Capitalists can create scarcity to increase value. Control the supply for a commodity which is necessary, people will be willing to pay more for it, it's value goes up
It’s an example of further division of labor and exploitation under capitalism to more efficiently extract profits. It’s foolish to act as though all teaching jobs are government employment and not for profit under capitalism (universities for example). Although most schools are either state funded or receive some form of government funding, acting as though academia and government jobs in general exist outside of the capitalist system or are not subject to its laws and therefore could not be used as examples is even more foolish. Capitalism does not merely comprise the private sector, it is an entire socio-economic system that dominates and influences all aspects of our lives.
Nonsense. A company loses money when they don’t extract as much surplus value from their employees as their competitors do, because they then have less money to spend on developing the means of production, meaning they get outcompeted. Therefore, a given company can lose money even when they extract surplus value, which is what Marx is referring to when he says “exploitation.” To reiterate: companies that do not exploit the labor-power of their employees for a net benefit do not profit, and are put out of business. Sorry, but that was a dogshit strawman.
A company that loses money will have to change its tactics and go back to making money (i.e. exploiting workers more efficiently) or they will go out of business. You'll agree that very few business have "lose all our money" as their long-term strategy, hence why the entire economy is based around the exploitation of workers via wage theft
@@fenceyhen4249 What do you mean when you say "exploit". I mean if businesses are making the most efficient use of labour, inherently they are adding to the value of the output. It seems you are making a case FOR profit, rather than against it.
The funny thing about this presenter was she kept complaining about the issues of working as a teacher, which is a government job. Her complaints would only be intensified under socialism. If you look at the private sector, if you can produce you are rewarded. A good teacher can make good money. The problem is many teachers just want a job and aren't willing to do what it takes to increase their value.
@@janko4648 People are both inherently selfish and care about others too. People want to be loved. With capitalism they seek power through helping others. In socialism they seek power through controlling others. The between the two has always been freedom vs. slavery. Socialists believe if the government controlled everything the world would be a better place. The government would take care of people. But means controlling the people so they behave in the way the government needs. Under capitalism the capitalists serve the needs of the customers. The freedom of people drives the market and capitalists must serve the people.
@@janko4648 Yeah, I was really just adding to what you wrote. It is difficult for those who embrace socialism to understand and I'm not sure how to explain to them why capitalism is the better of the two systems if you really care about your fellow man.
@@SociallyTriggered But Marx covered that. Greed is a byproduct of the system of commodity exchange and currency. In societies without systems of commodity exchange, in systems where what is produced by all is shared by all without exchange of individually produced commodities (which was the predominant mode of production for nearly the entirety of human existence), it is in the common interest of all to ensure the best life for all so they can all fulfill their needs. Fiat currency creates greed by assigning artificial value to pieces of paper or electronic transactions in lieu of commodities of equal value.
@@bionicleman1231 Greed is not new. It has existed long before fiat currency and in some ways it isn't a bad thing. Often greed is what drives us to do more and build and to advance mankind. The common interest were good were shared evenly among the group was never a thing. When mankind was younger and more tribal, we lived in small groups usually based on family lines. Within families we try to make sure everyone gets feed and is taken care of. This is important. But still within families there was an imbalance. Those who were required to fight, hunt or protect the tribe would get more because it was essential for them to be stronger. The socialist dream of everyone working hard and sharing stuff evenly has never existed and would never work.
@@SociallyTriggered what you described in hunter-gatherer socities isn't greed, it's primitive communism. "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
rather good series of talks from socialist appeal on das capital.intresting indeed thx for sharing.
Smart YOUNG Gal ! Better more informative than the presenters of my collage !
Great talk, thank you!
Thank you.
Capitalists can create scarcity to increase value. Control the supply for a commodity which is necessary, people will be willing to pay more for it, it's value goes up
Really good
Hello everyone, I miss you
Can't use teaching profession in capitalism criticism, government employment. Very bad example.
It’s an example of further division of labor and exploitation under capitalism to more efficiently extract profits. It’s foolish to act as though all teaching jobs are government employment and not for profit under capitalism (universities for example). Although most schools are either state funded or receive some form of government funding, acting as though academia and government jobs in general exist outside of the capitalist system or are not subject to its laws and therefore could not be used as examples is even more foolish. Capitalism does not merely comprise the private sector, it is an entire socio-economic system that dominates and influences all aspects of our lives.
Marx didn't understand the economic theories he criticised.
“No, I will not elaborate.”
Can you tell your presenters to not make anecdotes and to instead talk about the chapters?
You mean examples?
By this logic a company that loses money is being exploited by it's workers.
Nonsense.
A company loses money when they don’t extract as much surplus value from their employees as their competitors do, because they then have less money to spend on developing the means of production, meaning they get outcompeted.
Therefore, a given company can lose money even when they extract surplus value, which is what Marx is referring to when he says “exploitation.”
To reiterate: companies that do not exploit the labor-power of their employees for a net benefit do not profit, and are put out of business.
Sorry, but that was a dogshit strawman.
A company that loses money will have to change its tactics and go back to making money (i.e. exploiting workers more efficiently) or they will go out of business. You'll agree that very few business have "lose all our money" as their long-term strategy, hence why the entire economy is based around the exploitation of workers via wage theft
@@westerbeck8229 Not a strawman at all. Just reversing the logic.
@@fenceyhen4249 What do you mean when you say "exploit".
I mean if businesses are making the most efficient use of labour, inherently they are adding to the value of the output.
It seems you are making a case FOR profit, rather than against it.
The funny thing about this presenter was she kept complaining about the issues of working as a teacher, which is a government job. Her complaints would only be intensified under socialism. If you look at the private sector, if you can produce you are rewarded. A good teacher can make good money. The problem is many teachers just want a job and aren't willing to do what it takes to increase their value.
@@janko4648 People are both inherently selfish and care about others too. People want to be loved. With capitalism they seek power through helping others. In socialism they seek power through controlling others. The between the two has always been freedom vs. slavery. Socialists believe if the government controlled everything the world would be a better place. The government would take care of people. But means controlling the people so they behave in the way the government needs. Under capitalism the capitalists serve the needs of the customers. The freedom of people drives the market and capitalists must serve the people.
@@janko4648 Yeah, I was really just adding to what you wrote. It is difficult for those who embrace socialism to understand and I'm not sure how to explain to them why capitalism is the better of the two systems if you really care about your fellow man.
@@SociallyTriggered But Marx covered that. Greed is a byproduct of the system of commodity exchange and currency. In societies without systems of commodity exchange, in systems where what is produced by all is shared by all without exchange of individually produced commodities (which was the predominant mode of production for nearly the entirety of human existence), it is in the common interest of all to ensure the best life for all so they can all fulfill their needs. Fiat currency creates greed by assigning artificial value to pieces of paper or electronic transactions in lieu of commodities of equal value.
@@bionicleman1231 Greed is not new. It has existed long before fiat currency and in some ways it isn't a bad thing. Often greed is what drives us to do more and build and to advance mankind. The common interest were good were shared evenly among the group was never a thing. When mankind was younger and more tribal, we lived in small groups usually based on family lines. Within families we try to make sure everyone gets feed and is taken care of. This is important. But still within families there was an imbalance. Those who were required to fight, hunt or protect the tribe would get more because it was essential for them to be stronger.
The socialist dream of everyone working hard and sharing stuff evenly has never existed and would never work.
@@SociallyTriggered what you described in hunter-gatherer socities isn't greed, it's primitive communism. "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs"