Thank you for uploading these, it is a great refresher, even if I disagree with the ideas. I think Marx's idea falls apart when you just apply it in reality. If I hire someone to build my roof, they are voluntarily building my roof because I paid them to do it, when I sell my house I don't owe the guy who built the roof anything because I already paid them to build the roof. He owned his labor, yes, but sold the labor to build me a roof, which is now mine to do as I please. This is what Marx is saying, except he believes, in this scenario, I owe the roofer a chunk of my profits for selling the roof as a part of the house. I have no moral obligation to him after paying for the labor, it's now my roof and if I sell it for a profit that is just my personal gain for making a good investment, which in Marx's eyes, makes me a dirty capitalist.
@bgiv2010
2 жыл бұрын
No. You don't owe the roofer anything. But taking advantage of the roofer, in the long term, will lead to entrenched inequality, class struggle, and eventually revolution. But as a capitalist, you won't be able to resist getting the most profitable deal possible regardless of the potential social or environmental harm. This isn't a moral system. It's a critical analysis of private property and labor power.
@HO1ySh33t
2 жыл бұрын
@@bgiv2010 the roofer himself is also a capitalist, since he owned his mean of production, such as the tools and the tiles to work with, as well as the expertise of roofmaking. The roofer, with the advantage of knowledge, can very well take advantage of his customer. For example, the roofer can make subpar roof that needs constant maintenance. inequality of information is and will always be feature of our highly specialized society. People with expertise are always in a position to take advantage of people with no expertise.
@bgiv2010
2 жыл бұрын
@@HO1ySh33t commerce isn't capitalism. If the person is using their own labor, I'm not sure if the petit bourgeoisie is the same as the bourgeoisie. I'll read the relevant chapter again. The exploitation of the consumer is an angle I never really consider but very important!
@WTAWWR08
3 жыл бұрын
In my opinion, the risk of an investment should be discussed in relation to profits aka surplus values. Is it brought up in the following chapters?
@AlbornozVEVO
Жыл бұрын
Not really because it's not very relevant: even though prices are the tool used to make profits (the C-M' part of circulation), discussing pricing strategies, for which the capitalist uses risk calculation, would be as relevant as discussing the lifestyle choices of laborers. They're subject to change and Marx is attempting a abstract critique.
@molotovmafia2406
3 жыл бұрын
hey, about the part you talk about pronouns and how you say "he" for the sake of simplicity... you can just say "they" :)
@ChapterbyChapter
3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for that advice, noted! I didn't know that at the time (English is as you can tell my second language) -Raphi
@mr.cauliflower3536
3 жыл бұрын
*Hammer became a mean on production.
@HO1ySh33t
2 жыл бұрын
Marx's theory started to fall apart in this chapter, when he started defining necessary condition for for his valuation of labor "Moreover, only so much of the time spent in the production of any article is counted, as, under the given social conditions, is necessary. The consequences of this are various. In the first place, it becomes necessary that the labour should be carried on under normal conditions. If a self-acting mule is the implement in general use for spinning, it would be absurd to supply the spinner with a distaff and spinning wheel. The cotton too must not be such rubbish as to cause extra waste in being worked, but must be of suitable quality. Otherwise the spinner would be found to spend more time in producing a pound of yarn than is socially necessary, in which case the excess of time would create neither value nor money. But whether the material factors of the process are of normal quality or not, depends not upon the labourer, but entirely upon the capitalist." He acknowledged that the capitalist must ensure the quality of the material, the machines, and labor itself, to be "average". Without the capitalist's labor to ensure this average working condition, labor, time and material would be wasted without creating value. However, he failed to include the value of the capitalist's labor, which is planning, management and quality control, in his equation.
@erikjaman4401
2 жыл бұрын
Couldn’t it then be said that in his theory, the role of the capitalist is replaced with managerial workers who still make money off of their labor by organization, but just don’t own the whole process. I find a similarity when it comes to filmmaking for example. I often am the manager(producer/assistant director) on the films that I am on. It is true that I don’t carry the equipment, don’t write the stories, don’t shoot the film, but I do provide a ton of value through my own labor of leading. They couldn’t organize themselves without me. However, that shouldn’t entitle me to own the whole film. I think that’s Marx’s point.
@HO1ySh33t
2 жыл бұрын
@@erikjaman4401 this chapter didn't discuss the capitalist's entitlement to ownership, but their entitlement to the profit, gained from selling at a price higher than the cost. In this chapter, Marx was arguing that the capitalists weren't entitled to this profit and thus, they were exploiting the worker's labor. Even if managerial work can be outsourced to someone else, the capitalist still needs to ensure that this type of advanced labor is of "suitable quality", so that no labor or value is lost.
@ArtBear88
Жыл бұрын
@Webbs Kruiser When the capitalist controls the means of production and the product of the laborer, they essentially dominate the laborer. Why would their contribution to the labor process matter if they themselves aren't being exploited?
@saifabualhasan1850
Жыл бұрын
Marx is discussing theory. There are always nuances in the real world that won't be covered by any theory. Assuming the capitalist does put in the managerial work is like assuming he puts in manual labor, it could be true in both cases, in which case he is entitled to the wage of his work. It still doesn't mean that he is entitled to the profits. Which means it doesn't disprove the theory
@maxquayle2519
3 жыл бұрын
they is gender neutral
@ChapterbyChapter
3 жыл бұрын
yep, noted! thx😊
@samuelboucher1454
3 жыл бұрын
@@ChapterbyChapter They is plural, really. He has been used as a standard for he/she anyways (mankind doesn't just mean man). Just listen to the description of the chapter and stop being a grammar Nazi.
@Masala_Pizzaa
2 жыл бұрын
@@samuelboucher1454 They is not only plural. If you are talking about a person you don't know the gender of, you automatically use 'they'. @Max Quayle is just providing feedback to the video and not being a "grammar nazi." Just because 'he' has been used as a standard doesn't mean its gender neutral. It's for this precise reason that many people now prefer to use 'humankind' instead of 'mankind' because it's an unnecessarily gendered term.
@samuelboucher1454
2 жыл бұрын
@@Masala_Pizzaa Its not that it is gender neutral in that case. In that case, you are talking about 'they' in the abstract. And the whole humankind mankind thing is kinda exactly the type of things grammar nazis are about. Its the same thing.
@jimbeam-ru1my
10 ай бұрын
hilarious! This is what I love about commies- they can't last five minutes without falling into disarray from completely meaningless disputes. I once saw an anarchist group and a communist group try to join forces to protest a rate increase in public transit. Within two days the attempt completely devolved into commies and anarchists fist fighting at bus stops over what posters they put up.
@brian78045
4 ай бұрын
Marx's Foundational Tautology Marx writes (Chapter 24, first paragraph, Capital, 1867), "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value." See the tautology? How did this tautology get past the initial reviews? How did this tautology survive the intervening 157 years without being discovered, except for this political scientist? This again illustrates the magnitude of the Marxist co-option of our institutions. Let's analyze the sentence's tautology... Surplus value is generated by capital, but capital is created by surplus value!
@B_Estes_Undegöetz
20 күн бұрын
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Inigo Montoya
@brian78045
18 күн бұрын
@@B_Estes_Undegöetz what word are you referring to?
@pizzaspy
3 жыл бұрын
This chapter is where it all falls apart for me. Marx just refuses to acknowledge the value of intangibles like risk, vision, organization, luck, connections, wisdom, etc. And it gets harder and harder to ignore. The book up to this point is fascinating, but has qualified at many points "this is an oversimplification, an average, an assumption, but bear with me" but here, is the moment that is forgotten and all the variables and complexity that were put aside is now conveniently jettisoned. In Marx' writing you can sense when there is hand waving, because it is when he gets most colorful (and he is incredibly witty in these moments, often making me laugh out loud) describing "our friend the capitalist" etc. The logic is replaced by emotion. This is not to say the point that "this system is an out of control monster with snowball effects that lead to exploitation and misery" isn't valid. But to say that the person organizing a venture and bringing together people and capital to make something happen brings no value, and it is stolen from the workers is absurd. He even accidentally makes the point when he says (paraphrasing) "all the capitalists decide to just buy the yarn, but then who will make it?"
@WTAWWR08
3 жыл бұрын
I agree with your comment. One could argue that primitive accumulation was done by cheating and stealing (Marx does), but that is just moving the goalposts. I can also see why an anarchist wants no ownership so that risk becomes zero. I think anarchism is way safer than the capitalism we have now
@samuelboucher1454
3 жыл бұрын
@@WTAWWR08 Safer in financial terms, but innovation would decrease leading to life being continuously unsafe in other aspects (no new inventions making life easier and less stressful, no new cures or medicines, etc.)
@francissquire9910
3 жыл бұрын
Read on and you'll disccover you're mistaken.
@rationalism_communism
Жыл бұрын
@@samuelboucher1454 being a capitalist is using money to purchase labor and the means of production then make a profit. it doesnt matter if the capitalist works. he is still extracting the means of production. under communism all of the means of production will be communal.
@samuelboucher1454
Жыл бұрын
@@rationalism_communism You are just repeating talking points again. I have already addressed this previously. See comments above.
@Pglarsen
4 жыл бұрын
The capitalist risks it all, the labourer risks nothing. To the risk taker belongs the spoils. Marx doesn't understand human psychology or nature, much less the economy. But thanks for explaining so well
@leogorgone4414
4 жыл бұрын
The only thing the capitalist risks is losing his investment and becoming a worker.
@kinghassy334
3 жыл бұрын
If risk was such a burden, Capitalist wouldn't want it and would be happy to spread it to workers, I think we all know this argument is flawed because the benefits far outweigh the risk.
@samuelboucher1454
3 жыл бұрын
@@leogorgone4414 Capitalists are workers. The dichotomy is a stupid one. And no, the capitalist doesn't just risk becoming a worker. He risks becoming indebted with nothing to show for it. That is much much worse.
@samuelboucher1454
3 жыл бұрын
@@kinghassy334 You realize that happens, right? Those are called investors and it spreads the risk. That is literally what the stock market is based on. But the more other people invest, typically, the less control a person has over his company. A lot of people don't like this, because they want creative control.
@leogorgone4414
3 жыл бұрын
@@samuelboucher1454 a capitalist is not a worker. A worker is someone who performs labor and is reimbursed for it through a wage. A capitalist makes profit passively by owning capital. That is not being a worker. Profits, rents and interests are passive. Capitalists are not workers.
@Liravin
11 ай бұрын
1:57 you can also use "they" in singular form; very useful for this. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they
@B_Estes_Undegöetz
20 күн бұрын
Or “we” could focus on the actual Marxism and the growth of class consciousness instead of arguing over pronouns like socially and politically divided liberals do.
@bgiv2010
2 жыл бұрын
It seems like people/labor, land/resources, and tools are all just different parts of nature. I would say even the tools are as natural as human activities are.
@sayanmajumdar9492
5 жыл бұрын
Provide captions in English language like the previous videos. I am unfamiliar with the accent.
@ChapterbyChapter
5 жыл бұрын
KZitem provides those automatically for our other videos, don't know why it didn't work for this one, sorry
@sayanmajumdar9492
5 жыл бұрын
@@ChapterbyChapter It's ok. I would request you to post one chapter in a week. 2 week is a much longer gap. It will take 1 year more to complete the rest of 26 chapters.
Пікірлер: 121