Philosophy and economics! Part 1 of my series on Karl Marx. We talk about capitalism, exploitation, labour, and the working class. More like this: 🤍tinyurl.com/nljmqsu Subscribe! 🤍tinyurl.com/pr99a46 Patreon: 🤍🤍patreon.com/PhilosophyTube Audible: 🤍🤍audibletrial.com/Philosoph... FAQ: 🤍🤍facebook.com/PhilosophyTu... Facebook: 🤍🤍facebook.com/PhilosophyTu... Twitter: 🤍PhilosophyTube Email: ollysphilosophychannel🤍gmail.com Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube realphilosophytube.tumblr.com Recommended Reading: Karl Marx, Das Kapital Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital Alexander Anievas, How The West Came to Rule If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch! Music: ‘Chiptune Anthem One,’ ‘Tek’s Abomination,’ and ‘Digital Leapfrog’ by TechnoAxe - 🤍tinyurl.com/kkrsfgg Title Animation by Amitai Angor AA VFX - 🤍🤍youtube.com/dvdangor2011 Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
Marx was thinking in a period when there were lots of factories in Europe that were basically sweat-shops. It's hard to put his ideas to use in a non sweat-shop society.
just realized my 1st grade teacher was a marxist. thank god she got to me a little early
I’ve read Marx and my ADHD made it extremely difficult to understand. I came away understanding little of what I read. This helped so much. I was able to connect your explanation to what I read and things clicked. Thank you so much.
das capital being on audible feels equivalent to torries selling trans flags
I was searching for a good video on Marx, saw this and was like "Abigail from 6 years ago will definitely explain this better than these other boring videos.".. I was correct.
This video immediately starts on the wrong foot. The means of production in economic science are defined as land, labor and capital. These means can either be privately owned, that's what the economic science calls capitalism, or state controlled, collectively owned, however you want to call it. I guess none of you guys who advocate marxism so strongly in the comments actually lived in any kind of state controlled or collectively owned economy, because if you did, you wouldn't jump so quickly on this marxist bandwagon. So let's imagine that these three means of production are privately owned and let's stick to labor for the most part. It's gonna be bloody long anyway. You own your labor and supply the labor market. You supply it the way you do because it's at the moment the most rational way for you to earn capital that you need to satisfy your needs. Nothing stops you from making this capital work for you and turn capitalist yourself if that is your need. Nothing stops you from being self-employed, you own your work after all, but even if you are in a classic employment contract, you are in it, because it is in some way beneficient to you. And your employer contracts you, because it is in some way beneficient to him, using marxist terminology, you exploit each other. Now imagine that the means of production are collectively owned. You don't own your labor. You don't own your video making equipment, we all own it and we all have to allow you to use it. That's of course completely unrealistic, so this model translates to reality by enforced central planning by bureaucrats and officials. For the good of the society. You don't get to make videos when you want and in what quantity you want. You can only make them according to The Plan. And because you don't own your labor, it's owned collectively, let's go one step further and assume that your videos are not needed in The Plan at all. Substitute videos for anything else, I'm just continuing with the video's metaphor. How nice it'd be if you were efficiently relocated by the central planners some 1000 km or more depending on the size of your country away from your home? And you get no say in this, remember, you just have to obey, because you don't see the big picture you know, otherwise the collectivist central planning is for nothing. How would you like that? Or if your profession for life was chosen for you at the age of 15? You know what, we, the omnipotent central planners have prophesized, that we're gonna need you to drive trains on the other side of the country for the next 40 years, coolio? No? Well, deal with it or we will help you deal with it. These are the realities of centrally planned economies. Imagine not being able to get a loan to buy whatever you need to realize your money making project. Central planning could easily get ruined by individual people's money making plans! All centrally planned economies sooner or later collapsed due to their inner inefficiency, so you might want to think twice before you start invoking these violent collectivist thoughts which have brought nothing but some hundred million dead and absolutely no prosperity to any nation where they were so stupid as to attempt their implementation. I could go on and on about how wrong the theories of Marx are, but either you are starting to get it and will do your own research from now on or you will never get it. Private means of production gave us ordinary people the chance to make something for ourselves as the creator of the video demonstrate themselves and not for the lord or the state, it gave us freedom of choice and brought about the sharpest rise in quality of life ever, so I for myself would prefer to keep it. By the way, no one is keeping you from founding your own company that is going to be run according to collectivist principles. Capitalism and the private ownership allow that. Give it a try and let's see how far you get. Do let me know, marxist comment section. I suspect, that once it grows over 20 people, you are going to abandon all notions of central planning.
Most likely no one is going to read this, as the video is 6 years old, but the video did get one key thing wrong. About half way through the video, it is said that under wage labor, you sell your labor power and time, but that is incorrect. In both "Wage Labor and Capital" and in "Capital" it is described that you are selling yourself, not your time. It is pointed out that it seems to be a minor change in wording, but it actually changes how wage labor should be discussed and acts under capitalism.
Value is neither produced nor created on the production side of commodity society – it doesn’t exist there yet:
According to Marx, surplus value is part of value. But only a buyer on the market can pay for the surplus value. On the production side there can only be one estimated expected surplus value and consequently only one expected value.
Only on the market, when a buyer pays the real surplus value (more than this, exactly this, less than this, none or less than none) does the value come about.
The surplus value is not paid on the costs c + v, but on the reimbursement of the costs. This also makes it clear that value is only formed on the market.
This makes it clear that the value is not created directly with the work, but comes about with the recognition of work results.
Incidentally, this applies not only to the results of human work, but also to machine work or the results of certain natural processes.
Profit is only based on real value, not expected value. Real value is formed as a social relationship between buyer and seller on the market. Only there can be surplus value and then profit!
Class conflict CWF_0lkBhjY&t=6m00s 6:00
This is an incomplete and incorrect analysis at quite a few points and on quite a few levels. Let's break it down:
It seems throughout the video that you believe Marx thought value, as an objective characteristic of the product of labour, measured by SNLT, is a trans-historical category, even one that would hold under communism. This shows through when you say prices can be "unfair", and that this forms part of the reason why marginalism ignores a theory of value, along with the idea that under capitalism you don't get what your labour is really worth. Despite how appealing this critique of exploitation appears at first glance, it is far from what Marx himself believed.
"Political economy has indeed analysed value and its magnitude, however incompletely, and has uncovered the content concealed within these forms. But it has never once asked the question why this content has assumed that particular form, that is to say, why labour is expressed in value and why the measurement of labour by its duration is expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product. These formulas, which bear the unmistakable stamp of belonging to a social formation in which the process of production has mastery over man, instead of the opposite, appear to the political economists' bourgeois consciousness to be as much a self-evident and nature-imposed necessity as productive labour itself."
-Karl Marx, Capital volume 1, pg. 175 (Penguin Edition)
This form of social production is capitalist production (pg. 988) and therefore labour-value is a byproduct of bourgeois society. Why is this so? because private property presupposes the socialization of labour via exchange, which means labour must be equalized in order to express its relation to the total labour of society as an objective characteristic of the product (pg. 165). Commodities are only really brought into relation to each other as values once this purely social objectivity can ground itself in a general equivalent, and make value into price (pg. 180-81), therefore money is the "necessary form of appearance" of immediate commodity-values, and we cannot merely settle for the quantitative measure of value in labour-time (Marx makes this clear in his criticisms of Proudhon). Furthermore, this whole analysis of circulation presupposes industrial capital oriented towards exchange as the only adequate form of existence of value as self-valorizing (MECW, 28:186) and therefore of the domination of the product over the producer. Your analysis of the "labour theory of value" is not only incomplete, but presupposes precisely the bourgeois conditions of production that you want to criticize. Marx repeatedly emphasized exchange as the socialization of labour would not appear in communist society, and therefore value would cease to exist (Grundrisse, exchange-value as social bond).
"Under capitalism [...] you are always being paid less than what your labour is actually worth."
1) The expression of what labour is worth expresses a confusion brought about by the wage-form that it is extremely important to avoid. Marx says, at the beginning of chapter 19, that labour is the substance of value, but it *has no value itself*. This is because the value of labour-power determines the cost of purchasing the commodity of labour-power, but what actually enters into the process of production is the use-value of this commodity, i.e. the production of value, which is itself valueless. This is what the distinction between constant and variable capital is founded on, the value of the MoP reappears in the product because it is made up of dead-labour contributing to the value of the product through metempsychosis, whereas variable capital investments transform a constant magnitude into the ability to produce new value. If labour was "worth" some constant magnitude, capital would be unable to valorize itself!
2) Surplus-value is not founded on unequal exchange. Due to the fact that valorization cannot occur within the sphere of circulation, a commodity must be found whose consumption consists in the production of value, however this solution arises precisely within accordance with the exchange of equivalents.
"the value of labour-power, and the value which that labour-power valorizes in the labour-process, are two entirely different magnitudes [...] The useful quality of labour-power [...] was to the capitalist merely the necessary condition for his activity [...] this transaction he acts in accordance with the eternal laws of commodity-exchange [...] the laws governing the exchange of commodities have not been violated in any way. Equivalent has been exchanged for equivalent."
-Karl Marx, Capital volume 1, pg. 301
Marx says in his Notes on Adolph Wagner that commodity production, that is, *the production of value and the exchange of equivalents*, must at some point become capitalist production, and that he does not consider surplus-value to be a "deduction" from the value-product, but rather that from the standpoint of value production WAGES are a deduction and impediment to its own self-expansion. I hope this comment makes it clear how and why Marx was extremely critical of what you refer to as the "labour theory of value", and why communism necessitates the immediate socialization of labour, i.e. the relation between the individual producer and the total labour of society will not appear in the equalization of qualitatively heterogeneous products into their homogeneous equality as values on the market. This is a consequence of private labour, which is not immediately social but is established as such only within exchange, and therefore in communism "the presupposition is itself mediated" (as Marx puts it), i.e. labour is immediately presupposed as towards communal purposes and goals.
Man... your camera is NOT a mean of production, maybe your means of subsistance. Means of production are basically Land, Industries and etc. You cannot simply twist a theory to turn it into a more didactic way.
Marx defined communism in three words, No Private Property! John Bellamy Foster expounds on Marx's concept of metabolic rift. There is no surplus in nature. Private property is illegitimate. Inheritance only compounds injustice. Einstein recognized the evil of capitalism as the greatest threat to human survival in his essay on socialism.
Can your videos support Turkish subtitles? Believe me, there are many people watching you from Turkey (I am one of them)
She used to look like someone who was a drummer in a Britpop band until getting kicked out for always starting endless theoretical conversations instead of practicing the music
Marxism is the best ideology thanks for the explanation I love centrist people who state the facts
It is truly humbling to see that my ideas are still being spread. Remember this, a truly equal society must be educated and push for fairer change.
A big shame that philosophytube started of basing reality of material conditions: materialism
While slowly but visible it became more about vague barely evidence based social theories: idealism with secular thought.
Naming your video "vaccines and freedom" and seeing its conflict made my think this; names a material cause to some extent but does not adress the main material reason this is a conflict appearing Capitalist oppression pro worker thinking by using the media companies they own to work agianst workers self intrest by making propagenda beeing a sort of "moving the goalpost" fallacy with extra steps then just 1 fallacious argument in that news broadcadr
there are so many falsehoods in his theory that its hardly a theory, its basically just delusion