I'm really enjoying going through all these labor theory of value videos. Thank you for all the hard work professor.

@alexkhaid

Жыл бұрын

Nice to see you here!

This is incredible, this channel has some of the best explanations of marxist economics (aka scientific economics) that i have ever seen. You are a great teacher! Thank you very much. I look forward for the rest of your work.

@paulcockshott8733

4 жыл бұрын

Buy my new book then :-)

@Malon2malon

4 жыл бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733 I will certainly look into it! I just wish I had more money to invest in marxist thinkers hahah

@AbuDurum

4 жыл бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733 What is your new book? Towards a New Socialism?

@paulcockshott8733

4 жыл бұрын

@@AbuDurum It is called How the World Works, and it came out in Jan 2020

@AbuDurum

4 жыл бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733Thanks for the answer.

More amazing content from Paul Cockshott! Your videos are like candy for the mind.

From 100 to 1200 subscribers, Congratulations!

@somerandomname3124

6 жыл бұрын

1 Million subs when?

@Pridetoons

6 жыл бұрын

Some Random Name When more people seek radical alternatives to Capitalism.

I really appreciate your videos! You explain stuff in a very grounded and clear way, a lot less ideology messing with your script relative to most other people on this website : p

@symbolsarenotreality4595

5 жыл бұрын

Paul is very accurate and specific with his diaologue. He speaks in direct terms and does not waffle on with all the usual metaphors and sayings that most people utilise in a reactive pre determined manner without any actual thought of the substance of what they are saying, merely responding with a predetermined script so to speak.

Thank you for articulately presenting the problem with distortion with relation of money to value.

In your video about the dismantling of the USSR you got into what I think is a great topic. Transitioning from one kind of economy to another. In the 90's it was a transition to a capitalist economy. We don't hear much discussion about the transition to a socialist economy under Lenin. Have you lectured on it?

@sampeterson6538

6 жыл бұрын

Dumont TheFinnishBolshevik uploaded a series of videos about someone interviewing a Russian historian about collectivisation in the USSR (all of it is subbed in english)

@shubhamwr

4 жыл бұрын

It wasn't socialist. It was central planning by state

@shubhamwr

4 жыл бұрын

@Bordiga Armchair for sure

@shubhamwr

4 жыл бұрын

@Bordiga Armchair I don't know when people will stop referring to ussr and China as socialist. At least it wasn't socialist if looked from point of view of those people who first used term socialism right? Like Marx and all those

@shubhamwr

4 жыл бұрын

@Bordiga Armchair fuck them. This is why I moved away from Marxist socialism to some kind of anarchism for politics. Marx is good in his analysis of capitalism, but his model of implementing socialism by strong party rule is inherently authotarian when it comes to politics.

Hey I would like to know if you have any insight on Mao Third world-ism theory.

Mr cockshott.I recently have discovered your work. Thanks a lot for sharing your knowledege.

Great video, I was late to this one. Thanks for the book recommendations.

What do you think about Objective Idealism? It has the same epistemology as materialism but different ontology

@richardlionheart8583

4 жыл бұрын

Please explain your question. Really keen to know

@eddypitono4995

3 жыл бұрын

Objective idealism?? Sounds like ayn rand come up with this

@vladimirlenin3562

3 жыл бұрын

Wtf lmao objective idealism?

@Ajente02

3 жыл бұрын

Are you refering to German idealism? Because that's basically what it is; from Kant to Hegel, they believed in objective reality accesible (partially or totally) to human knowledge through sensorial experience, but which ultimate essense or nature is purely ideal.

So if I think of something and I don’t use tools, I’m not creating a model? Are my thoughts not material? Sure the subject of my idea is not material, as it can only refer to something, which may or may not be material. But the act of thinking is material. So if I am thinking of a ship that needs to be build, a really simple one, the thought itself (not it’s subject) must be something like a model. If I then build the really simple boat, using nothing but my experience, my brain and the construction materials, I used a model to achieve this.

@paulcockshott8733

5 жыл бұрын

If you look at actual societies in which intellectual labour occurs as a distinct branch of the division of labour, the process is closely tied up with technologies of record and representation. Drawings are created to guide construction, ideas are written down as texts, so intellectual creations are not the result of pure thought. They are the interaction between the brain, the hand and the senses, just as any other physical product is. Do models exist in the brain? Yes they do, the nervous system constructs models of objects that are in your field of view, and based on these models it is able to guide our hands to grasp things without our having to look at our hands as we do it. But our ability to model objects that are not in our visual field is quite limited if we do not have access to aides memoires like pencils and papers to make sketches, do calculations etc. Ships are not build in the mind of a naval architect, the naval architect uses drafting tools to elaborate and communicate the design.

@miretov6740

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733 But even Ideas (or what you call pure thought) surely need to be stored materially somewhere in the brain, right? And in order to be used, they have to be processed materially through thinking (or neural activity). What I think Max is trying to say is that pure thought is also a material activity and it is also a model but written (matterially) in 'thought language' (interpreted by our brain when he computes them). The video you made about the maxwell demon (in which I understood that computation and thinking in general is not an ideal action but a material one) makes me think that all intellectual activity is also necessarily a material activity and there is nothing like 'pure thought' and that your definition of model applies also to thinking. Isn't thinking as material as computing with a computer? Thank you for your time.

Whether prices represent values is precisely the question at issue, no?

@kevinclass2010

4 жыл бұрын

Only for the sale of commodity good under perfect competition: marginal cost = marginal price. This breaks down when the good is protected by Intellectual Property or licensing: like software or music.

@Ajente02

3 жыл бұрын

@@kevinclass2010 Even in those cases there exist a correlation between price and labour value, as you can't simply price an intellectual commodity as you want, you have some limits if you want your business to be profitable. And such limit is determined by the labour cost of the physical format you're using to distribute a copy. As an example: for any book, indistinctly of licensing, its digital format will be cheaper than its printed format. That's because digital copies require less labour than physical copies. It has nothing to do with competition, or supply and demand.

We need a model that can predict the next financial crisis, and bet against it to fund a cybersocialist post scarcity institute.

@1010ZZZ1010

6 жыл бұрын

postscarcity is fraud term invented by americans who was too afraid to mention Comm-word but liked it utopian ideals.

Haha.. Insulting someone of being empiricist is like insulting people for being good looking and smart.

Jevons refuted the Labor Theory of Value, and thus all of Marxism, in 1871. Value is what something would trade for. It comes from the intersection of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand). It is not subjective because that is utility ("use value"), not value. It is not objective because that is price (what something traded for), not value. Value is the COLLECTIVE judgment of a given market at a given time. The observed relationship between labor and value, as Jevons demonstrated, emerges because employers ("capitalists") devote labor to production of a given item, increasing supply and reducing its value, until the marginal labor cost is equal to the marginal value produced. Marx was the Anti-economist: his "contribution" to economics was to throw out the important fact that classical economics had discovered -- that the factory owner contributes to production but the landowner does not -- but retained the fundamental error of classical economics: the Labor Theory of Value. Marxist exploitation theory is also garbage, and easily refuted by a single question: How, exactly, would the worker be better off if the employer had never existed? No Marxist has ever been able to answer that question, and none ever will.

@paulcockshott8733

Ай бұрын

@@roylangston4305 there is no empirical data in Jevons book. It is all speculative hypothesis. Scientific method requires you to verify theories against the data. To be scientific the theory must be testable, falsifiable, tested and not falsified. The labour theory of value meets all those criteria, Jevons theory meets none of them.

@roylangston4305

Ай бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733 wrote: "there is no empirical data in Jevons book. It is all speculative hypothesis." No, there are no empirical data because his argument is a logical one, not an empirical one. He shows that the Labor Theory of Value is based on a confusion of cause and effect. Empirical data on the relationship between product value and labor input are equally consistent with either interpretation. That is very much the point. "Scientific method requires you to verify theories against the data. To be scientific the theory must be testable, falsifiable, tested and not falsified. The labour theory of value meets all those criteria, Jevons theory meets none of them." Garbage. The Labor Theory of Value is tested and falsified every time an unimproved land parcel sells for an astronomical sum. By contrast, Jevons's interpretation is tested and supported, and the Labor Theory of Value conclusively falsified, every time a firm decides to discontinue producing an item that can no longer be sold at a profit. The "socially necessary labor" required to produce it hasn't decreased, but its market value has. Marxism is anti-economic trash from start to finish.

Thoughts on Lakatos?

Fred Foldvary wrote a peer reviewed paper in the 1990’s that orthodox economics failed to recognize (of course) which predicted the 2008 crash. www.foldvary.net/works/geoaus.html

@vladimirlenin3562

3 жыл бұрын

Is he Austrian econ?

@frankle326

3 жыл бұрын

@@vladimirlenin3562 He’s Geo-Austrian - the Geo is for Georgist, as in Henry George, who wrote the best selling economic text of all time, ‘Progress & Poverty’.

@vladimirlenin3562

3 жыл бұрын

@@frankle326 oh ok

@vladimirlenin3562

3 жыл бұрын

@@frankle326 wait isn’t Georgist kind of left wing?

@frankle326

3 жыл бұрын

@@vladimirlenin3562 He was neither right nor left, he just believed in eliminating unearned income i.e. economic rent. He sought to free people from the structurally embedded parasitic behavior of the vested interests.

If the labor theory of value is correct then how come communism failed

@leogorgone4414

2 жыл бұрын

how does the fall of the soviet union have to do with whether or not value is determined by the labor time socially necessary to produce a use-value?

@miguelpereira9859

2 жыл бұрын

If Karl Marx was right how come he's dead??

But aren't more complex models beneficial then simplistic ones? After all reality is more complex than simplistic models, even if the model alone is made to just teach someone an idea, the model itself might prove not to get the point across especially in my case where I had to make connections between the modern market and commonly accepted economic ideas to Labor Theory of Value being the cause of them to realize that Labor Theory of Value was true even if it was more complex and time consuming than a simple model.

@a_8764

6 жыл бұрын

"But aren't more complex models beneficial then simplistic ones?" Only if it adds explanatory power. The point is that if you have two models that are equally good at making predictions, the simpler one is better. "In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable."

@somerandomname3124

6 жыл бұрын

+Alfred Larsson But accounting for predictions to serve a direct purpose wouldn't be more accurate if it had as many nescescary factors added in? Or is that the case for even a simple model?

Where's your reply to the fact that the entire model is completely worthless? Labor time of the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 7 could be completely identical, and they would not have the same value, simply because one is newer than the other. Even if I were to grant you that the "true" value of them is identical regardless due to the same labor time put in, what use is me granting you that? What am I to do with the information? Start selling both products for the same price, and demand the market accept my prices? No that's simply not how the real world works, thus the model is useless.

@paulcockshott8733

3 жыл бұрын

Monopoly rights, like the ones that Apple has on phones running their software allow monopoly profits. The labour theory of value applies to freely reproducible goods. Look instead at the price versus labour content of commodity Android phones on the Chinese market where monopoly is not operating.

@Google_Censored_Commenter

3 жыл бұрын

​@@paulcockshott8733 Has absolutely nothing to do with monopolies, at all. Apple also does not even have a monopoly on cellphones, what kinda response is this? My point made applies to any and all products that get released annually. Be it cars, this season's new line of fashion clothes, you name it. Nice deflection though. Gonna respond to it, or just praise communist countries?

@paulcockshott8733

3 жыл бұрын

@@Google_Censored_Commenter who are you kidding mate? Apple dont have a monopoly you say? I suggest you try raising venture capital to produce apple clones and see how far you get before they sue your ass off.

@Google_Censored_Commenter

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733 Correct, they don't. They haven't had in who knows how long long. There's literally hundreds of other smartphone brands out there. Now are you gonna respond, or not?

@paulcockshott8733

3 жыл бұрын

@@Google_Censored_Commenter None of the other smartphones run IOS. Apple has a monopoly of such machines, as such it can sell its phones more expensively than phones that dont have IOS but which have at least the same or better hardware. Since Apple is a monopolist in the supply of Iphones, the relative price of different Iphone models is not governed by the relative labour embodied, but from a monopolist's pricing policy. The iPhone 11, and t cost $700 when it launched. By contrast, the OnePlus 7T (which runs on Android) cost $100 less and has an OLED display, twice the RAM and internal storage, and a 2x telephoto lens. This monopoly profit is why Apple is unwilling to license IOS.

Machines. Automation. Robotics. All ignored by Marx.

@paulcockshott8733

4 жыл бұрын

I suggest you read vol one of Capital a large part of which is devoted to machinery and automation. Note that in the Aveling translation automation is given the germanic English translation as self action, which means the same but without the latin roots.

@slightlygruff

3 жыл бұрын

@@paulcockshott8733 I think he was being ironic)

@smhsophie

3 жыл бұрын

@@slightlygruff I sure hope so

@jackri7676

3 жыл бұрын

Konstantin doubt it knowing this website