You must adopt it because you‘re still in capitalism world

You need to ask for a pay rise then. If that doesn’t work you can go get another job, or save up money and apply your ideas into your own business. Nothing is stopping you.

@@mrsentencename7334 🤣

@@t.m.2415 am I right? lol I dunno if I’m being too harsh but this always worked for me

@@mrsentencename7334 I thought you where being ironic. Just know that you are in an enormously privileged position if what you're saying is true.

Its a straw man argument. Its the land monopolist who takes the surplus, not the innovator. California is full of innovators and it has the highest land values anywhere because so many workers want to work there. These workers bid away their pay just to live where they can work for the innovators. the money goes to landowners and banks.

As a direct descendent of the individual who patented modern piping and the urinal, among others, I can 'safely' say I am more fortunate to live in a society with such necessities than without, like in New York in the 1870's, not reaping the financial benefits to this day.

No, actually unlike Richard Wolff, the experts you're talking about know that if you spend a lot of money in order to start a burger business,for example,it doesn't mean that the people hired to flip burgers should own a chunk of the business because they didn't take any risks, but they are guaranteed a paycheck if the business succeed!

@@juniorgod321 I think Dr. Wolff also countered that argument well too. In his video he explained that the employer has the economic means and power to overcome the possible business risks (can loan money, can move or change business, fire or lay off workers), while the risks for the workers/employees are way higher: losing job, unhealthy/dangerous work conditions, low wages that cause stress, etc. To equate employer risk with employee risk is a false equivalency, IMHO. He also explained very well that business ideas and innovation are not exclusive domain of some (often privileged) individuals, but rather a collective and interactive process. The technological ideas that Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Besos came up with were variations of knowledge and ideas learned from others, most of whom did not become ruthless capitalist entrepreneurs like these gentlemen.

@@rubenrodriguez296 That's BS! With my previous example, the burgers business, if my business idea didn't work, I'd possible be with tens of thousand of dollars in debt and possible my financial life ruined ( try borrowing money from a bank and not paying it back to see what happens) and my employees on the other hand, would indeed be without a job(which they can get another), but not with debt!

"Polluter industries exist because consumers want or need the products they produce and don't care or are unaware of the externality costs.

Graeber’s “Debt” is an amazing book! Such important content, and so engagingly told. #RIP to one of the realest.

@@M.Linoge Under Limited Liability laws corporations (the owners thereof) are not even taking a much of a personal risk, just a risk of the inconvenience of filing for L.L.

@@Achrononmaster since its that easy, everybody should do it

@@M.Linoge you are free to quit and start employing and sharing the profits

@@qwert-ps5rd Serfs were free to rally their own armies and establish their own kingdoms by right of conquest so there was literally nothing wrong with feudalism.

@@Ronni3no2 no they weren’t, they had no weapons, no proper training, they revolted only when they felt they had no other options registering a company is 5 minutes work, however, running one is difficult, its much easier to be employed.

When the Black Knights are talking backwards And the Red Queens lost her head Remember, what the dormouse said... Feed your head ! Feed your head !

Nailed what, exactly? Or do you really believe that if I spend thousands of dollars in order to start a business, should the people I hire own a chunk of the company? Do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds?

@@juniorgod321 firstly I did not hear Wolff saying employers must give a portion of the company to the workers. He evaluated the labour theory of value and in what stage of the production the surplus value is being created. Secondly, what you said does not sound ridiculous at all when I think about the fact that without employees, a penny would not have been added to the capital that I want to start a business with. So the bigger my capital becomes by the effort of workers, they deserve a bigger portion of the profit.

@@nasereslami3076 so,I assume you're against people having a set wage, right? Probably you don't realize it, but a lot new businesses need to operate for months or even years losing money or just barely breaking even before turning a profit...all with investors money In that case should the employees work for free? This idea that Richard Wolff supports, that someone will start a take the risk to start business, invest capital and will hire workers who will get paid 100% of their productivity, is just a fantasy...or would you do it?

@@juniorgod321I do realise it because I am working for one of those companies which have not made a profit since its creation. If workers could have survived with no wage yes they must have worked for free. but given the fact that the workers and their families will die without wages and companies are aware of this fact that by the death of workers their companies will die as well they provide workers with some minimum wage to help them reproduce. needless to mention that no company will keep working if they have no hope of making profits in the future. I do not have any comment about Wollf's idea being a fantasy or not. But l always keep in my mind that many things that we might take as granted in this century was a fantasy at some point in history, examples the idea for everyone to be able to compete in the free market, or own property or vote. So what looks a fantasy today may turn into a reality tomorrow

@@nasereslami3076 Good reply. Looking further back, where do employers get their capital? We never started off equal. The reason why most in the West and the world in general do not question the 'system' is because they are dreaming of the American dream sold by the PTB to keep the majority dreaming. Of course, there were rags to riches success stories and that would be publicized to keep the general population dreaming and prevent them from questioning the system. Prof Wolff is talking of a more equitable system which caters for the majority.

It's because Marx theory is about labor and capital, not about specific worker or entrepreneur. His theory is about laws that drive capitalist production in general. Marx also explains capitalism through historical development - as new and progressive system in the beginning that matures and turns into oppressive. Role of capitalist or entrepreneur changes as well. He might start as inventor, but later in order to make more profit he suppresses or steels inventions. Just think how Nicolas Tesla was brought to America because of his inventions, but still died in poverty. Marxism is philosophy of capitalist system and is mostly based on Hegelian systems theory - how system emerges , develops and dies, and how new system emerges on the ruins of the old system . Most likely you can't grasp Marxism, because you don't see capitalism as a system. Entrepreneur ( also worker) is just a clog in the machine that is created to produce more and more profit, and it can't stop until it explodes from internal pressures. Capital is the driving force of this system, not entrepreneur.

An entrepreneur who builds a successful business does get rewarded though, even if they don't get to pocket all the surplus. Also, becoming an entrepreneur is mostly about having capital and opportunity. Lots of people have ideas, but they are worthless unless they are realized through labor.

@@Rhaegar19 I would argue the advantage is having the opportunity to have access to capital. 'Never bet your own money,' as is a common phrase on the Street. Hell, even the billionaire class is borrowing against their own personal gains using the low interest rates artificially available.

@Stephen Stainton and Mongo!

Reminds me of the movie "The Train" starring Burt Lancaster. The ruthless German Colonel was trying to get two rail cranes to help with his project of transporting a cargo of stolen French paintings to Germany at all cost, which was constantly getting de-railed: Colonel von Waldheim: "I asked for two cranes." Major Herren: "It took an order from staff headquarters to get this one. With von Rundstedt falling back, the army has other uses for railway equipment." Colonel von Waldheim: All von Rundstedt can LOSE IS MEN. This train is MORE VALUABLE.

Even so, Japan has the same model as the US as far as how they reward capital and labor is concerned. Essentially they have the same Capitalist model. Prof Wolff is talking/promoting about/a different model.

@@adamiskandar5107 Absolutely, they adopted our model after WW2, in our own attempts to counter what happened to germany after WW1 and to negate the rise of fascism down the line. I understand what Prof. is advocating for and that was not my point. The cultural differences also have it so managers in Japan are actually held accountable by the individual workers they are responsible for helping to organize labor, unlike in the US which is much(much) more hierarchical, top-down.

@@andrewl4814 Agreed.

You should have used the Chinese models of automobile production. The labor unions and Party branches are always in charge, so the business owners must distribute the profits equally among the workers. The means of production are owned by the people through the Communist Party, so the business elites don't own the means to politically create systematic inequalities. In the case of Japan, it is basically neo-feudalism because the workers are still being treated as serfs, while the bosses are all exalted from Shogun bloodlines. In Japan, there is no one coming from rags to riches and power for a long time as all Japanese leaders and business elites have always been the same feudal clans that still rule Japan for hundreds of years. Toyota was created and is still being operated by the same feudal clan for a century now. Japanese working hours are way more horrendous than the West, while hierarchical control of the companies is extremely feudal. There is no innovator coming out to offer new ideas because old guards of those feudal clans will shoot down any decision from those of lower castes. Out of all examples, you picked the worst case where it is neither capitalist nor socialist. As a socialist, I once concurred with the greedy capitalists in the US and EU that Japan must come to the capitalism of the 21st century. Through capitalism, one can transit into socialism.

@@adamiskandar5107 It has nothing to do with rewarding vs. not rewarding. It has to do with being able to own stuff and doing what you want with it. If I work and buy a car with my hard-earned money, it's my choice if I want to rent it out and make profit on it as a piece of productive capital.

Apart from that it is nonsense if you even think a little about it.

@@Cloud_Seeker please elaborate.

Not every idea was formed under capitalism. But even innovations made within the current system, profits made from those innovations do not necessarily go to the person who invented them.

I would love to see professor Wolff in the mainstream

@@artrock8175 I haven’t seen him in msm other than the one Fox News interview.

If the employer is an owner, they are the ones saddled with debt or risking their accumulated wealth. No it makes no sense. The cost of switching a job is far less than unloading a huge amount of debt or pissing away years of accumulated wealth.

@GordiusKnot Tip the waiter more if you choose. It's a free country.

@GordiusKnot that is all lies

@GordiusKnot lol the “everyone who corrects my lies is a fascist” line. Real wages are not stagnant, dumb fuck. Source St Louis Federal Reserve real compensation.

@GordiusKnot nope, wrong again dumb fuck. Fascism is about total state control, which is the exact opposite of private. When people talk about their pay they are talking about compensation, not just cash, and the data does not show that real wages are stagnant. Multiple sources have disproven your claims. Now grow up and know your place.

Any way they must paying for that ceilings big part of income these days !!!

The risk is different that is true. The workers risk starving to death, and the capitalist risks becoming a worker.

Very well said

My cousin who is an economics professor has even said that economics is the least scientific of all "sciences" and that it was more like a religion in a lot of schools. Suffice to say his school of economic thought is not popular amongst mainstream economists. XD

> _You can measure electric potential_ Can you measure an electron's position and momentum? No? Must be because quantum physics is not science then.

​@@Ronni3no2 Quantum physics is theory that found many applications in modern tech, but that doesn't mean it has great scientific explanatory power. Nobody understands how the logical nonsense of wave-corpuscule duality is supposed to work in reality or how electrons eject other particles when they change orbit. They just keep inventing more particles and science poetry to keep it going. A paradigm shift is long overdue.

@@billyoldman9209 Wave-corpuscule duality is a spook, but indeed, nobody understands how things work in reality. However, the point of a scientific theory is *not* to explain how reality works (precisely because reality is not udnerstandable), but rather to give us something that we can understand. In that sense, quantum physics has enormous explanatory power and it is a science proper. A broader theory may be better, but unless you have something better it makes absolutely no sense to criticize it for not being very explanatory. LTV may not be anywhere near that level, but the exact same logic applies. There is no better theory.

You can't. There is no "true value", it's entirely subjective. Therefore, it matters a lot who gets to make those value judgements.

> _how DO we determine what the worker truly deserves in compensation?_ Everyone is entitled to that which they created, not some "compensation". If you wish to actually calculate the values in Marxian terms, that will require access to knowledge which is not public.

@@Ronni3no2 I love apple pie

@Elias Håkansson There are of course different classes of owners. I was thinking of the owners who work in their company. Owners will draw a salary when they work for themselves. They will also be building equity in their own company. The owners will be accumulating inventory as the company operates. These owners will be able to sell off parts of the company, its inventory, its machines etc when times get tough. The owner can and often will reduce benefits and hours of employees in order to pull through. The owners will have many other benefits and time flexibility which the employees do not. When employees lose these things, they may lose their home (especially since more of them are renters). The owner may, from a certain perspective, risk more, but that is only because they have more material ---property and wealth --- to lose, but they have more to fall back on as well. Many bankruptcy laws favor the wealthy. As long as the owner is not stupid enough to put up his personal multi million dollar mansion up for collateral for some creditor, he will in most cases be able to keep it and often substantial acreage (like check out what you can keep in Florida even through bankruptcy!) even while passing through bankruptcy. There is a two teir bankruptcy system. It is much more harsh on those with relatively modest means. In other words, an owner may lose his company and still be left with enough property that he can live without going to work for some one else. If he was stupid or desperate enough to put his estate at risk, then he will just have to go work for someone else like most people do. Its not like working people never lose what they put at risk and have to start all over again. If that poor owner has any skill or value to contribute to society, then he will be okay, right? Maybe he'll even get help from some of his rich buddies or suppliers. Don't get me wrong. I understand it can be tough being a small business owner. I have seen it with friends and family. My mother and my brother had their own businesses. They often worked 20 hour days when things were busy. Their hourly pay would have been below minimum wage at times. They paid their workers more than minimum wage. They always paid significantly more than minimum. IT is difficult to get good people at rock bottom wages. They didn't have people on their back whenever they wanted to go to the restroom or have a drink. They accumulated wealth in the infrastructure of their business. Now that mom is retiring she can sell that for some more money which she doesn't have to share. There are also tax advantages for owners, not available to workers. I worked side-by-side with a man who gave up his business. He had a retail supply company. He said he could no longer afford to carry the big clients. Big corporations you would have heard of just would not pay in time. His mom and pop clientele would pay regularily within the 60 or 90 days he required. The big box stores would somtimes drag it out for years. It was very often a huge hassle, time and expense that he quit the business. I told him that was also my mother's experience as well. Her wealthiest customers were the slowest to pay. "It's like they think they are doing you a favor by just stepping in your shop, but they don't pay. You gave to send it to collection and then you hardly ever get anything out if that. Favor? Don't do me any favors then!" They really act as if giving you their business is such a treat that you'd be willing to take it on the chin. Why do the seemingly well off seem like such a bunch of freeloaders? I guess that's just business. Do whatever you can to squeeze every last bit of revenue out of everyone, especially the little guys? This is the problem with power inequities. Abuse is rampant, but the vast majority of it rolls downhill. Its easier than picking on someone your own size. Tesla has socialized a lot of the risk through the help of taxpayers. The government putting its thumbs on the scales. www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12 Not a great example if you want to argue for private enterprise and the owners putting their money, time etc at risk.

@Elias Håkansson I'd say Tesla is clawing a lot of that money back from the taxpayers. This does not refute workers being exploited. If not gettig pay is your idea of owners getting exploited, then what is it when a worker has to work for weeks or a month or more before the paycheck comes in? Musk us getting money out of that company. He has admitted getting loans to fund his life by using his ownership of the companies. Then he does not need a salary. Salaries get taxed. Bingo. You get money to live and no tax to pay while you take government handouts.

@Elias Håkansson Subsidies are not equally distributed, nor are they equally paid. The costs and benefits are in no way equal among the people. Many of them are a wealth transfer to the top.

That’s not criticism that Reality !!!! That we see it and feels it !!!!

@@akbarfarzin9857 LVT holds that labor is the source of surplus value, but Keen says machinery also contributes to rates of profit and that negates the tendency for profit rates to decline.

@@norvillerodgersspeaks I Remember 3 companies Brought automatic machine and laid off alots of worker very easy !!!

@@akbarfarzin9857 yep. Prof Wolff is a rather "orthodox" Marxist. So I wanted to hear his response. Keen is one of the only newer Marxists economists I follow. He engages with the old school Marxists and MMTiers. Would be interesting to see Wolff address a serious, informed, good faith critticism is what I am saying, not that drivel he counters in this video of the screeching "classical" economists about Intellectual Property being sacred and all the pablum about innovation. Marxists would obviously just do away with IP for the most part.

Steven Keen is correct. His critique of Marx and the labor theory of value is excellent. Keen debunks the labor theory of value. I do not think a Marxist like Wolfe could debate Keen.

It is. It is called intellectual property However LTV is nonsense because value is subjective. It is not something you can set based on the amount of work it takes to produce. It is set by the amount of desire people have to own it. If no one wants cars, cars are worthless. This is just Marxist BS to explain away why it is okay for them to steal other peoples property. Just like other people defend why it is okay to loot some people and not others.

Yes and so it should be paid for the same as any other labor.

Furthermore, you make out that any of your fellow leftists who think the labor theory of value is *actually* true are dunces. Well done. You act as though you think no lefty thinks the labor theory of value is factually true, and that's simply not the case. Many do.

@@authenticallysuperficial9874 "You admit that the "Labor Theory Of Value" is not a theory at all, not falsifiable or testable in any way," - He doesn't make that admission. He doesn't argue that it is a "theory" either. What phrase did he use that you confused with an admission of literally anything? At what point in the video do you believe he does? Pretty much everything in the field of economics is limited to observation. Economics is barely even a science, if at all. Mostly just a a collection of data points, and rationalizations to explain how/why they correlate, cause, result, or relate to each other. "simply a choice about how you want to characterize reality, what story you want to tell." - Isn't this exactly what you did when you chose to claim he admitted LTV isnt a "theory" despite him not doing that at all? "Just like all of Marx's characterization of human society as a series of class struggles." - I think there's a pretty solid case to be made that this isn't an entirely inaccurate description. History, sociology, and anthropology are littered with examples of the powerless (Have Nots) being subjugated, exploited, abused, and fighting against the powerful (the Haves) ever since the agricultural revolution. "It's just a story, a politically motivated story for propaganda, and you admit that here in part 3 of this video." - Is it? Does he? What phrase did you, again, confuse for an admission of anything? Where exactly do you think "part 3" starts? Because this video isn't divided into sections like that.

@@authenticallysuperficial9874 "Furthermore, you make out that any of your fellow leftists who think the labor theory of value is actually true are dunces." - No. He is basically saying that anyone that thinks Marx claimed that goods and services derive value only from the labor used to produce them are themselves the dunces they either assume or wish to portray Marx to be. The title even makes it clear that he is specifically talking about critics of LTV holding this belief. It's entirely an explanation on why that critique is just a logical fallacy known as a Strawman Argument. He never once mentions leftists. "You act as though you think no lefty thinks the labor theory of value is factually true, and that's simply not the case. Many do." - Dude, he literally never comes close to claim what anyone thinks, regardless of being left or right. He's explaining why a specific critique of LTV is based on a logical fallacy, and is therefore invalid. That's it. Are you okay dude? Based on your comments about this video, I worry if your perception of reality is aligned with actual reality. Literally nothing you said happened in this video actually happened.

​@PickledRick87 Yes, he certainly does. To claim that an argument against your side is a strawman is to dismiss those on your side who actually do hold that view.

No, it is actually very dishonest

The LTV is complete nonsense. To act like it isn't is to act like the roofer owns the roof that is on your house because he built it and you didn't. If LTV is correct that must mean that labor is valuable. So if someone makes a lot of mudpies and spend a lot of labor to do so, that must mean that the worker can sell those mudpies because the labor made them valuable. The problem is that no one will buy mudpies regardless of the labor that was put into creating them. Fact is labor is not what makes something valuable. It is part of why something is valuable. If something is labor intensive it is worth a lot more then something that isn't. But what makes something valuable is not the amount of labor put into something but someones desire to own the product. If you don't want a car, a car has no value to you. If you like a pretend game, a pretend treasure in that pretend game is worth a lot to you as you want it. Value is subjective. It is set by peoples desire to have it and not because someone did effort to produce it. You do not value the labor that produced damaged good because you do not want damaged goods. You do not want to pay for a car that doesn't work and the labor be damned about it.

So which labourer created the land, which has fundamental value to all of us? Which worker created the water, the oil, the gas, the iron ore? All value is created by labour applied to land.

Just imagine a factory completely ran by robots except for a manager/owner on a computer. DERP

How about a painting produced by one artist that sells for millions? Marx wasnt the sharpest knife in the socialist tool box.

@@PoliticalEconomy101 So, if there manager on the computer went on strike, who would manage the robots? Unless there was a ridiculously human level intelligence already there( not requiring the manager anyway), then the plant would mess up.

​@@PoliticalEconomy101 No land, no factory. No metal ore, no robots. The landowner wins again, he takes the surplus.

Maybe he was, but it will take more than an idiot who vaguely recalls something he heard on TV about Marx to actually demonstrate that. It requires engagement with his actual ideas and for some reason people who call him a dunce are very uncomfortable about doing that.

If the entrepreneur's vision is so incredible, it's up to him to build trust and convince his fellow workers that he should be paid more. If he can't do that, well too bad. He's not the only one who gets to decide whether he's a genius. I imagine that a truly visionary business manager would be trusted and relied on by all his workers, and could easily ask for a higher salary.

@@Rhaegar19 Good point. You're saying they have the same problem in both systems. If the greater body of workers/investors fail to recognize the disruptive value of the entrepreneur's vision and fail to compensate/reward their effort and vision that acts as a discouragement to future entrepreneurs and advancing development in general. Always the obstacle of the disruptor. Still isn't the point to recommend one system other as I thought there might be. There are others, but not what I want to explore off this discussion.

Well for one Marx doesn't say that profit is made from the exploitation of the worker for surplus value. His idea of profit is that commodities are sold near the natural value of the raw materials, the worker is paid just enough based on the labour necessary to cover the cost of his labour. So that would change your question. One commodity would be sold differently based on the labour power necessary to turn that raw material into a commodity or product

Capitalism: when property controls labor. Socialism: when labor controls property. I don't think labor theory of value is as important as the social arrangement in the workplace. I think private property is the main issue as it's use to control labor and the breakdown of labor such as deskilling as well as the whole concept of division of labor. When it comes to this issue of labor theory of value, it's funny that nobody ever brings up the history and the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor aka Taylorism. If the labor theory of value is a bogus idea, then what was Taylorism all about? An excellent book I highly highly recommend by Gerard Hanlon a Sociology professor at Queen Mary University, is THE DARK SIDE OF MANAGEMENT: A SECRET HISTORY OF MANAGEMENT THEORY. The book is the history and progress of management as a war on labor. In Chapter 3, the chapter focuses on examination of the division of labor and deskilling in the creation of the new political subject -- the mass industrial worker. It begins with the expropriation of knowledge and the creation of organizational and managerial forms that left workers with a limited knowledge of the production process hereby making labor easier to manage and less recalcitrant to capital. Likewise, the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor is introduced here, with his ambitions to obliterate the craft workers’ knowledge of production and their autonomy in the workplace. In other words, the craft workers’ culture had to be destroyed and replaced with the idea that workers are lazy and ignorant about what is in their best interest. Taylor argues that the expropriation of worker knowledge is essential if management is ever to gain control of the production process, otherwise, capital will be unable to get the maximum efficiency out of labor. Moreover, Taylor introduces the piece rate system as a means to further deskill labor. This piece rate system had the benefit of individualizing and intensifying work by pitting the workers against each other which over time led to the system of the corporate promotion ladders and the entrenchment of a culture of competitive individualism. With the combination of division of labor, expropriation knowledge, piece rate, and deskilling of labor also mystified the relationship between value and wages as it was difficult for workers to understand their contribution to the finished products they created. As a result, wages were tied to local labor market rates rather than to the value of the commodities created. Altogether undermining the labor theory of value once championed by craft workers in the past. Instead, workers receive their wages on what their position in the workplace hierarchy merits. This shift in power from workers to management was seen as a means to resist the collective working-class culture that Taylor deemed as inferior. He condemned the old collective traditions of the craft culture arguing that it leads to mediocrity as labor’s ability and desire to work at their own pace as it withholds their capacity to produce more for capital. Furthermore, this misguided collectivism gave labor the ability to resist the attempts for capital to lower wages or to increase workloads in the face of declining prices for the communities they produce. With worker's control over the production process, provides them the ability to push risk and cost back onto capital if need be. Therefore, there was a real impetus to individualize the worker in order to break down their collective identity to undermine their power. Because as the skilled workers once controlled the system of production, worker motivation was never an issue for the capitalist in the past as the skilled workers felt that they were working for themselves when in control of the workplace and therefore managed themselves and each other. As a result, the invention of the corporate ladder and individualized pay to pit workers against each other were Capital’s solutions to these problems hereby giving workers the inducement to work harder with the ultimate goal of dividing them up into different groups according to their output in order to break down their collective identity. Thus, the ones who work harder won’t jeopardize their standing by siding with the marginal worker beneath them. Furthermore, greater leverage for management to maintain discipline was obtained in this matter as those higher up have something to lose by disrupting production or offending their superiors. This whole system automatically held itself together by the ambition of men further down, as the promotion ladder is designed to stoke desire to develop certain potentialities while inhibiting others altogether atomizing the workforce. Likewise, this unilateral control over production further consolidates all knowledge into the hands of management, thereby robbing the workers of their power as they are unable to organize production without them. In short, the critics of the labor theory of value never say anything about the violence of Taylorism and why all of this violence toward labor had to take place.

@@nedtrox5385 You don’t have to accept the labor theory of value, which is obviously wrong, in order to be a socialist.

@@stevenyourke7901 Yeah....but to be truthful I personally believe the labor theory of value to be somewhat true. As Wolff stated at one point in this video: "the laborer produces more than what he or she gets back from their employer." The extra is surplus is how the capitalist makes their money. I think this part is very true. The stock market is shows this to be somewhat true. News that makes the stock market go up: - a minimum wage law struck down - employees prevented from unionizing - corporate taxes are reduce - labor laws relaxed - benefits taken away - jobs outsource overseas The stock market is not the economy, it's a measure of how much wealth is siphoned from labor.

@@nedtrox5385 You should check out economist Steven Keen. I put his link in my previous comment. He explains how Marx was wrong in arguing that human labor is the sole source of surplus value. Any source of energy that does work can create surplus value. Human labor is just one such energy source. Of course human labor is exploited as a source of surplus value but Marx was simply incorrect when he argued that machines cannot create surplus value.

@@nedtrox5385 there is no “surplus” siphoned from the worker. The capitalist makes profits through the value added by capital.

Marx never denied that machines create value. What he said about machines was that humans put in labour to create the machine, and that labour is slowly over time converted into the products that the machine creates. Think of it like a battery, storing labour value. At some point the machine will break, and a worker will come fix it, which will put more labour into it. So the value of all the products the machine creates over its lifetime, is equal to the value of the labour put into building the machine as well as maintaining it. This explains why products created by machines are so much less valuable than the ones created by hand.

@@TheMilli The value created by a machine has absolutely no relation whatsoever to the value of human labor invested in building and maintaining it. This is a fundamental error that was pointed out by economist Steven Keen. He maintains that energy - not human labor - is the fundamental source of value. Human labor is merely one type of energy. If a horse pulls a plow, the horse creates value. Right? Does the value created by the horse bear any relation to the cost of raising and maintaining the horse? No. Same with machinery. A computer creates infinitely more value than that of the human labor invested in building it. Marx was simply wrong! The human labor theory of value is wrong.

@@TheMilli kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jN2Rqdudkt3Dimg.html

@@stevenyourke7901 So what you need to remember is that Marx' theory of value isn't meant to describe why prices are the way they are. It was meant as a tool for analysis of production lines, and to show that most, if not all, of the value of an end product is created by the work and labour of the worker, not the factory/company owner. The point was to show that the owner isn't necessary for the production of a product, and could be replaced by a worker owned factory/company, maybe with an elected manager if that kind of centralised oversight is necessary. Even if the fundamental source of value is energy, that doesn't change the central point Marx was making, which is that the owner doesn't contribute enough value to the product to justify them having all the control and keeping the most of the profits for themselves.

@@TheMilli Marx’s theory of surplus value rests squarely on the labor theory of value. If machines actually can create surplus value and if the capitalist provides the machinery, then surely that undermines Marx’s argument about the capitalist appropriating the surplus value from the workers. No? American factories produce more value today than ever before but employ far fewer workers than they used to. Automation has largely replaced human labor on assembly lines. The capitalist reaps greater profits than ever while workers are rendered obsolete.

Taking risk for good thing or a bad thing. It looks like redebunked to me. Taking risk by serving military makes much more impact than that of a prostitute

Not at all debunked because that is not what people mean in economics by risk. How idiotic

What you are referring to is price which comes from the market. This theory is meant to focus in a very general sense, and outside a market with fluctuations in supply. Value, in Marxian economics, is very different from price. There is also the idea of a use value which decides whether or not something is valuable. Honestly just read das Kapital and understand the theory yourself.

@@alexanderb7721 prices are formed on the basis of value and any theory of value has to deal with prices. Read Bohm Bawerk who debunked Marx.

You're literally referencing one of the oldest arguments against marx that have been rebutted so many times. Read Kliman's "Reclaiming Marx's Capital" for a rebuttal/analysis of that and pretty much every other well known critique of Marx's (economic) theories.

@@astralgod6448 it doesn’t refute what he said.

Lol, you’ve got no idea what you’re talking about. Labor isn’t capital. Workers aren’t capital. Stop commenting on the internet and go read a book, kid.

Professor Wolf says it all the time when he describes what labor does. Dr.David Harvey describes it when he compares rate versus mass. Instead of coming back with an argument which shows you know nothing, have an argument. There is nothing wrong with healthy disagreement. There is a problem when you are rude.

This comment was utterly incomprehensible, but I'm mostly curious about why you insist on putting the word production in air quotes. Are you unsure about if production exists in our economic system?

@@Mikkamel Use of quotations is easily found for the purpose used here...although the rule indicates single rather than double. PRODUCTION would also work, so it's a style choice...and irrelevant when dealing with the "functionally illiterate." Since the material was "incomprehensible" for you, your question is "nonsensical"...but things will get easier when you learn to read. Thanks for sharing...bye now.

@@Mikkamel J GALT is an AnCap troll. Dont feed him dude. He talks in circles and all his arguments are borne straight from the feel good/feel bad center of his gut.

@@jgalt308 here's an idea J. Why don't you debate the good professor? Oh thats right...because you don't have any real arguments.

actually, your writhing was understandable... but difficult to parse. regardless, you seem to be arguing a straw man. Wolff did not say that capitalists take no risk. He said that they do not take the ONLY risk. C+ for writing. F for use of fallacy. edit: Here's a good use for quotes: algorithm: "nom nom nom."