Production of Surplus-Value | Chapter 7

This video covers Chapter 7 of Das Kapital "The Labor Process and the Valorization Process" about how surplus value appears through the labor-process.

pages summarized: 17

[molotovmafia]

hey, about the part you talk about pronouns and how you say "he" for the sake of simplicity...
you can just say "they" :)

[bgiv]

It seems like people/labor, land/resources, and tools are all just different parts of nature. I would say even the tools are as natural as human activities are.

[HOySht]

Marx's theory started to fall apart in this chapter, when he started defining necessary condition for for his valuation of labor

"Moreover, only so much of the time spent in the production of any article is counted, as, under the given social conditions, is necessary. The consequences of this are various. In the first place, it becomes necessary that the labour should be carried on under normal conditions. If a self-acting mule is the implement in general use for spinning, it would be absurd to supply the spinner with a distaff and spinning wheel. The cotton too must not be such rubbish as to cause extra waste in being worked, but must be of suitable quality. Otherwise the spinner would be found to spend more time in producing a pound of yarn than is socially necessary, in which case the excess of time would create neither value nor money. But whether the material factors of the process are of normal quality or not, depends not upon the labourer, but entirely upon the capitalist."

He acknowledged that the capitalist must ensure the quality of the material, the machines, and labor itself, to be "average". Without the capitalist's labor to ensure this average working condition, labor, time and material would be wasted without creating value. However, he failed to include the value of the capitalist's labor, which is planning, management and quality control, in his equation.

[FalloutUrMum]

Thank you for uploading these, it is a great refresher, even if I disagree with the ideas. I think Marx's idea falls apart when you just apply it in reality. If I hire someone to build my roof, they are voluntarily building my roof because I paid them to do it, when I sell my house I don't owe the guy who built the roof anything because I already paid them to build the roof. He owned his labor, yes, but sold the labor to build me a roof, which is now mine to do as I please. This is what Marx is saying, except he believes, in this scenario, I owe the roofer a chunk of my profits for selling the roof as a part of the house. I have no moral obligation to him after paying for the labor, it's now my roof and if I sell it for a profit that is just my personal gain for making a good investment, which in Marx's eyes, makes me a dirty capitalist.

[brian]

Marx's Foundational Tautology

Marx writes (Chapter 24, first paragraph, Capital, 1867), "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value."

See the tautology? How did this tautology get past the initial reviews? How did this tautology survive the intervening 157 years without being discovered, except for this political scientist? This again illustrates the magnitude of the Marxist co-option of our institutions.

Let's analyze the sentence's tautology...

Surplus value is generated by capital, but capital is created by surplus value!

[WTAWWR]

In my opinion, the risk of an investment should be discussed in relation to profits aka surplus values. Is it brought up in the following chapters?

[sayanmajumdar]

Provide captions in English language like the previous videos. I am unfamiliar with the accent.

[pizzaspy]

This chapter is where it all falls apart for me. Marx just refuses to acknowledge the value of intangibles like risk, vision, organization, luck, connections, wisdom, etc. And it gets harder and harder to ignore.

The book up to this point is fascinating, but has qualified at many points "this is an oversimplification, an average, an assumption, but bear with me" but here, is the moment that is forgotten and all the variables and complexity that were put aside is now conveniently jettisoned. In Marx' writing you can sense when there is hand waving, because it is when he gets most colorful (and he is incredibly witty in these moments, often making me laugh out loud) describing "our friend the capitalist" etc. The logic is replaced by emotion.

This is not to say the point that "this system is an out of control monster with snowball effects that lead to exploitation and misery" isn't valid. But to say that the person organizing a venture and bringing together people and capital to make something happen brings no value, and it is stolen from the workers is absurd.

He even accidentally makes the point when he says (paraphrasing) "all the capitalists decide to just buy the yarn, but then who will make it?"

[Pglarsen]

The capitalist risks it all, the labourer risks nothing. To the risk taker belongs the spoils. Marx doesn't understand human psychology or nature, much less the economy. But thanks for explaining so well

[Liravin]

1:57 you can also use "they" in singular form; very useful for this.