David Harvey's Anti-Capitalist Chronicles: The Value of Everything

Help us reach 100,000 subscribers and gain access to more studio time! Please hit the red SUBSCRIBE button above. ^^^
Thank you for supporting David Harvey's Anti-Capitalist Chronicles on Patreon! Your support helps us compensate the staff and additional workers it takes to put an episode together. Thank you for being a part of the ACC team!
[S1 E05] The Value of Everything
Prof. Harvey talks about Mariana Mazzucato's new book "The Value of Everything: Making and Taking in the Global Economy."

[@democracyatwrk]

You can help us keep this podcast going! Become a patron of Anti-Capitalist Chronicles and support the project: www.patreon.com/davidharveyacc

[@manuelmanolini6756]

do not waste my time

[@brianbooker8736]

These Chronicles are really informative.

[@michaelhardin9123]

Thanks Dr. Harvey for your videos.

[@Gkuljian]

Michael Hudson talks about the financial services being included in the GDP, and how that has skewed our perception of the health of our economy.

[@FourtyParsecs]

We "outsourced" much of our labor over the last several decades. Adding the finance sector to the GDP was a way to hide this.

[@Kid_Ikaris]

Michael Hudson is great.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

Capitalism is like a wealthy but mentally ill old uncle . Everybody in the family knows about his illness, but few want to talk about it. They all want to be included in his will, and hope he doesn't change it leaving his fortune to the Scientologists.

[@btsfangirl3087]

Classic! Love that analogy, the very core of capitalism is greed, it's overlooks every factual evidence of how messed up it is, continuing to insist that it is the best system for humans!

[@staninjapan07]

Too funny... although I know you are being serious and your point is good.

[@JoePalau]

Great analogy - especially, if your uncle is a bully and imposes his will on other’s to get his way. Money, dark and visible, controls our politics. Might makes right, etc. Capitalism is far from perfect. Oligarchy is worse. Autocracy is worse. When Democratic Socialism works it’s about the best we can hope for. Again, far from perfect but not as bad as classic capitalism run amuck. Political Economy should be required of every student and every voting citizen. At the very least, the ABC’s of Political Economy so that a level of understanding, a literacy is achieved by every voter in the land.

[@RC-qf3mp]

I thought you were going to say that capitalism touches you inappropriately.

[@Andrearuch97]

David Harvey is so amazing, i've just red one of his books

[@QuickEveryonePanic]

What a wonderfully Freudian typo

[@Camcolito]

Good to see David Harvey on here. What we need is a broad international alliance on the left.

[@ozwhistles]

It is always seeking to form-up, and it is always under attack .. all we can do is keep forming the alliance and surviving the attacks. If international solidarity has any use for the universe, it will evolve to win in the end.

[@Camcolito]

@Tom Joad I don't think it's really necessary. Political alliance is enough. We don't have to love everyone like a brother. The bankers and corporations don't love each other or want to chat over beer but they sure as hell present a united front to advance their interests.

[@tarnopol]

Camcolito: I want to split off from your desire to create a broad international alliance on the left. Kidding! :)

[@Camcolito]

@@tarnopol Ah, that would be a typical attitude :)

[@alexpodolsky8980]

@Tom Joad we can start by pointing them out to the democracyatwork.info site and to the following videos: to all the David's videos, to economic update: the great purge, to Steve Bannon Philosophy Tube oli show the fachists there for what they worse, Caitlin Johnstone, you got the idea. And please help to fight antisemitic trolls. In the time of change it is very important. To get my point you can watch Russian movie Trotsky 2017. You can get English subtitles also for $15 somewhere. I guess if someone is making antisemitic comments and his/her profile is empty we can safety assume that this person is a troll.

[@ShredMota]

Thank you so much for this! These kind of chronicles are an example of what the internet should be.

[@allypoum]

This is a crucial part of my ongoing political education. Thank you Professor Harvey.

[@PrinnyKing3]

fascinating as always!

[@ozwhistles]

Steve Keen points out how the Naturalist economists say that value is the free gift of nature through "the land". He goes on to explore the origin of value as the free gift of sunlight. In this way he seeks to unify economics with Newtonian physics - and is not doing too badly at that. Certainly, there MUST be a component of entropy at the root of "value". However, the value dynamic is conducted in the context of a massively complex system - the ecology. If we are to look for the structural components of ecology, we can be well served to look more closely at entropy, and the processes which determine potential energy and energy discharge. All living things create for themselves a degree of potential energy - sufficient to sustain discharge in the task of obtaining more potential energy (consider, as an example, the fat-store in an animal as potential energy). You may consider these stores of potential energy as anti-entropic "bubbles" arising around each specific life. The net effect is a permanent delay in discharged entropy which defines the entire ecosystem. Can it be said: That "value" is that which contributes to the delay of entropic discharge? This may be cast in the context of the individual entity, the social entity(in the case of social animals), and the ecological entity (habitat). I would argue that any attempt to define "value" will fail if it does not have very clear definitions for these 3 contexts (individual/social/ecological) The individual is relatively easy, the social is horrendously corrupted by notions of "nations", and the ecology is a purely chaotic entity. As a first step, I see the perversion of the nation-state as an "economy" defined by a "currency" needs to be collapsed into the real social units of the default tribal social entity. The place to start here is "Dunbar's Number". Once that is understood, we might then look to Maslow's pyramid to begin the analysis before we look at tribal aggregation, and ultimately, the economic role of the ecology. We have a long long way to go.

[@jamesdean7756]

Stop trying to impress and speak more understandably. Get over yourself

[@SolidAir54321]

This seems to tie in with David Graeber's BS jobs. The BS jobs thing is more than just an entertaining novelty to let us laugh at those jobs. It's an indicator of growing problems in capitalism, and the free market and money system, and its inability to value things correctly. As well as its inability to deal with automation.

[@jsbart96]

SolidAir54321 I get you brother

[@itzenormous]

Big Bill Haywood, the late 19th Century, and early 20th Century, anarcho-syndicalist labor leader and organizer. Leader of the IWW, or the "Wobblies."

[@chwest31]

I like this alot since he goes in to detail about the systems. Though, I don't know about the rest of you, but I feel like I'm in Jurassic Park and listening Dr. John Hammond in the park's main lounge.

[@staninjapan07]

Thank you.

[@rohanquinby3188]

Just excellent

[@CAY7607]

I'm finally reading "A Brief History of Neoliberalism." It's clear, comprehensive distillation that is still relevant almost 15 years later. Wish I'd read it sooner! Is a sequel in the works?

[@theartificialsociety3373]

The question right now for the world is survival. We are at a precipice of complete environmental collapse. At this point, the system is completely overtaken by greed instead of survival, comfort, health, and concern for the future. Our entire value system is driven by consumption instead of conservation. Its never too late to change, but the consequences a delaying grow worse every day.

[@philgwellington6036]

Good video. Thankyou. The big question for me is the unquestioning, and the rigging of the entire system. You are correct, imo, in questioning the system, but what about the rigging? Your analysis of whether the game is tenable is pertinent, but what if the referee is bent?

[@DammitBobby]

Ah yes. The British version of richard. Good to hear from the British perspective. Keep it up.

[@clarestucki5151]

The "Lloyd Blankfeins" (the financiers/high finance types) are 'middle men', essentially meaning brokers, who contribute value by bringing together the buyers and the sellers so to speak, of capital (peoples' savings). I would never dispute that they are not grossly over-rewarded for their efforts, but their efforts definitely do "add value".

[@paifu.]

20:50 This is why the endgoal should be based on need as much as possible

[@haydock18]

Where is the later session referred to at the end?

[@TREMILBERG]

Very important debate this. The value of a product for a user, the market value of the product, and the cost of production of the product. For a product to be both sellable and producable, the price has to cover the cost of production, while at the same time not exceeding the value for the user. If the market value is above that range, the potential buyer will stop buying, and if it's below that range, the seller will stop producing. Financial services are not productive, but are extracting the wealth others have produced through speculation. A functioning society therefore needs to place restrictions on such activities to make them less profitable.

[@RC-qf3mp]

Financial services overcome the gap between sellers and buyers all the time. It’s ironic that you point out a problem with value when there’s a gap between buyers and sellers. And then , as if a non sequitur, you attack finance. When finance routinely solves the problem you first identified! Here’s how. Finance can lend to buyers who can’t afford an item right now, so are then able to pay the higher price to the seller and, in the long run, pay the lender back with interest. It’s a great thing. If you’ve lived in a country without good laws and finance, you find it’s incredibly hard to buy a house or car. In complex deals, finance middle men can buy up assets, sell off the cash flows in different tranches with different notes to investors of different risk profiles. So before, nobody wanted the assets at the fair value because investors have different risk profiles. Buy the collateral manager buys those assets and sells notes with different rates at different seniority rights to the assets. Those are CDOs that allegedly caused the financial crisis. Pro tip… the cdo structure didn’t cause the 2008 crisis. It was bad government intervention to “help” homeowners with bad credit get loans. Banks were complicit profiting off those bad regulations, but the primary cause was the government regulation. Also related- the government regulation regarding rated notes and rating agencies. But the capitalist structure is great precisely for providing liquidity to markets and helping buyers find sellers, and Vice versus. Dating apps and banks do the same thing. And in both, you can find bad actors, but sometimes people fall in love. Capitalism is not all rosy. But it’s not all bad either, and many problems of “capitalism” are really just unfortunate quirks of US history and bad politics.

[@m.rebman7221]

Brilliant demolition of price-based monism.

[@habibvakilitahami6231]

I believe there is a confusion between value and price in this lecture . Value is an objective quantity when the effect of supply and demand is ignored intentionally. When you apply the supply and demand to value quantity , it turns into price . Goodwill is not a value related concept . It exist only as a price related concept .

[@jeromyrutter]

I don't doubt value has a subjective basis, or that people work in an effort to secure their own best interest. Unions and democracies are examples of individuals working toward similar goals for their own good). It is part of my own makeup from Humanism and Existentialism (the one belonging to the other to Sarte..even Sarte eventually followed Camus to Anarchism, even if they never spoke again). I remain an individualist (more from Neitzsche than Stirner) because of it. Even our social nature and inclinations toward altruism has a basis in self due to motivational aspects and notions of meaning or importance (importance meaning value). Maslow's hierachy of Needs is a decent illustration of a large part of human nature. Imagine that and along side it a hierarchy of values from your life to liberty to your wife to your car to your family heirloom ring...only it isn't static, and we find ourselves constantly jockeying those values in order to adapt in a changing world...some of it inevitable, some of it manufactured by new products to replace the old. This is a sort od representation of universal values vs personal values. Even materialism is a means to an end for the self...security from the elements. Happiness. Comfort. Capital fails because its focus is the atttainment of power of top of power...using means to aqcuire more means with no real end defined, while there are only so many assets to be had, so many resources to exploit. The earth isn't infinite in its supply of these things. This seems like long winded description of a historical Red Herring away from that which creates value: labor. Even ideas are fruits of labor, but not by oneself. They are built from a collection of knowledge that spans history and transcends cultures and nations. No one can own the fact that 1+1=2, why should anyone be able to own knowledge when it universally valued and collectively created? If labor produced nothing, there would be nothing to value. If we didn't value our own effort, then we are the equivalent of mindless slaves. The greatest difference between socialism and capitalism isn't value, it is the fact that the properieter and producer are not the same person(s) in capitalism like they should be (in libertarian socialism). This means worker cooperatives and self-employed entrepeneurs. As long as the division of labor is used in place of one's responsibility to labor on their own ideas (which exponentially multiplies output far beyond what even the owner, who is likely less skilled than his employees, could earn on their own) the division of the fruit of that labor will produce such that no one feels their labor has value, and they will simply give up due to the meaninglessness of their work and become children of the welfare state (Marx). Ironically, the concept of goodwill goes hand-in-hand with another Kantian idea, that is "people should not view others as mere means to an end, but rather as ends unto themselves." This means that morality cannot be separate from economics. In what other sphere is character revealed than the use of power? The state justice system exists to impose order and justice precisely because the system itself produces injustice and must be controlled. Aristotle summed this up: "Poverty is the parent of revolution and crime" (survival is a greater need than remaining civil...and no system at all can exist without the most fundamental piece from which all else is built: the citizen). The same problem exists everywhere. It is the same problem that had existed all throughout human history. We try to use authoritarian means (god, the state, etc) to achieve libertarian ends. And just like Marx pointed out that capitalism has within itself its own destruction, so too does any form of authoritarianism. Like the French revolution (or even modern yellow vest movement or occupy wallstreet), people will get fed up. The state and god (and money, for that matter) are only ideas. They have power because the majority believe in them. Parties have the dual power of creating like- minded people while simultaneously keeping them divided. And they are both (god and state) very much like Tolkien's One Ring: everyone wants it, and it has a tendency to corrupt those that obtain it (see Stalin's doublethink on withering away the state while strengthening the dictatorship). Authority is belief in concentrated power that is rarely in the hands of everyday people. The top-down approach is contra personal liberty (why "state socialism" fails). And no one will want to wait 500 years while the rest of the world struggles to follow suit (vanguard parties). Even the most hardcore capitalist will make the claim that they are entitled to what they earn...meaning, they believe they have labored for it (though even rights are ideas you have to believe in, and are hardly furnished by nature..the reason i found myself in the Left Libertarian field is because the people determine rights, either directly through active participation, or passively through acquiescence or capitulation to their leaders...regardless Hume was correct on this). The problem is that to hire others to do it for you means you aren't earning it per se...what you own earns it for you. Sort of like there being no difference between attacking a slave (his property) and attacking his master. That labor and the thing acquired be equal to the same thing (i labor to acquire x). Is it any wonder that capitalism has always needed the state to keep the economy functioning and the state stocked to keep the hopeless from revolt? The state needs funds as well. Capitalism supplies it via taxes. The state is an inherent part of capitalism and vice versa, social democratic policies, to property rights, to economic regulations. Without the one, the other cannot exist. And both are just different religions.

[@Achrononmaster]

Financier value is both material and spiritual: materially financial services lubricate the economy, and partly fuel the economy (through credit money). But spiritually the finance sector must forgive debts which they know cannot ever be repaid (a spiritually motivated policy because it addresses financial oppression and injustice), currently that does not happen, and is the core rot within modern capitalism. I would also add that another spiritual function is to NOT loan to criminal or polluting and other socially and environmentally destructive enterprises.

[@clarestucki5151]

The explanatiobn for the question Harvey raises about valuation, and about to whom valuation should be attributed, lies in the nature of the skills and talents of the various players who participate in the process (basically a simple case of supply/demand economic principles). The problem is that the supply of unskilled labor (the people who actually produce the Nike shoe) is far greater than the supply of talent that serves to enhance the value after the shoe is made (thaink advertisers, promoters, etc.). It may not be "fair", it it is reality!

[@mikeburns2102]

It is like the unemployment numbers. The math is always shifting to the benefit of elites, both political and economic. Though never done before, Reagan started including active military as employed, when they were not part of the free market economy. Things like this keeps accurate economic comparisons from being done from one generation, to another. The best is adult participation in labor, not unemployment. The stock market is a defacto pyramid scheme, never based on actual productivity. If so, it would have little value. It currently does not reflect our current economy. It never has.

[@johnsnow5305]

I often wonder what is value creating activities. For example, you mentioned advertising. I think that you can sell your product or service without advertising, but you would not sell as much of it. Therefore, you get a classic trade off equation. You can advertise up to a point and get a return on that advertising. If this is the case, then you can say the people doing the advertising are adding value. However, after that point, you eventually lose money on every dollar spent on advertising. It's a balancing act that companies need to figure out. I'd say overall though, advertising is a value added process. When it comes to financial services, this is a lot harder. I mean you can say with certainty that they 'enable' the creation of value, as without their capital, the borrower couldn't start their own value creation process (such as buying requisite manufacturing equipment). The question is, is this necessary? Is there an alternative way to have people get capital without financial services? Yes, there is, which is generally considered equity. People have the option to finance their new value creation process through equity, but many of them cannot (for a myriad of reasons). As such, there is a demand for these other financial services (lenders basically). If a lender enables a group of people to create value where once they could not, you can argue that yes they do add value, because no value would exist otherwise. As such, they should be compensated just like anyone else who contributes to the value creation process. If there we no risk, then we wouldn't need lenders, but there is risk. The equity part of financial services is even harder in my opinion. Like the lenders, you can argue that without them the value creation process would not have started due to lack of capital (start up costs). Also like with lenders, you can see how one can eliminate the other. You don't need equity investors if you have lenders for your capital needs. I don't see how you get rid of BOTH lenders and equity investors however. To do so would significantly reduce the amount of people contributing value to the economy as a whole. There would be a large pool of people who could be working, but aren't because they don't have the prerequisites. Worker cooperatives and/or employee stock options can be a solution, but it is not a comprehensive one due to the way our system is currently set up (particularly with income and wealth inequality so great). I think about this a lot because I want to start my own worker cooperative one day, and I realize the problems of startup costs. It's hard to ask your potential employee/owners to give you thousands of dollars and work for free for several months. Most people cannot even deal with a $400 emergency expense. As such, I am afraid these financial services are required, and therefor not fundamentally parasitic. They add value because they enable the value creation process to start where it normally cannot.

[@RC-qf3mp]

Right, and people who want the equity should be able up borrow for it. And once paid off, and they have the equity, they might want to sell some and retire, and could use banks to facilitate that. And some people want to let their kids inherit equity. Or upon death, the equity gets force sale back to company. But the best thing you can do for your employees with equity is to go public so they can all cash out and be rich. I don’t see the point in wanting a cooperative business. Just have a successful business, get rich, and donate to the poor with your profits if you want. Don’t mix ideology with business.

[@dgallett60]

I can see why this man was jailed.

[@clarestucki5151]

Bankers (financial service providers) are simply brokers, who accumulate and assemble capital to be loaned to producers.

[@BobbyJ529]

how much jargon is in Marian Mazzucotto's book?

[@OldEarthWisdom]

What if "value" was based on how much of earth's resources are used. The more it destroys the planet, the more it should cost.

[@clarestucki5151]

Financial services are productive to the extent that any sort of brokerage (middleman) function is prductive. Most such functions are, but some probably less so.

[@manuelmanolini6756]

What about when the parties create value by providing a service, not a commodity? Is there surplus value with respect to services?

[@tanujSE]

I hope our teacher is fine

[@tanujSE]

I hope David Harvey is fine

[@andreyrussian2480]

Honest formulation of a true problem is "valuable theory of labor". Question is "what is nature of labor" not "what is the nature of values"?

[@greenenergy5481]

No More War

[@lisakeitel3957]

I was reading about value and labor, and find it convincing, except for the part of land. Some meters of land, never touched, far from the city, even in Antarctica, has some value, even if no one has work that land...

[@camdavis9362]

In the last paragraph of section 1 of Capital by Karl Marx he writes: "A thing can be a use value without being a value. This is the case whenever its utility to man is not mediated through labour. Air, virgin soil, natural meadows, unplanted forests, etc. fall in to this category."

[@lynnwood7205]

This is 'Merica where profit is supreme and any attempt to deprive the corporate person citizen (the corporation as viewed and constructed by our Federal Courts, a person with full rights superior to those of mortal flesh and blood citizens) of their constitutional and civil rights is seen as a campaign of domestic terrorism and criminal conspiracy, a violation of Federal law. So, we have arrived to this divide. The mortal flesh and blood are but regarded as consumption units. We are now losing our right to elect our government and so, soon our right to vote as voting is viewed as an unnecessary expense.

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

no matter what we need a new political and economic system. corporations reduce labor costs above all others, and pay little to no taxes, often getting "rebates" on taxes they ended up not paying🤔🤨🤬. what happens when factories are automated and powered by renewable energies (self sustaining independent of the electrical grid)? free labor and power and fewer jobs for a growing population. (tho the rich are actively reducing the population (pre meditated murder), through neglect (no healthcare, no living wages) and war.) our healthcare system is the third leading cause of death in america. the poor are being culled/purged so the rich can have ever more power and money. u.b.i. (with rentier control) and direct democracy would "solve" our "problems". but we the poor will have to take it from the rich. they wont willingly give up all the money and power. start with international work stoppages/strike/yellow vest movement. if that fails, calculated force and violence must be utilized.

[@heronimousbrapson863]

I agree. But the one big barrier to reform is the United States. Unless reform happens there, it cannot happen in the rest of the world. I'm not hopeful.

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

@@heronimousbrapson863 and its a race, with climate change. i dont trust our "leaders" to take care of business when climate change REALLY hits. they will let people die while claiming its being taken care of.

[@SolidAir54321]

Capitalism as a system just doesn't seem designed to handle the eventual situation where labor is no longer needed. It's based on employers/employees. What happens when the employees, or most of them, are no longer needed? People will argue that in the past new types of jobs have always been created. But I believe this time it's different and is happening at a faster rate.

[@coryb333]

Has anyone read shoshana zuboffs book the age of surveillance capitalism?

[@uttaradit2]

Check owt the Howard (Frankie) chronicles.

[@SolidAir54321]

If financial services were productive, then they would represent a constant percentage of GDP, or lower. But instead they have grown as a percentage of GDP.

[@beehivecity]

we're turning kids into slaves just to make cheaper sneakers but what's the real price because the sneakers dont seem that much cheaper

[@livviestache99]

beehivecity why we paying so much when u got them made by little slave kids

[@Lindenlc10]

Tina, there are alternatives.

[@amyjones2490]

Currently a cow is worth .40 a pound on the hoof. In a store it's much more than that. How is a farmer supposed to make a living in todays economy?

[@Larkinchance]

Concerning the ½ million dollar pill... If you are uninsured the price is expected to be nonnegotiable. If the government picks up the bill, by current law, it is not allowed to negotiate the price even if it subsidized the research... If the cost is picked up by the insurance companies, they will negotiate a much, much lower price from the pharmaceuticals and turn around bill the government full price, making a tidy profit. You call this a health care system?

[@pipster1891]

Technically, the City of London isn't (and can't be) part of the EU because it isn't democratic.

[@ErycTriJuniS]

did he even read jean baudrillard?

[@Billllyubbda]

If not one should. The value of a sign is its proximity to another sign.

[@ErycTriJuniS]

@@Billllyubbda when paper money completely changed to digital money, the whole economic games will change as never before. I think we should notice how significant sign value for the digital economic era. Social production relation based on exchange value and used value are already obselete.

[@FourtyParsecs]

David Harvey, could you wear my company's logo on your jacket during your shows if we pay you handsomely for it? We believe that our brand is valued very highly by the consumer and by wearing our brand you can increase your viewership by at least 20%.

[@marksight7833]

Love the channel and message here, but I really think you should take a different angle... All too often, a government law or here, some weird accounting practice is blamed on capitalism. I don't think people will buy into this argument. The free market just says: value of something is whatever people will pay for it. I understand the idea of production value, but think of all the Nike-like brands out there, who have the same product quality and employees, but cost maybe 1/10th the price, because no one wants to buy them. And in this regard, why should Nike simply pay out value-added-branding to the employees? Wouldn't this create inequality with all the other employees of no-name brands who do the same work as Nike employees? Take Coca-Cola, I don't see a way to argue that a new low-level employee in the company should be granted Name-Brand rights. Again, I'm sorry... I like your criticism, but the arguments should be better, and without envy if possible? For example, it's very easy to argue that capitalism is terrible because the work I put into creating sneakers is not appreciated by the market - therefore kill the market and Nike with it. Such an argument will (probably?) not be liked by the audience.

[@5thDragonDreamCaster]

Value is maybe a complex number,; it has real and an imaginary component.

[@DavidCaddock]

If only our overlords would let the economy be capitalist, but every tiny tyrant has the urge to pull the levers in whichever way helps them get reelected.

[@RC-qf3mp]

Harvey misunderstands goodwill. In M&A, nobody buys a company by adding up the value of the assets and then figuring out what goodwill is, and sticking a number on that. Investors estimate future cash flows, discount into the present, and get a price which gets negotiated. After the acquisition, for accounting purposes, “goodwill” is just the difference between the price paid for the company and the sum of the assets. No magic or big deal. Everybody knows it’s a bs number and just there for accounting purposes and as something to be depreciation. Warren Buffett doesn’t think goodwill means anything. He’s a pretty smart capitalist. Price is what you pay, value is what you get, as both Buffett and Marx agree. Harvey’s discussion of the housing market and other shocks to the system are also unilluminating. A house isn’t worth zero because crazy things happen in a liquidity crisis. Nobody actually thinks a house is worth nothing. People weren’t selling houses for $0. But valuations get made for other purposes where it makes sense just to assume broad swaths of houses are worth nothing. I like Harvey, but he dropped the ball on these topics. The bigger problem is that one can agree with many criticisms of capitalism and still be left thinking that proposed radical alternatives are way worse (while being open to tweaks).

[@meeklynobody3230]

2:32 22:52

[@protyusgames4741]

Can a free market work without either profit or interest?

[@plc6949]

If no one votes then what is the value of the people in government.

[@chriscourtney7369]

How does ambition work for the individual under Marxism?

[@Billllyubbda]

How does capitalism create motivation? How does Walmart get it's employees to work hard for little reward? How does capitalism motivate the poor to go to war to stop trade unions? How does capitalism get the weak middle class to support a government that supports the wealthy? And so on. And then everyone complains how the young don't want to work hard. Why would they? Go to college, $100,000 , 4 years. Get a job, NO GET 2 JOBS, $17,000 a year. NOW THAT IS MOTIVATION!

[@clarestucki5151]

The problem with Harvey's "labor theory of value" is that it represents a gross overevaluation of the importance of the the contribution of the laborers, while simultaneously underestimating the value of the contributions of the invested capital used in the venture, and the importance of the entrepreneurial and the managerial talent. Lefties claim that the entrepreneurial/managerial talent doesn't contribute at all, because those people never 'sweat' so to speak, while working! The plain truth is that entrepreneurial/managerial talent is FAR more productive than physicla labor.

[@galuf84]

Okay. The HR department can build the hospital since they are more productive than I am.

[@jrhoads4849]

IMO, only soil/minerals, water, air, sunshine, organic life, knowledge and labor have any intrinsic value. It is from the first five that something is virtually created from nothing. Value is added with knowledge and labor. Capitalism and fractional reserve banking has tried to adopt this "something out of nothing" ethos but with abject failure and horrible sociological/ecological consequences.

[@tanujSE]

Marxism considered all the value necessary for economic activity,a commune have to be both working and deciding Rest how values are decided in Capitalism is very much surplus labour and something rest mystic blue

[@tinoyb9294]

Externalities have killed the planet.

[@shreddez]

Whut R yer hobby’s?

[@clarestucki5151]

The problem with Harveys "labor theory of value" is that it attributes ALL of the "value" (of production) TO labor, ignoring the contribution of capital and managerial talent. Capital is not only productive in its own right, it is substantially MORE productive that unskilled labor. Likewise, managerial talent. Marxists refuse to acknowledge those realities.

[@RC-qf3mp]

Right. And it takes lots of research, time and money (often got by research time and education and experience) to effectively allocate capital in investment decisions and other forms of management/ownership. Sure, there’s inherited wealthy out there. Luck happens. Corruption happens. But there is value in the labor of managing, owning and investing. Sitting a computer and researching investment options is labor. And the value of THAT labor extends to third parties and is not directly compensated for so can be considered a “theft” at least as much as the so called theft against “exploited” workers. I benefit from Apple making it easier for goods and services to happen, even if they are charging a premium and I’m not an Apple customer. I benefit from other peoples “exploitation “ but get benefit from mine. Not saying it all necessarily evens out, but there are plenty of external benefits created by capitalism and finance. Benefits not accounted for by Marx or Harvey,

[@danieldavidisson9906]

Abolish capitalist "private property"

[@lutherblissett9070]

Would be better to use non Marxist Terminology and call it commercial property or something. Otherwise ordinary people will think you want to take their house, car, and toothbrush

[@danieldavidisson9906]

@@lutherblissett9070 IMHO that this is misconstrued is a failure of the left that is just bewilidering. The 1% have urpusred all the land and its resources forcing us into wage/debt slavery, how difficult is this to understand? We should just stay on point about this one thing, as it is the cause of every other problem ' "STICK THE LAW UP YOUR KHYBER PASS, AND GIVE BACK THE LAND YOU PSYCHO MOTHER FUCKERS "Anyone who puts up with the deprivations of private propertyy, has to be exrtraordinarily stupid" Oscar Wilde Pharaphrasing here, "the greatest cause of evil in the world is capitalist private property" Albert Einstein "Socialism sucks" Donald Dunce Trump Cheers Luther

[@RC-qf3mp]

A glaring defect in Marx and these kinds of “analysis” is an utter lack of treatment of moral philosophy. What is “fair”, or “good” or “just”? Is “exploitation” bad? Why? Is bad for the bird of prey to feast on the little lamb? Of course the lamb thinks so. Nietzsche. The Marx cheerleaders embody what Nietzsche called ressentiment. And likened it to Christianity. Religion might be the opiate of the People, but Marx is the opiate of the proletariat. And to the extent Nietzsche called Christianity Platonism for the people, he could rightly called Marxism Platonism for the proletariat. Serious philosophers don’t take Marx seriously. I’ll give Marx credit as a social theorist and critic of capitalism. But not much more than that.

[@clarestucki5151]

The fallacy of "the labor theory of value" is that it attributes basically all value to labor, ignoring the contribution of the invested capital and the talent and the skill of the entrepreneurial/managerial workers.

[@galuf84]

labor is invested capital. that's the whole point of the labor theory of value which you clearly don't understand.

[@clarestucki5151]

@@galuf84 Most people define the factors of production as land, labor and capital ( the latter defined as peoples savings). If you want to define labor as being synonymous with peoples savings, go to it, but you'd be best advised not to do so in public, unless you don't mind being revealed as ignorant of the basics of economics.

[@galuf84]

@@clarestucki5151really where do you come up with this tripe? Capital is land, money, and labour. You pay a worker a wage using capital. You invest in machinery for the worker to use which is capital. Labor needs to be fed, clothed, and housed and to some extent trained. The capitalist invests his capital into the worker to buy his labor power. The worker sells his labor for 40 hours a week during that time the capitalist owns the labor power of the worker. It becomes part of his capital. That's basic fucking capitalism. You learn this day one on Econ 101.

[@clarestucki5151]

@@galuf84 Actually, I'm guessing you flunked Econ 101. Capital is NOT the same thing as cash money. That's "basic fucking" ignorance!

[@atashikokoni]

The Labour Theory of Value doesn't ignore invested capital but counts it in the form of Embodied Labour. David Harvey has a series of videos discussing Volume 1 of Capital in depth, if anyone cares to learn more about this. kzbin.info/aero/PLWvnUfModHP9Ci8M1g39l4AZgK6YLCXd0

[@MrDXRamirez]

How about we talk about the use-value of everything and just leave the value of everything aside for a moment. Too often the field of economics is bent on understanding value and entirely forget what happens to use-value. What happened that there are no tailors, blacksmiths, weavers, tanners, no more highly skilled workers who produced use-values before everything became a value? When these occupations became standardized and routined and began to disappear from society, the necessaries of life for the worker was substituted for the use-values of the capitalists. The use-values of these independent producers lost their value in society. Everything that is a use-value today is a social product of the capitalist, a unit of value. But everything that was a use-value in the past before the change over in production to machinery and automation was a value-in-use. Before mechanical industry took over the work and the worker, they were a total package, a value-in-use, and together, they worked directly in a material interaction with nature. After the change, the work and the worker shrunk into a value unit and the environmental relation of work, hidden and concealed separated from the worker. Products of all kinds became equally, value units, and this fact turned all the different skills of workers into a quantity of value of products. Within this social process the quality of work, the worker, and the subject of work, is in the form of labor as value. We end up with a social system of products relating to each other with a capitalist instead of workers relating to each other in a social system of production. Use-value disappeared because the labor in them became value. Value in everything versus a value-in-use for society.

[@tonywyli]

遍身罗绮者，不是养蚕人

[@Bdordoidoadon]

Talking about the upcoming fall of capitalism since 1964 xd

[@blue46gt]

Dude's wearing a US Open golf shirt? How capitalist.

[@nomosnomosowicz7379]

do people living under Marxist principles advocate for those same principles? It seems it's only those that are benefiting from the fruit and comfort of capitalism that advocate for a system entirely foreign to the way they actually live.

[@waztalbot]

Totally irrelevant argument! The value of anything is not static but determined by numerous competing factors such as cost of material, cost of labor, supply and demand, utility (meaning the use to which it can be employed)... theses factors are constantly fluctuating and the only determinant of value is a competitive (ie Functioning) marketplace. Any service (including finance) is only productive as to the benefit it brings to the purchaser... as determined by the market... if the market is not functioning (Ie not competitive) any product or service can be considered parasitic.

[@robe_p3857]

Guy is clueless. Housing crisis is caused by land. Supply of land is fixed, whereas demand isnt. Need LVT to fix that. The price of the pharmaceutical comes from the fact that they have a patent, which is a monopoly granted by the power of the state... wish we had a free market. And brands are not monopolies, people choose to buy Nike. If u dont like it, dont buy it.

[@allonesame2477]

Thank you.