Marxism lecture 29: Das Kapital -- Transformation Problem & the Falling Rate of Profit

[@RajendraSingh-ut4lr]

Great work, please carry it on.

[@tjmorrisiv]

This is the most revelatory of Marx's conclusions - I don't see how your average capitalism true believer could dispute any of these predictions which have been made manifest. Looking farward to the next chapter, thanks for doing these.

[@yorkshiremgtow1773]

can you name any line of industry which collapsed due to the Falling Rate of Profit theory?

[@sho3bum]

This series has really helped me understand how my work (tech) is gonna get the same treatment that happened for cars

[@widowsson8192]

Listen to Ludwig von mises

[@neebomb2511]

​@@widowsson8192 😂 OK.

[@Youllneverknow-w1w]

Oh I jumped from Capital chapter 7 straight to 25. Kindly upload the middle lectures professor, loving this playlist, and teaching style so far.

[@TaimurRahman-English]

Yes. Will soon add more.

[@neebomb2511]

Wah wah comrade Taimur. Great explanation. Quite clear and condensed. I will share this with people I am trying to explain The Falling Rate of Profit to. Thank you.

[@saptarshibhakat6014]

Yes, this is the type of stuff we want from you...thanks, comrade!

[@autumn9928]

Would like to here more about the business cycle, law of disproportionality. I mean so what if you overproduced, how is that a crisis? Vakt mile to btana. Great lecture as always Taimur sir 💙

[@B_Estes_Undegöetz]

Overproduction can also be considered underconsumption; when generalized across a capitalist economy overproduction “booms” indicate a coming fall in profitability, shrinking demand for labor, and … underconsumption … a “bust”. Even in 21st century finance capitalism of fiat currency and deregulated banks creating money / credit out of the ether, eventually the production / supply side bumps up against the material realities of demand side; falling wages make it difficult even to function as a worker and stay alive eating, finding shelter, clothing, and transportation as the value of wages decreases and workers ability to consume erodes and the underconsumption/overproduction problem becomes endemic to an increasingly monopolized economy. Which is why capitalism, producing goods and services seeking private profit rather than for use value, is bound to fail society, and serves only to create a wealthy minority hoarding all the wealth and assets, and a vast impoverished majority proletariat, less and less able to afford to meet even the basic necessities of material life.

[@AsifKhan-bv3iu]

What a beautiful explanation.

[@antoniomachado1808]

excellent

[@MananKorjan]

You should do a video on the empirical studies validating the labour theory of value conducted by Shaikh, Cockshott, etc.

[@perlefisker]

17:11 What the rate of exploitation going up means, is the rate of inequality rising simultaneously. The labourer is in other words digging his own grave, when he works at constant hours, but needs fewer to sustain himself, and gives the reminder to the employer. That means again that the labourer as a first step against capitalism is to work less. In order to equip himself for the coming struggle he should customise himself to the bare minimum of living standards and partake in capitalist society as little as possible, become as self-sufficient as possible, boycott consuming as far as possible. Much easier done in the West than in the Global South, but then again, it's in the West the revolution has to start.

[@B_Estes_Undegöetz]

There are other Marxist theorists who disagree with you about the “need” for socialist revolutions to begin in the west. That’s a typical Trotskyist position that Marxist-Leninist revolution can only take place in “advanced” capitalist societies, or that they need to take place in more “advanced” societies first. It’s part of the reason Trotsky and others at first advocated “waiting” until Russia had first produce a bourgeois capitalist parliamentary democracy then wait for it to decay before initiating a Marxist-Leninist revolution. Those “theorists” believed the peasantry too “backward” to join the small number of Russian proletarians in the proletarian revolution. This turned out not to be the case at all. Most of the peasantry were quite prepared for a land reform and were happy enough for it to be a fair and highly productive socialist one. The same can be said of most nations today. A Marxist-Leninist vanguard properly prepared and sensitive to the particular exploitative situation and grievances can lead any group of working people forward in an anti capitalist action.

[@numbersix8919]

No wonder the ruling ideology refuses to accept the labor theory of value! At the same time, the tendential fall in the rate of profit makes any capitalist economy ultimately nonviable. Is there any way to fix it?

[@sabirgondal2005]

😮😮

[@widowsson8192]

Surplus value becomes the supply in the market. So, as surplus value increases, supply increases in proportion, lowering prices, increasing the purchasing power of the laborer.

[@neebomb2511]

Incorrect.

[@addammadd]

Ah yes, that beautiful and totally real phenomenon of capitalists lowering prices and passing the savings on to their workforce. That’s why we have a functioning healthcare system, adequate housing and all mouths fed. What a wonderful reality we all inhabit.

[@widowsson8192]

@neebomb2511 do you know any economics?

[@neebomb2511]

@@widowsson8192 By Economics, I presume you mean Marginalist Economics?

[@widowsson8192]

@neebomb2511 any economics. Classic, neo classical, Austrian, even kaynesian. Etc etc. How do you think the capitalists make money or profit off of surplus value? They sell it in the market. Thereby increasing supply. And the law of supply says that as supply increases, prices drop. So if prices drop at a greater rate than nominal wages, real wages and purchasing power increase.

[@erionazekaj3068]

The amount of the products remains the same, their value decreases

[@TaimurRahman-English]

In less labour you can get the same amount. Or in the same labour you can get more. Same thing.

[@NAylA-r4p]

is this chapter 8

[@saptarshibhakat6014]

How is it possible that a product like Nike Jordan costs significantly more than a standard sports shoe. Aside from the brand name, the production costs are roughly the same. Could you offer any Marxist perspective on this?

[@bidyutgortola3899]

Read commodity fetishism

[@saptarshibhakat6014]

@@bidyutgortola3899 I am familiar with Commodity Fetishism, but is 'fetish' the only deciding criteria, or is there something else?

[@bidyutgortola3899]

@@saptarshibhakat6014 The high price of Nike Jordan shoes is not reflective of the labor or material costs, which are similar to those of a standard sports shoe. Instead, the value is artificially inflated by the brand’s symbolic status, marketing, and celebrity endorsements. Consumers attribute value to the “coolness,” exclusivity, or cultural significance of the Nike Jordan brand, rather than the actual production process.

[@bidyutgortola3899]

Capitalism uses branding to create a sense of desirability and exclusivity. A product like Nike Jordan becomes more than just a shoe-it’s a status symbol, a connection to cultural icons like Michael Jordan, and a marker of identity. This symbolic value is what consumers are willing to pay for, even though it is detached from the material reality of production.

[@bidyutgortola3899]

So the price of Nike Jordan is perceived value not the real value, hence it’s a fetish

[@markmccormack1796]

Exploitive, no way. How surprising.