Interestingly in the Holy Family, Marx & Engels define Matter only by Motion, not only mechanical, but also spontaneous motion simulated by QUAL & they cited the Mystic Jacob Bohemin for such purpose … This definition remains with Engels to be cited again in his introduction to Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
Very enlightening besides the parts on LTV; societies can only marshal productive capacities in proportion to the total labor time available That doesn't mean women's labor does not have value, it is that capitalism necessarily exploits women more in order to reproduce itself. Thomas confuses exchange value and use value
Always to the point!!! If only more people were schooled in basic Marxism/Leninism, we might be much farther ahead in terms of socialist struggle in the world. If you are new to Marxism and want to get your bearings in regards to Marxian analysis, just remember this basic Leninist principle; You find the people who will benefit!... Money and power are always the answers in any Imperialist mystery. Start from there, and you can't go wrong. And we should remember how Trotsky predicted the way in which the Soviet Union would collapse, and that it would return to the world of Imperialism and right-wing dictatorship. A prophecy which is fulfilling itself as we speak. Anyway In Defence of Marxism can't be beat. A powerful, and informative source of information!!!
50:00 "Someone will get mad at me if I get one line wrong but the basic premise is...labor is the generator of all value...". Not getting mad, but did you read critique of the Gothica program where Marx dismisses the idea that labour is the source of all value bc it ignores natural resources?
Yes, I know what section you are referring to. To be clear, I'm not convinced Marx really held much of a labour theory of value either, and was more trying to represent the arguments of those who might think that he does. But what's more, I don't think that section of CGP quite says what you think it does. If we have the same passage in mind, the claim is that communism ought not be understood as the renumeration of the value produced by an individual's labour (which would be a kind of Lockean claim that what's wrong with capitalism is that it steals workers' property). But that just suggests that individual labour does not determine the magnitude of value. However, one could hold another kind of claim that either the socially necessary labour time determines a kind of equilibrium around which value tends to fluctuate (again, I don't think this myself), or that labour is the condition of possibility for the existence of value (that, I think, is basically right) and this would not be inconsistent with the argument of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and would accord with the critique of Lasalle in CGP. Certainly it's an interesting and difficult issue, but I just disagree with your reading there, I think.
A great deal of the book itself, probably over half actually, is dedicated to the question of value (culminating in an account of Marx's "kinetic theory of value"). I can promise you there's no equivocation there!
The problem here is as follows: they say a lot of familiar words like "motion" but don't give a concise definition at any point as to what they mean when they say "motion". This is a problem as an outsider to learn or understand the metaphysics of marxism. From my non-marxist understanding on "motion" and other words they use but don't define; I can't help but disagree at several points.
This is a bit hard to formulate, but a bunch of thoughts: - On the topic of things being always in motion, Zizek would probably say something about Marx being a Hegelian. - There may be alternatives to Capitalism, but more likely there are just modified versions of Capitalism. The ideas that Capitalism runs on, are not far removed from bartering and you cannot ever get away from bartering. You can never get away from bartering, because it is impossible to solve everyone's needs at the same time. It is evidently impossible because different people have directly contradicting desires. So there will always be conflict of interest, so there will always be need for negotiation and hence bartering and with bartering something that resembles Capitalism. And even if everyone's basic needs were always met, people would develop desires to stand out from each other/dominate each other and that would inevitably cause conflict. Because we are monkeys. - If we look to nature, we can learn about ow life works in the wild. It is not a model, but an education. Nature is absolutely brutal. Most animals care only about their food, their brood, and their safety. And everything happens under the threat of death/violence. If an animal eats up all the food and cannot find any more in time, it dies. If an animal destroys an ecosystem and as a consequence destroys its own food-supply it extinguishes not just itself, but also the animals it fed on. But another creature might take over that space and thrive. Nature does not pull any punches and any balance we see is a temporary state of affairs. At the end of the day humans are animals. We are an invasive species. We are seemingly in the process of destroying our ecosystem and as a consequence we might extinguish ourselves. Life will likely go on without us. At least for a while. As far as I can tell, Marxism offers little in terms of solutions or explanations on why this is happening while nature explains literally all of it.
The idea that Value is some kind of arbitrary illusion seems somewhat profound on first glance, but it really is a misunderstanding. Value is not illusion, it is an abstraction. We leave out whatever does not seem to directly affect us. Abstractions are the basis for all of human thinking. Language is an abstraction. You bicker about the meaning of a few words, because they are abstractions and you are not sure what was left out of the definition and what the user had in mind. This is neither new nor profound. And yet words have meaning and value correlates to something in the real world.
You are using the term bartering, but what you really mean is that there needs to be a mode of production. Capitalism is more specific than exchange, conflict resolution, or wealth distribution. Those would be a feature of any society. The ability to buy and sell property, generalized commodity production, and a class dependent on wages are some of the defining characteristics of capitalism. Communism would certainly have ways to deal with competing interests, deal with distribution, and coordinate production, but it would do so without currency or private property.
You are ignoring other modes such as a gift economy. Daniel from What is Politics and others have interesting athropological takes on this development and note other material factors shaping different types of social systems.
Why not give up on it. But why not. Is there a good reason not to give up on communism? Is there a single example from history that does not discourage it?
Because there is no to give up on it. There are only historical events and biased media that urge people on giving up on it. There are a lot of reasons to improve it and spend time on the idea yes but failures in historical trials of certain models of socialism are certainly not/shouldn't be enough to make someone give up on the idea.
There are 5 enormous reasons to pay attention to Marxist lenisist theory: Communist China, Communist Cuba, Communist Vietnam, Communist Laos. Communism is alive and well in practice, if Marx's Theories were static this would not be possible. Communist countries account for over a third of the population on the planet. So a failure? I certainly don't think so. The "discouragement" always comes from one place : the Empire's Department of Disinformation.
I will watch this when I get some free time. I appreciate you keeping us informed.
Amen comrade
The ability of this author to speak with such clarity that even I can understand is priceless. LOL value is not real!
Really great episode, thank you for your work
I want to say just WOW!!!
Interestingly in the Holy Family, Marx & Engels define Matter only by Motion, not only mechanical, but also spontaneous motion simulated by QUAL & they cited the Mystic Jacob Bohemin for such purpose … This definition remains with Engels to be cited again in his introduction to Socialism: Utopian & Scientific
great author. tnk u
Very enlightening besides the parts on LTV; societies can only marshal productive capacities in proportion to the total labor time available
That doesn't mean women's labor does not have value, it is that capitalism necessarily exploits women more in order to reproduce itself.
Thomas confuses exchange value and use value
Always to the point!!! If only more people were schooled in basic Marxism/Leninism, we might be much farther ahead in terms of socialist struggle in the world. If you are new to Marxism and want to get your bearings in regards to Marxian analysis, just remember this basic Leninist principle; You find the people who will benefit!... Money and power are always the answers in any Imperialist mystery. Start from there, and you can't go wrong. And we should remember how Trotsky predicted the way in which the Soviet Union would collapse, and that it would return to the world of Imperialism and right-wing dictatorship. A prophecy which is fulfilling itself as we speak. Anyway In Defence of Marxism can't be beat. A powerful, and informative source of information!!!
I don't know what Trotsky predicted but Russia is no right wing dictatorship. I suggest looking closer to your home for the fascists.
This is great. Cheers!
what role does temperature have in all this? ...around 22mins in. At absolute zero, and so on...
Great stuff.
50:00 "Someone will get mad at me if I get one line wrong but the basic premise is...labor is the generator of all value...". Not getting mad, but did you read critique of the Gothica program where Marx dismisses the idea that labour is the source of all value bc it ignores natural resources?
Yes, I know what section you are referring to. To be clear, I'm not convinced Marx really held much of a labour theory of value either, and was more trying to represent the arguments of those who might think that he does. But what's more, I don't think that section of CGP quite says what you think it does. If we have the same passage in mind, the claim is that communism ought not be understood as the renumeration of the value produced by an individual's labour (which would be a kind of Lockean claim that what's wrong with capitalism is that it steals workers' property). But that just suggests that individual labour does not determine the magnitude of value. However, one could hold another kind of claim that either the socially necessary labour time determines a kind of equilibrium around which value tends to fluctuate (again, I don't think this myself), or that labour is the condition of possibility for the existence of value (that, I think, is basically right) and this would not be inconsistent with the argument of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and would accord with the critique of Lasalle in CGP.
Certainly it's an interesting and difficult issue, but I just disagree with your reading there, I think.
Instantly died inside when he equivocated on value
I could have went for more on that aswell.
A great deal of the book itself, probably over half actually, is dedicated to the question of value (culminating in an account of Marx's "kinetic theory of value"). I can promise you there's no equivocation there!
Awesome video guys. Never stop Educating us ❤️
The problem here is as follows: they say a lot of familiar words like "motion" but don't give a concise definition at any point as to what they mean when they say "motion". This is a problem as an outsider to learn or understand the metaphysics of marxism. From my non-marxist understanding on "motion" and other words they use but don't define; I can't help but disagree at several points.
yo
This is a bit hard to formulate, but a bunch of thoughts:
- On the topic of things being always in motion, Zizek would probably say something about Marx being a Hegelian.
- There may be alternatives to Capitalism, but more likely there are just modified versions of Capitalism. The ideas that Capitalism runs on, are not far removed from bartering and you cannot ever get away from bartering. You can never get away from bartering, because it is impossible to solve everyone's needs at the same time. It is evidently impossible because different people have directly contradicting desires. So there will always be conflict of interest, so there will always be need for negotiation and hence bartering and with bartering something that resembles Capitalism. And even if everyone's basic needs were always met, people would develop desires to stand out from each other/dominate each other and that would inevitably cause conflict. Because we are monkeys.
- If we look to nature, we can learn about ow life works in the wild. It is not a model, but an education. Nature is absolutely brutal. Most animals care only about their food, their brood, and their safety. And everything happens under the threat of death/violence. If an animal eats up all the food and cannot find any more in time, it dies. If an animal destroys an ecosystem and as a consequence destroys its own food-supply it extinguishes not just itself, but also the animals it fed on. But another creature might take over that space and thrive. Nature does not pull any punches and any balance we see is a temporary state of affairs. At the end of the day humans are animals. We are an invasive species. We are seemingly in the process of destroying our ecosystem and as a consequence we might extinguish ourselves. Life will likely go on without us. At least for a while. As far as I can tell, Marxism offers little in terms of solutions or explanations on why this is happening while nature explains literally all of it.
The idea that Value is some kind of arbitrary illusion seems somewhat profound on first glance, but it really is a misunderstanding. Value is not illusion, it is an abstraction. We leave out whatever does not seem to directly affect us. Abstractions are the basis for all of human thinking. Language is an abstraction. You bicker about the meaning of a few words, because they are abstractions and you are not sure what was left out of the definition and what the user had in mind. This is neither new nor profound. And yet words have meaning and value correlates to something in the real world.
You are using the term bartering, but what you really mean is that there needs to be a mode of production. Capitalism is more specific than exchange, conflict resolution, or wealth distribution. Those would be a feature of any society. The ability to buy and sell property, generalized commodity production, and a class dependent on wages are some of the defining characteristics of capitalism. Communism would certainly have ways to deal with competing interests, deal with distribution, and coordinate production, but it would do so without currency or private property.
I think there a lot of problems too.
You are ignoring other modes such as a gift economy. Daniel from What is Politics and others have interesting athropological takes on this development and note other material factors shaping different types of social systems.
What is Marxism? A vast and compelling corpus of thought with myriad applications. And a movement toward genocide. That too.
Why not give up on it. But why not. Is there a good reason not to give up on communism? Is there a single example from history that does not discourage it?
Because there is no to give up on it. There are only historical events and biased media that urge people on giving up on it. There are a lot of reasons to improve it and spend time on the idea yes but failures in historical trials of certain models of socialism are certainly not/shouldn't be enough to make someone give up on the idea.
There are 5 enormous reasons to pay attention to Marxist lenisist theory: Communist China, Communist Cuba, Communist Vietnam, Communist Laos. Communism is alive and well in practice, if Marx's Theories were static this would not be possible. Communist countries account for over a third of the population on the planet. So a failure? I certainly don't think so. The "discouragement" always comes from one place : the Empire's Department of Disinformation.