A reply for the algorithm! Get dem eyes ovah hear!

Yes, this is a reupload. The person who originally voiced the video requested that it be taken down.

@@themarxistproject I see.

@@themarxistproject you are a group of people working together? I hope y'all share the means of video production, distribution and exchange!

Also did Marx formulate circuits of equations for feudal or other non capitalist modes of production?

This is definitely a somewhat complicated question. But a good place to start would be to consider Marx's approach to commercial capital -- which entails the purchase of commodities from capitalist producers and the sale of those commodities on the market. Marx demonstrates (primarily in Volume 3 of Capital) how the total annual surplus value created is distributed not only amongst the producing enterprises but also among retailers, rentiers, loaners, etc. We'd have to get into the differences between value and prices of production, but the short version is that retailers buy commodities from producers above their cost of production but below the selling price on the market. In doing this, the retailers are able to receive a "cut" of the total surplus value produced in the economy. Commercial capital presents a number of advantages for the process of capital as a whole. The most important is probably the acceleration of the circuit of capital and the reduction of turnover times (which Marx talks about in Volume 2 (check out that video on the channel)). So you're right in saying that, according to Marx, commercial capital doesn't produce any commodities itself. But it is an integral part of the accumulation of capital on a social scale because it is the site where the value of commodities is realized in sale. It also refines and accelerates the accumulation process. Fred Moseley has a good section on this subject in his book "Money and Totality" (which is actually about the transformation problem but also includes other valuable insights about Marx's "macro-monetary" model).

We do need a Marxist theory of service value production.

@@DancingSoldiersOfRa you gotta make something new up because your ideology is false

Not a communist. In theory what your role is as a cashier is to count the money and make sure the store isn't being stolen from this causing a loss. Your wages are paid for out of the profits. Prior to the invention of self checkout your position scales the labor among multiple people rather than a single person inefficiently being overwhelmed. In real economics time is a commodity and so is skilled labor so the scarcity and demand of your skill and the amount of time it takes determines the subjective value of your labor. When you learn a more scarce and demanded skill your labor will be worth more capital like rare commodities that are highly saught after.

@@alexanderledvina8743 Lol "real economists" get a life bro. Invisible hand of the market? More like two lines cross here that's why people starve

I don't think it ever does. Human action is integral & human labour is embodied within the fixed capital.

Automation could be included in the model by defining some production as carried out by existing capital that requires energy use and depreciation/maintenance costs. Labour is required to build/maintain the technological support systems that automation requires, so there is still no production that avoids labour entirely.

I like how there's a few channels finally making animation-explanation videos about leftist economics nowadays. This channel is the best so far, but blobMetropolis also does good work, check it out!

Marx is just a Sussy Baka sometimes

@@vladimirlenin3562 serbbicth? Is that you?

@@defaulttmc I am Lenin

And who makes the machines?

@@Jack-tg9qm What difference does it make?! The point is that machines can produce surplus value. Marx failed to acknowledge this and insisted that only human labor could create surplus value. This is an important point because Marx’ prediction that revolution was inevitable is based on his prediction that profit rate would decline as machines played a larger role in production.

You're correct. Marx got many things wrong.