Marx Part 1: Labour & Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube

Marx Part 1: Labour & Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube

March is my month of Marx, and in this Part 1 we’ll be looking at labour and class. So we’re talking about production, making
products, and in order to make any product you first need two things: you’ll need the “means of production.” This video is like a product, which I made, and I can show you some of my means of production
right now, it’s my camera, my microphone, my tripod, lighting, the backboards I’ve got in my little studio here, and of course – the talent! – as well as the editing software and so on. All of these things I own. But that only gets me a video; in order to get a YouTube video, I need YouTube,
the website. That’s the most important means of production for me, and it’s owned not by me but by Google. This means that making YouTube videos is what Karl Marx called “capitalistic production,” where
the means of production are privately owned, rather than owned by the labourers, and the products are sold in a market for profit – in this case Google sells ad
space on my videos. The second thing you’ll need is labour. And Labour for Marx is really important because it’s the only thing that can increase the value of what
you have. If you a buy a block of wood and do nothing with it then its value will remain constant.
But if you labour to carve that wood into a chair you will increase its value. Now you could try to rip somebody off and sell the wood for more than it’s worth, and supply and demand will
come into it, but those things will only affect its price, which for Marx is not the same thing. He thought that prices would generally be proportional to value, but value he thought was, definitionally, how much labour it takes to make something under normal circumstances. Labour is measured in time, hours and minutes: the more labour time it takes to make something under normal conditions, the more valuable it is. That’s why if you can automate a process then the products become cheaper, because it now takes less labour to make them. If you’ve got a job needs doing takes a lot of special training then it becomes more expensive because the time spent training is necessary labour for doing the job. Time is Money – literally.
This is called the Labour Theory of Value. The “normal conditions” caveat is important
here: if you slack off and it takes you two hours to do something that would normally only take one well then the value of the product doesn’t double. It stays the same ‘coz under normal conditions it would only take one hour to make that. Similarly, if you work really hard and get the job done in 30 minutes, the value of the product doesn’t halve. Now the Labour Theory of Value is, at this moment in history, unorthodox. Mainstream economics prefers a theory of value called Marginalism: Marginalists say that the Labour Theory breaks down in certain circumstances; Marxists and Post-Marxists say that actually it’s Marginalism that beaks down in the right circumstances, so just bear in mind as we go here that a lot of this is very hotly debated, and as we’ll be seeing later in the series there’s a lot riding on it. How exactly value becomes price is one of the big talking points, though some economists prefer to just ignore value altogether and just focus on prices, since you can model an economy and find out how to make that mad dolla just by looking at something’s price. Value brings with it a whole bunch of questions about fairness and whether the price is right, and mainstream economics often prefers to just gloss over those issues. The other big talking point is the so-called “Great Contradiction;” if labour is the source of value then why aren’t the most valuable products made in the most labour-intensive industries? Some people think this completely scuppers the Labour Theory; there might be ways of getting around it but we don’t need to worry about that, I’m just making sure you know where we are on the theoretical map. Labour-power, the ability to labour, is, in
Marxist economics, the most important commodity in the world. It’s the only commodity that
when applied, increases the value of what you have. Labour power is found only in people, and when you go to work you rent out your labour power for the day. But your ability to work, your labour power, doesn’t just grow on trees. It takes a certain amount of food, and shelter, and clothing
and so on, to sustain your labour power from 9 to 5. Now, all of those things have values that can be measured in labour time as well. So let’s assume that it takes, say, 4 hours of labour to produce everything you need to work for one day. You go to work at 9am, and by 1pm, four hours later, you have paid for yourself for that day. The amount of labour going into you is the same as the amount of labour coming out of you. But you don’t go home at 1pm. You have to stay the rest of the day. So your boss gets 4 hours labour out of you during which time you are generating what Marx called “surplus value.” Value on top of the value it took to get you there. Profit, essentially. But because the means of production are privately owned, anything you make belongs to your boss or to your company, and they sell the products you make for profit and keep that profit. The surplus value goes, not to you, but to them. And that right there, in a nutshell, is why
Marx thought capitalism was unavoidably exploitative. Even if you’re making a great wage and you’re happy with your job, under capitalism he thought you are always being paid less than what your labour is actually worth. That’s how capitalism works: you hire other people to increase the value of what you have, and then you keep that extra value for yourself. Marx thought
that capitalism, and everything that has come with it, is sustained only by exploiting the working class. But hang on a minute, what was that about “class?” How can you take everybody working in very different jobs and lump them all together into one group called “the working class?” Well, the idea that society is made up of groups, which we call classes that struggle with each other is called “conflict
theory.” And it doesn’t mean that everybody within the same class has exactly the same experience. It just means that we can model society as being made up of those groups. A little bit like in meteorology: when we look at a weather front, we know that not every molecule of air has the same temperature and moves in the same direction, but we can observe trends in groups of them and model those trends. Marx thought that we could model class conflict so accurately we could even predict the future with it: he thought that society would follow an inevitable progress towards Communism as the relations of the working classes to the means of production changed. This is called “Historical Materialism,” and as we’ll be seeing later in the series
he may have been a little hasty there. But it’s not just the working class who get
a raw deal, Marx thought. Remember earlier on we said that capitalism is when the means of production are privately owned. So, how do capitalists get to own them? You’ve gotta have money in order to buy somebody else’s labour – you gotta have money to make money – so how does capitalism get started? Marx’s answer is that it’s usually violence. He lived in
19th Century England, where a lot of capital and property was either being violently confiscated
from foreigners – there’s the link between capitalism and imperialism – or inherited
from people who, at some point in history, got their wealth through Feudalism or conquest. Even if people invent totally new inventions, as during the Industrial Revolution they did, the conditions that allow them to do that often come about through that violence. This leads us to a consideration of capitalism’s consequences, which will be Part 2 in the series. That’s the end of Part 1: you’ve learned about Marx’s Labour Theory of Value and the different relations of classes to the means of production. In Part 2 we’ll be looking at capitalism’s problems and Alienation. Today’s show was sponsored by
If you go to you can get a free audiobook, and yes they do have Marx’s Das Kapital. You can get it with a free 30 day trial of their audiobook service that you can cancel anytime, and every time one of you signs up I get a tiny bit of money.

100 thoughts on “Marx Part 1: Labour & Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube

  1. There was an error early on in the video: You claim that if I were to buy a commodity and do nothing with it, its value would not increase. However, since value is not determined by my personal labor input, and is determined by the social average amount of labor necessary to produce the commodity, the value of the commodity could change if the social average changes regardless of whether or not I do anything with the commodity.

  2. I'm a Georgist, and as usual I have the same problem with Marx as I had before.

    If I privately own capital, I am not forcing people to work for me. If I own youtube, you don't have to work for me, you can simply go off and do something else. The private ownership of the means of production is not in and of itself coercive. If you think you have surplus value being taken from you, quite your job. Keep in mind, all capital is created by labor, and Marx's problem is that people are being alienated from their labor. So if people create labor, and voluntarily engage in transactions and one part accumulates mass amounts of labor and hires many workers, this is all voluntary and fair.


    Well, according to free-market believers, this is true, but there is a problem. People often had no other option but to sell their labor. At the end of the day, because there are resource and land monopolies, there is tacit coercion occurring.

    But keep in mind, this isn't because of capital. Capital in and of itself is a product of labor, just as all finished goods are (Marx makes this distinction using the terms private and personal property).

    The problem is that there's too few resources and too little land, and thus people have no other option but to sell their labor. Thus Georgism, also known as Geoism or Geolibertarianism comes into play.

    There are different radical groups to the left and right who are Georgist; it's a sweeping blanket term for people who identify this as the true problem.

    So instead of doing what Marx proposes and demand that all laborers control all capital they want to use to make more wealth (which ironically can alienate some people from the product of their labor), we suggest that if someone uses Resources (a bit more radical side of Georgism) or Land, they are allowed to keep the surplus of what they created, but the original amount of value they extracted from the Land/Resources must be paid back to other people, as keeping it for yourself is inherently oppressive.

    We differ from Marx and Free Market Capitalists on these terms

    – finished goods: privately controlled
    – capital: publicly controlled
    – resources: publicly controlled

    Free Market:
    – finished goods: privately controlled
    – capital: privately controlled
    – resources: privately controlled

    – finished goods: privately controlled
    – capital: privately controlled
    – resources: publicly controlled

    This way we are not hypocrites as Marx is, and take the product of people's labor away from them. Consider this as an example. If I were to create a castle the size of Minas Tirith, and I were to create a small hundred pound printing press: which is more oppressive to people?

    Is it the finished good of Minas Tirith? Or is it the capital; the tiny printing press?

    To any rational mind, the fact that resource depletion is the crux of this issue becomes quite evident.

    Note, if you will, Georgists are fine with capitalism. If people want to sell their labor then they can, but by making sure they're naturally endowed with the wealth of all resources others try to hoard, they are in a bargaining position, so that if they feel like surplus value is being taken from them to an unreasonable extent, then they are able to quit the job without being in ruin.

    This also takes Marx's superstructure and base theory, which theorized on the nature of social relationships between what we'd come to know as the bourgeoise and proletariat and it flips it on its head. There is no longer the oppressive adverse power relationship.

    Some people may say

    "well, clearly the elites will never let this happen so your ideology is impractical."

    but the elites would never want socialism either, so does the same apply to that? Why is Georgism incapable of social activism not dissimilar to socialism?

    "but people can still be corrupt in your system."

    and that doesn't occur under socialism? I'm actually quite sympathetic to the claims of "not real socialism;" most of the regimes we see started out under a socialist revolution and IMMEDIATELY were corrupted. Your ideology is one of the least practical when put into play.


    I should have put this earlier: beyond the theoretical framework, many real world examples of control of capital involve violence and oppression. All I will say as to this is that if there is an injustice taking place, then it should be rectified.

    Think of it this way, what if we perfectly redistributed everything and… what then? Do we follow the Georgist framework? or the Marxist framework?

    My argument is that we follow the Georgist one. So please don't try to confuse real world problems with theoretical conflicts.

  3. It bothers me when someone brings up Stalin in a discussion about communism, Stalin's control economy was more akin to capitalism except the state owns the means of production instead of the corporations. Communism is when the workers own their own means of production. At least that's my take anyhow

  4. Amazing video! Don't agree with Marx with many things, but getting the knowledge out there in an accessible form is a laudable goal!

    That being said, personally, I think the LTV is BS. All value is subjective since it's us humans who say what is valuable and what isn't. Also, can you really measure the value of someone's labor? There are so many variables. Not just the amount of time. The quality of the work (which is subjective), how hard you worked, did your work actually improve it, etc. Also, heavily paraphrasing the immortal Kropotkin, it's not just your labor that counts and it's a narrow view. How did you get the thing you improved through your labor? Did you get it alone? Probably not. Also, why were you able to get it in the first place without having to fight off a bunch of roving bandits? Because of other people's work. Whether that work comes through the authoritarian police structure or just providing enough to everyone so those bandits wouldn't need to rove around murdering and stealing). If you are a parent, how did you have the time to work? Because some one else took care of your kids or created the means (IE television) to divert your kids for enough time for you to make the thing.

    Also, what about people who CAN'T labor? If you can't do anything, then the thesis that all laborers should keep 100% of their value produced basically makes it SUPER ableist! People are valuable just because they are people, not because they DO stuff. The neoliberal assumption that people are only valuable if they DO stuff and aren't even entitled TO LIVE AND TO BE HAPPY AND NOT DIE IN A DITCH because they don't knuckle down and contribute is horrible. Marx isn't much better, he got that Capitalism is inherently exploitative, but he also said that workers should own everything and basically in so doing implies that if you don't work you don't deserve anything. Some people can't work. Also some people don't work because they're depressed, they haven't found something they're passionate about, or just they're lazy. Even free riders, as bad as they are, are entitled to the basics just because they are human.

    Everyone should be entitled to equal shares of everything. So even as our valuations of things are subjective, those subjective valuations should be equally shared not just amongst those who make the things or do the work, but everyone in the community simply because they are human and if they can benefit from the work of another it's the right thing to do to allow them to. In order to have the benefit of living in a society, one has duties to said society. Not hoarding all the value and sharing it out equally is JUST AS IMPORTANT as not extracting surplus labor and exploiting workers.

  5. The idea that capitalists get there through violence isn't all that convincing.
    "even if they invent something, they only could because of previous violence"
    This is just false. Those on the lower rung could invent something and become rich.
    It's either false or I don't understand the point.

  6. The labour theory of value just breaks down too much as can be seen by the inefficiency of factory production in the Soviet Union precisely because there was no basic supply and demand mechanism to allow for soviet citizens to be able to purchase consumer goods

  7. I’m fond of ‘The ontology of production’ by Nishida Kitaro and didn’t find that it would lend itself to politicization like Marx’s content ( a neat introduction like section in a recent edition aside), even though it was influenced by Marx to a extent.

  8. You had to put college niggas pictures when you said labour indicating slavery
    If this was intentional thwn its genius i love it

  9. This is great explication but can we have a deconstruction of a socialist system in practice. An example of one that has worked in the reality not in theory.

  10. You can also work, save money and booom… you have capital and you can start exploiting other people. Soooo evil!

  11. so at the end of a video on marx there's a advert for a huge capitalist bussiness (amazon) that is exactly the sort of corparation that he would have disliked.

  12. In Capitalism you can have an idea then go to a bunch of suckers and tell them to make your idea into a product. They make the product and you sell the product. So all you had to put in was your initial idea. That and a fuck ton of money to start up the entire thing.

    If the start up cost was eliminated (ie banks giving unlimited credits to anyone regardless of their financial standing) then maybe capitalism could be considered a fair system where the idea is the most powerful value.

    But it's not. Rich people get richer no matter what. Through insurances private company owners will keep almost all their money even if their company goes bankrupt. And while in 1929 hundreds of people at the wallstreet jumped to their death, 2008 has proven that the only thing that's changed is that governments now pay for the mistakes of private individuals.

    We are now in an age where capitalism headed for the literal destruction of the planet through climate change. Yet even the voices that only want regulations for our current system are smeared as communists that want to take away the billionaires toys.

  13. Surely the criticism of the labor theory, the great contradiction, can be disproven by the fact that innovation/creativity is necessary for worthwhile labor, since labor-intensive industries aren't always the most profitable due to the work being the same over and over, and the labor used to create creative products (like this video) is profitable since it's interesting and innovative.

    Disclaimer: I don't consider myself a good understander, I've had to watch this video a few times over just to be able to absorb some of it, so I'm not stating this as a critcism on the criticism, it's more like why hasn't this criticism of the criticism been used yet, if it's already explained in the video and I just missed it then point it out or summarise for me please. Again, I'm pretty dumb, sorry.

  14. If my job doesn't create something but rather performs a service is it still exploitative if the amount of work I put in is more than what it toook to get me to work? Like I put food in grocery bags for 8 hours a day. Can someone help me out with this?

  15. How can there be such a thing as "normal circumstances" when everyone works at different speeds? Not just due to differing levels of motivation, but differing levels of skill as well.

    Also, what if a boss decides to share some of the surplus value with their employees in the form of higher wages? That particular form of capitalism wouldn't be exploitative even if everything else was true.

  16. You call the means of production "privately owned" (1:03), yet Google (or rather Alphabet Inc.) is a stock corporation, so isn't Alphabet technically publically owned? I'm not deep into Communism, so I'm not sure if you (or Marx) would draw that distinction.

  17. 1:19 – "Labour is the only thing that can increase the value of what you have (according to Labour Theory of Value)."

    What about something like fine wine? Wine tends to get better with age, so its value seems to increase over time despite us not putting any additional labour into it.

  18. To gain ownership of the means of production takes alot of labor so why cant you split some of the workers surplus value with them to pay yourself back your surplus value lost when working towards your means of production. If a saved all my money to buy a truck and some tools and hired a person to help me do i have to pay them more than myself or the same or do i have a right to a portion of the surplus value if they couldn't produce without me?

  19. It should be noted that Marx defined three types of value: "Value" as in the labour value you described, "Use Value" as the (objective or subjective) use that the user has from a project (like nutrition, housing, clothing, or fun), and "Exchange Value" which effectively is price.
    That leaves the question what this labour value even is. In my opinion its a baseline for exchange value which then gets modified by supply and demand, but most importantly an ETHICAL value. It represents the basic concept of fairness. All other things considered even, trading goods by the amount of work effort that went into them (my three work hours for a ladder for your three work hours of twenty eggs) is simply the fair thing to do. In smaller communities, people will often trade like that even if its an uneven trade according to supply and demand.

  20. I'm a bit confused about the point made at minute 5:00 (surplus value). It may take only four hours of labor to pay for everything that got me through work that day, but I'm not paid only for my upkeep. If I have a decent job, I'm also building wealth, so it's not only the boss who is benefiting from surplue value. This is not an arguement, just a request for clarification.

  21. Marx was entirely wrong. I do not even think Marx himself would of believed in Marxism if it was not for the time period in which he lived. If someone showed him that the poor in capitalistic societies today live better than the rich before capitalism then he probably would just admit he was wrong.

    Marxism today is only held up by envy for what others have.

  22. Here is a fact everyone can agree on: War is part of human nature and Communists/Globalists will always be at war with Nationalists vice versa.
    This war will end when humanity is permanently gone from this world.

  23. @2:41 I think it would have been handy to mention socially necessary labour time here in stead glossing over it like that.

  24. "not every molecule of air has the same temperature" a single molecule can't have a temperature, temperature is a characteristic of ensembles.

  25. He was smart dude, now we have monopolies in every industry and they are far more powerful than our governments.

    There is not much difference between feudalism and capitalism

  26. Mainstream economics does not gloss over if the "price is right" but at the optimal levels of competition for and from the items the benefit should be maximazed in the market. That obiously doesn´t happen with massive companies running the game but that´s also why Adam said getting money into politics was flat out stupid.
    LToV is a pretty muddy hill to die on. It´s not that hard to disprove it. Not even A smith, who populirized it, really thought it was the only real determinator of value. The question comes: why is the labourer producing this shit? An the genesis comes from the consumer needs, not the workers intention. The worker work on what society thinks it needs, they don´t just do shit because.

  27. Marx's critique of capitalism is hard pill to swallow for muricans. They never taught us abt Marx in college combined with complete demonization and false equivalency with authoratarin states and their failures

  28. Karl Marx was a man who inherited all of his money, he never worked a day in his life and had no basic understanding of an earned living. Just like that of someone born and raised on the welfare system.

    He himself had a servant named Helene Demuth. He never paid Helene a wage, she was more like a slave than a servant. Not only that but he got Helene pregnant with his child but never acknowledged the child as his own.

    He had to constantly borrow money from friends and family as he had no basic understanding of money management or basic economics.

    This man was a fraud, not only was he that but he was devoid of any basic morality. He was a fool and his nonsense eventually, inadvertently caused the death of millions of people around the globe.

  29. As i go back to the plasma center for the first time in a while today to help get by i remembered that it was at the plasma center when i got into philosophy tube and all this commie youtube stuff and in reflecting it seems like a pretty fitting locale.

  30. A theory of general laws of capitalism that have a particular applicability is not a flawed or an invincible theory.
    There is no such formalistic thinking that it can be refuted because the numbers do not substantiate the hypothesis.
    There is a particular character to the laws of motion Marx is uncovering, that of capitalist society.
    The theory is based on natural history on those interactions with the material world that ideas reflect.
    Most of the criticism of Marx comes from these ideas inconsistent themselves with the material world but still reflect the distortion of the material world.

    A=B =TL these are value equivalents. And as values they are always relatively expressed in a third element. TL is the third element the two objects measure in their exchange.
    They measure the totality of social labor and the concept of social labor is expressed by the private exchange of two individuals acting as representatives of the objects exchanged.
    It happens that the two objects that equal each other form one of the same content in each is an absurdity since it shows labor is relating to itself. Here is where the theory becomes a revolutionary theory deviating from the the classical economists. Value has something to do with the survival of the species whereas it never had such meaning for Marx's contemporaries and predecessors.
    Criticism of Marx comes from this apparant failure in people to understand the calculus of value equivalents, are thrown off by the absurdity of two kinds of labor in society, that when it is held up as a necessary brick of absurdity in the construction of the economic wall of capitalism, they are lost and confused that a piece of them (the ability to survive on their own is not their own). 
    Criticism of Marx comes from a vulgar aim to take away to his credit the discover of the two kinds of labor in society as the pivot on which all his economist stands. You lose this concpet you can't understand the rest is what he means, apparently that is what people have done. The most important piece of their being is extracted from them by their own social labor in the form of capital questions and doubts if the individual is even capable of being more than a category of labor as an abstract being, rather, than as a concrete species-being working in a direct relationship to each other in their material world.

  31. So right there, with the surplus value of the worker going to the Capitalist, the Capitalist is going to argue that you simply aren't worth that much because he can replace you. As for how much it's worth to own YouTube… that's a lot of surplus value that they make with all their machines and animal labor products. How do they justify it? With justice.

    With margin of profit, people will always discover where profit lies. So how does YouTube or any company make profit in the long term? The whole concept of profit smells fishy to me. It's an inefficiency in the system. For profit, price must exceed value!

  32. You are way too generous to marginalists. A shovel is way… more useful than a pile of iron and a hunk of wood. In fact, the commodification of that shovel is the only thing they view as valuable. To them, a roulette table becomes more valuable than a hammer or a screwdriver because it can generate more revenue. Forgetting that the roulette table can’t drive a screw, dig a hole or hammer a nail. Without the working class, the rich would starve because they are totally dependent on our generosity and our mercy for not murdering them to re-appropriate their wealth.

  33. You can’t have pure capitalism, it always becomes corporatism. We’ve never seen pure communism either.

  34. I'm not surprised to see idiot ancaps in the comments, but I am, as always, disappointed.

  35. Would this video be labeled under "300 Social Sciences" or "100 Philosophy & Psychology" ? [See: The Dewey Decimal System]

  36. Marx the idiot that believes a system – in which everyone is free to do with their rightful property as they seem fit and where workers voluntarily exchange their work for money now – is exploitative, but a system – in which no one is allowed to use their rightful property, nor keep the value of their labour and in which some random officers can commander around the population as they see fit – is liberating and just? what???

    Labour theory of value can easily be debunked ( + no actual economists believe in it) -> someone can waste a day working on literal shit, which may have required a lot of labour but is non the less valueless shit. In contrast to that the austrian model puts the value of things in their subjective and percieved fulfilment of consumer needs -> things have value because people actually need them/want them.

    +no socialist can figure out the economic calculation problem (as it is impossible….), making socialism and any centrally planned economy impossible

  37. So you're saying… I could get the Das Kapital audiobook for free?

    Truly, this is the only ethical form of consumption under capitalism.

  38. People tend to intuitively default to the labour theory of value. Think of how many times as a kid you were told "Somebody put a lot of work into that"– in other words, woe betide you if Mum finds out you messed about with, ruined, or wasted whatever "that" was, because whatever it was it was obviously VERY valuable. Compare that to the number of times you heard "Do you know how much that COST?!" Sure, you heard it, but I'll bet you didn't hear it nearly as many times!

  39. I'm just going to give an example where the Labour theory of value breaks down (don't get me wrong, I agree withthat Marx says, and I strongly support the "neo-informational-communism" movement a.k.a. what RIchard Stallman said)

    but here's the example : in some cases, labour under the WRONG direction can actually decrease the value of a product

    extreme example : Huawei phones

    they're OBJECTIVELY WORSE than, say Nokia phones (the new ones) because Huawei insists on making their own custom android rom, but it's design is something nearly everyone says is awful, and it is so feature-creeped that it makes the phone run slow. if they DIDN't have their software team do all of that bullshit, and instead focused solely on the camera app, they would have been better off (which is also not that good, but theyr hardware is the best in the business, currently)

    now only would they have a better camera app, but by just NOT LABOURING on something worse than useless, the objective value (in terms of actual usability, not just because most people hate the way it looks) of the phone would have been BETTER

    what can we conclude from this example : that LABOUR alone only raises the value of a product by the coefficient in which it is PARRALEL to what is USEFUL

    basically, under the right guidance, making sure the labour vector is PROPERLY ALIGNED with the usefulness, and, why not the DEMAND vector, the "boss" can justify it's position

    Even though every penny in Elon Musk's companies may have mathematically come through exploitative means, WOULD WE FUKEN HAVE ROCKETS THAT LAND THEMSELVES BY NOW IF HE WASN'T IN CHARGE ?

  40. Good summary of Marx's ideas! Although I do think the criticisms of Marx are a bit stronger than you let on here. Can the value of products really be reduced to the labor time? Are doctors valued because they spend so many hours at medical school, or are they valued because they heal the sick?

  41. your labor has no value on its own, it only has value if SOMEONE values it. when you work for your boss, you value their money more than your labor, and the boss values your labor higher than the money he will pay you. if all you need to survive is only 4 hours of labor, and you work 4 hours more, you are also getting paid for the rest, meaning you get more than you lose. it is a mutually beneficial situation.

  42. Oliver Thorn is the best friend that I have been ROBBED of by the dastardly Cosmic Entities.
    Why is this guy not here with me in the increasingly ruinous and crumbling USA, doing best friend shit with me?!?!
    Hit me up!

  43. What happens to "value" as described in this video if somthing is produced entirely by a robot? Is that work worth nothing? And if it is worth nothing, that means it should be free right?

  44. Crony capitalism, isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is the most moral system because there’s no force on individuals and individuals have the freedom to choose.

  45. I tried to read some Marx recently and didn't even understand the first page.
    You've got my back though.

  46. This is my theory on value. I call it the Absolute Value Theory. It says that there is a defined value to everything in society based on how everything contributes to society. The total of the absolute value only changes when we find out ways to use this value in a better way, when we discover resources, consumption or when we destroy anything of value.
    When we talk about marginal value we are just talking about perceived value. This is only the inflation and -deflation of the actual value of things. Thinking in the ways of marginalism doesn't change the actual value, it just creates an unstable system around the absolute value. Marginalism is a psychological phenomenon.

  47. Nice synopsis, but I would quibble with casting YouTube as the means of production, I think means of distribution would be far more accurate in this case.

  48. As a person who escaped a communist country I can tell YOU dont know SHIT about communism, you never lived in a full communist country, you are just another ignorant dude from a first world country who "wants to be different" and "so intelectual" by worshiping an ideology that killed 100 plus million people AND still killing. Because guess what? Communism never works, it always ends in dictatorship, Marxs ideas cant be implemented BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT THE SAME. If you live and work in a communist country be ready to make just as much money as your neighbor that doesn't work.

  49. Today's episode was sponsored by a company owned by one of the most exploitative and obscenely rich capitalists in the world today and also ever.

  50. The added value isn't only achieved by labour. Because if I hire a worker to carve a chair out of my wood, I've set up the conditions necessary for the chair to be carved. I've bought the wood, maybe provided the tools aswell as invested money (paying for the wood and labour) before even getting to sell the chair. Because the power to labour isn't the only factor required to produce, the laboureur isn't entitled to all the income made.

  51. Forcing somebody into existence to certainly suffer & die without their prior consent is worse than practically any other nonconsensual forcing: raping someone, breaking & entering their property & stealing. So if you are going to use force to stop the latter, then you must use force to stop breeding. Karl Marx understood this.

  52. Does anyone find it funny that the communist East started turning back to capitalism and nationalism [like China and Russia] while the capitalist West is turning towards socialism and communism?
    How am I supposed to get a bead on which is better when they keep noping out of their own systems?

  53. I love how my dad is a fucking Nazi yet he is dead set on Marxist labour theory, albeit a dumbed down version you'd expect from somone so ignorant to be a nazi.

  54. I kinda of once believed in the labor theory of value until I tried it in practice and realized that not every product you make is marketable and people have very different tastes in what they want.

  55. Marx's relationship between capital and surplus value:

    "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value."But this production of surplus-value completes but the first act of the capitalist process of production…”*

    Got that? Marx has just provided us with his big discovery. Easy enough to understand. So, ready for the big surprise?

    Let's start the capitalist mode of production, according to Marx.

    What do we need? We need capital, of course. So let's get some capital, shall we? I'm looking, but I can't find any? Oops! I forgot, we need surplus value to create the capital. Okay, let's look for surplus value. It's not there because surplus value emanates from capital!

    There's nothing there! Not even a circular logic argument is present! Obviously the Marxist leadership know this, because I couldn't be the first person to stumble upon this huge discovery.

    One migt counter (as did one YouTube instructor on basic Marxist doctrine), "Well many forms of assets from the previous era could be used as capital."

    My reply:

    Then we still exist in that previous era, because those assets can't create surplus value; only an economy where free labor sells its labor for an income is capable of creating surplus value, and that surplus value creates capital.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *