Marx Part 1: Labour u0026 Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube

Video quality	The size	Download

Information Marx Part 1: Labour u0026 Class Conflict | Philosophy Tube

Title	:	Marx Part 1: Labour u0026 Class Conflict \| Philosophy Tube
Lasting	:	8.36
Date of publication	:
Views	:	541 rb

A capitalist would argue that surplus value is their return on investment from taking what we call "risk" For example, I met an Uber driver once who was $100,000 in debt because he started a restaurant business that failed Had he succeeded, he'd be earning a lot of excess money each year But not every business succeeds and labor doesn't take the risk that business owners do For that reason its kind of odd to talk about labor and capitalism without talking about the concept of risk
Comment from : Myles Hungerford

Marx was thinking in a period when there were lots of factories in Europe that were basically sweat-shops It's hard to put his ideas to use in a non sweat-shop society
Comment from : carley northcoast

just realized my 1st grade teacher was a marxist thank god she got to me a little early
Comment from : CorkIM

I’ve read Marx and my ADHD made it extremely difficult to understand I came away understanding little of what I read This helped so much I was able to connect your explanation to what I read and things clicked Thank you so much
Comment from : Erik Elmer

das capital being on audible feels equivalent to torries selling trans flags
Comment from : dorian

I was searching for a good video on Marx, saw this and was like "Abigail from 6 years ago will definitely explain this better than these other boring videos" I was correct
Comment from : Vivian

Most likely no one is going to read this, as the video is 6 years old, but the video did get one key thing wrong About half way through the video, it is said that under wage labor, you sell your labor power and time, but that is incorrect In both "Wage Labor and Capital" and in "Capital" it is described that you are selling yourself, not your time It is pointed out that it seems to be a minor change in wording, but it actually changes how wage labor should be discussed and acts under capitalism
Comment from : Class Calamity

Class conflict 6:00
Comment from : Franklin Benjamin Caacbay

This is an incomplete and incorrect analysis at quite a few points and on quite a few levels Let's break it down:brbrIt seems throughout the video that you believe Marx thought value, as an objective characteristic of the product of labour, measured by SNLT, is a trans-historical category, even one that would hold under communism This shows through when you say prices can be "unfair", and that this forms part of the reason why marginalism ignores a theory of value, along with the idea that under capitalism you don't get what your labour is breally/b worth Despite how appealing this critique of exploitation appears at first glance, it is far from what Marx himself believed brbr"Political economy has indeed analysed value and its magnitude, however incompletely, and has uncovered the content concealed within these forms But it has never once asked the question why this content has assumed that particular form, that is to say, why labour is expressed in value and why the measurement of labour by its duration is expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product These formulas, which bear the unmistakable stamp of belonging to a social formation in which the process of production has mastery over man, instead of the opposite, appear to the political economists' bourgeois consciousness to be as much a self-evident and nature-imposed necessity as productive labour itself"br-Karl Marx, Capital volume 1, pg 175 (Penguin Edition)brbrThis form of social production is capitalist production (pg 988) and therefore labour-value is a byproduct of bourgeois society Why is this so? because private property presupposes the socialization of labour via exchange, which means labour must be equalized in order to express its relation to the total labour of society as an objective characteristic of the product (pg 165) Commodities are only really brought into relation to each other as values once this purely social objectivity can ground itself in a general equivalent, and make value into price (pg 180-81), therefore money is the "necessary form of appearance" of immediate commodity-values, and we cannot merely settle for the quantitative measure of value in labour-time (Marx makes this clear in his criticisms of Proudhon) Furthermore, this whole analysis of circulation presupposes industrial capital oriented towards exchange as the only adequate form of existence of value as self-valorizing (MECW, 28:186) and therefore of the domination of the product over the producer Your analysis of the "labour theory of value" is not only incomplete, but presupposes precisely the bourgeois conditions of production that you want to criticize Marx repeatedly emphasized exchange as the socialization of labour would not appear in communist society, and therefore value would cease to exist (Grundrisse, exchange-value as social bond) brbr"Under capitalism [] you are always being paid less than what your labour is actually worth" brbr1) The expression of what labour is worth expresses a confusion brought about by the wage-form that it is extremely important to avoid Marx says, at the beginning of chapter 19, that labour is the substance of value, but it *has no value itself* This is because the value of labour-power determines the cost of purchasing the commodity of labour-power, but what actually enters into the process of production is the use-value of this commodity, ie the production of value, which is itself valueless This is what the distinction between constant and variable capital is founded on, the value of the MoP reappears in the product because it is made up of dead-labour contributing to the value of the product through metempsychosis, whereas variable capital investments transform a constant magnitude into the ability to produce new value If labour was "worth" some constant magnitude, capital would be unable to valorize itself! brbr2) Surplus-value is not founded on unequal exchange Due to the fact that valorization cannot occur within the sphere of circulation, a commodity must be found whose consumption consists in the production of value, however this solution arises precisely within accordance with the exchange of equivalents brbr"the value of labour-power, and the value which that labour-power valorizes in the labour-process, are two entirely different magnitudes [] The useful quality of labour-power [] was to the capitalist merely the necessary condition for his activity [] this transaction he acts in accordance with the eternal laws of commodity-exchange [] the laws governing the exchange of commodities have not been violated in any way Equivalent has been exchanged for equivalent"br-Karl Marx, Capital volume 1, pg 301brbrMarx says in his Notes on Adolph Wagner that commodity production, that is, *the production of value and the exchange of equivalents*, must at some point become capitalist production, and that he does not consider surplus-value to be a "deduction" from the value-product, but rather that from the standpoint of value production WAGES are a deduction and impediment to its own self-expansion I hope this comment makes it clear how and why Marx was extremely critical of what you refer to as the "labour theory of value", and why communism necessitates the immediate socialization of labour, ie the relation between the individual producer and the total labour of society will not appear in the equalization of qualitatively heterogeneous products into their homogeneous equality as values on the market This is a consequence of private labour, which is not immediately social but is established as such only within exchange, and therefore in communism "the presupposition is itself mediated" (as Marx puts it), ie labour is immediately presupposed as towards communal purposes and goals
Comment from : Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi

Man your camera is NOT a mean of production, maybe your means of subsistance Means of production are basically Land, Industries and etc You cannot simply twist a theory to turn it into a more didactic way
Comment from : Ecos do Passado

Marx defined communism in three words, No Private Property! John Bellamy Foster expounds on Marx's concept of metabolic rift There is no surplus in nature Private property is illegitimate Inheritance only compounds injustice Einstein recognized the evil of capitalism as the greatest threat to human survival in his essay on socialism
Comment from : jen zydyk

stupid
Comment from : Thi Tran Lanh

Can your videos support Turkish subtitles? Believe me, there are many people watching you from Turkey (I am one of them)
Comment from : Leonhard Euler

She used to look like someone who was a drummer in a Britpop band until getting kicked out for always starting endless theoretical conversations instead of practicing the music
Comment from : Sir Fizz

Marxism is the best ideology thanks for the explanation I love centrist people who state the facts
Comment from : Jett Kidd

It is truly humbling to see that my ideas are still being spread Remember this, a truly equal society must be educated and push for fairer change
Comment from : Karl Marx

there are so many falsehoods in his theory that its hardly a theory, its basically just delusion
Comment from : Шизофре

<3
Comment from : Aggelos Georgakis

You have to revisit this Make the ultimate, updated video on Revolution and Communism or Leftism
Comment from : Leo Revolt

karl marx was a fat lazy racist bum that never set foot in a factory and moched of of Frederick
Comment from : Ronald Labelle

Good hopefully when I get called a Marxist it will be by people who know what they are talking about
Comment from : Neon Seraphim

Can you make a video to explain how production for direct use happens under socialism without money? brI mean how planning is done? brCentralised or decentralised, how can we measure how much food we have to produce for people? brAnd how can we get in touch as a population to say what we need, we are millions in one nation How can we gather all this information?
Comment from : George Soap

"March is my month of Marx" lol
Comment from : Abigail Pew

if time is money how come belle delphine makes millions off of tiny tiktok videos ?
Comment from : yotamarker

hey Abi, I dont know if you can stomach watching your own videos; I know I wouldnt :P but as a long time fan I want to say how much I appreciate that you left us your earlier work brits all great stuff :-)
Comment from : Diddy Melone

Jesus abigale How do you transition and look so beautiful? Not to creep or simp Just that im shocked is all- i couldnt honestly seeing my face looking different when i start hrt
Comment from : Atheist Mando

Abigail I'm obsessed with your channel
Comment from : Eusênia Cossa

DADDY
Comment from : Rafael Luca de tena

shouldve called it "Marx Madness"
Comment from : Loading

my favourite teacher
Comment from : Liar

I studied science all my life and always felt that something was lacking Some connection I’ve just finished my MS thesis on microbiology of oral contamination, so I thought I was quite clever I’m trying very hard to understand this philosophy thing, and I feel that I come here in order to feel stupid 🤣 and it’s somehow very much liberating! I’ve watched all the videos that are available now in 2021 and I’ll be damned if Abby is not the best thing that happened to me in a long, long time All my respect to you, miss ♥️
Comment from : Yessie A

Please learn how to spell "labor"
Comment from : Joseph Kanowitz

Marx es mi ídolo 👍👍👍👍👍👍☺☺😎👍👍👞😱☺☺😱😱
Comment from : Estelita De La Torre

Baby's first steps in Marxism
Comment from : traketso

Reminds me of resource theory in physics, labour is an allowed operator, and by applying this operator to a free state, turns it into a resource
Comment from : Tom

I found Das Kapital hard to understand, thanks for the summary!
Comment from : Something Else

Este vídeo no tenía subtítulos en español hace un tiempo?
Comment from : Félix Joel De Jesús

The class analysis yielded three definite predictions First, it predicted that the proletariat would both increase as a percentage of the population and become poorer: as capitalist competition progressed, more and more people would be forced to sell their labor; and as the supply of those selling their labor increased, the wages they could demand would necessarily decrease Second, it predicted that the middle class would decrease to a very small percentage of the population: zero-sum competition means there are winners and losers, and while a few would consistently be winners and thus become rich capitalists, most would lose at some point and be forced into the proletariat Third, it predicted that the capitalists would also decrease as a percentage of the population: zero-sum competition also applies to competition among the capitalists, generating a few consistent winners in control of everything while the rest would be forced down the economic ladderbrbrYet that was not how it worked out By the early twentieth century it seemed that all three of the predictions failed to characterize the development of the capitalist countries The class of manual laborers had both declined as a percentage of the population and become relatively better off And the middle class had grown substantially both as a percentage of the population and in wealth, as had the upper classbrbrMarxist socialism thus faced a set of theoretical problems: Why had the predictions not come to pass? Even more pressing was the practical problem of impatience: If the proletarian masses were the material of revolution, why were they not revolting? The exploitation and alienation had to be there—despite surface appearances—and it had to be being felt by capitalism’s victims, the proletariat So what was to be done about the decidedly non-revolutionary working class? After decades of waiting hopefully and pouncing on any sign of worker dissatisfaction and unrest, the plain fact was that the proletariat was not going to revolt any time soon
Comment from : Mian Feng

Marx was more of an activist than a serious thinker, you'll see this if you compare his works with other economists He doesn't do basic things like explain his assumptions or use a consistent methodology
Comment from : Dan Martin

TIL hours have 100 minutes in them Fr tho great vid even tho it's old still great!
Comment from : Michael Newton

Annoyingly informitive
Comment from : William Kibler

No tiene subtítulos en español :(
Comment from : Félix Joel De Jesús

It is important to understand the distortions and misunderstandings of Marx His entire system is very 19th century Philosophy tube here incorrectly states, "Labor for Marx is really important because it's the only thing that can increase the value of what you have" That is easily disprovablebrbrThe equipment or machinery of the manufacturer play a huge role int the value of a product Look at a weaver in cottage spinning wool to make a garment It takes them weeks to make a garmentbrCompare that to a factory with precision machinery The same spinner could make 100 garments in day of higher quality brbrMarx, like Philosophy tube, has no understanding of business The value of any product is influenced by a number of factors, not just the labor of worker The quality of machinery or the equipment, the company marketing, the business connections of the owner, whatever is happening with currency (prices will be very low in deflation), the supply and demand of the product in addition to the supply and demand of the workers brbrIf the product can not be sold, the worker's labor has next to no value You can't keep paying workers if the products don't sell or sell for less than manufacturing costs It is the market that decides costs, not the workerbrbrMarx's and PT's other misunderstanding involves that "Labor is the source of all value" This completely ignores the question of value, which is entirely subjective The real value of the product is what people are willing to pay for it This can fluctuate greatly Any product or service has both subjective and objective elementsbrbrIt is time to completely throw Marx NO socialist country has ever lived up to the economic promises of Marx Marxism is a non moral or amoral system that has no ethics when applied to destroying Capitalist society Anything is acceptable
Comment from : Mian Feng

Communism 101 Lesson #1 Communism is garbage Get a job Get a life Lesson #2 Refer to lesson #1
Comment from : Sean Hewson

Marx was a prick So was Spencer come to think of it
Comment from : irish-medi-weed-grower

Marx himself was a greedy bastard
Comment from : Greg Swimsalot

olly, you and david harvey are literally saving my life, i chose to write an essay about das kapital and i didn't know what i was getting into :-))))))
Comment from : molotov mafia

So why is surplus value always exploitation? How would any business function without some probability?
Comment from : M76Q5

:)
Comment from : sadgameboy

This is hilarious, a Youtube channel that calls itself "Philosophy Tube" covering a social scientist who despised philosophy and did everything that he could to reject it Why not cover philosphers, they are much more interesting, much more informative, and some of what they say, in contrast to Marx, is not theological
Comment from : Jeff Friedman

Marx confused value with utility There is nothing intrinsic in an object that gives it value in general It is only valuable in relation to subjective human needs Value is temporal, quantitative and marginal
Comment from : Mike R

Huh
Comment from : Dragunov

Can somebody please describe to me how the concept of class changed from the Smith / Ricardo /Marx period to the post- marginalist period, basically the end of the Labour theory of value in favour of subjective theory How did the concept adapt to this development?
Comment from : Alex Gibson

Like handmade or ✋ handicrafted products are usually more expensive than products made by machines in a factory except a Ferrari or a lumbargini race car or luxury cars
Comment from : Nelson Gonzalez

This is great Though you had me at Marx and lost me at Audible aka Amazon aka 💀
Comment from : lamc3

This video is so wrong, I dont even know where to begin All labor isnt equal, a Drs 1 hour labor is not the same as a lawnmower's 1 hour because there is "skilled labor" Also you didnt "make the product that your boss sells for a profit completely by yourself" did you??? Did you use your own tools? Did you make your own sale? Because if you did, you would be able to keep 100 of the revenue IF you made any at all You can use other ppls tools and labor and take 100 of the revenue This is basic logic 101
Comment from : Nikola Newton

don't grow your facial hair back
Comment from : Obden M

lol i’m the 1000th comment
Comment from : jasper dean

Engineering lad here ! You just helped me complete my sociology assignment dude I was a goner if it weren't for you and a few other dudes on youtube
Comment from : Dhammadeep Karmankar

Can anyone help me out here? I don't understand the theory of surplus value (around 4:18) as explained If the first 4 hours of your labour covers the cost of your needs (food, clothes, shelter), wouldn't the other 4 hours of the day (the surplus value) just be extra money for you? It seems like in that example, you get the surplus value (ie your wages minus your cost of living)brbrSide note: I feel like this theory of value does not allow for the possibility that the person employing you adds value through other means (organizing a work force, establishing points of sale, advertising, etc)
Comment from : Zeek

Capitalism is dying
Comment from : Candice M

Great video but you spoke so fast i couldn't keep upThanks for making these videos,i am hoping to learn more about the modern day political landscape to be better rounded,since so many extremists are running about
Comment from : Ryan Piercea

Young olly young olly
Comment from : Lugus

Labor theory of value is objectively wrong It fails to take into account commodities that have inelastic prices Also price has nothing to do with labor Your example about automation lower prices is wrong Prices fall because certain commodities are less expensive to make when they are processed with a machine than a person Sometimes the machines take just as long as a human would take but the expense of creating it would be less than a person making it because you have to pay wagesbrbrAlso when automated commodities are produced they is typically more finished goods This increases supply while demand remains constant causing the price to go downbrbrFor the case of cars or televisions this isn’t the case The price for a large commodity like a car or tv is inelastic Changes in supply and demand don’t effect the price for the car Because the car has a relatively fixed cost of production and people are only going to pay so much So they price typically whatever they can get away with that is more than the cost of manufacturingbrbrIf labour theory of value was correct We would see a huge market for hand crafted Cars, TVs, computers phones etc Because they would be marketed as luxury items and being of higher value and sold at a mark up But they aren’t
Comment from : SirMemesAlot

Omg thank you for this I missed a week of school and I had no idea what everyone was talking about so this helpedddd :)
Comment from : xolosleftbootycheek

The ignorance of this man has no limits You need more economics economics for dummies and history
Comment from : Mexican Judge

yoochube
Comment from : pwnedshift1

I'd really like an explanation of how labour theory explains labour intensive but low cost endeavours You seems to have skipped over it, but its seem like a fundamental flaw to me
Comment from : Aeolium

So what I got from this is that by us using Olly's audible code we are applying labour to the commodity which is Olly's audible affiliate link increasing the value of such and which in turn olly takes all the value of, therefore we are being exploited by Olly through capitalistic means
Comment from : Darragh OSullivan

Listening to this while at my shitty factory job lmao
Comment from : Finnian Day

search for: "Yaron Answers: What's Wrong with the Labor Theory of Value?"
Comment from : Jimbo Jones

Everyone's a Marxist until Carl Menger shoves the intellectual shotgun up your ass and makes you think non consensually
Comment from : Yash Awasthi

Lmao I got an ad for LinkedIn
Comment from : Sha Zank

so in the labour theory of value a machine transfers its value into the products it makes but allows the workers that operate and maintain those machines a greater level of productivity letting their labor produce more value is that right?brbrif it is i can see the kind of inevitability of capitalisms collapse under this theory and with our modern perspective as technology and infrastructure improves, productivity improves, but wages don't and so the level of exploitation felt by workers would follow at some point productivity would increase exponentially with automation and the system would collapsebrbrit also shows how pointless UBI is as it would only marginally delay that collapse
Comment from : EvelynNdenial

I could listen to you talk about--wait, economics is about as boring as it gets, and I just listened :)
Comment from : Alex Obed

Society is a complex system You need varied skill sets for varied needs -- plumber, electrician, banker, engineer, doctor etc br brSkills, intellect, effort required to master these professions would be different and hence their economic rewards would be different Different economic rewards over time would create classes br brSo, for a complex civilization, class is a necessary evil br brThe best we can do is to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to pursue any profession/education he wants to Is the above true?
Comment from : Liberal Studies Materials

Nice to see Michael Fish’s “don’t worry, there’s no hurricane” is still a thing
Comment from : Simon Williams

Unavoidably exploitativebr👏👏👏👏👏👏 Ask the heck capitalist to counter this argument of Marx (Capitaliats underwear will most probably turn yellow with foul smell emanating)
Comment from : Pigeons 🐦

You making a video is not capitalist production The tools you use to make a YouTube video are not private property; they're your personal property Capitalist production requires the exploitation of laborers You're not exploiting anyone by making a YouTube video Making a YouTube video and even profiting off of it would be perfectly fine in a Socialist societybrIf you've made that big a mistake in the first two minutes of your video, I have to assume the rest is not worth hearing
Comment from : Casey Thornton

60 million murdered - and no social justice in the end with communism just worse oppression
Comment from : Talking Story

What about automation and AI now taking millions of jobs
Comment from : Talking Story

I believe that Marxism lacks what makes our nation great but believe that it's great for the world to have the two competing It pushes up to go beyond where we are and without us the Marxist wouldn't grow into things as advanced or it'd take much longer That's why our techs being stolen from China This is true to me but only if it doesn't lead to war Also the lack of freedom and liberty is another issue I'm happy here Just my personal opinion When I was younger the Marxist sounded very good I do believe that an amount of socialism has become part of the US and capatalism has become part of the so far successful Communist state, (China) I believe the ideas are merging into some unique one coming out of democracy and one coming out of communism The big problem is will that merge into one system stay in parallel or come to conflict? This should be studied so that it can be guided j f possible to prevent a world war Just my personal proposal and theory
Comment from : Robert Spears

to us, peasants, is that the "china han xin art of the ants" is further proved to be true by karl marx logic: IN NUMBER ND N UNITY THERE IS STRENGTH
Comment from : Go Far

Channels like this are nothing more than marxist propaganda
Comment from : Rorschachs Journal

Well done comrade
Comment from : ju ju

Stable social tools are pursued by every theoretical scholar, but builders are not as famous as saboteurs Marx's reputation is to remind the builders and defenders of capitalism, let them be alert to the loopholes of capitalism, and improve them Even today, the United States and Europe use socialism and emphasize government intervention in the market brThe liberal economy was destroyed, but capitalism remained But nowadays, with the problems of political system and domestic politics, capitalism encounters a major economic crisis, and the problems exposed are becoming increasingly serious: the gap between the rich and the poor, ethnic issues, economic issues, immigration issues, ideological solidification, many things are institutional issues brWithout changing the capitalist system, there is no way to solve their domestic problems, but this destructiveness is dangerous for those behind them It broke out with a Cold War mentality, a political bloc confrontation, an invisible hand wanted to subvert the "my mind", "my system", such an emotion kidnapped these 70-80-year-old control countries Old man brFor young people, this is not an ideological problem, but pragmatism You want national survival, production and construction, thinking more in line with the times, you must make changes This is not a big deal, but the reality is that a mechanism that has been running for hundreds of years is resisting the "radical" thinking of young people br brThe obstruction of vested interest groups, the solidification of old people's thinking, and the clear-minded but less experienced young people suppress this dissatisfied people The status quo is intertwined and confrontational brIn the face of the new situation in the world, Western society is first of all domestic thinking Domestic interest groups are fighting against each other If the West cannot even recognize and unite internally, it is impossible to establish consensus in thought, and it is also impossible to unify understanding politically Rising countries, this is the reality that they must make changes, otherwise they will gradually fall behind
Comment from : 陈陳