4:33 Marx argues in Value, Price and Profit (I believe) and in Section 6 of the chapter that, although workers would be laid out from technological advancements, those same laborers would still be working in order to make a living, which forces them to work for worse and worse wages. Advancement in technology does not always result in lower employment rate, but it just means that the value of labor-power depreciates more and more, and the living conditions of workers would be worse.
@@leostalmer9275 Well you can verify marx's claim now, since there was huge advancement in technology since marx, did unemployment rate increase? wages decrease? No for both, unemployment rates are lower than ever, wages are higher than ever.. Percentage of people who own houses and cars for example has been increasing through time... Marx for example, didn't take into account that technological advancements will open up new markets and opportunities, he thought that less opportunities will be available because workers manufacturing the machines(that do all the work and replace workers) would be far less than workers replaced by the machines.. He obviously didn't expect that a social platform like Facebook would arise and open up 86k jobs Most jobs that exist today would make 0 sense to someone living in 19th century, no way someone would predict them..
Also I'd add that the global south is employing much more labour intensive production than the north since it can still rely on their wages being cheaper than machinery
The employment rate has improved but the capitalist mode of production has changed so much the comparing the two periods based on employment is apples to oranges
Well, I was reading David Harvey, and he pointed out that the use of machinery is not necessarily a one direction path from simple to full scale machinery. He found that in some industry in China, machines for that particular industry in use were seen as too expensive/didn't generate the amount of surplus, so they choose to go back to using large groups of labourers as they would actually be cheaper for the capitalist. further, capitalism is famous for advertising new needs and desires in the market, new productlines, new fashions etc. That might play a big role in keeping people employed. Just look at the rate people buy new smartphones or computers for example
A certain rate of unemployment is useful, since worker are under threat of getting fired, therefore pushing wages down. On the other hand you need consumers, therefore wages and employment can not go below a certain level. If they do, you get a recession. A tool used by capitalists is to open new markets, for jobs and capital circulation. Many of these do not produce "essential" products, but their only purpose is the circulation of capital and exploitation of surplus value.
I don't think machines that replace workers create as many jobs as are lost. This is obvious because, if they did, the machines would cost as much or more to buy and maintain than the workers they were replacing. This would make them useless for creating more surplus value. To put it another way, in order for a machine to create more surplus value, the necessary labour needed to create and maintain the machine must be less than the necessary labour involved in the process it is replacing. However, this does not necessarily mean that technological development always leads to less jobs in an economy, as when new technology is invented it can create new markets where new jobs can be created. For example the job of a UA-camr needs broadband internet, an example of a new job created by new technology. The fact that technology can create as well as take away jobs is not an argument in favour of Capitalism however, as constantly changing labour markets make workers feel insecure and powerless. In a worker controlled society technology could give people more free time, meaning they have more ability to be innovative in other areas in their life.
Absolutely agree, and extending your argument, this is why state owned public enterprises in some sectors are necessary and labrours should have basic right to food and shelter from state
It’s not about whether machines are good or bad. (We need machines. They’re are not going anywhere). It’s about whether those machines are privately or socially (democratically) owned or not. Marx would want machines to be socially owned.
Thanks for your effort. I really enjoy the way you review the books, but I think you should try crowdfunding model instead of relying on amazon affiliate (I don't like to support Amazon)
You can't see the labour displacement by simply looking at the historical difference between employment rate, because like today, in history there was not so much demand for manufactured commodities as well, without demand there was no need to produce more and employ more....
4:33 Marx argues in Value, Price and Profit (I believe) and in Section 6 of the chapter that, although workers would be laid out from technological advancements, those same laborers would still be working in order to make a living, which forces them to work for worse and worse wages. Advancement in technology does not always result in lower employment rate, but it just means that the value of labor-power depreciates more and more, and the living conditions of workers would be worse.
And his predictions are equally wrong on this point also obviously
@@marchabchy9125 Can you explain?
@@leostalmer9275 Well you can verify marx's claim now, since there was huge advancement in technology since marx, did unemployment rate increase? wages decrease?
No for both, unemployment rates are lower than ever, wages are higher than ever.. Percentage of people who own houses and cars for example has been increasing through time...
Marx for example, didn't take into account that technological advancements will open up new markets and opportunities, he thought that less opportunities will be available because workers manufacturing the machines(that do all the work and replace workers) would be far less than workers replaced by the machines..
He obviously didn't expect that a social platform like Facebook would arise and open up 86k jobs
Most jobs that exist today would make 0 sense to someone living in 19th century, no way someone would predict them..
Really!! @@marchabchy9125
Also I'd add that the global south is employing much more labour intensive production than the north since it can still rely on their wages being cheaper than machinery
These videos are so good - hope you keep making them!!!
The employment rate has improved but the capitalist mode of production has changed so much the comparing the two periods based on employment is apples to oranges
Well, I was reading David Harvey, and he pointed out that the use of machinery is not necessarily a one direction path from simple to full scale machinery. He found that in some industry in China, machines for that particular industry in use were seen as too expensive/didn't generate the amount of surplus, so they choose to go back to using large groups of labourers as they would actually be cheaper for the capitalist.
further, capitalism is famous for advertising new needs and desires in the market, new productlines, new fashions etc. That might play a big role in keeping people employed. Just look at the rate people buy new smartphones or computers for example
A certain rate of unemployment is useful, since worker are under threat of getting fired, therefore pushing wages down.
On the other hand you need consumers, therefore wages and employment can not go below a certain level.
If they do, you get a recession.
A tool used by capitalists is to open new markets, for jobs and capital circulation. Many of these do not produce "essential" products, but their only purpose is the circulation of capital and exploitation of surplus value.
Also, read “ Understanding Marxism” by Dr. Richard Wolff.
Nicely done.
I don't think machines that replace workers create as many jobs as are lost. This is obvious because, if they did, the machines would cost as much or more to buy and maintain than the workers they were replacing. This would make them useless for creating more surplus value. To put it another way, in order for a machine to create more surplus value, the necessary labour needed to create and maintain the machine must be less than the necessary labour involved in the process it is replacing.
However, this does not necessarily mean that technological development always leads to less jobs in an economy, as when new technology is invented it can create new markets where new jobs can be created. For example the job of a UA-camr needs broadband internet, an example of a new job created by new technology. The fact that technology can create as well as take away jobs is not an argument in favour of Capitalism however, as constantly changing labour markets make workers feel insecure and powerless. In a worker controlled society technology could give people more free time, meaning they have more ability to be innovative in other areas in their life.
Absolutely agree, and extending your argument, this is why state owned public enterprises in some sectors are necessary and labrours should have basic right to food and shelter from state
Great work bro. Why don't you have a patreon?
It’s not about whether machines are good or bad. (We need machines. They’re are not going anywhere). It’s about whether those machines are privately or socially (democratically) owned or not. Marx would want machines to be socially owned.
And major ground breaking revolutionising machines infact resulted largely from public institutions/enterprises
Another chapter!
Thanks for your effort. I really enjoy the way you review the books, but I think you should try crowdfunding model instead of relying on amazon affiliate (I don't like to support Amazon)
I agree, we will launch a patreon soon!
You can't see the labour displacement by simply looking at the historical difference between employment rate, because like today, in history there was not so much demand for manufactured commodities as well, without demand there was no need to produce more and employ more....
Pure nonsense .Marx himself contradicts .Later he acknowledged that machine has commodity akso generates surplus