Where are you up to? I read the first chapter years ago and a few other sections. Now I'm reading it from the beginning but I haven't even finished the second chapter yet. Thing is huge.
@@Gaff. I am at rate of surplus value. Yeah, Capital is really big and you get very easily lost in it. I am in group with University professor, in which we study Capital and even than it is hard.
Thank you Dr. Paul for clarifying that wage labor does is not sufficient to point to capitalist mode of production. A fact not so readily realized when trying to explain the difference between absolute and relative surplus value.
Wow crystal clear. Thank you so much for this quick seminar. You should really do a "Das Kapital" youtube video series. I have never been able to fully grasp the text. I have attempted with Harvey's read a long guide and youtube lectures but I still fail. On the other hand, I am able to follow your videos extremely well as are my friends and family.
Thank you sir for this great video. I am learning more each day how exploitive the capitalists are. Since they own the means of production I can understand why the rest of us are compelled to depend on them for our subsistence. People need to understand the exploitive nature of the capitalist class and change the system.
Could we really use the term "standard of living" given just the wages? What about the technological and infrastructural progress since the mid XX century - have not they increased the standard of living irregardless of the wage share?
A lot of the things that improved the standard of living also acted to boost the productivity of household labour, freeing up womens' time so they could be brought into the workforce permanently as paid labour.
You also need to take in consideration that most of such progress (in general) are only accessible to the top layers of wage share, mostly in the global North. In my country, for example, even things as basic as water or electric supply are not constant/permanent sevices, not even in the capital cities (they fluctuate from time to time between decent supply, to shortages and blackouts for entire days); in rural areas sometimes is even worse. So even standards of living has been unequally developed.
But under absolute surplus value extraction, there were already capitalist social relations? E.g. the capitalist would pay the worker as much as he needed for the reproduction of labour-power, and there was a commodity created that had an exchange-value, and the difference between these two things was the valorised surplus extraction, right? This is different from feudalism's in-kind extraction, right?
Would it be right to claim that achieving essentially fully automated production would mean a transition to socialism/communism (i.e. a change of the mode of production), especially if it was powered by renewable, almost free energy?
If we take the large scale application of machine power as the real dawn of the capitalist mode of production, doesn't that raise the question of China, especially Song China and later? After all, they had blast furnaces, coke production, and water powered trip hammers/spinning wheels.
The basic answer to this is that we dont know, since it will depend on technologies that do not yet exist. At most we can point to the way technology may change and the changed social relations this can support.
That is a fair point. The figures I am giving are extracted from the World Inequality Database here wid.world/ tracking all wage income, and separating the wage income of productive workers from that of finance sector employees etc would require some work. It is something that Communist theorists and educators in the USA should work on.
You should consider that 'middle class' is a fuzzy term that encompass both the petty-bourgeoise (autonomous workers, small and middle employers...) and the labour aristocracy (bureaucrats, liberal professional cadres, engineers, technical/managerial staff, white-collar workers...); while the first one is unstable and tends to be displaced in more developed capitalist economies in favour of big corporations (ie. Walmart to grocery stores, Uber to taxis, Amazon to shops in general), the second ones are both unproductive labour and prone to proletarization (and, to a lesser degree, in exceptional cases, to bourgeoisification). So it really doesn't matter in the long term how well it does this section of the population, as by the same dynamics described on this video, as well as the random normal fluctuations of the market, they are torn appart in one of the two main classes: either proletarian or capitalist.
@@Ajente02 Absolutely Sociologists define the middle class differently than an economist or a psychologist. In Germany we rather say Mittel Schicht than Mittel Klasse. Mittel Stand is often used for owners of smaller companies. But this is bizarre, because medium companies are up to 250 employees. In Germany the reason for this fuzzy terms is, that everybody should think that he is a member of the middle class. Unfortunately, this dumbing down is quite successful.
@@blackywhite647 Not just that, the Marxian definition of "class" is quite different from the most common sociological/economical/anthropological definition. While Marx defines class by the relationship between social groups and the means of production, for bourgeois social sciences a class is just an income bracket (and, though they tend to correlate, it's not always the case, and the second definition obscures the productive relations and instead focus on the liberal notion of distribution of wealth).
Thank you for your continued work on these presentations, Paul.
Pretty easy to understand video on the difference between the surplus values.
I am reading Capital and this is really helping me. Thanks!
Where are you up to? I read the first chapter years ago and a few other sections. Now I'm reading it from the beginning but I haven't even finished the second chapter yet. Thing is huge.
m.ua-cam.com/video/Dyh-CcI8OWU/v-deo.html
@@Gaff. I am at rate of surplus value.
Yeah, Capital is really big and you get very easily lost in it. I am in group with University professor, in which we study Capital and even than it is hard.
@@friendofvinnie Jarane, kako li si me našao
So you're only 25% done but you're still about four times further than I am. This is going to take me a looooong time.
Thank you Dr. Paul for clarifying that wage labor does is not sufficient to point to capitalist mode of production. A fact not so readily realized when trying to explain the difference between absolute and relative surplus value.
Always hugely value your uploads, shared on Twitter. You are helping people supercharge their socialism.
'Surplus value' is discredited and was disproven even in the 19th century.
Wow crystal clear. Thank you so much for this quick seminar. You should really do a "Das Kapital" youtube video series. I have never been able to fully grasp the text. I have attempted with Harvey's read a long guide and youtube lectures but I still fail. On the other hand, I am able to follow your videos extremely well as are my friends and family.
Thank you Dr. Cockshott
Thanks for this; really valuable concepts.
I love these videos. Really may be what I most look forward to watching these days.
Thank you for the video
Thank you sir for this great video. I am learning more each day how exploitive the capitalists are. Since they own the means of production I can understand why the rest of us are compelled to depend on them for our subsistence. People need to understand the exploitive nature of the capitalist class and change the system.
Fantastic video, as always!
A part of your reminds me of the Golden Middle Ages in Europe in connection with STAMP MONEY and the theory of Silvio Gesell.
Could we really use the term "standard of living" given just the wages?
What about the technological and infrastructural progress since the mid XX century - have not they increased the standard of living irregardless of the wage share?
Do you mean things like heating your house with gas rather than coal?
A lot of the things that improved the standard of living also acted to boost the productivity of household labour, freeing up womens' time so they could be brought into the workforce permanently as paid labour.
You also need to take in consideration that most of such progress (in general) are only accessible to the top layers of wage share, mostly in the global North. In my country, for example, even things as basic as water or electric supply are not constant/permanent sevices, not even in the capital cities (they fluctuate from time to time between decent supply, to shortages and blackouts for entire days); in rural areas sometimes is even worse. So even standards of living has been unequally developed.
Commenting for algorithm
Great video
But under absolute surplus value extraction, there were already capitalist social relations? E.g. the capitalist would pay the worker as much as he needed for the reproduction of labour-power, and there was a commodity created that had an exchange-value, and the difference between these two things was the valorised surplus extraction, right? This is different from feudalism's in-kind extraction, right?
Broadly speaking yes
Would it be right to claim that achieving essentially fully automated production would mean a transition to socialism/communism (i.e. a change of the mode of production), especially if it was powered by renewable, almost free energy?
If we take the large scale application of machine power as the real dawn of the capitalist mode of production, doesn't that raise the question of China, especially Song China and later?
After all, they had blast furnaces, coke production, and water powered trip hammers/spinning wheels.
Could you discuss the feasibility of the four hour work day
It's already done. Before Jeffery Bezos stopped officially working at Amazon. He "worked" from 10am-1pm. Less than 4 hours and everything ran fine.
What then would be a real socialist mode of production? As opposed to a socialist relation to the capitalist mode of production that is.
The basic answer to this is that we dont know, since it will depend on technologies that do not yet exist. At most we can point to the way technology may change and the changed social relations this can support.
Probably fusion
I'm guessing automation.
What about the top 49% and rest of the national income of 70%? Is that middle class doing well?
That is a fair point. The figures I am giving are extracted from the World Inequality Database here wid.world/ tracking all wage income, and separating the wage income of productive workers from that of finance sector employees etc would require some work. It is something that Communist theorists and educators in the USA should work on.
You should consider that 'middle class' is a fuzzy term that encompass both the petty-bourgeoise (autonomous workers, small and middle employers...) and the labour aristocracy (bureaucrats, liberal professional cadres, engineers, technical/managerial staff, white-collar workers...); while the first one is unstable and tends to be displaced in more developed capitalist economies in favour of big corporations (ie. Walmart to grocery stores, Uber to taxis, Amazon to shops in general), the second ones are both unproductive labour and prone to proletarization (and, to a lesser degree, in exceptional cases, to bourgeoisification).
So it really doesn't matter in the long term how well it does this section of the population, as by the same dynamics described on this video, as well as the random normal fluctuations of the market, they are torn appart in one of the two main classes: either proletarian or capitalist.
@@Ajente02 Absolutely
Sociologists define the middle class differently than an economist or a psychologist.
In Germany we rather say Mittel Schicht than Mittel Klasse. Mittel Stand is often used for owners of smaller companies. But this is bizarre, because medium companies are up to 250 employees.
In Germany the reason for this fuzzy terms is, that everybody should think that he is a member of the middle class. Unfortunately, this dumbing down is quite successful.
@@blackywhite647 Not just that, the Marxian definition of "class" is quite different from the most common sociological/economical/anthropological definition. While Marx defines class by the relationship between social groups and the means of production, for bourgeois social sciences a class is just an income bracket (and, though they tend to correlate, it's not always the case, and the second definition obscures the productive relations and instead focus on the liberal notion of distribution of wealth).