I’m super enjoying this series! I’ve made it a quarantine goal of mine to understand Kapital and I can’t express how much this has been helping me. May I ask - is there a chance you could talk a little bit slower? You’re conveying a lot of information and building heavily on earlier points, which is good, but I need a little bit more time to fully grasp each point before moving on to the next.
Hello Cameron, my comrade. How's things going? Will you be making more series like these on capital? I've just started to study it myself and this series for volume 1 has really helped me to get to grips with Marx's analysis of the capitalist system. Hope you are doing well, thank you for your amazing content from New Zealand :)
nice with a video of the labour theory of value :) Have you read some Graeber? As far as I remember in today's society the value is not generated by labour and production today, but rather by administration & paperwork, maintenance and then production.
well, the notion that cooperation and competition are incompatible explains why marxists seem so fond of monopolistic (albeit democratic) planning. for market anarchists and economists "competition" generally just means having different options, not about creating artificial rivalry between people (like professional sports bullshit). in a free society this would mean competing approaches to cooperation (because coercive interactions won't be tolerated). this may be organizations or even laws. people will have different ideas of how to solve problems. and instead of all having to agree on one plan (or else?) they can just try the option that makes more sense for them, and then they will see how well their approach works compared to the others. some approaches will lose followers over time because they turn out inefficient/obsolete, but that just means people picked an option that they prefer. this does not requite or even benefit from rivalry between people. i think free software is a good model for economic competition in a free society. there isn't just one free operating system or desktop, because people have different ideas about how these things should work. sometimes they converge, sometimes they diverge, they fork, they exchange code and sometimes merge. but at no point there is a need for a one-fits-all solution. i also think democratic monopolies will make similarly horrible decisions to dictatorial ones. that's because voters have a minuscule chance of their vote actually affecting their life, and so irrational nonsense like nationalism and "creating jobs", because attractive because they are flattering or appeal to superficial heuristics. however, if people can choose between competing coops, that choice will directly affect them, producing more critical-thinking voters as a side-effect.
I think you compare to a cartel or monopoly. Well these are hierarchal, operate against the consumer. A decentralised shared monopoly, is just collectivisation. But actually decentralising more could be better not for competition but diversity of how things should be ran and prevention of falling into a centralised hierarchy
Free software is ok. Apply to other goods then we would just be in Star Trek society with replicators and perhaps wouldnt have to discuss anything! Post-scarcity, post-labour, post-money? Although what if replicators were made, would it really be unexploited as capital? Even star trek knew other alien races would exploit it!
@@jorgepeterbarton sorry, it's kinda hard to tell what you are talking about. first of all: what is a "decentralized shared monopoly"? what would be monopolistic about it, and what would be the point? and yes, diversity is what i'm taking about. people don't all agree on what's best, so just let people try different things. a monopolist on the other hand has little interest in diversity. he just wants the easiest and stupidest way for him. he doesn't want to care about what other people need. i think post-scarcity is nonsense. personal manufacturing is great, and it may allow breaking patent-monopolies much more easily. but there will still be a scarcity of raw materials and energy. there is just a finite amount of stuff, and human ambition grows with it's possibilities. and that's a good thing, we can find ways to live longer and better, hopefully not only for humans. but ending poverty and labour for humans may be a good first step.
This notification reminded me to play catch-up on prior parts. Thanks for your hard work and high integrity coverage.
Very good 👌
Interesting. Thanks for making these videos. They're informative and it's good to have you back!
Yay another video in the series!
Man this is honestly perfect timing with the re-reading I was doing.
Our boi is back
Thank you!
I’m super enjoying this series! I’ve made it a quarantine goal of mine to understand Kapital and I can’t express how much this has been helping me. May I ask - is there a chance you could talk a little bit slower? You’re conveying a lot of information and building heavily on earlier points, which is good, but I need a little bit more time to fully grasp each point before moving on to the next.
🏴🚩
Note: Watching this later.
Good to see ya. Its been awhile
Hello Cameron, my comrade. How's things going? Will you be making more series like these on capital? I've just started to study it myself and this series for volume 1 has really helped me to get to grips with Marx's analysis of the capitalist system.
Hope you are doing well, thank you for your amazing content from New Zealand :)
nice with a video of the labour theory of value :)
Have you read some Graeber? As far as I remember in today's society the value is not generated by labour and production today, but rather by administration & paperwork, maintenance and then production.
But because its all surplus labour, right?
And maybe that is focus when productive labour is most abroad
If you're going to do another q&a, I'm wondering if your views changed in any ways after reading marx
well, the notion that cooperation and competition are incompatible explains why marxists seem so fond of monopolistic (albeit democratic) planning.
for market anarchists and economists "competition" generally just means having different options, not about creating artificial rivalry between people (like professional sports bullshit). in a free society this would mean competing approaches to cooperation (because coercive interactions won't be tolerated). this may be organizations or even laws. people will have different ideas of how to solve problems. and instead of all having to agree on one plan (or else?) they can just try the option that makes more sense for them, and then they will see how well their approach works compared to the others. some approaches will lose followers over time because they turn out inefficient/obsolete, but that just means people picked an option that they prefer. this does not requite or even benefit from rivalry between people.
i think free software is a good model for economic competition in a free society. there isn't just one free operating system or desktop, because people have different ideas about how these things should work. sometimes they converge, sometimes they diverge, they fork, they exchange code and sometimes merge. but at no point there is a need for a one-fits-all solution.
i also think democratic monopolies will make similarly horrible decisions to dictatorial ones. that's because voters have a minuscule chance of their vote actually affecting their life, and so irrational nonsense like nationalism and "creating jobs", because attractive because they are flattering or appeal to superficial heuristics. however, if people can choose between competing coops, that choice will directly affect them, producing more critical-thinking voters as a side-effect.
I think you compare to a cartel or monopoly. Well these are hierarchal, operate against the consumer. A decentralised shared monopoly, is just collectivisation. But actually decentralising more could be better not for competition but diversity of how things should be ran and prevention of falling into a centralised hierarchy
Free software is ok.
Apply to other goods then we would just be in Star Trek society with replicators and perhaps wouldnt have to discuss anything! Post-scarcity, post-labour, post-money?
Although what if replicators were made, would it really be unexploited as capital? Even star trek knew other alien races would exploit it!
@@jorgepeterbarton sorry, it's kinda hard to tell what you are talking about.
first of all: what is a "decentralized shared monopoly"? what would be monopolistic about it, and what would be the point?
and yes, diversity is what i'm taking about. people don't all agree on what's best, so just let people try different things. a monopolist on the other hand has little interest in diversity. he just wants the easiest and stupidest way for him. he doesn't want to care about what other people need.
i think post-scarcity is nonsense. personal manufacturing is great, and it may allow breaking patent-monopolies much more easily. but there will still be a scarcity of raw materials and energy. there is just a finite amount of stuff, and human ambition grows with it's possibilities. and that's a good thing, we can find ways to live longer and better, hopefully not only for humans. but ending poverty and labour for humans may be a good first step.
What do Libertarian Socialists do to people who disagree with them?
Try to radicalise if possible (i.e. change their mind)