The Origins of Marxist Economics
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- In this video from a day school on Marxist economics, Ben Gliniecki of the Socialist Appeal Editorial Board discusses the development of Marx's theories on capitalism, examining the classical economists preceding Marx who were influential in shaping his ideas on questions such as the Labour Theory of Value.
Thank you. That was among the most coherent and informative talks about the LTV I've experienced. I especially enjoyed the backfround historical information presented. Carry on.
This was a very clear and valuable presentation. I appreciate it a lot. Thanks.
The capitalists ditched the Labor Theory of Value in favor of a subjective "theory of value"/"marginalist revolution"/counterrevolution, because they recognized that the LTV indicted them as exploiters.
Your's is the most recent comment on here, ---4 days old.
Other's are months and years old.
Something not right about such a wide disconnect between labor theories and the public.
A huge disconnect between revolutionary theorists...from the person who works...and a huge disconnect to the surplus value created from work.
How this part of the left overcomes the disconnect when workers look for political solutions will be interesting to see as the two mainstream political parties get locked frozen in doing nothing or worse moving further right and the democrats moving further left.
@@MrDXRamirez Both Republicans AND Democrats are moving right!
the labour theory of value doesnt understand any of the other costs of running a business
the employee gets payed even if the business sucks. you take short term gain, at the loss of the profits gained from the business succeeding
the employer supplies jobs. gathered the capital. and made the job even possible. without the employer, the employee would be sitting in the dirt
doing nothing. the employee may band together with a group and try to create some production. but if they get paid what their benefit to the business
then there will be no excess capital to grow the business and youd have to devour new capital, new employees to expand production and output.
and thats why the germans and soviets were so expansionistic. thats why the empires of the past were so expansionistic. they didnt understand
that economic output could be grown by voluntary exchange. the employee exchanges his time and labour for a fixed wage
the employer exchanges his capital and money for economic production.
Re-watching these theoretical vids while furloughed from work. They are absolutely brilliant
There is a problem with the LTV. All sources of energy can create value, not just human labor. A horse pulling a plow creates value. A tractor also creates value. In fact, to a capitalist, a human worker is fundamentally no different from a work animal or a machine. Capitalism dehumanizes the worker and turns him into an animal of a machine. But Marx refuses to acknowledge that machinery can create new value, that only human labor creates new value, and this is a very significant error because his entire treaty of revolution is based on the increase of machinery in production leading to the decrease of profit margin and the resulting emissary job of the workers, and inevitable worker revolution. Marxist economists should correct this enormous error because machinery does create value and machines (AI) is now replacing human labor in virtually every hotels of labor. Capitalism can entirely dispense with human labor as long as the capitalist can find s market for his products.
How much use value, social value were their in Beanie Babies and Tulips. And diamonds? And works of arts? Whose labor value is worth more a sports star or a teacher or nurse? Who is John Galt? John Galt versus Robin Hood!🤔😇😎
The problem with the labor theory of value is that one can expend a great amount of labor producing something that no one wants or is willing to pay in exchange an amount based on the amount of labor required in production. The real world works on a demand theory of value.
Contrary to Say's assertion, supply does not create its own demand. What is true is that there is a market clearing price for most goods, although the market clearing price may not be sufficient to cover the full costs of production (let alone the labor component thereof). Beyond subsistence level production, mistakes are made and goods are produced that may have been needed or wanted at one time but are no longer needed or wanted.
One should not dismiss the analysis of the Physiocrats quite so quickly. Their great insight was that mere owners of land and natural resources produced nothing, yet were able by their legal control of nature to extract the rent of land from those who actually performed labor to produce wealth. On moral grounds, Turgot argued that this rent fund belonged to society, the collection of which would make unnecessary the taxation of earned income and capital goods.
There is also a widespread misrepresentation of Adam Smith's expression of laissez-faire principles borrowed from the Physiocrats. Smith saw the proper role of government and law as central to the prevention of monopoly privilege. Only then would the so-called "invisible hand" work to the benefit of all participants. The Physiocratic-Smith vision called for what Henry George later described as "a fair field with no favors."
The most serious criticism of the classical school of political economists was their tendency (not uniformly) to defend existing socio-political arrangements and institutions. This, after all, is where both injustice and economic inefficiency is exerted on a society. Remove monopoly privileges, remove subsidies, remove taxation of earned income and capital goods, and (Henry George argued) labor would keep its full wages. It then becomes impossible for business owners to extract surplus value from workers. There will always be a greater demand for labor than is available, which causes businesses to compete for workers by offering better and better working conditions, benefits and compensation.
Edward Dodson Marx doesn't deny supply demand. He is saying that those capitalists who are producing something that doesn't sell well will move to another sector that does sell well. And this is correct.
This is an extremely amateurish attempt to criticize Marx's labour theory of value, which does not in any way sanction the value of a "mud pie"
Also. capitalists use
techniques to
pay less 1)-automation
2) exporting factories + jobs to cheaper countries, etc.
A major problem is capitalists refusal to
invest in producing desired + needed
products that are not profitable.
even invaded colonies
@@nickpayne5191 The point I tried to make is that supply does not create its own demand. People expend their labor and their financial reserves producing goods they hope will find a market. What employees of a firm receive as wages in currency is, generally, the average of currency wages of all individuals who perform the same or similar labor. This payment of currency wages is dictated by whether there the demand for labor is greater than the supply of labor available, by societal constraints on employers (e.g., a minimum wage) and by the effectiveness of collective bargaining.
90% of Marx is just Adam Smith. That's when socialism really started
lol, no.
This video had me so invested. I was so genuinely intruiged at gaining a deeper understanding of where Marx got his ideas from. And then he brings up Trotsky. You Trotskyists are nothing more than Left Communists. Though you understand Marxism-Leninism as a science of both economics, history, and politics, and you have no clue how to apply these theories into the real world. Not a single Trotskyist group has gained political power, not a single Trotskyist group has ever executed economic change. Not a single Trotskyist has accurately analyzed the first application of Marxism-Leninism, that being the USSR pre-1953. Only true adherents to Marxism-Leninism who have analyzed the industrialization and socialization of the USSR under Stalin have been successful. From Hungary to Korea to Cuba to Ethiopia. Only Marxism-Leninists with an understanding of Stalin's contributions and application of Marx's, Engels', and Lenin's theories have been successful. There is much to critique, but you Trotskyists simply throw it all away in one fell swoop. It is absurd.
He just cited one quote from Trotsky, sheesh
They (Stalinists) were successful in way of obtaining power, not in actually ending capitalism. They were successful in setting up bureaucratic rule (which had some gains over anarchic capitalist development mind you). Trotsky's critique of the USSR's degeneration stands up very well.