Lol he gets in deep doesn't he. Good job summarising. I'm having a go (again) reading Vol 1 with a great deal of help from David Harvey videos & my local online (during lockdown) Marx reading group. Just been doing Chapter 9 on surplus value. (Edit - also it's always nice to hear the accent, reminds of home...)
I suppose we can still distinguish corporatism though, if only in a relative sense, by when supposedly capitalist economies have imparted state involement toward being a planned economy concentrated in oligarchs hands. Yes we can also argue a free market capitalism will tend toward that since it has never been tried without some involvement of it.
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew Mostly that the language itself is a bit difficult to understand, and that he describes things in really strange ways. And I'm glad you're feeling better!
@@RonTheAnarchist It is strange because of the abstraction, it doesn't yet look like the real world in the early stages of the analysis. As I said though, it does get easier.
3:14 i don't see how this is a rebuttal? i don't think anyone argues that workers don't contribute to production at all. he literally just says that the worker also performed a "service", that just doesn't seem to be an argument for why the contribution of MoP isn't worth anything…
My thought was mainly, no it is not equivalent...is it...the capitalist merely owns capital, then adds a labourer as a human cog, for which the labourer must work. And yes in the logic it doesnt follow since the capitalist argued his service worth, and marx argued the labourer's service was of worth which is somewhat non-contradictory
"Marx never says that exploitation is morally wrong" then when do we get to the part that is actually morally relevant? if i'm in a worker coop then in the marxist sense i'm also being "exploited" by the co-owners. yet every actual leftist would find this preferable to, say, working for a state-enforced monopoly that can dictate any wage short of starvation. the latter would not even nessecarily have a higher rate of owner-profit, it could just afford to be hugely inefficient… and of course it the "neutrality" of the exploitation term seems to dropped whenever it's convenient. it seems like having your cake and eating it too.
Id agree but i think its stated out of materialist 'moral neutrality' yet this would be an important factor- on one side we could argue they are born into a class hegemony themselves but yet psychological requirements are in some way detached from empathising with this situation of capitalising...as you say 'tainted' a system of somehow being detached from their core humanity as a requirement but nevertheless this is not discussed by materialists
Great videos man. If anyone wants the absolute simplest and clearest breakdown of the fundamentals of Marxian economics, no offense to your videos, but I recommend this page here. It takes only 20mins to read at most: www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/publications/an-introduction-to-marxian-economics-1-the-labour-theory-of-value/
You have a wonderful way of explaining things! Thank you for this series, looking forward to the next one
Thank you Cameron. I love this series.
Another well articulated video.👍
Hi cameron! Could you talk about the situation in palestine?
Thank you
Lol he gets in deep doesn't he. Good job summarising. I'm having a go (again) reading Vol 1 with a great deal of help from David Harvey videos & my local online (during lockdown) Marx reading group. Just been doing Chapter 9 on surplus value. (Edit - also it's always nice to hear the accent, reminds of home...)
Thanks :)
I suppose we can still distinguish corporatism though, if only in a relative sense, by when supposedly capitalist economies have imparted state involement toward being a planned economy concentrated in oligarchs hands. Yes we can also argue a free market capitalism will tend toward that since it has never been tried without some involvement of it.
Thank fuck. I've always had trouble with marx and his esotericism. And hey, it's great to see you back around! Are you feeling any better?
I'm feeling a lot better. What do you mean by esotericism?
@@ElectricUnicycleCrew Mostly that the language itself is a bit difficult to understand, and that he describes things in really strange ways.
And I'm glad you're feeling better!
@@RonTheAnarchist It is strange because of the abstraction, it doesn't yet look like the real world in the early stages of the analysis. As I said though, it does get easier.
3:14 i don't see how this is a rebuttal? i don't think anyone argues that workers don't contribute to production at all. he literally just says that the worker also performed a "service", that just doesn't seem to be an argument for why the contribution of MoP isn't worth anything…
My thought was mainly, no it is not equivalent...is it...the capitalist merely owns capital, then adds a labourer as a human cog, for which the labourer must work.
And yes in the logic it doesnt follow since the capitalist argued his service worth, and marx argued the labourer's service was of worth which is somewhat non-contradictory
So the value in a product is determined by the labor time it took to make that product? So time is money, literally.
"Marx never says that exploitation is morally wrong" then when do we get to the part that is actually morally relevant?
if i'm in a worker coop then in the marxist sense i'm also being "exploited" by the co-owners. yet every actual leftist would find this preferable to, say, working for a state-enforced monopoly that can dictate any wage short of starvation. the latter would not even nessecarily have a higher rate of owner-profit, it could just afford to be hugely inefficient…
and of course it the "neutrality" of the exploitation term seems to dropped whenever it's convenient. it seems like having your cake and eating it too.
11:10 they don't tho. they seem to be tainted by the social formation they live in.
Id agree but i think its stated out of materialist 'moral neutrality' yet this would be an important factor- on one side we could argue they are born into a class hegemony themselves but yet psychological requirements are in some way detached from empathising with this situation of capitalising...as you say 'tainted' a system of somehow being detached from their core humanity as a requirement but nevertheless this is not discussed by materialists
Great videos man. If anyone wants the absolute simplest and clearest breakdown of the fundamentals of Marxian economics, no offense to your videos, but I recommend this page here. It takes only 20mins to read at most: www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/publications/an-introduction-to-marxian-economics-1-the-labour-theory-of-value/
Do you want to legally end capitalism?
Yes please 😊
facevalue I want to end capitalism royally.
@@Cd5ssmffan thank you. You are correct.
@@Cd5ssmffan You cannot vote yourself out of slavery. Naive children believe that.
Legally? I thought that was a typo, the law enfores capitalism