]

@@gabbar51ngh yea, I don't disagree, wholly. Marx talked about use value. The sticking point for me is that the same amount resources and labour went into producing both items, and they fill the same need, yet the market dictates that one is costlier than the other? I'm not as well read on theory as some, but I'm gonna fight against systems that keep people from having their basic necessities met while others live better than the Kings of old because they own stuph. That's bullshit. "What if the cure for cancer is locked in the mind of someone that couldn't afford higher education?" We withhold things from people as a form of coercion, and we are all the worse off for it.

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@LeftistJesus I don't think you understand free Market. Throughout history wherever market was free and liberated the amount of poverty has always been drastically reduced. Infact india and China were extremely poor until some Liberalization happened and many are coming out of poverty due to private businessses providing jobs. Inequality will always remain one way or another. Trying to force it to become equal is preposterous. Not everyone is equally smart, wants to same career or spends or invests similarly. it's just that simple. You simply can't fight against the natural forces of free Market. You are setting up for failure. I suggest reading Thomas Sowell on that. Plus the most poor also have Better living standards in a free market this is well known. You have no idea if cure of Cancer is locked in someone's brain. Plus what if that person decides to be an engineer or economist with that free education? What you are probably Looking for is welfare supported by market Economy. However welfare itself disrupts the market by taking a chunk of that sector which could be part of free Market and we run into other complications. Hence not Suggested by many.

[@LeftistJesus]

@@gabbar51ngh first, that argument is ridiculous, and actually a point against capitalism. If everyone does not have equal abilities, why do we relegate some to homelessness for no fault of their own? Why do some get to live better than others? I don't think that everyone's abilities are equal, but their quality of life absolutely should be. We are all good at various things, and we shouldn't value some of those skills more highly than others.

[@LeftistJesus]

@@gabbar51ngh right now, we produce enough food to feed 10B and can't feed 7. In every industrialized country on the planet, there are more empty homes than there are homeless people. ALL OF THEM. The market won't fix these things because they aren't bugs in the system, they are features.

[@TulipQ]

How many hours of work, on average, does it take to produce a diamond of a given weight, such as 1 carat? How much does a 1 carat diamond usually cost in USD? If you suddenly find a 1 carat diamond, mined, cut, polished, etc. in one second, would it meaningfully change the answer to the first question? Abstract socially necessary labor time is the direct antecedent to socially observed market price.

[@nick6426]

Really a sweatshop isn't exploitative your living on Neptune if you think that.

[@nick6426]

@@canaanvibbert9653 your living on Neptune some of these sweatshops have suicides nets because they work them so hard that people feel like they need to kill themselves

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@nick6426 didn't know suicide is only done by people working hard. It's completely non existent in other areas? Sweatshops improved the quality and infrastructure of Bangladesh and has high HDI compared to other South Asian nations. You have to work to earn a living this isn't something new. If you think it's exploitative you are free not to Work for them.

[@nick6426]

@@gabbar51ngh the old "there free to leave" they weren't "free to leave" in India where the factory owners lock the doors on people to force them to do over time. If they were "free to leave" the factory Mabe workers in India wouldn't be dieing in fires and roof collapses because the factory owners lock them in the factory's and don't let them leave.

[@gabbar51ngh]

@@nick6426 how is that capitalism or free market's Fault? Plus India itself identifies as a socialist Country btw. You are Literally describing things mostly happening in former socialist or communist nations who switch to market economy but don't give individual freedom or rights.

[@nick6426]

@@gabbar51ngh India is not socialist it's Capitalist I was describing a Capitalist sweatshop. Your living on Neptune

[@josephsanchez5697]

“It’s not about how much time you put in to it , that’s irrelevant” this is where the flaw is the most valuable thing a human has is time

[@gabrieljorlert620]

If you put a larger amount of work into a product that will sell more instead of another that takes less time but won't sell as much, it means you've used up more time but it will still result in your gain at the end. Meaning that it doesn't matter in the overall economy as well as your personal one if you put in more or less time if there isn't a demand for it

[@rangerdad01]

It values more only if the consumer values it more. The 18 year old scotch is worth more even though it has the same amount of human labor as the 5 year old scotch...

[@ciccioflair1]

"You find a diamond that takes a second to make and people value it a lot" Lol...if u really find a diamond "that takes a second to make" its value is equal than common rocks...Unbelievable...

[@DanJohnsonAffordableAviation]

Excellent work! Wonderful segues with the “econ rap.” Go AIER‼️

[@greythax]

The level of critique in this video would do any highschool free enterprise teaching soccer coach proud. Somehow, these geniuses can't intuit their way into realizing that protecting, warehousing, and maintaining scotch for an additional 6 years is labor. And then go on to insult the intelligence of those who can by saying "they haven't thought it through." Wow.

[@ExPwner]

Whether or not anyone “protects” or “warehouses” it is irrelevant. Six years later it will still be different with or without labor so your response is idiotic nonsense

[@greythax]

@@ExPwner fill a cask with your favorite whiskey, and the leave it exposed in a forest for 6 years. When u get back, either it will have rotted open, or been stolen, but either way, it won't be there.

[@ExPwner]

@@greythax you commies love just making up stories to avoid admitting that your theory was disproven.

[@fritzragunton9476]

lmaooo, read Simon Clarke

[@raqueljacobs1542]

Yeah, you guys are wrong. People will trade diamonds every day for water if they are dehydrated. African natives traded gold for salt. This would have never happened if salt didn’t represent more labor than gold did in their geographical location. The main Marginalism only can exist in societies where the basic needs of the individual are met. Price doesn’t matter in societies where exchange values aren’t present. Critics of the LTV usually misunderstand two of the major concepts of the theory. The first, and most prominent is that price and value aren’t the same thing. The usefulness of a product and the exchange rate that it represents can often be in dispirit in value. People will pay infinite amounts of money for things that have no practical value but complain that the most practical and necessary items that they own are “too expensive.” Profit is only possible because tools , materials, time and labor are more valuable than their exchange rates are. Minerals and land have no value besides the violence inherent in defense of private property and the labor required to extract minerals is equal to the use value of them, because the value wouldn’t exist if those minerals weren’t extracted. Whiskey that is older inherently has value because no amount of money can buy you a second of time. The other gross misinterpretation of the LTV is that all labor has the same value regardless of who is doing it. The LTV clearly discusses the “use value of labor” meaning that one man’s labor must necessarily be more valuable than another’s. A doctor is inherently more valuable than a lumberjack simply because a doctor could cut down a tree given enough time, but a lumberjack cannot diagnose and cure an illness regardless of how much time he has. Any example you come up with, I can explain using the LTV. And if you do come up with something so... specific that it cannot be explained, I guarantee you it is either hypothetical, or is based solely on anecdotal evidence. The mass majority of individuals consider “use value” over “marginal value.” If we didn’t have that practical nature, we wouldn’t be able to produce useful objects and the value of labor would not be able to be exploited.

[@geertensing6406]

marginal utility... ever heard of it?

[@raqueljacobs1542]

Geert ensing so... marginalism and marginal utility are different concepts. Marginal utility fits within the LTV conception of value based and how socially necessary the labor is. Marginalism is a rejection of the LTV because the Marxist interpretation of the LTV is that “since labor creates all value, those who do not labor create no value.” This is a hot take, because under capitalism, those with the greatest material resources aren’t required to labor. By reframing the argument that value is a subjective commodity instead of an objective product it obscures the role of labor in its production. This also allows for a dismissal of the concept of surplus value that is the cornerstone of Marx’s claim of exploitation. Surplus value is the excess value placed into a product that isn’t reflected in a worker’s wages. If all value is merely subjective, than a explanation of why the cost to purchase a product is disproportionate to the wages paid to the workers is simply that the labor isn’t subjectively valuable. The lynch pin in this argument is that when labor retracts itself from the market, the market halts because labor is the necessary component that makes the creation of products and services possible.

[@geertensing6406]

@@raqueljacobs1542 Of course when someone is dehydrate, there is no way in life that he will choose diamonds over water. Water is even more necessary than food. 3 days without it, and you are most likely dead. Trading life for 3 days of life with increased wealth is a decision simply no one is going to make. This decision is perfectly reflected in Marginal utility. The labour input to obtain water is significantly lower than that of diamonds. This is the first objection to LVT With all due respect it is very clear to us that labor does not create value. in the video, they give the example of scotch -My family makes wine, so I am rather familiar with this concept, as it is true for our produce too- where there are 2 products with identical labour input, but different values. In the example given in the video they specifically give the example of 12 year and 18 year scotch. In our market if the same company makes these 2 products, it is almost always the case that the 18 year scotch costs more. LTV fails to explain it. Respectfully, Marx, though by no means not intelligent, did not account for this. LTV is compared to the more modern, sophisticated models not appealing. Now this is not to say that labour is not represented in value, if good x sells for 5$ and the labor required to produce it is worth 6$, it is simply not a viable good to produce. Also, do not mistake what the input of capitalists in our economy. The task they perform is a challenging and necessary one. not only do they make money, but they also create jobs. This job creation is essential to a wealthy society. They do not steal "surplus value", they are the reason it exists. If labour halts, of course a market will cease to work. But limiting the valuation of things to only labour input is not only primitive, but not efficient. I would recommend you form your opinions in economics not based on your ideology and politics, but rather your ideology and politics on your understanding of economics. I am sure you are of the best intentions and never doubt that. But results matter, and LVT does not work!

[@raqueljacobs1542]

Geert ensing actually, the LTV can account for the difference in the age of whiskey because the socially necessary conditions to allow whiskey to age are all created by labor. The conditions that allow for the storage of whiskey or wine all involve labor inputs that are not necessarily applied to the product exclusively but do contribute to its value. It needs a building to rest in, buildings require labor to build. Whiskey and wine require barrels to sit in, labor produces barrels. The private property that the whiskey or wine is aged in requires security of some sort be it from the police who are paid by taxes or some private security outfit. All of this labor produces a superior product because the capital necessary to produce 18 year old scotch is greater than producing 12 year scotch. If you accept the concept that all value is created directly or indirectly by the actions of people doing labor, then capital is just the result of the excess value from labor that has already been completed. Since capitalists reinvest excess value from previously completed labor, the percentage of the fruits of labor that they glean are disproportionate to the labor that they contribute. Small businesspeople and entrepreneurs are not as culpable because they contribute labor to their efforts, but the more hands-off the capital is, the more it’s dependent on the elbow-grease of others. The cornerstone of Marxism is... economics. The cornerstone of Marginalism is the oversimplification of the LTV based on a desire to marginalize the political implications of the statement that “labor creates all value”

[@geertensing6406]

@@raqueljacobs1542 Look you don't need to school me on the cost of a good that my family produces, I can confidently tell you that we use the same storage units for the wine, the only difference being that we keep some wines in "barrique" (the name in the wine industry for the wooden storage unit) for longer periods of time and others for shorter periods of time. There is literally not difference in labor input. LTV cannot explain that as far as I am concerned.

[@jebremocampo9194]

Makes sense If I take ten hours making a bunch of mudpies and no one wants to buy it it makes the value worthless. But if I take 3 hours to fix a bug in a system that a company is willing to pay a hefty price for then the value is big

[@MRdaBakkle]

Didn't Jeffrey Tucker say that slavery was good in some way.

[@purpandorange]

MRdaBakkle lol no, otherwise he would probably be a communist

[@matrixman8582]

Tucker actually said that slavery was bad for the economy, contrary to popular belief.

[@Santiago_956]

actually, marx said that

[@MRdaBakkle]

@@Santiago_956 no he didn't.

[@Santiago_956]

@@MRdaBakkle Marx Engels Collected Works, vol. 38, p.101 See for yourself though I'm not saying that he supported

[@thepiratepenguin4465]

So, guys in suits want to tell me what my life is worth? Coz at the end of the day labour = life, if it takes an hour to do something, that means I have sacrificed an hour of my life for it, an hour I can never get back. An hour that I could have perused my own happiness instead enriching some POS, who has never done day hard labour in his life. So next time you see your per our rate on the pay card, remember that is this is what your life is worth to them & they will continue to dilute the value of your life by making you work more hours of less. Under capitalism the rich will get richer & the poor will get poorer.

[@thepiratepenguin4465]

@@canaanvibbert9653 I come back to my point labor = life. Why should I spend an hour doing this, instead of doing that, coz when that hour is gone, it is gone forever. It is something that capitalist cannot or will not understand. The longer this point goes unaddressed, there more the hate in the working class will grow, that we sold our lives for cents, making over men rich & it will continue to grow to the point that the lives for rich men will be worth 32 cents, the price of a 6.72x39 round.

[@wayneroth8855]

Capitalists had to work first. They had to defer gratification and save some of their production. They had to take a risk and invest that capital. I have a big surprise for you. Most businesses fail. The failed capitalists deferred gratification for nothing. Their hours of work are gone forever too. The smarter or luckier capitalists succeed in creating a prosperous business. This allows people like you to get a job. A job is opportunity. There are plenty of places in this world where there are not enough jobs. People there wither their lives away. Have a little gratitude you are not one of them. God bless capitalism.

[@thepiratepenguin4465]

@@wayneroth8855 This still does not answer my question, why should I waste my life making some else rich, when I could be pressuring my own happiness? The fact that capitalist fails so often is proof of it's instability & people's sheer stupidity. It is flawed, corrupt system designed to make the rich richer & while strangling the life out of the working class all in the name greed & markets.

[@wayneroth8855]

Jacques Nowell there is too much to unpack in your answer. I am not going to write a book here. First of all, to sustain human life, we have to work. We have to be productive. A job allows that. Instead of thinking about, and envying, your employer, concentrate on your own life. If you don ‘t want to work for someone, then start your own business and become self-employed. Then you will get a taste of how hard it is to start and sustain a business. Your comment that failures in capitalist enterprises shows instability is outrageous. Tell me how anyone learns anything without making mistakes. You display a disgusting arrogance calling other people stupid. I would like to put you in a debate with a bunch of businessman and watch you melt. Western civilization had 1000 years of feudalism. The standard of living was not much different at the end then at the beginning. Do you know why? It was stagnant. No one tried to innovate. So no one failed. Your Marxist class envy seems to ignore the immense changes in the standard of living over the past 100 years. The communist countries bragged about a “worker’s paradise”, but their standard of living trailed the West . It would have been even lower if it did not have the west to steal from and learn from. As for greed, that is a universal human emotion. Do you think there is no greed in socialism? Or fascism? Or Sharia? Or Hinduism? Or the welfare state? Lastly, there are the benefits of markets. A market is the input from thousands or millions of people. What is better? Maybe the opinion of a few bureaucrats? I do not think so. I have said about 5% of what I could say. I am done. Bye.

[@thepiratepenguin4465]

@@wayneroth8855 The fact that anti capitalism does not automatically equate to pro socialism. If anything I'm pro Surfing. So if I work 12 hours a day, how Surfing to you think I get to do? Is market going to insure that the swell is well & the wind blows at speed? No, it only wants exploitation & consumerism. I'm lock in on a 5 year contract which thankfully expires 4 days time. I told POS boss to take hike this morning & that I was moving on. You should have seen the look on his face. At end of the day life is short & not going to let capitalism stand between me & the perfect wave anymore.

[@bryanr8897]

My opinion of the Labor Theory of Value is as follows. Your toddler spends 2 hours making a macaroni picture. Would somebody pay 2 hours worth of labor for that?

[@jonathanbrown1419]

This example reveals your ignorance of the basics of Marxist political-economy. The Labor Theory of Value applies to commodities that have a use-value. It also refers to the “socially average labor time” taken to produce something. A child’s macaroni drawing is NOT a commodity nor does it represent the socially average labor time in production. Try actually reading Marx next time.

[@furkannarli1258]

going to read some marx to restore the iq i've just lost there

[@ExPwner]

If you think reading Marx is intelligent then you never had any to start

[@CChaoSheng]

This video was brought to you by white men.

[@lohema7827]

Wow! That was fucking racist! XD

[@trivo508]

*White Capitalist Imperialism Apologists

[@lohema7827]

@@trivo508 Ah, yes, lots of capitalism in Africa...

[@lohema7827]

@madwtube But the "White Capitalist Imperialism Apologists" is not?

[@gerardnfarrell]

Jesus what neoliberal horseshit. Strange definition of the word 'voluntary '.

[@ExPwner]

Not an argument

[@gerardnfarrell]

@@ExPwner Neither is the video.

[@ExPwner]

@@gerardnfarrell on the contrary, this video does give an argument.

[@Itsmespiv4192]

@@ExPwner not even close, bootlickers especially rothbardians don't know what an argument is

[@ExPwner]

@@Itsmespiv4192 oh look a dumbass commie projecting his bootlicking onto others