About eight years ago while looking out the window of a buss in my way to university, while not being a socialist, I had this thought that capitalism would end when machines take over all human labor. There can't be capitalism without people who buy the produced goods, and there can't be consumers without waged labor, thus capitalism will fall. I thought I was just a unique idea I had, a product of my own ruminations. Now I see Marx got to the same conclusion 200 years ago, when we didn't even have robots and IAs. I want to end with quote
@@miltonperez3421 You're wrong. Even if oligarchs could trade among themselves they would not make the same amount of profit. And I they just share products among themselves that's not capitalism anyone. And whatever they do, they still have to deal with 7 billion people rioting. One way or another, capitalism will end and be replaced by something else once wage labour becomes unnecessary
@@vegeta4693214do you like science fiction? If so I recommend the culture series by Iain Banks. It’s about a post-scarcity civilization and it’s basically communism.
@@vegeta4693214Do you like science fiction? If so I recommend reading Iain Banks culture series. It’s about a post-scarcity civilization that’s basically communism.
No. commodities, including machines are NOT sold for more than their value. The price may oscillate above or below the value as measured by socially necessary labor time, but machines are not sold for less than their value. The source of capitalist profit lies in the distinction between labor power-the value of the goods and services the laborer needs to maintain himself (i.e. what it will take to get him in the door and working) and the value of his daily output in actual labor. The capitalist buys labor power, in other words the laboer's time, and then gets the actual labor for free. In no sense is a machine worth $1,000,000 routinely sold for $400,000. The prices of commodities sold are NOT routinely below the value contained in them. Marx said that commodities are sold at their values, more or less. The capitalist does NOT make his profit by buying machines for less value than they produce, since machines, per se, do not "produce" new value at all. Labor produces value, and the machine is just a motorized tool that can only transfer its embodied labor value to the product in the process of being used up and worn out. Nor are profits made by short-changing labor and paying less for it than it is worth. In fact, the capitalist cannot buy "labor", he can only buy a laborer, a rent-a-slave, for some period of time. Profit comes from the fact that a worker has the unique property of a) being able to expend more labor time than the labor time needed to produce him and b) also being the customer who pays for the product of his labor, thus completing the circuit of exchange.
In general, the price of every commodity sells for less than its value - goods, machines and labour-power alike. Its important to keep the distinction between price and value in mind.
@@redpen1917 The surplus value of a commodity is realized simultaneously during the production process and when it's sold for money. If the commodity--ie. a machine--is bought by a capitalist for $400,000, then the value that will be transferred (until the machine expires) into the commodities it helps produce will be 400,000 dollars--assuming the prices of commodities don't fluctuate from the time the machine is purchased until its expiration.
A real discussion regarding Marxist theory. I wasn't sure it was even possible. I still see Marxist claiming ridiculous things like, "the worker chooses to sell his labor". Or "trotsky this or that" mumbo jumbo.
I think you got it slightly wrong about the definition of variable and fixed capital. Labour is not variable. It's numbers might vary, but that's not the point. Money, raw materials and manufactured goods are what vary as each turn into the other.. Money turns into raw materials, which become manufactured goods that get sold and become money again.
More investments in constant capital has helped Apple and other companies to make tons of profit. Where do you see the rate of profit falling? Apple mobiles or laptop vanish from market within no time. Vaccines creators made tons of money by spending on fixed capital
Ok. If someone has little ability and wants to live in the castle and drive Rolls Roy's, who will provide for majority of lower ability and higher demands? 😂😂😂😂 Soviet Union already gone through this experiment, we all know the results.
Interesting/informative/entertaining. He was never a " Proletariat ". More so a." Bourgeoisie" whom observed & never experienced being part of the " Working " class ". In reality couldn't accurately explain the emotional concept of the people he was writing about -!!!😉.
@@lochnessmunster1189 Take a look at the relationship between profit rate and constant capital on any balance sheet, and you will discover a general tendency for constant capital to eat up larger proportions of surplus value but still grow surplus value in magnitude. Think of agriculture. 200 years ago it took very little machinery to plant onions, but you couldn’t plant too many. If you sell an onion for 2$ all the profit goes to you. But if you use a tractor to produce 1000 onions, you might generate more total surplus l value but each individual onion will sell for less due to the cost of the tractor. The unit price decreases (falling rate of profit) but the magnitude of surplus value (profit) can still increase.
No- because "surplus value" does not actually exist, and was refuted even while Marx was alive. Do you believe that labor isn't paid the full return for its input?
@@lochnessmunster1189 it was refuted, but unsuccessfully. If you have a source that challenges this fact, i would like to check it out. Surplus value does exist even if bourgeois economics wants to pretend that it doesn’t.
Marx was wrong - machines do create value. They create more value than human workers. That’s why machines are replacing human labor throughout industry and commerce. In fact, machines are just like human workers except they don’t strike. This is a huge error in Marxist economic theory. It’s such a glaring error that it’s almost incomprehensible.
@@immortal1995100 How about you tell me what I don’t understand? I’ve read Capital. Have you? He says that machines cannot create more value than went into the machines production. Right? So what am I missing? I’m a revolutionary socialist and vast ally a Marxist but this seems to he a glaring mistake. To a capitalist, wage labor is just another form of machinery. Marx argued that because human labor slobs could produce surplus value and hence profits, and because machinery was rapidly replacing human labor in the production process, that the rate of profit would decline. This would lead to reduction of wages to starvation levels, forcing the workers to revolt. What am I failing to understand? Please answer. I’m sincere. What do I misunderstand.
Lol, he literally says that while a socialist society will not be automated "fully", it will require such minimal labor value of time that it will make the capitalist values of production obsolete. You clearly did not understand the assignment.....
![NLE Choppa - Or What ft. 41 (Orchestra Mix) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/biOFASEgSOM/mqdefault.jpg)
About eight years ago while looking out the window of a buss in my way to university, while not being a socialist, I had this thought that capitalism would end when machines take over all human labor. There can't be capitalism without people who buy the produced goods, and there can't be consumers without waged labor, thus capitalism will fall. I thought I was just a unique idea I had, a product of my own ruminations. Now I see Marx got to the same conclusion 200 years ago, when we didn't even have robots and IAs.
I want to end with quote
Oligarchs don't need consumers. They can consume it all once you're not necessary.
@@miltonperez3421 You're wrong. Even if oligarchs could trade among themselves they would not make the same amount of profit. And I they just share products among themselves that's not capitalism anyone. And whatever they do, they still have to deal with 7 billion people rioting. One way or another, capitalism will end and be replaced by something else once wage labour becomes unnecessary
@@vegeta4693214do you like science fiction? If so I recommend the culture series by Iain Banks. It’s about a post-scarcity civilization and it’s basically communism.
By the way. I had this exact thought all the time too.
@@vegeta4693214Do you like science fiction? If so I recommend reading Iain Banks culture series. It’s about a post-scarcity civilization that’s basically communism.
Once again, very nicely done. Thank you.
Can you think of any industry, anywhere, which collapsed due to this nonsensical Falling Rate of Profit theory?
thats helps to understand thanks
Amazing concise explanation, thank you Red Pen and I hope you continue your organic activism!
Nicely explained. I don't think it is the solution to abolish money and wealth accumulation in it's entirety, but it is good to know the concepts
Who said that was the solution
There are so many flaws in this analysis, I scarcely know where to begin. His conclusions do not necessarily follow from his premises.
pretty interesting how Marx predicted the issues of AI and robotics so long ago....
No. commodities, including machines are NOT sold for more than their value. The price may oscillate above or below the value as measured by socially necessary labor time, but machines are not sold for less than their value. The source of capitalist profit lies in the distinction between labor power-the value of the goods and services the laborer needs to maintain himself (i.e. what it will take to get him in the door and working) and the value of his daily output in actual labor. The capitalist buys labor power, in other words the laboer's time, and then gets the actual labor for free. In no sense is a machine worth $1,000,000 routinely sold for $400,000. The prices of commodities sold are NOT routinely below the value contained in them. Marx said that commodities are sold at their values, more or less. The capitalist does NOT make his profit by buying machines for less value than they produce, since machines, per se, do not "produce" new value at all. Labor produces value, and the machine is just a motorized tool that can only transfer its embodied labor value to the product in the process of being used up and worn out. Nor are profits made by short-changing labor and paying less for it than it is worth. In fact, the capitalist cannot buy "labor", he can only buy a laborer, a rent-a-slave, for some period of time. Profit comes from the fact that a worker has the unique property of a) being able to expend more labor time than the labor time needed to produce him and b) also being the customer who pays for the product of his labor, thus completing the circuit of exchange.
In general, the price of every commodity sells for less than its value - goods, machines and labour-power alike.
Its important to keep the distinction between price and value in mind.
@@redpen1917 The surplus value of a commodity is realized simultaneously during the production process and when it's sold for money.
If the commodity--ie. a machine--is bought by a capitalist for $400,000, then the value that will be transferred (until the machine expires) into the commodities it helps produce will be 400,000 dollars--assuming the prices of commodities don't fluctuate from the time the machine is purchased until its expiration.
A real discussion regarding Marxist theory. I wasn't sure it was even possible. I still see Marxist claiming ridiculous things like, "the worker chooses to sell his labor". Or "trotsky this or that" mumbo jumbo.
I think you got it slightly wrong about the definition of variable and fixed capital. Labour is not variable. It's numbers might vary, but that's not the point. Money, raw materials and manufactured goods are what vary as each turn into the other.. Money turns into raw materials, which become manufactured goods that get sold and become money again.
The cost of labour is what Marx called variable capital.
More investments in constant capital has helped Apple and other companies to make tons of profit. Where do you see the rate of profit falling? Apple mobiles or laptop vanish from market within no time. Vaccines creators made tons of money by spending on fixed capital
@@RisingStarViews congrats. You just dismantled Marx’s entire theory in 4 sentences. 🥳
@@redpen1917 i really want to understand this falling rate of profit stuff
Ok. If someone has little ability and wants to live in the castle and drive Rolls Roy's, who will provide for majority of lower ability and higher demands? 😂😂😂😂
Soviet Union already gone through this experiment, we all know the results.
Marx values are foolish
No, you are
No
Interesting/informative/entertaining. He was never a " Proletariat ". More so a." Bourgeoisie" whom observed & never experienced being part of the " Working " class ". In reality couldn't accurately explain the emotional concept of the people he was writing about -!!!😉.
Great idea until you get humans involved
Which industry has ever collapsed due to the Falling Rate of Profit?
Every business that was taken over by a competitor.
Industries don’t necessarily collapse due to a falling rate of profit but enterprises do.
@@redpen1917 But can you give me a real-life example of that actually happening?
@@lochnessmunster1189 Take a look at the relationship between profit rate and constant capital on any balance sheet, and you will discover a general tendency for constant capital to eat up larger proportions of surplus value but still grow surplus value in magnitude.
Think of agriculture. 200 years ago it took very little machinery to plant onions, but you couldn’t plant too many. If you sell an onion for 2$ all the profit goes to you. But if you use a tractor to produce 1000 onions, you might generate more total surplus l value but each individual onion will sell for less due to the cost of the tractor.
The unit price decreases (falling rate of profit) but the magnitude of surplus value (profit) can still increase.
No- because "surplus value" does not actually exist, and was refuted even while Marx was alive. Do you believe that labor isn't paid the full return for its input?
@@lochnessmunster1189 it was refuted, but unsuccessfully. If you have a source that challenges this fact, i would like to check it out.
Surplus value does exist even if bourgeois economics wants to pretend that it doesn’t.
Marx was wrong - machines do create value. They create more value than human workers. That’s why machines are replacing human labor throughout industry and commerce. In fact, machines are just like human workers except they don’t strike. This is a huge error in Marxist economic theory. It’s such a glaring error that it’s almost incomprehensible.
How about you go back and rewatch the video.
@@immortal1995100 How about you tell me what I don’t understand? I’ve read Capital. Have you? He says that machines cannot create more value than went into the machines production. Right? So what am I missing? I’m a revolutionary socialist and vast ally a Marxist but this seems to he a glaring mistake. To a capitalist, wage labor is just another form of machinery.
Marx argued that because human labor slobs could produce surplus value and hence profits, and because machinery was rapidly replacing human labor in the production process, that the rate of profit would decline. This would lead to reduction of wages to starvation levels, forcing the workers to revolt. What am I failing to understand? Please answer. I’m sincere. What do I misunderstand.
Lol, he literally says that while a socialist society will not be automated "fully", it will require such minimal labor value of time that it will make the capitalist values of production obsolete.
You clearly did not understand the assignment.....