Richard Wolff: Introduction To Marx’s Theory Of Value (TMBS 128)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 окт 2024
- Richard Wolff explains the labor theory of value.
This is free content from the weekly edition of TMBS. To support the Michael Brooks Show on Patreon and receive hours of weekly members-only content, subscribe at / tmbs
Follow The Michael Brooks Show and crew on twitter: @TMBSfm @_michaelbrooks @mattlech @davidslavick @davidgriscom
The professor is a treasure to this world. Thank you!
He is a disgrace
@@thomasmendola937 isn't scary to know that there's a lot of morons in this world like this guy who thinks this crackpot is a "treasure". I still remember the time when in highschool when dumbass teachers used to tell us that the left were inexistent in the US, but of course was just ignorance of them. Marxism (Orthodox/cultural) dominated the majority of the minds in the country and the entire world. That's really a disgrace for the human race, may these people pay for the evil that they have had done to us.
How much money do you make?
Amen!
@Northern Wealth Anarchy Perimeter
Wow, what an intelligent contribution to the discussion at hand. I like the casual racism too. Completely unnecessary, but it sweetens the stupidity.
I could listen to Wolff all day.
Good on Michael for not interrupting him.
"Pause it"
Darwinian Atheist so fucking annoying
I am going to miss these conversations between Michael and Richard Wolff 😢 Always insightful, but very digestible for anyone who isn't super academic. Rest in power, Michael. You've definitely help shape my worldview for the better, along with so many others who watched/listened to your show.
Professor Wolff is such a marvelous teacher. I'm so grateful to him for his gifts to us. Thanks for bringing this discussion to us. Have him return soon !
Wolff has enlightened me at 46! Never too old to learn!
Wow. Tell us more! What happened? Were you right a liberal capitalist before?
@ScrewSocialism Did you take your meds today? Maybe go for a walk?
@@nintendowiids12 Maybe you should study how economies work?
After studying economics and being g 22 I can assure you that I have learned nothing because the labor theory of value is just a simple way of explaining failed socialist economic thinking.
@@simonjaz1279 could u refer the part where it is wrong?
Thank you: The biggest difference possible between the cheapest labor input and the extraction of excess value equals the depravity of the capitalist system. Please have Professor Wolff on again soon. And vote Bernie!!! 2020 and beyond. Miss Jenny
Yes, the very way in which the relationship between employer and employee was set up was depraved and immoral. Such a tragedy, and its lasted so long. We have to transform our economic relationships, and that is what socialism is all about...
Jenny
"I don't believe government should own the means of production." -Sanders
Search Einstein's 8 page"Why Socialism", not hard reading!
(At least get the dictionary definition of Socialism and see if it matches Sanders' statement.)
FU jenny go preach your fantasy land in another world where reality doesn't exist
Jenny - Actually, it equals the strength and sustainability of the capitalist system. Wolff is a moron. He's never build anything in his life. He's just a big mouth.
@@horsesense6173 Actually, Wolff is an intellectual worker. He deals with understanding. He produces ideas. And he understand better than an enterpreneur how the system works. He's not speaking about how is built a hardware or a road, but about how economy works. But instead of giving some rational argument against his, you attack his persona. That is a fallacy known as "argumentum ad hominem". Something morons with big mouths do very often. It does not require proof or intelligence, for that matter.
Michael plus prof Wolff. My two favorite intellectuals on RUclips. You guys need to do more together
Joel Runyan hey guys, Vsauce here
Well said, obviously. I had to learn that after I graduated with a degree in finance and banking, and had to pivot. Don't want to be part of this system
Good on you. Not easy to pivot once you've already invested into the system.
you can work for a community bank, an NGO, small retirement fund. use your knowledge to bring the benefits of capitalism to the ones who are not part of the system
Or maybe a credit union.
I majored in business with a concentration in finance... biggest mistake I ever made haha. The more you pay attention to how shit works the less you want any part of it.... at least for me.
Great example to others. But that effort you put in will blossom into something very new like how to put a system together that rediscovers barter as the heart of the economy and how to finance it in real time... A finance system that works with money that slowly dies(seven years) ; even using money is seen as barter. Money should be exactly like the goods it helps to distribute. It grow old and dies /gets used up /goes bad....
I dare say this is the greatest hurdle to grasping what real time economics implies ; money with a use-by-date. So that means we can use wheat as money.... Farmers become the new central bankers, and the system CANNOT fail, because we cannot lend out more money than what exists in sealed silos.
Now create a bookkeeping system, a hand written book(everyone writes their own book) to capture the spirit of real benevolent economic activity. The stopwatch started in 1776-8 you've got maybe ten fifteen years left.......................... Better be a good system if you gonna save us..
A fabulously succinct explanation.
Conclusion: Don't hate the player, hate the game.
Bernie ad interrupted half-way through Wolff's explanation to be like, "Hey! I know you're trying understand the progression of feudalism to capitalism as a backdrop to Marx's Theory of Value, but I've got a small favor to ask you."
Effn laughed out loud.
Nice ! I only got a KFC ad :(
That was a great way to break it down. Thank you so much Mr. Wolfe and Michael
Another master class from Richard Wolff. He always brings the knowledge.
When Richard speaks, l listen.
I have never learnt so much and so clearly. Thank you Sir.
This lecture by Prof Wolff has been the most profound of all the other lectures he has given. I Know I'm at risk of minimizing all the other stuff but this has crystalizing my hard head!
Once again: Bravo, Dr. Wolff.
I am going to show parts of this video to my students. It is not easy to explain economic theories in a way that keep the audience's attention. Wolff not only keeps your attention up, he captures it completely.
Honestly, a full video on economics would be several days, if not weeks, long: it's a very complex subject. I appreciate that Bernie couches it in rhetoric about empowering the people and workers, over corporations. I think that's easy to understand for most voters, and keeps us away from "proletariat talk", which is just too abstract for a lot of voters.
Richard Wolff is a national treasure.
He's like a bond super villain without the villain.
LOL
not gonna lie, TMBS > Majority Report
We need both of these shows; MR for the broad scope and critical commentary, TMBS for the deep dive into economic, political issues.
sam seder is a boomer
Agreed, but they serve different purposes too.
@@gwills9337 I enjoy both, but TMBS seems to be more leftist while MR is more demsoc. Maybe I'm wrong but that's my observation.
I used to be annoyed by TMBS but now I love it
Wow. Thank you!
I get it.
The more I hear from Mr. Wolff, the more I learn.
I appreciate that Marx placed the human value above the value of the thing. He was was among the first to recognize the human component of Capitalism. His Theory of Alienation is a spot on analysis
Comrade ЯЗD БЗДЯ the theory of alienation is his only good theory imo. It is more relevant today than ever.
Amazing to hear Professor Wolff speaking truth to power! Americans for the most part have such tunnel vision when it comes to the concept of socialism. Take some time and educate yourselves(don't depend on the government and MSM), then employ critical thinking. This is too important not to be fully informed before deciding who to vote for.
Another excellent discussion. . . . explaining the corruption of 'Capitalism' and the fruits of one's labor.
I want more of that :).
You've been fooled by Marxist propaganda and it's really amusing to see people from one of the most wealthy countries in the globe with many opportunities to complain about capitalism. How dumb people like you are to be fooled by a moron like this crackpot"professor".
Richard Carlson very interesting chat, definitely a worthy discussion, I will be purchasing his books.
Capitalism made America a much better place than any other country in the world, all of which are trying to follow America's footsteps!
@@DavidSiciliano2100 Go troll somewhere else you asshole. You're full of your own shit.
It’s something we all know instinctively but it’s actually pretty difficult put so clearly into words. Great explanation 👍
Awesome clip! Thanks for that.
Thank you for these videos! I learn so much from Wolff. We need to hear from him more often. 🙌
Best explanation for LTV I have ever heard.
The end of this video is the best shit ever. And I would like to draw attention to the oscar film parasite. It's main theme is exactly what Wolff is saying. It's not about being mad at a greedy worker or a greedy boss. It's the capitalist system that we operate under that's the source of all this human suffering.
I tend to side with the worker since they tend to be the better and more reasonable folks out there compared to the rich... But still... It's the system man...
After all of this time I just realized your profile picture is from "The Shining".
@@jeremiahbarnes6313 lols when I first saw some dickhead Howard stern fan using it... I just knew I had to steal it lol.
@@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342 Damn but I lowkey feel like a smooth brain. But the ones who just can't get the joke fast enough.
Thank god for Richard Wolff.
Sadly hardly anyone comes close to his intellect on subjects like socialism. Dude has only been studying this shit for over 30 years lol.
Often I’ll come back to this video and many other videos with Michael Brooks in them and just start weeping. Tears of sadness but also tears of happiness. Michael Brooks was the first political content creator I found that actually spoke to what I believed but wasn’t able to but into words. I found Michael when I was 20 years old and he passed shortly after that. I mourn the loss of a wonderful man who was able to beautifully weave humor and politics, a man who could break down a very complex topic and make it make sense to the average person, and a man that is needed on this planet now more than ever. But I quickly remember that Michael would want all of us to keep pushing forward. Keep fighting for the rights of all human beings around the world, and if true equality doesn’t come in my generation, I’ll do my best to prepare the next. Thank you so much Michael Brooks for everything you did in life, and for how you to continue to inspire others now and for generations on ❤️ Left is best and solidarity forever!
RIP MB! just revisited this great video. take care everyone
Actually, Ibn Khaldun elaborated the labour theory of value in the 14th century and so (briefly) did Guru Nanak , the founder of Sikhism, in the 15th century. There's no indication that he'd read Ibn Khaldun, though he may have done so. Guru Nanak and especially the fizzing polymath, Ibn Khaldun, are well worth reading.
Michael has put me onto so many people who are amazing i wouldn't know about professor wolf without him RIP the legend
I love it when Michael tells me "Don't be foolish"
a good introduction in the theory of labor, with historical perspective. these days everything else is simplified
The bit from 10:15 on about utility theory and its relation to the exploitation of labor is required listening. Wolff puts it very clearly and succinctly, as he does.
This was excellent. Thank you 🙏
Blew my mind
Mystery of the Market ayy? Call Rave Dubin. He's got the ideas lololol
Yes
Labour is the source of all human economic value
You are right! But
1. not directly
and
2. not only the human labor is the source of human economic value!
That was absolutely fantastic.
I could listen to Professor Wolff all day. Completely fascinating discussion on the creation of Capitalism and the introduction of Marxism and the contradictions of a Capitalist economic system.
Great show! Thanx TMBS! Great job Professor,as always.
It is absolutely necessary for the american(as well as any other) public to become educated on Mrx's labour theory of value,since noone knows about this theory,that is in fact a fact, that every activist and organiser before 1920 and nearly every worker from 1920 to 1947( at least in Europe,cut that to 1944 in the US) was informed about and intellectuals and students from 1965 to 75 or something like that knew about and educated many workers around the globe on this theory that explains the exploitative and oppressive nature of capitalism. In CAPITALism,capitalists are the establishment, are the ruling class. That's why it's called capitalism. And it's a system,that by it's nature, is competitive in a way that no capitalist can just step out and say "I'm going to be a moral and humane capitalist from today on", because they would just get crushed by their competition. The wealth of the capitalists is stolen from the workers,Pierre Joseph Proudhon would have said. Which us not comely true but sounds good and in my gut I feel like it's the truth. Economics are more complex than Proudhon's "property is theft" ,but it's not so far away from that. How can 8 people(or was that families?) own as much or more than the 50% of the poorest people on earth? Well, because they exploit their workers and the planet and through imperialism get richer and richer. Imperialism as late stage capitalism is not only imperialist wars, but also sanctions of countries that don't comply with the interests of,mostly, US-capital by the USA. At thus time more than 80 countries are sanctioned by the US. Sanctions wars, foreign pressure of all kind on behalf of the capitalist ruling class establishment is imperialism. This can only end in a world war, a climate or other environmental disaster or the fall of capitalism and the rise of socialism! Socialism or Barbarism!-as Rosa Luxemburg once wisely said. Although the revolution will most likely come from the third world encircling the first world, it is very good that more and more americans become interested in Marxism and Socialism. We need you in the belly of the beast! The more the better, the better educated the better! And I don't mean university educated, but class conscious.
Workers of the world unite!
Down with US-imperialism!
Great explanation. Never taught so succinctly in Am schools
I can see the "labor" and "utility" side. Where I think we realize that labor unions are so important, though, when that labor becomes redundant and easily trained, them it's very easy for labor value to be minimized (in favor of the utility value taking most of the profit, which oftentimes is the owners of the business, usually not laborers). We need public unions and public laws to protect the value of labor, as a principle, over just basic utility.
The utility argument is nonsense. Tell me how much utility a bag of grapes gives you? And whatever utility you think it gives YOU, please explain to me how much utility that bag of grapes gives your 3rd cousin? And then tell me how much utility a bag of oranges gives you (assuming your argument would be nourishment as utility). And then explain to me why the prices differ from grapes vs oranges.
@@sunnydlite-t8b Easy. Ask each person how much they'd be willing to pay for it and there's your answer for their relative utility. Utility is not the same for every human because different people can do more with different things. Some people like grapes more than oranges so their utility would be higher than with oranges for the same quantity.
Meanwhile, say it took me twelve hours to build a ladder because I'm bad at it, and then a skilled craftsman took two hours to build the exact same ladder. You're gonna tell me mine is more valuable because it took more labor?
@@Indomat64 You took the bait.
I think Perry's right that the utility argument is wrong. There's a false dichotomy here: that value is determined either by utility or by labor.
Value is determined by lots of things, and it's a negotiation between producers, environmental conditions, complementary goods, substitute goods, utility, cost of production, time investment in production, speculation, capital investments, interest rates, the value of the dollar, the growth of the economy, the general feelings amongst the public of a secure future, and the King of Sweden.
Calculating the value of a good is literally impossible. There are so many factors (maybe infinitely many) that go into an individual's decision to buy your product at the price you offer that it's impossible to predict exactly what the value of a good is going to be at any given second. Notice that absolutely no one knows whether the price of any commodity will go up or down, even though there are huge incentives to know.
This is why the value of good necessarily has to be determined on the free market. It's literally the only method of determining the value of a thing at any given moment. It's an average of millions of individual commerce decisions based on infinitely many factors at every moment of every day. Any attempt to predict the value based on one theory or another is doomed to failure. Proof of this is that there is no theory of investing that consistently does better than blind guessing.
@@zorgate I don't really follow what "bait" I took and I don't think what you are saying is even against my point.
I stated utility can be determined by looking at price. You seem to just repeat the same idea.
I may be conflating utility, value, and price, but that is exactly my point, they reflect each other
@@Indomat64 Sorry, the bait is the false dichotomy of "labor" vs "utility". As far as I can tell it's just Marxist rhetoric. Marxists say their theory of value is superior to the "utility" theory of value, as if anyone believes in the utility theory to begin with. Theory of value has moved so far beyond Marxism they aren't even on the same page anymore.
There's a point to the idea that "usefulness" is the root of value. After all it doesn't matter how much work you put into a certain product, if no one wants to buy it it still doesn't have any value in the marketplace. Also if you have access to a rare resource (like, idk genuine wasabi) then even if it doesn't take a lot of work to produce it it will still have a lot of value (assuming there's demand for it).
faarsight Without getting esoteric, you aren’t wrong, but the labor theory of value still holds up with these assumptions. Within a market, all products are made more valuable by the labor put in. Your genuine wasabi is a good example. It may “always” have value (as long as people enjoy eating it or there are other use cases for it) even with minimal effort to produce, but the raw rhizome will always be worth less than the processed wasabi ready to eat. Where did that extra value come from? From the market intrinsically valuing the labor that transformed it into a more useful, desirable, and therefore valuable form. Things can have intrinsic value and still be made more valuable by applying labor.
@@TheZahirNT2 What if the extra preparation makes people want it less? The market is supposed to determine what labor is valuable and what labor isn't. Wasting time is defined by the market. If the market isn't to be arbiter, then who or what is? If it's a who, then it's authoritarianism. The market seems more democratic, but the problem there is profit determines what is right, so we get cheap plastic waterhose nozzles instead of sturdy metal ones.
Fascinating conversation !
That last part was just perfect 💙💚
I swear watching stuff like this now got me thinking back to middle/high school history and smh
Wolff is a worldwide treasure and people don't even know it
that was amazing
I'm a simple man I see Richard Wolff and I click on it.
Very informative!
GET THIS GUY ON AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Excellent lecture
An American Hero, professor Wolff
The German speaking author was Carl Menger (Principles of Economics, 1871), not Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk , who was Menger' student. (10:41)
I’m so glad these two work in the same areaish
If I keep listening I'm going to expect Masters credits in economics.
I know you're jesting, but don't hold your breath; these days "economics" focuses solely on the neoclassical school. Any other schools of thought are abruptly ridiculed and shown the door.
@@mikkykyluc5804 I considered majoring in economics in the late 60s. Being from a union family I simply couldn't digest what was being taught. Part of my comment is essentially that I could have majored in econ if I'd run into a professor like Wolff. Yes I get what you are saying which is pretty much also Wolff's position Thanks for the comment.
@@Ravenscaller Cool. And hey if you're still interested in economics but you feel going to uni is a bit much at the moment, you can always become a well-versed layperson! Thanks for sharing :)
well said big up prof wolff
I was expecting Dr. Wolff to use the term, 'surplus value' - which was really Marx's key point that is extension from Smith/Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value. That 'surplus' value is extracted by the capitalist in the form of money value (=profit), which to Marx is at the root of economic exploitation!
I support Richard Wolff.
All the conservatives needs education in economics.
This is actually a pretty decent explanation of why the originators of labour theory of value had their flaws they did approach the question for a scientific purpose, rather than an ideological pseudoscientific process that Marx was engaged in.
Eloquently described
It's amazing that Dr. Wolff was granted a PhD given the education system he was working within.
Instead of immediately redistributing the profit to the workers, why not have the profit be loaned from the workers and payable back to workers over a term of, say, several years? Any thoughts on that?
This is so cool. I skimmed over Wealth of Nations years ago, maybe a decade ago, and when I read Smith's labor theory of value, it was a shock to learn that he thought of it way before Marx. And I always suspected exactly what the prof is saying here. Capitalists ditched a key theory of their ideology just because it was politically inconvenient for them. It's a house of cards!
Take his conspiracy theory on the political drive behind the development of economical thought with more than a grain of salt. I've noticed that Marxists like to start out defending LTV by pointing to Smith as precedent, which is disingenuous, since they fundamentally disagree with Smith about so many things. It's transparent that the argument is "Adam Smith had an LTV, and he was a Capitalist, therefore if you're a Capitalist your views are predicated on an LTV already, so you can't dismiss it without contradicting your own views." This is implied, but the logical fallacy is evident. It's even more disingenuous because not one serious argument in favor of Capitalism rests on the idea of LTV, but the idea seems to be indispensable to Marx's view.
In reality, Smith had a bad idea, it was recognized as such, and it was discarded unilaterally by all except those people whose ideas absolutely couldn't discard it and remain intact (the Marxists).
Where was the Nevada debate clip?
14:00 - 15 That 1 minute perfectly sums the main problem with capitalism.
It also shows why we need a descent minimum wage, set collectively in accordance to the needs of the times, as well as a fair taxing system with a gradually ascending percentage.
Economics one on one!!
👍👍👍
101?
They exist for many reasons that include a general misunderstanding about banking, fraud, and voluntary exchange, vested interests, rent seekers, prevailing Keynesian and Monetarist economic thought that is wrong, and too many people foolishly advocating for socialism which exacerbates the problem.
I am still curious about the labor theory of value when it comes to digging holes in a field and filling them back in... tons of labor can go into such a project with no change in value.
Toxic fumes are also produced via labor (it takes a certain amount of effort to make them) but they aren't worth much (not valuable) and are arguably harmful to others.
Where does the consumer factor, factor in? They’re either going to want the cheaper of the product or a price that reflects their own work output in a comparable time of labor making their own product. I think this is where a monopoly, (unless broken up by a government stepping in to level the field) would otherwise disrupt the comparable value of labor time. Or if an employer finds a way to create a finished product cheaper and does not redistribute that profit which would have otherwise gone back into the economic well-being of the society which pays the same amount for the product. Labor time is less, productivity up and the ones benefitting are of a small minority who may not hardly work at all?
stunning
Now, I have a conundrum. By labour theory of value it means that it is labour who creates the value then let's say hypothetically , an entire nation focuses on production of a single product then , will the price of the product remain the same? If it doesn't and if it plummets , then it clearly shows it is not labour that creates value but the forces of demand and supply - Smithonian invisible hand.
So, the problem is that no matter how much time anyone puts into their work that no one other than themselves will find value in it?
The Marginalist Theory of value did not "praise" the inventors of the LTV (Smith, Ricardo) and "undercut" Marxian Theory, they attempted to solve the Paradox of Value that the Classical Economists, including Marx, couldn't solve. It became clear that labor has no effect on the valuations of consumers in the market. Consumers (and producers who are consumers as well) look for the means to serve an end in the objects they wish to bid for. Value is a creation of the human mind to solve the problems of human existence and suffering. Prices are the expression in money (the medium of exchange) that the different individual actors in the market attribute to the goods offered for sale. I would suggest that the publication of Menger's Principles of Economics was a contributing factor to Marx never finishing his last 2 volumes of Das Kapital do to his economic theory being destroyed.
There can be a conflict between employer and employee interests, but it's not an inherent one. Assuming that people have the freedom to make choices an exchange is always a win win. That's why we have laws against monopolies, false advertising, and coercive violence tyranny is likely the greatest threat to a free market.
Why do you assume that? What's voluntary about the agreement "let me exploit your labour or you starve"
@@afgor1088 In any free market exchange we make the exchange because we feel that it adds value ie you wouldn't trade $100 for a tv if it didn't work no matter how much labor or brains it took to make. The price of the tv is set by the valuation of the producer and consumer. The producer will not be willing to sell the tv for $100 if he thinks that that would be a decrease in value for him and the consumer will not buy the tv unless he thinks that the tv is worth more than $100. No exchange occurs until both parties see the exchange as in their best interest and no free exchange occurs without both parties experiencing an increase in value or "win win". Does that help?
@@theeverydayman9248 😂 I love you people econ 101 is as far as you go and it's ruined your brains
@@afgor1088 okay, where am I wrong.
@@theeverydayman9248 it's really not worth my time, sorry dude. It'd be like trying to explain calculus to a toddler, it'd take forever, they'd never understand and in the end they'd probably throw a hissy fit.
Goodbye
I have to say that even Smith didn't invent the labor theory of value but an author called William Petty. And if I want to go further, the author is Ibn Caldhoum...
Wouldn't profit sharing be an equitable compromise? Workers and employers are then both motivated towards a common goal.
If the owner is also working, than they can share profits because they actually helped produce the profits.
@@RUclipssucks3 If the owner doesn't get excessive profit over their employees, then the whole concept of ownership (private property) is rendered useless.
@@MalleusImperiorum fine with me
Dr Wolff is bae
More of these ABC's of socialism videos would be a great idea!
"It's None Of Your BUSINESS" ! Your Bees Nest Is In our best INTEREST, Honey ! Buzz off, thanks for the Royal Jelly ! Hi've Five..........Anyone ? None of your Beeswax ole timer !
Even a honest theory of utility based value would be better than gambling based value, which would be better than out right theft of commons. The only market that really works properly is the legislature for sale.
They make their bathrooms exceptionally dirtier so as to make it tougher by having to hold in your shit, which causes migraines.
You cannot abuse your workers because as the workers are competing for the best jobs, the Capitalists are competing for the best workers, and the consumers are shopping for the best product to suit there needs at the best price, and the Capitalist is trying to serve the consumer who may be his employee. Capitalism serves the consumer. That's us.
I agree with you that employers can't abuse their workers arbitrarily, but there's a subtlety here.
That is, whatever abuse the market _does_ allow an employer to inflict on his employees, the employer _must_ inflict (if it be profitable to do so).
So you can't just make everyone work in 100 degree heat in the summer if they can easily find similar jobs with air conditioning, but you can bet there is a "market-set shop temperature" that is based equally on what employers can get away as on the physical needs of the workers.
So to humor Prof Wolff- if it takes a factory full of 100 workers to produce a widget- The price of what that widget sells for should encompass all the labor that when into it. What if nobody has a need for that widget?
I just spent six months painting a self portrait-which I feel is outstanding. A masterpiece. I put so much effort into it. Hours apron hours. For a half a year! I think it should sell for at least $800,000. Let's start the bidding...
Again all this from Professor Wolff sounds good- total nonsense.
Hahahahahahaha hours upon hours.
This is how stupid Professor Wolff sounds to anyone who has a basic grasp of economics.
Meanwhile we have young adults today graduating going into finance who believe in fairy tales like MMT. Where money can be created magically out of thin air.
Hahahahahahaha
The day of reckoning is coming because of fools like you who believe this stuff.
Or what the employer prefers to say about final sale price...whatever the market will bear!
At the risk of showing I don't know what the heck I am talking about yet, it seems to me that labour value is harder to sell or convince other people of than utility, especially since labour is going to differ according to so many variables including the workers, their knowledge & capability, their ability (which also are somewhat related and have an effect on each other) Utility though can be rather hard to base on something, and lends itself more to perception and speculation, so basically sales and inflated marketing.
I'm no expert, but it's not the labour from an individual into a product that dtermines its price. If that were true, somebody who produces a product faster, with less labour, than another worker... you would expect that product, even though the exact same thing, to cost less, because less labour went into it. Marx refers to the average necessary labour time it takes to create a product. It takes so much time on average to produce shirts, and it takes so much average time to produce bread, etc...
Sorry if that makes no sense, I am reaaaaally tired.
Consider it this way:
If I want a chair, I could go out into the woods, chop down a tree, saw it into pieces, and put them together to make the chair. It would be a pain in the ass to do all of that, but at the end I would have a chair without having to pay a cent for it.
If I pay a guy to do all that for me instead, then I am paying him for his labor -- for doing the task that I could do, but would find inconvenient.
@@Reality4Peace I mean, that's kinda what we see with mass-produced goods these days. It takes less time to push a button on a machine and have it make the thing than it does to make it by hand, so you can make more of them and sell them cheaper and out-compete the hand-crafting people.
Utility is irrelevant in terms of supply, but it is obviously a factor in terms of demand. Nobody is going to buy sawdust because someone took the time to produce it at a labour equivalent cost of say 1 dollar per gram, unless its ceder and you want to get high. On the flipside of that coin, if you find gold in some wild area with no jurisdiction, the the value of whatever you produce with it will depend on the demand for it, BUT you will not sell a lump of gold for less than an amount of money you as the labourer find you can or want to based on your own evaluation of what effort you put into it, and what you will get in return for it. All of these evaluations is based on utility and availability of trade to you as an independent decision maker, at least in an idealised situation. When you are not in an idealised situation, the power dynamics of the particular situations, your ability to project the future and social conditioning will affect your decision greatly. Therefor the labour theory is a partial description of what value to a member of society and to the collective really is. What you really need is a theory of organisation of societies, a theory of realistic projection of value creation and a proper ethical framework for dealing with humans within societies. Economic models cannot integrate what social pressure is on you to lie to an investor about the potential of the rnd you are conducting, or how a regulation on pesticides will effect the intelligence of a demographic eating certain foods, resulting in less accurate accounting and therefor more lawsuits. Every aspect of society ultimately sets the conditions for the monetary currents and value created and consumed in a society, what the best principles of value even is depends on collective psychology. That said i agree with the analysis, and largely detest the arguments made against a society of both efficiency and solidarity, both love and social civility based on some degree of control. These questions are hard, i think our species needs to chill with the arrogance take a step back without letting go of disagreements, and work out progressivly better ways to better our societies for more and more people. Bernie down the white house 2020
Huh? Take water and air as examples. Their utility cannot be overestimated (of course, air is more important for living), yet you pay some money to buy bottled water, but how much do you pay for air? Precisely.
Yet again, you cannot survive without water, but you can survive without a brand new iPhone. Shouldn't water cost more in this case? Or do we value our lives less than mainstream fashion?
Was the reason for dropping the LTV because Marx was using it, or because it was a bad theory?
I'd take the conspiracy theory he presents in this video with a grain of salt. Notably, no serious argument for capitalism depends on LTV, but every serious defense of Marx starts with defending an LTV. It's more reasonable to believe that it was a bad idea, and everyone that _could_ abandon it did. That left Marx behind.
You want to be careful not to assume that because Smith and Ricardo believed in the labor theory of value, that makes it correct. I actually believe the utility theory of value makes more sense. Why Smith and Ricardo accepted the other one, I do not know.
The big problem with the labor theory of value as used by Marx is that it says society is all about victimization. It's interesting that Wolff himself wants you to avoid considering all capitalists evil people. He says it's just the evil system that makes them do bad things. But thinking that you are a victim is not usually the healthiest way to approach life. Not that I believe in unrestrained capitalism myself, but European countries of today show that capitalism can coexist with a cooperative society.
This is a good explanation of the LTV. It's also incredibly easy to dismiss. If labour was the input that made the difference between the final value of a product and the raw materials, workers could spend their time making any old tat and it would always have more value than the raw materials. Obviously that isn't true. The reason a product has more value than its raw materials is that the capitalist decides what the final product should be, and if that product has utility (many don't) it will have value over and above the raw materials. Labour isn't an essential element in this. A clever marketing campaign (or over exuberance: see tulip mania) can create utility in a product that has had no, or very little, labour wrought upon it. Marxists are simply wrong on this.
This is the biggest thing keeping me from taking Marxists seriously. I can't get over this intergallactically stupid idea. There's got to be more to it, right? Marx couldn't have been _that_ dumb, right?
Boom!
So under capitalism and the existence of money, are the bargaining abilities taken away from people? For example, the orange might be more valuable to the baker than it would be for someone else, therefore he would be more willing to give away more bread more less oranges. Under the system now, he has to pay the same price as everybody else.
Inequality of bargaining power is a big critique of capitalism. This doesn't just affect markets but also hiring. An employer doesn't need any particular employee but working people are desperate to get the job. So the Employer will always have the upper hand when negotiating hiring/wages/ect (unless the workers are unionized).
@@RUclipssucks3 ahh brilliant, I'd never thought of it like that
@@RUclipssucks3 UBI will eliminate the employer's advantage and put him at a disadvantage. No union required. Min wage wouldn't be required either.
Thank you for this video!
In general, it has to be said that the Labor Theory of Value is correct.
In my opinion, however, this does not apply to their classical interpretation.
Professor Wolff’s statements make that clear from my point of view.
* Value is based on work and utility
That value is based on utility is just as true as the statement that value is determined by work, specifically by the values of the workforce.
* Value is a social relationship
- Value is a social relationship and not a thing.
- Such a thing is formed between people and works between people, only between people.
- Humans relate such a relationship to things, activities, ideas, etc.
- A social relationship, including value, must have an objective part, because it goes beyond an individual and has an effect on and beyond the social level.
- A social relationship must also have subjective components, because it works between people. Value is not purely objective, i.e. independent of people.
* Marx and the value
- Marx and others recognized that value is formed from the costs that arise in the production of goods.
- Marx also says that the workers work in such a way that what they produce gets more value through their work than they themselves caused for production. That is the surplus value that the capitalist appropriates without consideration.
- To this end, Marx formulates the well-known value formula: W = c + v + s.
- He applies this formula to the production side of the commodity society, since the market has no meaning for him in the formation of value (with this he also contradicts himself). The value therefore appears as produced.
- But on the production side there is still no surplus value; a buyer in the market can only pay for it if one can be found.
- On the production side there are only costs and an expected surplus value.
- Since the surplus value is part of the value, there can only be one expected value there.
- The value formula must be adapted for the production side of the commodity society:
W|expected = c|cost factor; replacement expected + v|cost factor; replacement expected + s|expected.
- The expected value is made visible as the offer price.
* The value and needs
- In the market, a buyer can find the work product so well that he wants to buy it.
- This desire arises from needs, but not from any. It is weighted needs that have an effect in the economic area of society: Usually, people's needs are larger in scope than their ability to satisfy them. As a result, they have to weight and decide what seems important to them in the respective environment and in the respective situation.
* The value and the market
- In the market, a potential buyer and the potential seller have to agree on a common value for the exchange of a certain good. They will only come to an agreement if the potential buyer considers the specific usefulness of the product to be sufficiently large for the exchange.
- In the bazaar, in the wholesale trade, etc., this is done in dialogue, in the department store by unilaterally adapting the buyer to the seller's specifications.
- Both variants contain a subjective component, which can be seen very clearly in the bazaar, in the department store this can be recognized by the fact that the buyer has to decide whether to buy the product or not.
- If he does not buy it and no one else buys it either, the work expended on it was, according to Marx, not socially useful and therefore not value-building either. For the formation of value, therefore, a seemingly sufficient usefulness is a prerequisite.
Marx also says that a labor product only becomes a commodity (and only then does the labor used for it qualify as socially useful and thus also as value-creating) when it becomes a use value for others through exchange.
- The exchange takes place on the market by hand over a value equivalent in exchange for the work product.
- If the buyer and seller cannot agree on a common value, there will be no exchange - a sales price and a different purchase price cannot appear on the sales contract or on the invoice.
- On closer inspection, value is consequently only formed on the market, even according to Marx.
- Only the prerequisites or possible reference points for value relationships and thus for values are produced.
- This happens when a value equivalent is given in exchange for the desired product.
- The value formula must therefore also be specified for the market:
W|real = c|cost replacement + v|cost replacement + s|real.
- The real value is reflected in the purchase or sale price.
- But value is not produced on the market, it is formed and assigned there.
- This makes it clear that the value is not formed from the production costs plus an expected surplus value, but from the replacement of the costs plus the real surplus value.
- Value is based on the recognition of the expenses and not the expenses themselves.
- This also corresponds with Marx, who formulates that the work done does not directly determine the value, but only that which is recognized as socially useful.
- The usefulness is not recognized with words like “That is very useful!”, but by exchanging it for a value equivalent, which shows the value formula for the market.
* The surplus value
- However, there can only be surplus value if the buyer fully recognizes the expenses, i.e. fully replaces them and then pays even more, i.e. the surplus value.
- In this way, so-called “unpaid working hours” can only be determined in retrospect, after the sale, and this makes it clear that capitalist exploitation only works if the work products are sold with added value.
* The objective and subjective in value
** The objective portion of the value
- The common value quantity is the objective share in the value relationship and thus in the value.
- This is on the sales contract, on the invoice, according to which the socially relevant VAT is paid, the objective transfer of money from the buyer to the seller takes place in exactly this amount, the goods are objectively exchanged as an equivalent for exactly this value equivalent, an insurance policy may be required paid according to this value, in many cases even more is based on this value.
** The subjective proportions of the value
- The subjective shares of the value are the reflections of the objective value quantity in the consciousness processes of the exchange partner.
- When building a value relationship, these are initially different in many cases.
- The purchase decision and thus the decision about socially useful work and its recognition as value-creating are subjectively influenced, especially the surplus value payment, which is usually different for the same products at different retailers.
* Production cost and value
- Only usually the production costs have to be replaced in the long run and a surplus value that appears to be sufficient has to be paid, namely when production is to be continued and expanded as far as possible and new products are to be developed.
- That is also an objective fact of value.
Hmm thinking about the ladder example. What if there are two workers: one is a skilled ladder builder and the other is not. In the same amount of labour hours, and with the same inputs, the first builds a safe and useful ladder and the other builds a dysfunctional ladder that falls apart if you attempt to use it. The value of the inputs and the quantity of labour is the same but the value of the output is clearly not. This must be because the value of the output is related not to the amount of labour involved in producing it but to its usefulness. Where have I gone wrong here?
Brandon Ogle - as you put question mark at the end and no one bothered to reply so far, I say: when there two human beings with different qualities of output then we must take questions beyond economics. We should ask why this one is skilled and other not. Again you will find the one produces low quality had suffered socially, racially, economically, access to education and might lived in poor neighbourhood which they collectively had other more urgent priorities then paying high price for learning top skills which everything has a price depend which part of society you are living. Socialism not just concerns about public ownership but deeper social issues which privatised world and capitalism cares about bottom lines and others are seen a collateral damages as Talmudist Zionist war criminal Madeline Albright said: “the price worth it” when they killed 500,000 Iraqi children and millions since that time not just in Iraq but Afghanistan Syria Yemen Libya Africa etc.
When west try to teach others respect for minorities equality democracy and human right the world looks at west and deeply analysis the western societies which they have institutionalised racism, fake election and bought and sold politicians by lobbyists, fake media and democracy to choose not to follow religions and have sexual freedom democracy only not in other social political racial economical spheres. If the west had real elections and democracy then the west would not have gone for wars genocide destruction stealing of other nations. When the west doesn’t have the real democracy and real election and equality inclusiveness then the rest of the world sees it a old colonialists, racists, slave master thieves genocide machine and Nazis and it give the inspiration and determination to fight you and destroy you in their region and as a system.
You dismissed the notion of labor productivity, which is a concern on a much larger scale of economy than just two competing workers. Other than that, if a ladder just falls apart, it's not a real thing that you should produce. Basically, it's not a ladder, because it doesn't function as one. The question is, will the owner of such broken ladders just give them away for free? Obviously, no.
@@MalleusImperiorum I didn't dismiss anything, I was working with the example that was in the video. I think all that shows is that economic value (and what creates it) is of a much larger scale than individual workers and the quantity of their labour; that's why the example given by Richard Wolff doesn't work. Surely the low quality ladder is not worth as much as the high quality ladder. A poorly made ladder is still a ladder; it doesn't have to be completely dysfunctional (e.g., the balance could be off so it wobbles dangerously, the steps could be poorly spaced, or fastened to the frame improperly). Yes, it won't be given away for nothing, but it won't sell for as much as the high quality ladder. Because it's not as useful.
@@brandonogle9565 If it can be used as a ladder, it is EXACTLY as useful. But it still doesn't contradict the labor theory. As a result of poor quality of the product (because the employer saved on the initial investments), the profits are lower (of course, if the pure productivity is lower, not the time spent).
The worker who built the ladder earns less, which is obviously because he's less competent. Therefore, there is less exploitation involved in absolute figures, thus the final price of the ladder is lower. That's the point. The ladder becomes less valuable because the worker himself is less valuable for the business.
The proof is simple: you've never seen the price on a product rapidly rising as it becomes more and more popular. Popularity doesn't make it more valuable. The price stays the same as long as there is no shortage, but even then it barely increases.
@@MalleusImperiorum I disagree. If it cannot be used as easily or as safely, then it can be used as a ladder only in some fraction of the possible situations in which the high quality ladder can be used. So it's not as useful (i.e., it's utility is lower). First, there was no employer in the original scenario: the ladder builders were using their labour to create a product for sale on the market with the same materials and time spent. So it's not that the incompetent ladder builder is paid a lower wage, the product of his labour has less economic value and so he gets less in return for it. You agree that they are of different value: that means that the value of a product does not come from the quantity of labour used to produce it. The quality of labour matters, and this is defined by the usefulness or utility of the product. And popularity (i.e., demand) does make a product's price increase. Supply AND demand. Basic stuff. That's why advertisers pay so much for celebrity endorsements. It's why a video game console, or new iPhone, costs way more when it first comes out. Because many people are willing to pay a higher price for it.