this was very interesting, and straight to the point; you have amazing narration skills. the visual support is also pretty helpful, something I need to improve on myself haha glad to have discovered your channel, I hope you succeed in your endeavours :)
There is something wrong with the LTV! But independent from this - surplus value was/is necessary in the Antiquity, the Middle Ages, socialism, capitalism... The LTV assumes that the value is created with the production. But that is wrong! Marx describes the formation of value with the formula W = c + v + s. But on the production side of commodity society there is still no surplus value. There is only one expected surplus value there. Even if an "s" were handed down from heaven to an entrepreneur, that would not be an surplus value, since this money would initially replace part of the production costs. For any real surplus value, heaven would first have to fully replace the cost c + v and then pay even more. But that won't happen. Only a buyer on the market can pay for the real surplus value. Since the surplus value is part of the value, the value is only formed on the market. There it is assigned to both the goods and the value equivalent. One can only produce the prerequisites for value and surplus value, but not these themselves.
“Surplus labor value” does not exist. Value cannot be objectively calculated because value is subjective. Marx has been debunked entirely. Not only do you have the transformation problem but you also have the diamond-water paradox. Your valuation of diamonds and water have nothing to do with how much labor went into it. If yo are dying of thirst you want water and would trade diamonds for water. Bohm Bawerk also debunked this.
You bring up a really good point-value cannot be objectively calculated, and it is definitely subjective. However, I think it's a stretch to say that value doesn't exist just because it's difficult to define. As an analogy, we don't know EXACTLY how much water is in the ocean, but we definitely know that it's a lot. Value is similar in that regard: it definitely exists, it's just hard to quantify. Marxists and capitalists pretty much agree that companies generate value from their workers' labor: a company provides a worker with the tools to make a product, the worker spends time and effort to make the product, then the company sells the product for more than they paid the worker. The amount that the company skims off the top is called "profit" in economics, but in Marxist thought, it is called "surplus labor value". At the end of the day, both of these terms are pretty similar-they both describe the value that the company makes from its workers' labor. However, the crucial disagreement between the two camps is WHO that money belongs to. Marxists think that the value belongs to the workers, while capitalists think that the money belongs to the company. In short, please stop being so zealous. To me, it sounds like you're rooting for a team without even knowing what the sport is.
@@MinecraftDrBillyBob first off I never claimed that value does not exist. Second, there is absolutely nothing supporting the Marxist claim that companies make money off of labor or that they “skim” anything. They do not. This was addressed by Bohm Bawerk as well as the Marginal Revolution which I already mentioned above. Try some reading comprehension and just an ounce of curiosity into basic economics that is sound rather than religious garbage.
@@ExPwner You're right, I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here. If companies don't make money from workers, then why do they pay money to hire workers?
Problem of communism is it over simplifies economy and repudiate role of capital . According to them Capital can be taken as granted .In modern era without investment labour is nothing.If you don't agree try or accumulate and invest capital make by your own labour make value .You will be using materials (capital) but don't acknowledge it's importance of value creation Thats main flaw of communism .That's the main reason almost entire world dumped communism.What is actual power of capitalism you will get to know bif you look chinas growth.Being communist country they dumped old stoneage communist idea and allowed free market and rest is needles to say
This was extremely well-put and easy to understand! Thank you for sharing!
this was very interesting, and straight to the point; you have amazing narration skills. the visual support is also pretty helpful, something I need to improve on myself haha
glad to have discovered your channel, I hope you succeed in your endeavours :)
In that sheep example, what is the value of an individual's body and life? If they're not human, is it moral to use them as a commodity?
Id rather be a commodity, than a parasite.
@@Inalienablerights15 Who are the parasites you refer to? Sheep? They're just exploited and killed.
There is something wrong with the LTV!
But independent from this - surplus value was/is necessary in the Antiquity, the Middle Ages, socialism, capitalism...
The LTV assumes that the value is created with the production.
But that is wrong!
Marx describes the formation of value with the formula
W = c + v + s.
But on the production side of commodity society there is still no surplus value. There is only one expected surplus value there.
Even if an "s" were handed down from heaven to an entrepreneur, that would not be an surplus value, since this money would initially replace part of the production costs. For any real surplus value, heaven would first have to fully replace the cost c + v and then pay even more.
But that won't happen.
Only a buyer on the market can pay for the real surplus value.
Since the surplus value is part of the value, the value is only formed on the market. There it is assigned to both the goods and the value equivalent.
One can only produce the prerequisites for value and surplus value, but not these themselves.
Your videos are great, keep it up
“Surplus labor value” does not exist. Value cannot be objectively calculated because value is subjective. Marx has been debunked entirely. Not only do you have the transformation problem but you also have the diamond-water paradox. Your valuation of diamonds and water have nothing to do with how much labor went into it. If yo are dying of thirst you want water and would trade diamonds for water.
Bohm Bawerk also debunked this.
*"Anarcho"capitalist flag pfp* opinion discarded
Also the "diamond-water paradox" is just about use-value, which Marx talks about explicitly lmao
@@markthephilosopher1024 also notice how you couldn’t address value being subjective or the time value of money? This is why you failed Econ 101.
You bring up a really good point-value cannot be objectively calculated, and it is definitely subjective. However, I think it's a stretch to say that value doesn't exist just because it's difficult to define. As an analogy, we don't know EXACTLY how much water is in the ocean, but we definitely know that it's a lot. Value is similar in that regard: it definitely exists, it's just hard to quantify.
Marxists and capitalists pretty much agree that companies generate value from their workers' labor: a company provides a worker with the tools to make a product, the worker spends time and effort to make the product, then the company sells the product for more than they paid the worker. The amount that the company skims off the top is called "profit" in economics, but in Marxist thought, it is called "surplus labor value". At the end of the day, both of these terms are pretty similar-they both describe the value that the company makes from its workers' labor. However, the crucial disagreement between the two camps is WHO that money belongs to. Marxists think that the value belongs to the workers, while capitalists think that the money belongs to the company.
In short, please stop being so zealous. To me, it sounds like you're rooting for a team without even knowing what the sport is.
@@MinecraftDrBillyBob first off I never claimed that value does not exist.
Second, there is absolutely nothing supporting the Marxist claim that companies make money off of labor or that they “skim” anything. They do not. This was addressed by Bohm Bawerk as well as the Marginal Revolution which I already mentioned above. Try some reading comprehension and just an ounce of curiosity into basic economics that is sound rather than religious garbage.
@@ExPwner You're right, I must be misunderstanding what you're saying here. If companies don't make money from workers, then why do they pay money to hire workers?
Problem of communism is it over simplifies economy and repudiate role of capital . According to them Capital can be taken as granted .In modern era without investment labour is nothing.If you don't agree try or accumulate and invest capital make by your own labour make value .You will be using materials (capital) but don't acknowledge it's importance of value creation Thats main flaw of communism .That's the main reason almost entire world dumped communism.What is actual power of capitalism you will get to know bif you look chinas growth.Being communist country they dumped old stoneage communist idea and allowed free market and rest is needles to say
Ugh 🤢🤮