I have just discovered your Chanel last week , you are doing a marvellous job here .... systematic , precise and enjoyable in a way . You bring back my passion for reading again ... Keep it going fellas
Schumpeter's examination of Marx in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is superficial in the extreme, bordering sometimes on the trivial. This has led to numerous errors and confusions in this video, especially concerning Marx's Value Theory (He never called it a Labour Theory of Value). Smith and Ricardo's analyses were founded on ideas that go back to Aristotle. Marx simply takes them up where they left off. Nevertheless Marx and Ricardo were light years apart in terms of their aims and purposes and in their points of focus. In Volume 3 of Capital Marx demonstates why Ricardo's Labour Theory of Value could not possibly be correct (Ricardo himself suspected this, but could not let go of his basic intuition). Marx was not intending to write a comprehensive account of capitalism, so critiquing him for his failure to do this is misplaced. His purpose was, as the subtitle of Capital explains, to critique the field of political eonomy itself, to show how capitalism exploits labour and to show how commodities become fetishised. The patronising attitude towards Marx shown in this video is probably not the presenter's fault as she doesn't appear to be offering a critical analysis of Schumpeter himself, but takes everything he claims at face value including his supercilious attitude. The description of Marx theory of surplus value, (which Shumpeter rejects, having misunderstood Marx's analysis), is presented here in very vague and confusing terms. And there are several errors. So for instance, Marx did not fail to demonstrate that Capital must expand. A good part of Capital is in fact devoted to explaining why it must. (Marx called capital 'self-expanding value'). Schumpeter was also wrong about Marx's theory of Immiseration. Marx makes it quite clear that such immiseration is relative, not absolute, a point which Schumpeter ignores. Increasing the share of wealth of workers and increasing their living standards are not the same thing. And so on.
Point of clarity on Marx’s theory of immiseration: Key to this theory is Marx’s concept of Relative Deprivation, "A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls” - Wage Labor and Capital (Karl Marx) Even if the standard of living of the working class improves in absolute terms, the existence of vast disparities (such as the presence of a palace nearby) means that their relative position remains low, leading to feelings of discomfort and dissatisfaction.
As others have explained here, value for Marx is not 'derived' from actual 'labour' (what Marx calls concrete labour); value is derived from 'abstract' or 'socially necessary labour' that is, the amount of labour time it takes on *average* to produce a commodity under the normal conditions of production in that society and at that time. You don't value labour. Labour is the source of value for Marx, it doesn't itself have value. (like energy is required to boil water, but energy doesn't itself have energy). Marx distinguishes between 'labour' and 'labour power'. Labour for Marx is 'work done' that is the amount of mental and physical energy expended. Labour power is an individual's ability to do work. It is labour power, this ability to do work, that the worker sells to the capitalist, not labour itself. Labour power is a commodity, something that can be bought and sold, and like any other commodities it has value. That is, it is a product of socially necessary labour. Workers need food, clothing, shelter, and other things to keep mentally and physically active and fit,in order to do the work that is required of them. The amount of labour required to make the things the worker needs to remain fit and active is the value of his labour power. It's also important to understand that for Marx value and price are not the same thing. Price varies systmatically from value as a result of the averaging of the rate of profit. It also varies from value according to fluctuations in supply and demand. Marx is not interested in helping capitalists or governments run capitalism. He is not therefore interested in price determination per se.
@@richardfield6801 See,I understand the ideological argument,but how would this work in real world terms extrapolated from our present day economy? In what time frame? Global or local? Presumably everything existing today are to remain in place to serve this system and not Mao style great leap forward levels of regression and cultural destruction. From what I gathered the Soviet union started with as much of a blank slate as possible in 1900s Russian empire. They also according to themselves while running a Marxist Leninist state still at the stage of *socialism* but building and aspiring to true *communism* . Even with this,they shrunk their economy by a dramatic amount and exposed their population to a famine/Holodomor). If you are only interested in Marxism in an academic fashion,I apologize. Still that does beg the question: Are you doing it for *pure contrarian means* ? A little Post script: *PS* : I ask this in good faith,I know its hard to weed out these for you as more and more or less unstable persons are setting their sights on you.. For what its worth: *I give my word I ask all of the above on a good faith basis* . *THANK YOU*
@@Ulyssestnt Hiya Ulysses I’ll take you at your word Ulysses. Either way, this is a public forum not a private discussion. But that’s a hell of a lot to answer in a short post. I’ll respond as briefly as I can , and if you want to take things further that will be up to you. Let’s start by clearing away some confused notions about Marx. ‘Marxism-Leninism’ was a term invented by Stalin which falsifies Lenin and has nothing to do with Marx. 'Leninism', understood as the politics of Lenin, is similarly only very loosely related to Marx. Lenin’s strategy in 1917 was based primarily on a native Russian tradition of revolutionary action which held views completely contrary to those of Marx. Mao similarly based almost nothing of his strategy on Marx's own views. I'm a Marxian socialist. So, I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, a Leninist or a Maoist. The Soviet Union and China and all the other so-called socialist/communist revolutions of the 20th century were not Marxist in any sense that relates back to the writings of Marx himself. But in any case, the whole concept of what we now know as Marxism didn’t develop until the decade after Marx’s death. It was largely invented by men like Plekhanov, Kautsky, Dietzgen and others. None of the 20th-century revolutions regarded as ‘Marxist’ were in fact carried out under conditions or in ways analysed by Marx, so they are of less interest to me. Structurally, all these societies had far more in common with capitalism than with Marx’s communism. Let’s also get clear the fact that Marx made no distinction betwaeen ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. When speaking of his conception of a post-capitalist society these were equivalent terms to him. For Marx the transitional society is capitalism itself. The idea that there is an interim society called ‘socialism’ between capitalism and communism appears nowhere in Marx and is an entirely a Leninist conception. I locate myself in a Marxian tradition that goes back to 1904. It rejected the claims of the Soviet Union to be socialist/communist in 1918 and similarly rejected China's claims in 1947. It predicted their failure to achieve socialism/communism in Marx's terms. OK. To your questions. Marx didn’t specify a timeframe for revolution, though he was clearly far too optimistic in his belief that it was already developing in his own lifetime. He argued that communism could not exist in a single country, and would ultimately have to be global. In Marx’s view socialism/communism cannot be established by a professional revolutionary elite such as the Bolsheviks, but only by a mass movement of the working class itself. By taking the means of production into common ownership, they would eliminate the role of the capitalist class, remove class antagonisms and establish a society of free association which would be not only classless but also stateless and moneyless. When you ask about ‘everything’ remaining in place, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘everything’. Many institutions that are specific to capitalism would necessarily fall away after a transition to socialism/communism. They would simply not needed and lose all meaningful function. The aim, however, is for a working class movement to take what is necessary for society to run effectively and freely, and go forward from there, not spend time pointlessly destroying the past. I’m less interested in your comments about Soviet Russia and China as I don't regard them as a way forward, but I'll offer a couple of comments for factual purposes. According to Lenin, the Soviet Union never achieved socialism. His own term for Russia under his New Economic Policy was 'state-capitalism'. He modelled the economy on the state capitalism of the Bismarkian German state. The Bolsheviks called the Soviet state socialist, not because they thought they had achieved socialism, but because that was what they hoped to achieve in the future. They never got there. And from a Marxian perspective this is unsurprising. With a wave of his hand, Stalin delcared that the USSR had achieved communism, but like a lot of declarations made by Stalin this is wholly meaningless. I don’t know what you mean by a ‘blank slate’ - a blank slate with regard to what? Certainly the Russians started with very little capitalist industry after the civil war. Hope this is useful. Cheers
@@richardfield6801 Thank you for answering this was very useful to myself. I realize a term like "blank slate" was highly imprecise on my part ,by it I meant "the cessation of all economic activity to then be restructured into a Marxist system". I shall keep it brief and just thank you for your reply,it is not easy to wade trough the trolls etc. On a more general level: I see a lot of people are going back to Marx in the true sense of reading the actual mans books so presumably there is something of value to be salvaged from there to bring into the future. Even if I do have a bias against it,I think the least I could do is inform myself.(I have read some of his like "the theory of alienation etc".).
Lina, such a pleasure to watch your videos. I enjoy your obvious intelligence as much as I enjoy your content. And I really like your content. I remember when I took a course on Marx as an economist, as opposed to studying him in sociology courses, and it really deepened my understanding of his analysis. P.S. Quesnay is pronounced Kenay. You and Raphi are doing great work. Thanks!
Marx's theory of value is not what the video depicts. Marx does not think value is the labor contained in the commodity (he even conclude the exact opposite in the value form chapter in the very first chapter "The commodity", in the value form analysis). The value for Marx is produced by the abstract labor, not labor itself. Marx's theory of value is largely different then Smith and Ricardo's theory. The theory of exploitation depicted in the video is not Marx's theory too. Marx never said workers are exploited because they are paid less then their works's value. Actually, work is not even a commodity according to Marx. Labor Force is the category he uses to describe the commodity which workers sell to capitalists. The labor force is the capacity to work, not work itself. When this commodity is consumed by the capitalist, it provides more value then it has when the capitalist bought it. Marx called it "the secret behind the capitalist wealth". The labor force is the only commodity in this society that produces more value when it is consumed instead of depreciate it's value. This is the process by which capitalists exploit workers. The quantitative aspect of it is meaningless. The important aspect is the qualitative aspect of the exploitation. The theory of immiseration in Marxian words: "Whilst the division of labour raises the productive power of labour and increases the wealth and refinement of society, it impoverishes the worker and reduces him to a machine. Whilst labour brings about the accumulation of capital and with this the increasing prosperity of society, it renders the worker ever more dependent on the capitalist, leads him into competition of a new intensity, and drives him into the headlong rush of overproduction, with its subsequent corresponding slump." There is a couple other citations that provides the picture that Marx was trying to say that workers would get poorer. But that is, as far as i know, a bad translation - and sometimes a bad reading. Marx was not interested in the mass of wealth that capitalism can accumulate. He knows that capitalism can grow and the mass of wealth in society can increase. But he is talking about a qualitative "impoverishment" of the worker. The reduction of the worker to a machine, an alienated being that produces everything in this society and can't control anything. I believe there was almost a falsification of Marx's analysis in this book A good book about theory of value is "Marxist Theory of value" by Isaac Rubin. And a book that can help understand the structure of the dialectical exposition in the text is "The making of Marx's 'Capital" by Roman Rosdolsky - This last book is essential to a good understanding of capital
Haven't the interpretations of Karl Marx for the 21st century's world become old fashioned in the field of economic relationships, political thought and sociology?
It is interesting to me that once having 'refuted' Marx's ideas, it becomes necessary for economists to try to 'refute' them over and over again. Every few years new books claiming to refute his work get published. In many cases, the arguments levied against Marx are simple straw men which Marx deals with in the first few pages of Capital, demonstrating that his critics often have never even opened the covers of his major work. In reality, there are issues and complications in Marx's analysis - it is hardly to be expected that any individual is going to get everything correct - but none of these are fatal to his analysis. I have no idea where you think Marx's theories have been tried, Book, but I'd have to assume you have never read deeply into Marx's economics and into his political theory in order to make this claim.
I have, Book. Clever guy, Mises, but it is a priori nonsense. I'd suggest however, that it is always a good idea to have read Marx (or anyone) before you attempt to critique them.
It's just so annoying to watch this videos of yourself making such a parcial analysis and also making fun of some of Marx's views. It's unserious. Planned to watch the whole series but this just ends it.
fantastic work.
I have just discovered your Chanel last week , you are doing a marvellous job here ....
systematic , precise and enjoyable in a way .
You bring back my passion for reading again ...
Keep it going fellas
Schumpeter's examination of Marx in Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy is superficial in the extreme, bordering sometimes on the trivial. This has led to numerous errors and confusions in this video, especially concerning Marx's Value Theory (He never called it a Labour Theory of Value). Smith and Ricardo's analyses were founded on ideas that go back to Aristotle. Marx simply takes them up where they left off. Nevertheless Marx and Ricardo were light years apart in terms of their aims and purposes and in their points of focus. In Volume 3 of Capital Marx demonstates why Ricardo's Labour Theory of Value could not possibly be correct (Ricardo himself suspected this, but could not let go of his basic intuition). Marx was not intending to write a comprehensive account of capitalism, so critiquing him for his failure to do this is misplaced. His purpose was, as the subtitle of Capital explains, to critique the field of political eonomy itself, to show how capitalism exploits labour and to show how commodities become fetishised. The patronising attitude towards Marx shown in this video is probably not the presenter's fault as she doesn't appear to be offering a critical analysis of Schumpeter himself, but takes everything he claims at face value including his supercilious attitude. The description of Marx theory of surplus value, (which Shumpeter rejects, having misunderstood Marx's analysis), is presented here in very vague and confusing terms. And there are several errors. So for instance, Marx did not fail to demonstrate that Capital must expand. A good part of Capital is in fact devoted to explaining why it must. (Marx called capital 'self-expanding value'). Schumpeter was also wrong about Marx's theory of Immiseration. Marx makes it quite clear that such immiseration is relative, not absolute, a point which Schumpeter ignores. Increasing the share of wealth of workers and increasing their living standards are not the same thing.
And so on.
Point of clarity on Marx’s theory of immiseration:
Key to this theory is Marx’s concept of Relative Deprivation,
"A house may be large or small; as long as the neighboring houses are likewise small, it satisfies all social requirement for a residence. But let there arise next to the little house a palace, and the little house shrinks to a hut. The little house now makes it clear that its inmate has no social position at all to maintain, or but a very insignificant one; and however high it may shoot up in the course of civilization, if the neighboring palace rises in equal or even in greater measure, the occupant of the relatively little house will always find himself more uncomfortable, more dissatisfied, more cramped within his four walls” - Wage Labor and Capital (Karl Marx)
Even if the standard of living of the working class improves in absolute terms, the existence of vast disparities (such as the presence of a palace nearby) means that their relative position remains low, leading to feelings of discomfort and dissatisfaction.
If the value is derived from labour ,then how do you value labour?(for the purpose of price discovery).
As others have explained here, value for Marx is not 'derived' from actual 'labour' (what Marx calls concrete labour); value is derived from 'abstract' or 'socially necessary labour' that is, the amount of labour time it takes on *average* to produce a commodity under the normal conditions of production in that society and at that time.
You don't value labour. Labour is the source of value for Marx, it doesn't itself have value. (like energy is required to boil water, but energy doesn't itself have energy). Marx distinguishes between 'labour' and 'labour power'. Labour for Marx is 'work done' that is the amount of mental and physical energy expended. Labour power is an individual's ability to do work. It is labour power, this ability to do work, that the worker sells to the capitalist, not labour itself. Labour power is a commodity, something that can be bought and sold, and like any other commodities it has value. That is, it is a product of socially necessary labour. Workers need food, clothing, shelter, and other things to keep mentally and physically active and fit,in order to do the work that is required of them. The amount of labour required to make the things the worker needs to remain fit and active is the value of his labour power.
It's also important to understand that for Marx value and price are not the same thing. Price varies systmatically from value as a result of the averaging of the rate of profit. It also varies from value according to fluctuations in supply and demand. Marx is not interested in helping capitalists or governments run capitalism. He is not therefore interested in price determination per se.
@@richardfield6801 See,I understand the ideological argument,but how would this work in real world terms extrapolated from our present day economy?
In what time frame?
Global or local?
Presumably everything existing today are to remain in place to serve this system and not Mao style great leap forward levels of regression and cultural destruction.
From what I gathered the Soviet union started with as much of a blank slate as possible in 1900s Russian empire.
They also according to themselves while running a Marxist Leninist state still at the stage of *socialism* but building and aspiring to true *communism* .
Even with this,they shrunk their economy by a dramatic amount and exposed their population to a famine/Holodomor).
If you are only interested in Marxism in an academic fashion,I apologize.
Still that does beg the question:
Are you doing it for *pure contrarian means* ?
A little Post script:
*PS* :
I ask this in good faith,I know its hard to weed out these for you as more and more or less unstable persons are setting their sights on you..
For what its worth:
*I give my word I ask all of the above on a good faith basis* .
*THANK YOU*
@@Ulyssestnt Hiya Ulysses
I’ll take you at your word Ulysses. Either way, this is a public forum not a private discussion. But that’s a hell of a lot to answer in a short post. I’ll respond as briefly as I can , and if you want to take things further that will be up to you. Let’s start by clearing away some confused notions about Marx.
‘Marxism-Leninism’ was a term invented by Stalin which falsifies Lenin and has nothing to do with Marx. 'Leninism', understood as the politics of Lenin, is similarly only very loosely related to Marx. Lenin’s strategy in 1917 was based primarily on a native Russian tradition of revolutionary action which held views completely contrary to those of Marx. Mao similarly based almost nothing of his strategy on Marx's own views. I'm a Marxian socialist. So, I’m not a Marxist-Leninist, a Leninist or a Maoist. The Soviet Union and China and all the other so-called socialist/communist revolutions of the 20th century were not Marxist in any sense that relates back to the writings of Marx himself. But in any case, the whole concept of what we now know as Marxism didn’t develop until the decade after Marx’s death. It was largely invented by men like Plekhanov, Kautsky, Dietzgen and others. None of the 20th-century revolutions regarded as ‘Marxist’ were in fact carried out under conditions or in ways analysed by Marx, so they are of less interest to me. Structurally, all these societies had far more in common with capitalism than with Marx’s communism.
Let’s also get clear the fact that Marx made no distinction betwaeen ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’. When speaking of his conception of a post-capitalist society these were equivalent terms to him. For Marx the transitional society is capitalism itself. The idea that there is an interim society called ‘socialism’ between capitalism and communism appears nowhere in Marx and is an entirely a Leninist conception. I locate myself in a Marxian tradition that goes back to 1904. It rejected the claims of the Soviet Union to be socialist/communist in 1918 and similarly rejected China's claims in 1947. It predicted their failure to achieve socialism/communism in Marx's terms.
OK. To your questions.
Marx didn’t specify a timeframe for revolution, though he was clearly far too optimistic in his belief that it was already developing in his own lifetime.
He argued that communism could not exist in a single country, and would ultimately have to be global.
In Marx’s view socialism/communism cannot be established by a professional revolutionary elite such as the Bolsheviks, but only by a mass movement of the working class itself. By taking the means of production into common ownership, they would eliminate the role of the capitalist class, remove class antagonisms and establish a society of free association which would be not only classless but also stateless and moneyless.
When you ask about ‘everything’ remaining in place, I’m not sure what you mean by ‘everything’. Many institutions that are specific to capitalism would necessarily fall away after a transition to socialism/communism. They would simply not needed and lose all meaningful function. The aim, however, is for a working class movement to take what is necessary for society to run effectively and freely, and go forward from there, not spend time pointlessly destroying the past.
I’m less interested in your comments about Soviet Russia and China as I don't regard them as a way forward, but I'll offer a couple of comments for factual purposes.
According to Lenin, the Soviet Union never achieved socialism. His own term for Russia under his New Economic Policy was 'state-capitalism'. He modelled the economy on the state capitalism of the Bismarkian German state.
The Bolsheviks called the Soviet state socialist, not because they thought they had achieved socialism, but because that was what they hoped to achieve in the future. They never got there. And from a Marxian perspective this is unsurprising.
With a wave of his hand, Stalin delcared that the USSR had achieved communism, but like a lot of declarations made by Stalin this is wholly meaningless.
I don’t know what you mean by a ‘blank slate’ - a blank slate with regard to what? Certainly the Russians started with very little capitalist industry after the civil war.
Hope this is useful.
Cheers
@@richardfield6801 Thank you for answering this was very useful to myself.
I realize a term like "blank slate" was highly imprecise on my part ,by it I meant "the cessation of all economic activity to then be restructured into a Marxist system".
I shall keep it brief and just thank you for your reply,it is not easy to wade trough the trolls etc.
On a more general level: I see a lot of people are going back to Marx in the true sense of reading the actual mans books so presumably there is something of value to be salvaged from there to bring into the future.
Even if I do have a bias against it,I think the least I could do is inform myself.(I have read some of his like "the theory of alienation etc".).
Lina, such a pleasure to watch your videos. I enjoy your obvious intelligence as much as I enjoy your content. And I really like your content. I remember when I took a course on Marx as an economist, as opposed to studying him in sociology courses, and it really deepened my understanding of his analysis. P.S. Quesnay is pronounced Kenay. You and Raphi are doing great work. Thanks!
Marx's theory of value is not what the video depicts. Marx does not think value is the labor contained in the commodity (he even conclude the exact opposite in the value form chapter in the very first chapter "The commodity", in the value form analysis). The value for Marx is produced by the abstract labor, not labor itself. Marx's theory of value is largely different then Smith and Ricardo's theory.
The theory of exploitation depicted in the video is not Marx's theory too. Marx never said workers are exploited because they are paid less then their works's value. Actually, work is not even a commodity according to Marx. Labor Force is the category he uses to describe the commodity which workers sell to capitalists. The labor force is the capacity to work, not work itself. When this commodity is consumed by the capitalist, it provides more value then it has when the capitalist bought it. Marx called it "the secret behind the capitalist wealth". The labor force is the only commodity in this society that produces more value when it is consumed instead of depreciate it's value. This is the process by which capitalists exploit workers. The quantitative aspect of it is meaningless. The important aspect is the qualitative aspect of the exploitation.
The theory of immiseration in Marxian words:
"Whilst the division of labour raises the productive power of labour and increases the wealth and refinement of society, it impoverishes the worker and reduces him to a machine. Whilst labour brings about the accumulation of capital and with this the increasing prosperity of society, it renders the worker ever more dependent on the capitalist, leads him into competition of a new intensity, and drives him into the headlong rush of overproduction, with its subsequent corresponding slump."
There is a couple other citations that provides the picture that Marx was trying to say that workers would get poorer. But that is, as far as i know, a bad translation - and sometimes a bad reading. Marx was not interested in the mass of wealth that capitalism can accumulate. He knows that capitalism can grow and the mass of wealth in society can increase. But he is talking about a qualitative "impoverishment" of the worker. The reduction of the worker to a machine, an alienated being that produces everything in this society and can't control anything.
I believe there was almost a falsification of Marx's analysis in this book
A good book about theory of value is "Marxist Theory of value" by Isaac Rubin. And a book that can help understand the structure of the dialectical exposition in the text is "The making of Marx's 'Capital" by Roman Rosdolsky - This last book is essential to a good understanding of capital
Haven't the interpretations of Karl Marx for the 21st century's world become old fashioned in the field of economic relationships, political thought and sociology?
Not just old fashioned, but completely refuted.
Any time and place his theories have been tried, from small-town utopias to entire countries, failure.
It is interesting to me that once having 'refuted' Marx's ideas, it becomes necessary for economists to try to 'refute' them over and over again. Every few years new books claiming to refute his work get published. In many cases, the arguments levied against Marx are simple straw men which Marx deals with in the first few pages of Capital, demonstrating that his critics often have never even opened the covers of his major work. In reality, there are issues and complications in Marx's analysis - it is hardly to be expected that any individual is going to get everything correct - but none of these are fatal to his analysis. I have no idea where you think Marx's theories have been tried, Book, but I'd have to assume you have never read deeply into Marx's economics and into his political theory in order to make this claim.
@@richardfield6801 read von Mises.
I have, Book. Clever guy, Mises, but it is a priori nonsense. I'd suggest however, that it is always a good idea to have read Marx (or anyone) before you attempt to critique them.
@@richardfield6801 have you read Marx?
It's just so annoying to watch this videos of yourself making such a parcial analysis and also making fun of some of Marx's views. It's unserious. Planned to watch the whole series but this just ends it.
Read von Mises.
You are so beautiful