Responding to Shane Killian on the Theory of Exploitation: Has 'Surplus Labor' Been Refuted?

Link to Shane Killian's video:

[paulsmith]

If you argue with shane in the comments, he will write in all caps and swear like a literal man baby. He argues that capitalists earn their income because capital goods don't exist in nature. 
meanwhile, in a previous argument i had with him in the comments i told him that land does occur in nature and its natural features are responsible for a large portion of real estate value. He claimed he didnt know what my point was.

[commwave]

This was a great response video. You've done a great job defending the ltv would you consider debating destiny on the ltv he also doesn't understand the Ltv. He thinks the ltv is a moral agreement that says that Capitalist employment is inherently immoral.

[SolideroftheLulz]

There are only two types of people:
People who think that initiating force against peaceful human beings if justified, and people who dont.

[petarzlomislic]

Hi Victor!

Great debunking as always. You've talked before about Anwar Shaikh's book "Capitalism". That book seems interesting and I would like to read it. I don't have any academic knowledge in economics and I was wondering if you could suggest some prerequisites before reading Shaik's work.

P.S . Like your rings they look awesome

[VeryAverageGirl]

It's cool you always dress so nice for these videos. Cute

[louisleon]

Nice vid. I like how u break down Marx’s theoretical complexities. U cleared up some confusion I had about exploitation.

[minerbroEDI]

Great video, lad!
Off topic question, but are you from Spain? If so, what's your opinion on the CNT-FAI?

[NathanWHill]

from Kropotkin, 's The Conquest of Bread

Take a shoemaker, for instance. Grant that his work is well paid, that he has plenty of custom, and that by dint of strict frugality he contrives to lay by from eighteen pence to two shillings a day, perhaps two pounds a month.


Grant that our shoemaker is never ill, that he does not half starve himself, in spite of his passion for economy; that he does not marry or that he has no children; that he does not die of consumption; suppose anything and everything you please!

Well, at the age of fifty he will not have scraped together £800; and he will not have enough to live on during his old age, when he is past work. Assuredly this is not how great fortunes are made. But suppose our shoemaker, as soon as he has laid by a few pence, thriftily conveys them to the savings bank, and that the savings bank lends them to the capitalist who is just about to “employ labour, ” i.e. to exploit the poor. Then our shoemaker takes an apprentice, the child of some poor wretch, who will think himself lucky if in five years time his son has learned the trade and is able to earn his living.

Meanwhile our shoemaker does not lose by him, and if trade is brisk he soon takes a second, and then a third apprentice. By and by he will take two or three working men — poor wretches, thankful to receive half a crown a day for work that is worth five shillings, and if our shoemaker is “in luck, ” that is to say, if he is keen enough and mean enough, his working men and apprentices will bring him in nearly one pound a day, over and above the product of his own toil. He can then enlarge his business. He will gradually become rich, and no longer have any need to stint himself in the necessaries of life. He will leave a snug little fortune to his son.

That is what people call “being economical and having frugal, temperate habits.” At bottom it is nothing more nor less than grinding the face of the poor.

[emperorpicard]

"...Where there is value added to the final product beyond what is needed for the production of the workers" Where does the value that is added come from? The answer to that is why LTV is wrong.

"The capitalist is paying exactly what the labor power is worth" Actually, in a way, the capitalist is paying MORE than what the labor power is "worth", which is the reason people get employed in the first place.

[rainerlippert]

Hi, your video refers to Mr. Killian's statement regarding the exploitation of raw materials. That is not the issue of Marx’s exploitation in the narrower sense. But only on the edge.

Thesis: The exploitation takes place not in the exchange, but in the production process.
Thesis: The labor power is a special commodity. Marx calls it "variable capital" because it creates more value than the entrepreneur has to spend on its means of subsistence (wage).
Thesis: In the production process, more value is added to the work products than would be necessary for the reproduction of the workforce. That is the basis for profit.

With these theses it is said that the values of the labor force would add value to the goods with the production. The commodity labor would do the surplus labor and thereby produce even more value than it costs. That would be the key to exploitation.
In the real world it is something, but not completely different: Neither value nor surplus value can be produced. What is produced are only possible reference points for possible value relationships - value is a social relationship.
There are only expected values on the production side of the commodity society - Marx's value formula must be adjusted accordingly:
W|expected = c|cost factor; replacement expected + v|cost factor; replacement expected + m|expected.
With the expected surplus value no entrepreneur can exploit in a real kind – it’s only an expected exploitation.

If value relationships related to certain work products are formed on the market, then the value relationships are used to assign a certain value to the goods. The value formula must also be adjusted for the market side:
W|real and assigned = c|replacing costs + v|replacing costs + m|real and assigned.

The “base value” is assigned to the goods with the replacement of c and v and the surplus value is additionally assigned. Both of these happen during sales and only in relation to the products that are sold. The replacement of the costs plus the value-added payment are not produced. Only the requirements for this are produced: Thus, the value is formed only with the sale of the work products, which thus become commodities (because of the use values for others). This is the only way to classify the work involved as socially useful and value-creating.

For the unsold products, the expected values remain: If an entrepreneur has 1, 000 pieces of product A manufactured, but only manages to sell 800 pieces, the value is only assigned to the 800 sold.No value is assigned to the 200 unsold products, and the work involved is not classified as socially useful, since the work results remain the property of the entrepreneur. The relating part of the work is therefore not considered to be value-creating.

The work is fundamental to value creation, however
1. work cannot directly create value
and
2. It is not only human work that is involved in the creation of value and surplus value, the mechanical and parts of nature are basically the same.

For more details please see:

[weston]

Great video. Also I recently came across an argument from an ancap justifying private property rights through Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. I was wondering if you’re familiar with this argument and what ur response to it would be?