One thing I forgot to explain thoroughly was 'Socially necessary labor time". Its basically what I was talking about in the beginning. Socially necessary labor time means the amount of time it takes a worker of average skill equipped with average tools & implements to make something. If on average it takes 10 hours to make something then that is the value of it. If somebody spends 500 hours on the product it only means he is VERY inefficient. The value is still 10 and not 500 because its the social average. That is also why value falls when technology improves. If the society on average can make something 10x times easier because of improved technology then value (amount useful labor) embodied in the product drops to 1/10 of what it used to be.
It could take 500 hours for the average worker to make something, but if no one wants to pay that much for it, and no one wants to market it in their stores for the price asked, then it is not worth that much. This is what inspires innovation, finding ways to reduce costs until a marketable price is achieved. If you could trade anything simply for the base effort it takes a man to make something, then there would have never been, and would not be, an incentive to innovate. This is obviously not the case in reality, so the theory is in error.
There are things which take a very long time to make on average. Things like large buildings, ships, railways and they are very expensive. If a capitalist employs better technology then his competitors then he is able to reduce labor time and costs of production while prices remain the same. He might reduce his prices to compete better or he could sell at the usual price and make super-profits. This is the incentive for innovation. As time goes on and all other capitalists either go bankrupt or adopt this new technology it causes value to fall as it now takes less time on average to produce this commodity. As a result prices fall and the commodity becomes cheaper. A capitalist cannot sell the product that takes 1 hour on average to make for any more then 1 hour's worth. If he uses shitty machines or shitty workers who take 2 hours to make this it doesn't matter. It means he will go bankrupt as he is behind the social-average labor time. His costs are 2 times higher then his competitors but the market price will have to be the same. If he sells at twice the price he will obviously also lose to competition. The fact that you don't understand this doesn't mean that its not true.
TheFinnishBolshevik Just one short question: Wouldnt it be exploitation then, if the money given to society is used to support poor people, and grant minimum wages, or to support sick or old people? Because they get a cut of the workers product, which the workers dont benefit from. Or did I get something wrong?
Red Bavaria yes it would be expiration, but only in a capitalist system. To be fair we are only talking about those who cannot work due to illness.. though you can make a case that, in the same way insurance supports a few by the labor of many. But again this applies to a capitalist system
6 лет назад
Red Bavaria The problem in capitalism is that the worker can in no legal way claim for himself the product of his labour. This is, once the commodity is produced, it directly belongs to the capitalist. This would be exploitation because the commodity never belonged to the worker(he never held possession over his work's product). On the other hand, if workers themselves had the right to possess the product of their labour and democratically decided to give the surplus value that they created to the poor or the children, it wouldn't be exploitation. It's not a matter of creating surplus value since in every society surplus value is created. It's about who possesses the product of labour and decides what to do with the surplus.
On the topic of the ‘two people stuck on an island’ thing; Why would they go through the whole trading thing in the first place? Why wouldn’t they just share with each other so that they both survive?
I think he was giving an example of the labour theory of value working. I would also assume they would just share,without money, creating a 2 man communist society
No. The Hidden Hand. Karl, as men did back then, indicates he is a Mason. There was a time when the Craft was more a good thing than not and provided a sanctuary for men (yes, men only back in the day) in a hostile world of decadent feudalism.
Chapter 1 of Capital, the commodity, clearly states a difference between Social labour and non-social labour. Right wingers never read ch 1 of Capital lol.
@@patrickvernon5368 I would qualify that statement as 'some' socialists have this critique. But also, usury is different from porn, degeneracy, and sex work. It might be argued that the later products are nonetheless produced with labour-power, and therefore have value; in contrast to this, no labour-power is expended in the former; that is, in usury--therefore the private profit obtained through it was obtained without any equivalent value/labour-power given on the loaner's part, and is therefore illegitimate in the same way capitalists' profits from workers is. The later can occur in a C-M-C exchange, but the former is strictly an M-C-M exchange.
Very good video Comrade. The Labor Theory of Value is exceptionally useful for showing how as the workers labor generates goods and services Be it in mines, Factories, farms, service jobs, or utility jobs, that as these goods and services are sold in the markets to other capitalist or back to the working class in the form of retail, how it generates a profit stream that does not go back to the working class, but instead goes towards the owners of production and natural resources - the capitalist class, while the worker only receives a tiny wage representing a fraction of what their labor was sold at in the markets by the very capitalist themselves. Then they use this wage to yet again spend it on more of their own goods and services that they produced that are hiked up by the capitalist class in comparison to the wage the workers were given. The LTV undeniably shows that workers labor is the basis of value and that capitalist controlled markets are the main tool by which the capitalist exploits the working class labor.
Some people dont know where too start. There is stuff all over the book and the book is very long. It is efficient (and probably more lazy, but whats the problem with that in this situation) to simply watch a 30 minute video (not trying to downgrade the FinnishBolshevik, great content for sure).
I always understood the value Marx was referring to as being the total cost for producing an item. Factories always keep very meticulous accounting for value added from one cell to another and it's clearly an objective thing. Since you have a bunch of inputs for a product to go from a bunch of raw materials and dreams into a useful finished product, labor is the magic factor that weaves it all together and "adds" the value.
I like a lot the way you explained it and the examples you used are beyond accurate. I have lived in socialist Romania and I have seen with my own eyes precisely what you describe here. For example bread was rationed, and anti communists love to point that out as a terrible crime of communism. But if you take a better look at why that had to be so an entirely different reality emerges. Bread was subventioned to cost a fraction of what it was made from. So what did people do when they saw such a cheap product? Abuse it of course. Peasants would buy hundreds of breads every week to feed it to pigs and other animals. My grandma used to have an entire barn full of breads she was feeding the animals with. This is the real reason bread and other products had to be rationed, because people were abusive assholes not because the state was. Further evidence for this is that at the same time bread was rationed other bakery products that could replace bread were available everywhere in abundance, but nobody cared because those weren't so cheap. Also the ration was more then plenty of bread any family needed. Today when bread isn't rationed, I still wouldn't buy more than I did then because nobody eats that much bread. This was the same for everything else that was rationed.
@Red Dead Eye that was also not exactly how you describe it. He didn't took a loan from "the west" as you say, he took a loan from IMF which as it's name suggests is International, not "the west". Also at that time IMF was a new thing, nobody knew the imperialist tool it is back then, certainly nobody knew the track record of IMF we know now.. Back then it was marketed as an international bank to help developing countries and at that time they were not so overt about the fact that the western imperialist and their doctrine dominate these institutions..
"You would be altogether mistaken in fancying that the value of labour or any other commodity whatever is ultimately fixed by supply and demand. Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for that VALUE itself."
Labor Theory of Value can actually be found in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. It's part of his argument on just price and how the producer can justly claim a higher price than the value of materials that went into the production
+TheFinnishBolshevik Very nice video. Just out of curiosity, would you recommend that I read The Wealth of Nations? I want to supplement my understanding of capitalism as well as learn more deeply of Marx’s criticisms of capitalism.
My comment, in part, goes out to newer comrades and non-comrades... I recommend Smith to everyone. They are often shocked. I, a communist, recommend Smith?! Yes. I also recommend the Bible to atheist Shakespeare enthusiasts. Shakespeare made allusions and references. Marx refers to other thinkers, their times, and their thoughts/works; also, he made literary references, too. Marx is actually fun to read once you get into his works.
Can some explain how Marx Labour Theory of Value affects a piece of land that no labour was done on it and after 2 or 3 years the value of the land has appreciated (i mean the exchange value since the amount of labour done is equivalent to value of exchange)
I watched this video a few times to get the jist of the labour theory of value and it is quite a complicated theory. However, I've been looking up Richard D Wolff's analysis of it to which I found that he's proven you to be absolutely correct. The value is what is created by labour. The use value is how useful something is to you according to your perception. This doesn't change the actual value, yet it can determine the exchange value which is the price of something that is often very different to the actual value of a commodity. This is where supply and demand comes in? I hope I've understood this correctly. If not, then please do correct me.
I think the akilis heel of marginalism is the fact that the only difference that trade can cause is the allocation of resources and the allocation of resources changing doesn’t actually change the value of anything. Like it doesn’t create or add anything to the world it just moves things into different spots, which is something that can be done in socialism anyways.
What is the incentive to create the means of production or invest without profit? Also, the inefficient worker and the disabled? Will they not recieve more than they have earned?
John Locke had an analogous theory “the labor theory of property” which is similar, and probably more important than Adam Smith. Because Locke’s justification for the labor theory of property is entirely hinged on the idea that people have the right to secure the fruits of their labor. And yet if all properties are monopolized and the majority of the population is a renting class then capitalism is merely a new form of feudalism. So Locke’s idea is far more important, because if conservatives denounce the labor theory of property then they have no justification for private ownership of the means of production. Furthermore there are interesting ideas in Locke which say that if property is unused then it is in a state of nature, and human beings have a right to use it as long as they leave enough for others, which is the basis of antiquarian squatter rights often still on the books in both the USA and the EU. Which can be entirely useful to put issues of property into question at a time of speculative landholders and land monopolies who do not use their property. Marx specifically challenged the application of Locke, to some degree more than Smith and Ricardo.
Good video mate . Marx was the boy ! I just wish he and Bakunin hadn't fell out . Between them they had most of the answers . If they hadn't fell out I think they would have worked everything out between them.
Bakunin to the last days of his life recognized that Marx was rigth on many subjects and sougth to incorporate the best tactics and ideas from Marx and many others into his own ,Marx on the other hand remained more firmly in his territory. I think this illustrates the difference betwen the two personalities ,i'm not going to attack Marx based on personal traits or anything but he was a man very much proud and secure of his ideas and his way of seeing the world on the other hand Bakunin ,was more capable of acepting other people's ideas and sougth to build his own theory from the foundations laid down by his predecessors. Now this was good because Marx didn't simply follow the trends and ideas popular in his day and worked all off his life to build ideas based on what was real ,not what was popular but on the other hand this made him more untrustworthy of other people's ideas and that was bad when other people hadideas that were correct ,for example Bakunin was in the 19th century talking about the revolutionary potential of the peasents and how we must unite their struggle with the struggle of the workers , But Marx disagreed and rejected this idea.
@Definitely a George Soros funded bot I guess journalism and writing isn't work anymore guys. "No more news or investigation because that *ain't work* because *Marx bad*!" 😂🤣
I have a question. Someone argued that value is subjective because a person stranded on an island would value a few gallons of water more than a few tons of gold. How should I respond?
How does the theory work with service jobs? With social workerks for example? And isn't there a distinction between private and public sector? In the private sector the surplus goes to the capitalist, but in the public sector it goes to the state I guess?
Comrade I have just one question. How is it that the supposed final stage of communism always keeps producing? I believe its probably because of automation. But correct me if I am wrong. Also my uncle lived in Kazakhstan and he told me that the state did not give equal share of revenue to every worker as in 'wages' they distributed share of revenue completely based on hardwork. Can you please explain what you meant by wage?
In "Wage Labour and Capital", does Marx include profit in his use of Cost of Production? If prices are set by the supply and demand as mentioned there, then how does profit equates to a surplus value created by the workers... Since the price set above and beyond the cost of wages+instruments+raw_materials, things which the capitalist furnishes from his already existing capital, depends on an arbitrary struggle between supply and demand(often artificially created new demands) this price can be anything above below or equal to the previous costs incurred to produce that product... If so then is surplus value leading to a profit or just this arbitrary struggle which sets a final price allowing a profit? Finally, if on average, taking ups and downs of the system, the cost of commodity ends up as the cost of production which does not include a profit but only what the capitalist gives to produce the commodity, then on the whole there is no profit being created? I would appreciate if anyone helps me in these questions to better understand the Marxian ideas...
Price is not determined only by supply and demand. Price is determined by value, which is determined by labor time. However, supply and demand can influence it. The capitalist buys labor power but labor power creates more value then what the capitalist pays for it. Lets assume it takes 100 dollars per week to feed and house a worker. That means his labor power in one week is worth 100 dollars. However, the worker might produce goods which are worth 500 dollars in one week. That is the source of the capitalist's profit, and of all the wealth in society.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 thank you. I did understand that part of labour power and it being a commodity and thus wages equalising to its cost of production on average. What I am a bit confused about is this... If price hovers around the cost of production and if the cost of production includes raw materials tools and wages (that were paid during or before production as per the living costs of workers), then ultimately on average there is no extra gain for the capitalist beyond what it paid for producing its commodities. Am I thinking this properly? If so, then whatever be the wages there is on the whole no profit beyond what cost of production took? If you can help me here it'll be great!
@@aniketdeb5264 the price is not the same as cost of production. I hope I didn't say that by accident, this video is old. The price is based on VALUE. Labor power can create much more value, then it costs to produce the labor power. I hope that makes sense. It might cost a 100 dollars to reproduce the labor power, while the labor power can produce goods of 500 dollar's value in that time. Human labor is the only commodity that produces more value then it itself contains. That is where surplus comes from. Imagine I can survive off of 20 apples per day and thus reproduce my labor power. I can probably collect hundreds of apples per day. Thus the reproduction cost of my labor power is much less than the value my labor power can potentially create. In capitalism that surplus goes to the capitalist.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 thanks again for taking time to reply. Ya I agree to this. So I am referring to Wage Labour and Capital specifically. After explaining the influence of supply and demand in the chapter dealing with prices of commodities, he gives the picture of how a capitalist measures his profit in the first place. That he says is done with respect to the cost of production, implying that workers add a surplus value which the capitalist takes. Then after a while he says this - "We have just seen how the fluctuation of supply and demand always bring the price of a commodity back to its cost of production. The actual price of a commodity, indeed, stands always above or below the cost of production; but the rise and fall reciprocally balance each other, so that, within a certain period of time, if the ebbs and flows of the industry are reckoned up together, the commodities will be exchanged for one another in accordance with their cost of production. Their price is thus determined by their cost of production." So here I had the doubt, that if the price over a period of time falls to whatever was the cost of production what happened to the profit as profit requires that the capitalist sells the product above the cost of production. He also says - "We thus see that the price of a commodity is indeed determined by its cost of production, but in such a manner that the periods in which the price of these commodities rises above the costs of production are balanced by the periods in which it sinks below the cost of production, and vice versa. Of course this does not hold good for a single given product of an industry, but only for that branch of industry. So also it does not hold good for an individual manufacturer, but only for the whole class of manufacturers." I am just confused what he means. Thanks
Could you at some point make a video elaborating on the differences between State Capitalism and Socialism, while addressing the opinion many people have that if we become Socialist the government will control everything and that the Soviet Union was State Capitalist? I know you touched on the subject in your video on Fascism, and have repeatedly talked about how the means of production are different from the goods themselves, but I would enjoy a more in-depth explanation from someone who I consider a true Vanguard!
toonguy40--- At 58.00, of 'Global Capitalism: June 2015 Monthly Update", Richard D Wolff, gives his point of view on State Capitalism and Socialism, if you haven't watched it, is worth it for some more information on the subject.
What about when (as is becoming increasingly true) goods are not made by workers but by robots? Whose labour created the value of such goods-that of the people who designed and built the robots? If so, does the labour value of the goods the robots produce accrue to those people in perpetuity? And if not, why not?
Starting to think there's a lot of hidden exploitation with technology; but exploitation is coming at the expense of the consumer rather than the worker. Or rather the consumer becomes a kind of hidden worker. Take self service supermarket check-outs, you're basically doing part of the job that the check-out girl used to do. If prices don't go down as a result of self-service, that means the company has directly filched some free Labour from you, whilst laying off staff. Same goes with reading your own smart meter' and paying the bill at the post office, once again, you're doing the firm's job and are not getting paid. Back in the day, someone would come to your home, read your meter, give you a bill - and collect the money. And then there's the Tech Giants who people give their Labour to freely. Maybe it's a labour of love, but that's immaterial to the fact that the Tech Giants are profiting greatly all whilst dodging tax. It's not like the technology is replacing Labour, it's just shifting the labour from the worker to the consumer.
thanks for the video! haven't finished it yet but I want to point out that trade make both parties better off, not necessarily more wealthy. The object of trade had no value inherent in it but it is the utility of the object to meet the ends of the individual that has value.
Marx calls utility "use value". You're correct however what you're describing is not modern capitalistic trade but barter which is as ancient as humanity
+TheFinnishBolshevik later in your video you explain that food doesn't become more valuable just because you are hungrier. This is explained that the reason for this is that nothing has been added to the food; it's value cannot change. What if the food existed and suddenly humans no longer existed, or rather, anything that could benefit from the food no longer existed? What value would the food have if nothing existed to determine the value?
If according to the labor theory of value, the value of something is determined by the amount of labor used to produce it, So consider the following case. One man goes out panning for gold and at the end of a 10-hour day has enough grains of gold to make an ounce. Another man goes walking along and in 1 minute, trips over a stone. He picks it up and it's a gold nugget with same quantity. Labor input? Ten hours vs. one minute. Value: the same. So please stop giving lectures on economics without having knowledge on it first. Please go and study economics which will help you change your mind
I really don't understand the relationship between value, exchange value and price. If things can be sold at "above or below their value" does this mean that when we say "value" we mean some sort of "real" price? When you say a chair has the value of 8 hours of social labor absorbed in it do you mean that there is a real price for it which can be corrupted by market forces? meaning the value of a chair is the "real" exchange value of the chair? I'm so confused what "value" versus "exchange value" means.
I've heard this argument of a painting of van gogh costs millions but that is because it is unique (demand and supply) however, what about a unique painting made by me. Why is van gogh's painting still more expensive than mine? Mine is unique, too. Thanks in advance for answering
Jonathan Mcneil depends on the product and I don't think the prices would ever stay the same indefinitely. I think its a good idea to guarantee the price of necessary things like bread or milk for the duration of one five year plan or maybe at least 1 or 2 years at a time.
I've yet to read Marx but I always found it strange that anyone could think value can be created through exchange. Entrepreneurialism isn't generating wealth as much as it is extracting it.
I think capitalists had to abandon classical economics because it eventually led to marxism. Classical economics took itself as a serious science which could be empirically tested. It also came to the conclusion that wealth is created by useful labor. However, modern capitalist economics claims that economics is not a science that can be tested or studied empirically. They deny economics as a science, which allows them to assert any explanation as valid, since it can't be proven or disproven. They then use that to claim that value is entirely subjective and not created by labor, but instead created by exchange or other non-productive capitalistic activities.
the real difference between capitalism and socialism is who controls the surplus. And the real debate is who best manages the surplus. And it’s pretty clear that the entrepreneur is much better than the committee to manage the surplus.
@@kphawaii Starting a small business is just a stupid gamble. Its like playing the lottery. Only big capitalist corporations have a good rate of success, and the people who are already rich get richer. Socialism hasn't caused anyone to die in Ukraine, but under development caused by capitalism has. Luckily socialism ended famine in Ukraine for ever.
@@kphawaii experts seem to agree it was crop failure. The weather and a common plant disease killed the crops. After the country was industrialized it didnt really matter, because they built irrigation systems, had pesticides, used tractors etc. so the crop was more secure and much larger.
How can value be objective, if there is nothing materialistically that exists that we call value; is it not just a construct in our mind? Like I can say acorns exist because I can see them, feel them, etc. But how can I say value exists when I cannot see it, feel it, does it not only exist in my head? And if so, then how can you use the LTV and claim to be a materialist?
Marx defines value as the necessary useful labor it takes to make a product. Almost every other economist of his time such as Adam Smith and Ricardo had similar theories but Marx's was the most complete and only one that was truly materialistic and not idealist. Value is a concept and therefore has no physical existence per say but it is represented by commodities. Do you think that in order to be a materialist one can't believe in concepts, ideas or social-relations?
I see. But in a communist society where the means of production are commonly own, wouldn't that mean that instead of having your value taken by the capitalists you'd just have it being taken by the community?
Marx's Law of Value only exists under what Marx calls Commodity Production. However you are basically correct, in a way. In capitalism the worker creates surplus value which the capitalist takes (this is what Marx calls Exploitation). In Socialism the worker produces goods -- commodities which are sold like in Capitalism and he earns a wage. After paying the worker the enterprise that he works for (either state owned or worker co-op) sells the product and gets profits. These profits are then used to fund necessary state functions and develop society as a whole. You'll notice that the Law of Value still exists but the difference is who gets the profits. The worker gets a wage but he also benefits from social programs, education and all the things provided to him by society. In this way he gets the full value of his work, though a portion of it indirectly through social programs etc. In Communism (or "Full-Communism") the Law of Value is abolished together with Commodity Production. Products are not made to be sold anymore, instead they're made for their use-value. Workers don't earn wages, instead they perform their daily quota of work and enjoy all the products of society for free. This is only possible in a society that has achieved a very high level of productivity and basically no rationing of any kind is required. In this kind of society we don't talk about surplus-value anymore, instead we talk of surplus-product i.e. that portion of the produce which exceeds the personal consumption of the worker.
I see. When looking into this I found an article titled "why marx's labor theory of value is wrong" and it down to these points: "(1) the a priori argument for the labour theory of value in volume 1 of Marx’s Capital is a non sequitur and later contradicts itself, as detailed here and here. (2) Marx faces the problem of reducing all heterogeneous human labour to a homogeneous abstract socially necessary labour time unit, but does not properly explain how this happens; (3) even if Marx could overcome (1) and (2), he faces the problems of defining labour value in cases of joint production, where it is possible that the labour value of a commodity might be undefined, nil, or negative. (4) there is no reason why free human wage labour should have a special power that animals, slaves or machines do not have, as I point out here. (5) modern fiat money refutes Marx’s theory of money and also his labour theory of value, since money must be a produced commodity in Marx’s theory but has long since ceased to be, as I point out here and here. (6) the empirical reality is that prices are not set by means of the abstract socially necessary labour time of commodities or of money as a produced commodity, and (7) the problem that surplus labour value (if that concept could even be adequately defended) would not really explain money profits, since money profits can exist in a slave-based economy and very probably even in an economy where machines did most of the work." (socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/p/the-labour-theory-of-value-as-presented.html)
I'm surprised at how bad some of those arguments are since they seem to be coming from self-proclaimed Socialists. 1) There's no contradiction. This is incredibly basic. When Marx says nothing has value without utility he means that nobody would buy a product they don't need/want. On the other hand he says that exchange is the elimination of use-value. By this he means that products in Commodity Production are not made for use but for sale. The seller is interested in the Exchange value, the consumer is interested in the Use-value. Marx explains this in great length. In feudalism products such as crops and clothes were mostly made by the peasants themselves for their own personal use (Use-Value). As capitalism developed more and more they began to produce crops for a market i.e. not for their personal use (Use-Value) but to be sold (Exchange-Value). This in no way contradicts the obvious fact that the product (in this case food crops) must be appealing to the consumer due to their utility or nobody would buy them and their value would not be realized. This is also why Marx talks about Useful Labor, because only the kind of labor that produces goods that are useful enough to be sold results in their value being realized. This is an improvement over Adam Smith. 2) Marx explains this in great detail. Besides, most other economists also had labor theories of value at the time. It was universally accepted then, yet now suddenly these so-called "Socialists" have a hard time grasping it? 3) This point is particularly absurd. Not only does LTV work perfectly well with workers working together, Marx constantly stressed the collectivity of Labor! The collective aspect of labor is even a core aspect of Adam Smith (division of labor). 4) Perhaps animals, slaves or machines could also produce value but in order for that to happen the Law of Value would have to apply to them. Do animals sell their "products"? I would say Marx never argued that slaves can't produce value but when talking about 'slave societies' he was talking about pre-capitalist ones like Ancient Greece & Egypt, not the use of slaves in capitalism e.g. by the Nazis & Americans. Also in Marx's time robots weren't a thing. 5) This is just dumb. Marx never argued that money must be a measure of value. Why else would he talk about VALUE and not merely PRICE or even EXCHANGE VALUE? 6) This is both wrong and a mischaracterization. Prices are obviously impacted by the Law of Supply & Demand, Marx knew this. He said that things are almost always sold above or under their Value i.e. money price doesn't correspond to their value. However, if supply was to perfectly meet demand and not exceed it at all (let's say we have a 100 products and 100 customers who each want one) then Supply and Demand lose their explaining power. So where does price come from? It comes from the cost of raw materials, machines and most of all Labor. All this applies only if we are not talking about an absolute monopoly, though. 7) The author here confuses surplus value with profit and surplus product. He needs to re-read his Marx.
Red Salute, Comrade! I am interested to know, in a Communist society, how is a growing population going to be serviced by a high level of productivity? If there is an abundance of resources to live, then it could follow that there will be an increase in populations, which subsequently causes a huge strain onto the producing population.
+Box Boi there is no difference really, democratic socialism is just a cop out that socialists try to use to avoid taking responsibility for the outcomes of their policies put into action, abolition of private ownership of the means of production, abolition of money, state direction of production...which brings the bodies, the poverty, the low and ever decreasing living standards, the relatively crappy products compared to freer places, the famine, etc. democratic socialism is inherently unstable because the interventions into the otherwise free economy compounds the original problems they are trying to solve and either leads towards full on socialism (which necessarily collapses before it gets there - see calculation problem comment above) or back towards the freedom of the marketplace and with prosperity and rising living standards. but hey, what do i know? i only read Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, bohm bawerk, Menger, Marx, Engles, Bastiat, Keynes, Bukharin, and others on the subject.... but maybe your right, i havent carefully considered the issue enough and you have done a much more thorough and honest grappling with the principles...seriously though Hayek lays all this out in road to serfdom
LesSaint lol, wow you sound so informed on the topic.. you must have read all you could get your hands on and really grappled with the issue instead of just coming at it form a childish and emotional stance ;)
just one question: Isnt there a very big waste of stuff in communism? I mean if productive forces are that high, isnt a heck of a lot stuff wasted? With most things its not that bad like crops. If acriculture is so developed that this sheer seize of production is sustainable its a damn good thing. But what is with meat? How many animals are to be slaughtered? Isnt there a limit or something? Is there some kind of rationing with those products?
All production would be planned in acordance to demand ,farms wouldn't produce 600 thousands of rice when only 300 thousand tons are consumed ,same thing with other products ,i guess excesses could be stored if possible for situations of crop failure or natural disaster and if those reserves are full then it coud be recycled.
Jevons conclusively refuted the Labor Theory of Value in 1871. Value is defined as what something would trade for. There is no such thing as value other than exchange value. "Use value" is just what modern economics calls, "utility": the capacity to satisfy human desires. Value is determined by the intersection of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand). Nothing to do with labor. Jevons identified the fact that value is only associated with labor because producers devote labor to producing something, increasing supply and thus reducing its value, until the marginal value of the labor devoted to producing it is equal to the marginal value of the product. This insight comprehensively erases all of Marxism.
All criticism of marxism is only the result of ignorance. A marxist always has to spend time first educating their opponent. Value is not determined by use-value. Use value is something which is different for each product and cannot be compared. It would be an "apples to oranges comparison". Value is a common metric shared by all commodities, which can be compared. Items judged to be of equal value (based on human estimation) were exchanged with each other. When barter emerged nobody would exchange a product of a years' labor for a product of one day's labor. They'd rather make it themselves then exchange at a tremendous loss. A farmer knew how much time and effort it took to grow food and how much effort it took to make a shirt. He wouldn't exchange a shirt worth 10 hours of labor for only food worth 1 hour's labor, unless it was some kind of exceptional situation deviating from the norm. If supply would perfectly correspond to the demand of the market (something which practically never happens) there would still be a price. The price of the commodity hovers around its value, but rarely being completely identical with it. A scarcity increases the price, causing commodities to be sold above their value, while a glut lowers the price and causes commodities to be sold below their value. A scarcity causes more capital to flow to the given branch of production, while a glut causes capital to flee from it due to losses. Imagine that the demand for apples is 1 apple per day. Imagine that the demand for battle cruisers is 1 cruiser per day. The price of the apples will always be cheaper than the battle cruiser, because the cruiser contains so much more labor and is so much more difficult to produce. If cruisers grew on trees, they'd be cheap. Now imagine green apples are more fashionable and red apples are less fashionable. There is more demand for green apples. Their price goes up. But the labor required to grow them remains the same, i.e. their value remains the same. This means a seller of green apples will make more profits because his products sell above their value. Of course such fluctuations even out and cancel each other out over a longer period of time. Scientific political economy developed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo culminated with Marx. Capitalist economists were later forced to discard all of scientific economics because they didn't like its conclusions. They don't like that Smith and Ricardo explain that labor is exploited, that value is created only by the workers, that capitalism has inherent problems. Thus they invented this ridiculous theory that price is subjective. A dumbed down theory only looking at the most superficial economic phenomena. This same trend has continued so that capitalist propagandists now claim economics is not a science and cannot be a science. This is because the truth scares them. Capitalist propagandists have also for a long time claimed that history is not a science and can never become a science, again because they do not like the conclusions of scientific fact.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 wrote: "All criticism of marxism is only the result of ignorance." No, that's just some stupid anti-science Marxist tripe from you. "A marxist always has to spend time first educating their opponent." You mean trying to get them to ignore and forget indisputable facts of objective physical reality that refute Marxism. "Value is not determined by use-value." I already explained that it is determined by scarcity (supply) AND utility or "use value" (demand). "Use value is something which is different for each product and cannot be compared. It would be an "apples to oranges comparison"." GARBAGE. Everyone compares use values all the time by what they are prepared to pay for things. "Value is a common metric shared by all commodities, which can be compared. Items judged to be of equal value (based on human estimation) were exchanged with each other." No, it is the market that determines the values of things by equalizing supply and demand at the market price. "When barter emerged nobody would exchange a product of a years' labor for a product of one day's labor." Wrong again. People DID make such trades, and still do, for example by trading a year's wages for an artwork the artist created in a day or an ancient artifact found in a day's search. "They'd rather make it themselves then exchange at a tremendous loss." What loss? They trade for it precisely because it is not a loss to THEM, and unlike you and every other Marxist know-nothing, they know they CAN'T make it themselves. GET IT?? "A farmer knew how much time and effort it took to grow food and how much effort it took to make a shirt." Nope. The tailor knows how much effort it took to make the shirt, not the farmer. "He wouldn't exchange a shirt worth 10 hours of labor for only food worth 1 hour's labor, unless it was some kind of exceptional situation deviating from the norm." People make such trades all the time, proving you and Marx objectively wrong. "If supply would perfectly correspond to the demand of the market (something which practically never happens) there would still be a price." It happens all the time. Supply and demand are equal AT the market price. Proving you and Marx objectively wrong. "The price of the commodity hovers around its value, but rarely being completely identical with it. A scarcity increases the price, causing commodities to be sold above their value, while a glut lowers the price and causes commodities to be sold below their value." Nope. Changes in supply and demand CHANGE value. Value is always determined by a particular market at a particular time. It is not a static quantity. "A scarcity causes more capital to flow to the given branch of production, while a glut causes capital to flee from it due to losses." Proving you and Marx objectively wrong. AGAIN. "Imagine that the demand for apples is 1 apple per day. Imagine that the demand for battle cruisers is 1 cruiser per day. The price of the apples will always be cheaper than the battle cruiser, because the cruiser contains so much more labor and is so much more difficult to produce. If cruisers grew on trees, they'd be cheap." That is stupid, anti-economic Marxist nonscience. Demand for apples or battle cruisers would only be one per day AT A PARTICULAR PRICE. "Now imagine green apples are more fashionable and red apples are less fashionable. There is more demand for green apples. Their price goes up. But the labor required to grow them remains the same, i.e. their value remains the same." No, value is defined as what a thing would trade for, so their value does NOT remain the same. "This means a seller of green apples will make more profits because his products sell above their value." No, because his products _ARE_ MORE VALUABLE, as everyone but Marxist know-nothings knows. "Of course such fluctuations even out and cancel each other out over a longer period of time." Only in Marxist cloud-cuckoo land. "Scientific political economy developed by Adam Smith and David Ricardo culminated with Marx. " No. Marx was the Anti-economist, who threw away the knowledge Smith and Ricardo had gained -- that the factory owner earns a return by contributing to production while the landowner does not -- and preserved Smith and Ricardo's error: the Labor Theory of Value. "Capitalist economists were later forced to discard all of scientific economics because they didn't like its conclusions." That describes Marxist/socialist economists even more accurately. "They don't like that Smith and Ricardo explain that labor is exploited, that value is created only by the workers, that capitalism has inherent problems." Stop lying about Smith and Ricardo, who both clearly understood, and stated, that the factory owner contributes producer goods to production, while the landowner contributes nothing. Capitalism's problems start with the parasitic role of the landowner. Socialism's problems start with blaming the factory owner for what the landowner does to the worker. "Thus they invented this ridiculous theory that price is subjective. A dumbed down theory only looking at the most superficial economic phenomena." No. Price is objective -- what something traded for -- utility ("use value") is subjective, but VALUE is the COLLECTIVE judgment of a particular market at a particular time. "This same trend has continued so that capitalist propagandists now claim economics is not a science and cannot be a science. This is because the truth scares them. Capitalist propagandists have also for a long time claimed that history is not a science and can never become a science, again because they do not like the conclusions of scientific fact." I'm no defender of capitalism or its neoclassical economics apologists, but Marxism/socialism is even worse, as proved above.
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 I spent over an hour on a response that comprehensively and conclusively demolished you, and youtube instantly erased it. So thank your capitalist friends for helping you spread your Marxist nonscience.
16:19 I wouldn't say that if I were you. Not because it's wrong, but because liberals who might find themselves stumbling upon this will likely end up confused as fuck by such a statement.
What you're saying is that, for commodities that actually have a market, the more hours workers work, the higher would be the value of the good. This is totally false because this doesn't account for technology. Karl Marx didn't believe innovation merits reward, only wage labor. Thankfully, modern countries didn't adopt Marxism, and we do reward innovation. We actually do it to help workers, not to "exploit" them because if we didn't have innovation we'd all still be working in steal mills in 14 hour shifts.
I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by labor (an action) creates value (an idea). Value is not a physical thing that labor produces. I get that labor creates things, commodities. And people value those things. But labor doesn't create the values people have for those things. Value is just a preference; a like or dislike for something. So it doesn't really make sense to say labor creates people's preferences. Labor creates things. People value those things. And they exchange those things based on those values. The only way the statement "labor creates value" makes sense is if you just mean labor creates things that people value.
Bryan Briggs what he means by value is how much the thing costs. Basically, if u have some string and it cost u $1 to have that string. Then you turn that string into a shirt and sell it for $5. Your labor made $1 materials worth a $5 dollar commodity, therefore ur labor to make a shirt is valued at $4. Does that make sense?
I have a T-shirt, two-color, with Murray Rothbard on the front. How much would you pay me in trade for it? I have another shirt, also two-color, same printing process, with Che on the front. How much would you pay me for that one? Labor theory of value= destroyed.
I hope you're joking. The shirts have the same exact value but different use-values. The guy selling them will probably want the same exact price for either one and you have very little say in the matter anyway.
You have a choice to buy the shirt or not. You would not buy the shirt of Rothbard for the same price as you would likely pay for the shirt with Che. Thus, the shirt of Rothbard is of less value to YOU, and that is what matters in all market transactions. This is the Subjective Theory of Value. The value of something is not innate. There is no ""Quantum Price Tag" stamped on anything, including a persons time or effort. The idea, as you put it, that I "have very little say in the matter" is total nonsense. No one is forcing me to buy either shirt, so I have all the say. When the offered price matches my estimation of its value and desire, I will buy it, and not until then. This is how market forces function everyday, when and where people have the power to make voluntary agreements. The only alternative to this process is the use of force. The difference between Marxist and Free Market approaches is literally the difference between the Club and the Handshake. Human interaction suffers when people do not have the Right to decide value for themselves, and this is why such approaches always become a pit of suffering, poverty, starvation, and murder by the state.
You buy the shirt that is useful to you according to use-value, nobody will buy commodities that are useless to them (except to sell them). The seller will not sell the Rothbard shirt to me any cheaper despite it being nearly worthless to me but he will sell it at practically the same price to everyone. Value is objective and is based on labor time and raw materials. Prices fluctuate around this value based on supply and demand. In a non-monopoly situation prices tend towards the value and not much above it as there is competition driving prices down to this lowest possible point. In a crisis of over-production commodities could be sold much below their value and in a shortage they could be sold vastly over their value. However in a situation where supply perfectly matches demand only the value of the product can explain its price. This is a natural outcome of the Labor Theory of Value, and only Labor can be the source of value as trade only redistributes value. It is productive human labor that has built everything in our society. Right-wing economics dropped Adam Smith's and Ricardo's Labor Theories because Marx took them to their natural conclusion which was politically unacceptable for Right-Wingers. That is why they were forced to adopt unscientific subjective theories.
Also, you have a very convoluted view of why business owners sell their products. One reason is to make money - but if you've ever had experiences with business owners or start ups, it actually is because they excel at something, or they're passionate about something, and they want to offer those services or products to the society that surrounds them. If it goes well, that person will *gasp* make a profit and better their lot in life. If it goes poorly, they lose their investment, and all the time and energy that went into making the business. There is huge RISK involved (risk is another aspect in the exploitation narrative that Marxists avoid like the plague). It's quite rare to find someone who wants to start a business and sell products solely to become rich - namely because starting a business from the ground up is an extremely risky venture.
As I understand it Marx's critique is not directed at individual artisans or proprietors. But as soon as the use wage labor is involved he has shown this is where surplus value is created. Risk plays no part in determining value in the production of commodities from a technical perspective.
@@kylehager4113 value is not subjective, but if the product stops having a market, it will stop being produced. If the product never had any purpose then it doesnt have value
@@thefinnishbolshevik2404 how is value not subject? Subjective value comes from opinions, and the whole debate of whether or not somethings value is subjective comes from peoples opinions. Why would someone pay $100 dollars for a baseball card? Because they value that object, more than I do since clearly I wouldn't use my money for that. Each individual has different needs and opinions, that's the problem of your absolutist idea of value. Each individual is different and values different things.
@@kylehager4113 baseball cards are unique. The values of goods depend on the production cost (labor + materials) which can be proved empirically. People didnt just suddenly decide certain things are worth less, the cost of production just went down. Goods can be sold above their value in a monopoly situation though, or in a situation of temporary scarcity etc.
1. Money(not invented by capitalism btw) is an exchange value accelerant between entire "markets" and industries" and creates a base instrument for economic growth far beyond what individuals and individual industries can conceive of and across generations. Currency also allows for a source of power and legitimacy for a regime (eg fiat) as they can mostly control the value and usage of currency ultimately through the might of the regime and its allies. 2.The supply side has exchange value inherent in it's production because it generally requires the use of resources. 3. "Ownership" (is one means) that allows for the continuation of social structure and human enterprise. It (potentially) allows for interests in projects to continue beyond the basic day to day needs of the contemporary population. I'm not sure I fully understand why Marxism/Marxists are so chauvinistic and romantic toward the concept of "labor" as opposed to "priority". For me it's interesting that a philosophy that is touted as fundamentally opposed to class warfare, goes to such lengths to exclude the "labor" of the elite class of people (or do you truly believe that any system of law and order can remove the natural tendency of social beings to create echelons especially any time a project of any kind needs to be undertaken?)
I meant to express my suspicion that this gauvinism toward "labor" actually descends from Christian ideals...(in addition to probably legitimate concern for the often/always exploited, basic masses of populations) but that's just my presumptions about the philosophers.
Also money can extend labor value across generations..which beside being appealing to the incentive scale of human existence of course could and does lead to complacent/degenerate non meritocratic populations that have not earned their personal power and social standing but ...that's kind of a nihilistic slippery slope derision of money and demonstrates just as little faith in human nature as capitalist assertion that people will be idle (especially toward THE ELITE'S priorities) without incentive.(which might be more true than not in such undereducateable complex societies that are gridlocked by concentrated private property and currency that offers no freedom of movement and access to resources to the typical human being living there in.)
You can probably see that I am very moderate toward the concept and usefness of what I call "double blind" currency. Being a useful tool but mostly obsolete as a modern and progressive community accelerant. I'm pro the shift toward sophisticated and democratized "social credit" forms of currencies. I may be the missing link between socialization, Cryptos, fiat, and NFTs 😄
The concept of 'value' as explained in this video appears to be an idealistic concept. What scientific/materialist process describes how something like work (which can be quantified) is converted to some airy-fairy thing called 'value'?
Marx spend an extraordinary amount of time in the field. His theory is technical, the antithesis of your interpretation. This is the very reason he breaks down "value" into specific parts and with clear definitions.
@@luckylui3282 Philosophers are known for writing long and intricate works with many highly technical terms that often refer to ideas, concepts, and metaphysical objects. Just because Marx broke down value into specific highly technical parts doesn't mean that any of those parts were material in nature. Now if Marx associated value with the energy expended or with force exerted over distance then that would be material. But associating it with the source of the labor is metaphysical and not material.
@@JohnSmith-vd6fc Marx's writings can be tedious at times but are still rendered in common language for the most part; so your broad insinuation seems misplaced. I view the tedious sections as being detailed to the point of making it difficult to misconstrue. Economics is a human construct, not found in nature. Marx had no say in this. Labor congealed within a commodity is an abstraction, literally. Can you see, feel, touch the labor in your computer? But could it exist without labor? Marx does not deny this reality. Marx's value definitions are practical and meaningful. Addressing contractions and provides "tangible" accounting context. There is nothing nebulous about "value" in Marx's theory which, one could argue, is the most troubling part for many --especially critics and proponents of more nebulous theories. Finally, seems you may want to create a whole new labor theory. Good for you if you are up to it but that does not offer any useful critique of Marx's theory which is the point here.
@@luckylui3282 Pragmatism and Utilitarianism are both "practical" views on how we should order our lives, and they are like Marxism metaphysical theories. I don't need to come up with a new Labor Theory of Value. I can rely on the price theory, i.e. something is worth what someone else will pay for it. It's not a morally satisfying theory, but it is the only theory that entirely relies on just what happens in the "real world" and doesn't depend on any metaphysical concepts. I'm not arguing that metaphysical views are invalid. I'm very much a fan of metaphysics and abhor philosophies such as logical positivism which tried (and failed) to thrust metaphysics into the dust bin. I'm just saying that Marxism rests upon a contradiction: a supposedly materialist theory that relies on a metaphysical view. (BTW, materialism is a particular metaphysical view of the world so it, like logical positivism, is self-refuting.)
@@JohnSmith-vd6fc Your being selective and conflating a bunch of concepts, sometimes referred to as gaslighting. Utility is subjective. Utility price theory is literally rooted in idealism with critical contradictions. Think it's just for fun the PR and AD industries spend about a trillion dollars annually to convince people how worthless they are without the UTILITY of such and such product. I got it, you would of liked if Marx denied reality and turned an abstraction (labor congealed in a commodity) into something material to get around a faux contraction.
The workers built the machines, built the buildings, designed them etc. The money simply gave the capitalist control over them, and prevented the workers from controlling them.
TheFinnishBolshevik but you’re argument is that owning the stock is with nothing. When in fact it is how the business was first created. And the workers were first paid before profits no?
@@kphawaii The workers created everything for the business. The capitalist purchased machines, buildings and materials designed and constructed by workers. Yes, the capitalist exploits his workers and pays wages already before he gets his profit. That doesnt really matter though. The slave owner has to feed his slave before he can sell the products of slavery too.
TheFinnishBolshevik workers created everything except the idea. And workers do everything but may not be good at allocating capital. No? Just because you’d manage by committee doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed and successful enterprise. And this is why the capitalist are allowed to keep the profits. Because we value someone who has good ideas and manages capital well. No? If we all had this talent or skill then we’d all start successful businesses. And that’s a feat you already debunked. But because there are people among us who are successful at good ideas and allocating capital. We invest in them or work for them because on increases our chances of not being impoverished.
Kaimi Pelekai coming up with the idea for a company is a finite amount of labor. You are unconsciously recentering labor. Investment is a passive income. There is however managerial and intellectual labor involved in running a business.
Justification by faith and works to go to heaven was something Adam Smith had in mind. Work was sacred to Adam Smith and his labour theory of value showed this. Labour theory of value has no ideology let's be clear on that. Marxists keep it to this day. Before that, in the 16th century, the idea of the value of a product being and agreement between the seller and the buyer was conceived. Any modern economist knows the value of a product is determined by its supply and its demand. If you quickly find a diamond and miners in Africa take a month to find an exactly equal diamond do you think one will cost more than the other because of the labour behind it? If you spend so much time baking awful cupcakes and people know its bad taste do you still believe your cupcakes are worth 5 dollars each because of your work behind it? Anyway, Marx adopted Adam Smith's theory. This is veering from the topic but the labour theory of value is what made Karl Marx develop his theory of exploitation. This is another important concept. Marx's theory of exploitation is an idea made only from his labour theory of value and nothing else. "The worker is the one who makes the product valuable (through labour), the capitalist does not and he is the main benefiter." this is what Marx thought and did a history's analysis through this lens, the lens of exploitation. Communism is based on his theory of exploitation, which itself is based on the labour theory of value. An ideology flawed from the beginning... Did you know the austro-hungarians in the great war knew the flaw underlying communism? Communism had the world confused, threatening the capitalist system which was growing Europe like never before seen. The enemies of Tsarist Russia helped financially the russian communists (Lenin) to spread the idea of communism in Russia and defeat Russia from within, but it got out of hand... Now you've seen the results, grab any history book so we don't repeat history again anymore. Now when someone says communism only works in theory and not in practice... well, neither it does in theory. I'm happy you all can express your views and chase your dreams whatever they may be, these two are things many can't have under communist rule. Love my freedom
Ask yourself if the price of things is determined by people's tastes, references and the quantity of such product in the market. After all if there is an overproduction of grapes in the market, its price drops; if a new product is presented with a very high price, its price will drop until people begin buying it. Supply and demand, right? If you agree with this then you can discard the labour theory of value (The theory where communism rests). Thank you if anyone had the time to read this.
This guy is severely confused. He think that the definition of existence and value are the same. He thinks that value is inherent in the object outside of it's use or exchange value. There is no such value.
After 10 minutes of listening the topic being butchering I could not take it any more.. Ppl are better of watching Richard Wolff's "intro to marxian economics" and "Advanced & Applied Marxian Economics".
+TheInfirit Care to explain how I butchered it? I'm fine with Wolff's stuff but watching all that would take like 4 or 5 times longer. I tried to be brief.
TheFinnishBolshevik LTV cannot explain prices/value of non-reproducible goods/factors of production or nature given things since no labor in involved. Can't explain why things such as, say, rembrant paintings, fluctuate in price on the market. Its just not the right way to analyze the economic phenomena that occur on the market. Theres also the famous "diamond-water paradox" which the LTV could not solve. LTV was used by the classical economists until the more more fundamentally sound marginal utility theory emerged. Is that new to you or are you familiar with the diamond water paradox? Value is subjective and not a function of labor inputs... its in the eye of the beholder. People value things based on the services it will afford to them, not how much labor goes into them... they neither know nor care how much labor went into something when they are valuing it... for example... if i labor for 20 hours to make a dogshit pie, assuming peoples preferences havent changed, nobody is going value it very highly and it will not command a high (or likely any) price on the market. if all the sudden peoples preferences shift and now dogshit pies are the latest hit cousine and people want them all the time and are willing to pay for them, you would see the price of my dogshit pie rise... all this has nothing to do with how much i labor is involved but with the subjective values individuals place on it. Are you familiar with the theory of "subjective marginal utility"? it addresses all the short comings of the LTV.... check it out
Mike Mitchell Unique pieces of art fluctuate in price based on supply and demand. Marx talks about this in "poverty of philosophy". Marx does mention raw materials such coal or iron ore in Kapital. Also keep in mind digging them out of the ground requires labor. If I understand the water-diamond paradox correctly it is this: "The paradox of value (also known as the diamond-water paradox) is the apparent contradiction that, although water is on the whole more useful, in terms of survival, than diamonds, diamonds command a higher price in the market." Marx's LTV explains this just fine. Diamonds are scarce and there's a lot of demand for them. This causes their price to go up. Water is typically not as scarce but if it was it would go up in price. The mistake that bourgeois economists make is that they confuse price with value. Value comes from labor. Marx explains that 'exchange-value' is the exchange relation between two commodities (for example bread and milk) and typically this is expressed as a money price. After all money is just another commodity. The money price is merely the exchange relation between the money commodity and another commodity (for example shirts). The price is based on the amount of useful labor, raw materials and capital required but can be greatly impacted by supply and demand. In other words, due to scarcity or abundance products will often be sold above or under their true value. Supply and demand are almost never at equilibrium and indeed if they were they'd cease to explain anything. The theory of explaining prices (not to be confused with 'value') with only supply and demand breaks down if supply and demand are at equilibrium so you need a LTV. In order for a product to be desirable it needs to have some utility. This Marx calls 'use-value'. This is represented by demand. Individuals obviously think they have a use for a product if they want to buy it. However this doesn't change the 'value' of the product. Basically the thing you need to understand is that price is not the same as value and that value is created by labor. Trading doesn't create value, it merely re-distributes it.
Comrades, Unlearning Economics channel on youtube made a video about labor theory of value where he also adressed some of Hakim's sources. Any criticisms? Anoyone watched it?
Luke Bruce I'm not sure if you mean what I'm going to say, but the scarcity of diamonds means more labour is required to acquire them, increasing the value, if they were everywhere on the surface or just even on the surface, the value (initially) would be much lower for raw diamonds until they were exhausted on the surface and more labour was needed to extract them i.e in mines
Jamie Robinson-Woods What if diamonds were as difficult to get out of the earth as they are but there were way more diamonds and in every single country? I am pretty sure their value would decline.
Yes, of course, they would not be as valuable as they are now, but they'd be more valuable than if they were on the surface everywhere, but less than they are currently. The supply would be, lets say for the sake of argument, the same in the scenario I just stated and the demand would be the same. The diamonds in my scenario would be the least valuable due to the ease of access, however, the diamonds in your scenario would be at a higher value, due to the labour that was needed to get each diamond from the ground. In both these scenarios, the price would probably be much lower than in the real world due to abundance, however, in this comparison at least, labour is the deciding factor in the value of diamonds.
Jamie Robinson-Woods They've been able to create flawless synthetic diamonds for over a decade. By which I mean, the world's best jeweller can't tell if it's an organic or a synthetic diamond. *World Jewry = Monopoly Capitalism*.
make loaf of raisin bread then make another substituting rabbit droppings for raisins . same amount of labor so both loaves are equally valuable for a marxist. they are not equally valuable for sane people.
Theoretically they could be. But in reality as people don't want to eat rabbit shit nobody would by such a product and therefore this labor would not be useful, and therefore according to the labor theory of value this product would have zero value.
I have to question your understanding of the ideologies you're criticizing in the video. You may not be strawmanning, perhaps there are economists that have made such idealist arguments. But certainly you aren't attacking their best forms. For example, you dismiss the idea that a person's hunger could increase the value of food as a metaphysical or idealistic absurdity. First it's strange you don't seem to realize two of the three types of value you lay out only make sense within that "absurdity". Second, you don't seem to realize the absurdity of value existing intrinsically in a thing. There's a third way to understand value. A person's subjective hunger increases the value of bread, not metaphysically or intrinsically, nor solipsistically, because that is absurd; it increases the value objectively, ie by the relational facts of means-scarcity and the person's desires. Value is not "out there", it couldn't exist without a valuer. Neither is it merely subjective idealistically. Value is a relation of of valuers and things valued for a purpose. Then, you argue that mere trading can't increase value or the wealth of each party. But given the understanding of value I framed, wealth is increased. Because wealth is a valuer having the scarce means to fulfill a purpose, trade makes each wealthier in sorting those scarce means with respect to their purpose.
He outlined Value, Use Value, and Exchange Value. If I understood this video correctly, Value is an inherent quality of the good, its value is *independent* of a subject or valuer. But Exchange and Use Value only make sense if there are valuers around, they are *subjectively* valuable (I think that term is misleading for reasons in my prior post). The value of Use Value is derived from the purpose (ex: a shovel valued to dig a pool), and Exchange Value is derived from an interpersonal comparison of a Use Value (ex: I value your cup of coffee more than my dollar, you value my dollar more than your coffee) Do you think I've understood the distinctions? Does this make sense to you?
(I assume you mean "objective" in the "out there" sense, rather than my "relational" sense, else I'd agree.) How so? Coffee, a typical commodity seems to fit pretty well into the subjective side (requiring a valuing subject). What is its value apart from me wanting to enjoy it, invest in it, use it to make me more productive...? Aren't these subjective values the ones that shape its production, rather than being made and thrown into a garbage heap?
There's a few straw mans in your video. Food to a hungry person is more valuable to that persons subjective needs. No one is saying anything magical happens to the value of that food in and of itself. It has nothing to do with the commodity, it has everything to do with an individuals relation to it. Same exact thing for supply and demand - You are quite obviously using a straw man argument. No one is saying that anything magical or metaphysical is happening to a product that becomes scarce. It is our relationship to the scarcity or abundance that changes the lengths we're willing to go to acquire that product. We may or may not derive more benefit from that product, but this aspect of valuation can not be ignored. Labor Theory of Value actually has some validity within it, however a lot of it is just as magical and ambiguous as you claim supply and demand valuation or subjunctive valuation to be. Namely, this assertion that _all_ value is derived from labor. You're omitting the entire other side of the equation which is the society which surrounds the laborer, and their relationship to that commodity. But then Marxists will bring up use-value and exchange-value, which is when things begin to make sense, but that negates the whole exploitation narrative.
It maybe more important to the hungry person but not more valuable as defined by Marx, which the segment accurately explained. Your using "value" in a subjective sense where value is a technical definition in Das Kapital.
If a lot of labor is spent making something that cannot be sold, like an old fashioned horse carriage, doesn't that mean that the Labor theory of value is incorrect?
Not at all Marx hold a if there is no use value you have not created a commodity therefore the product has no value. In other words value is contingent on the product having a use value
@@libbil9943 Sorry a bit long but it should be easy reading. There are 3 types of "value" Marx defines Use value- a product must have a function or need it fulfils or it's simply not a thing people exchange If it's not exchanged it's not a thing within capitalism so has nothing to do with his theory Exchange value- basically that's what the product is traded at. This can be 5 goats for a wagon, 1lb of sugar for a hammer or a car for $20,000 ETC. "Labor value" or just "value" - the socially necessary labor time required to reproduce a good in a particular place and time. This is a very specific definition in Marx and it is misunderstood all the time. He's not saying just because you labor that embues some magical essence into a product. The LTV is a scientific theory that analyzes capitalism, shows it's contradictions and makes novel predictions that have been confirmed. Ultimately he theorizes the system of capitalism will fail. He uses "value" as a theoretical unobservable much in the same way the atomic theory postulated electrons. Scientists used the idea of electrons, made predictions based on if they did exist what would we expect to see in experimentation then confirmed they were good explanations for the observed phenomena In the same way Marx uses value and predicts what would be expected if it is labor that explains "natural prices". "Natural prices" are basically when supply/demand are at equilibrium. Marx wanted to answer what explains why equilibrium prices fell on a graph were they did instead of somewhere else. Market prices hover around natural prices, higher or lower, based on supply/demand In other words what explains prices if supply/demand are equal? He theorizes the cause is labor. If it is labor what can be deduced from that fact? The LTV is a Theory that explains these phenomena and makes predictions based on the theoretical unit called value.
@@davec-1378 What labor does empty fertile land contain? It has value and is traded under capitalism. And BTW if I could prove to you that Idealism is correct and Materialism is wrong, would you still consider yourself a Marxist?
@@libbil9943 The LTV is a Theory based on production Ultimately in that process land is the source of rents I need some clarification to your question Are you referring to dialectical idealism vs dialectical materialism when you say you can prove idealism or are you referring to idealism as a metaphysic?
all labor theories of value are wrong as are all objective theories of value. value is indeed subjective . there are not different kinds of value. an individual orders things by their value to that person with no regard to labor . ones person life is very valuable to that person but of little value at all to a stranger on the other side of the world. moreover price is a very different thing from value . prices requires both money and markets or auctions. Marx was no economist, and because his theory of value makes continuous price determination impossible all marxist societies cannot maintain a technological manufacturing society. that is why marxist societies always fail.
This is like saying facts are subjective because people can disagree about them. There exists objective truth about e.g. shape of the earth. But in practice there is no way to know what it is with certainty and objectively. Only best approximations by science and silly opinions of cranks exist. And yet the shape has to have some kind of objective truth about it.
Marx never took time preference into account. The labourer enters into the agreement because he prefers a small amount of goods over a larger future one, and the capitalist enters the agreement because he values a larger amount of future goods over a smaller amount of present ones. It's a harmonious, mutually beneficial agreement and there is no exploitation.
1) At the time there was no social safety net of any kind. If you didn't get a job you'd starve and die homeless on the street. That is absolute coercion. 2) The worker performs all the work yet even after paying the worker and paying for the raw materials and other costs the capitalist makes a profit without lifting a finger. He is an exploiter, a parasite only hindering the process of production.
TheFinnishBolshevik It isn't coercion, the opposite is coercion and exploitation. Any attempt the control the resources of a private property owner whose land was first derived from homesteading is exploitation. I have to repeat myself again, you can put your own labour to work and set up a workers coop etc. but the labourer values present goods over future goods as the capitalist values more goods in the future over a smaller amount now. There is no coercion, it is impossible to trade future goods against present goods without a discount.
_"It isn't coercion"_ Saying shit doesn't make it true. You have to prove it. _"Any attempt the control the resources of a private property owner whose land was first derived from homesteading is exploitation."_ 1) No its not, but you could argue its morally unfair if you wanted to but I don't care about morality, I care about feeding people. 2) Such hypothetical people are not what Marxists are interested in. We're interested in multinationals and big capitalists. _"it is impossible to trade future goods against present goods without a discount."_ The worker performs the work NOW expecting to get paid in the near future. You can try to change the syntax of exploitation but it remains exploitation.
TheFinnishBolshevik TheFinnishBolshevik "it's not" Not an argument. "I don't care about morality" Well quite frankly if you don't care about stealing from people who have acquired land through using their own labour through homesteading then you are a thief. I don't give a shit if you care about feeding people, you do not get to show up outside someone's property that they have acquired without the use of violence and then make a claim out of thin air that these resources are yours. It's logically absurd and just demonstrates how fundamentally ridiculous Marxism is. If you have to use violent coercion to acquire something then you are a thief. The workers performs the work now because for the third time, he prefers present goods (a wage) at a discount over a *possibly* increased amount of those goods in the future through another means. You can't seem to understand this.
"if you don't care about stealing from people who have acquired land through using their own labour through homesteading then you are a thief" You misunderstand. If they don't exploit anyone I have nothing against them. Small business owners are a dying breed. They're doomed under capitalism and equally under socialism due to competition, we don't need to do anything against them. If they're big exploiter capitalists then I don't care how they initially got the tools they now use to exploit people. "The workers performs the work..." because otherwise he'd be fucked. Can't buy food, pay rent or healthcare. Of course he *prefers* exploitation to absolute destitution and possibly death.
