Search:

ltd commodities commodities futures futures trading trading futures futures brokers trading ommodities commodities brokers options futuresfutures commodities futures commodity oil futures futures market bright futures

commodities 1 of 2

Futures Trading Center
Futures Trading Center Futures Trading Center
Futures Trading Center

1. Commodities are made by workers for capitalists. Capitalists own productive capital. That is, they own capital that can be used to make commodities: factories, raw materials, machines, etc. But they need people to work in their factories, at their machines, with their raw materials. They hire workers to do the actual labor required to turn all this productive capital into commodities. Once a worker has made a commodity it does not belong to him or her. It is the exclusive property of the capitalist. 2. Capitalists sell commodities to consumers.The capitalist doesn't want the commodity for his or her own use. (Does the owner of Genera Mills just want to eat a lot of cereal? Does Philip Knight, the ceo of Nike, just want to wear a lot of shoes?) Capitalists are not really interested in the particular commodities they are producing. They could be making pharmaceuticals, tennis shoes or widgets. Their primary concern is that they sell these commodities to consumers for money. The money they get from this sale goes to pay for the productive capital they just used and the workers they just hired. The rest is profit. Where does profit come from? That is a question for later. (see exploitation)3. Consumers buy commodities from capitalists and use them.We are all consumers. We must buy in order to live. We must work in order to buy. Thus we live to work. Some commodities go straight to the consuming public. Other commodities like steel and corn are purchased by other capitalists to make more commodities. In the latter case, some commodities go through many transformations until they reach their final state. Once they reach this final state they are consumed- as food which is eaten, fuel which is used up, cars which are driven till they die, etc. Anything left over is thrown away. Thus do we get garbage, pollution, and second hand shops.So commodities have three dimensions: The making, the selling/buying and the consuming. Each dimension is unique, telling us different things about both commodities and about the world around us. Yet they are all interrelated, meaningless without the other dimensions. Each dimension corresponds to a different way of measuring the value of a commodity. Now we will look closer at each of these three dimensions, or values, to see what sort of secrets they conceal.Let's start with the last one: consuming. Licking an ice cream cone, riding a bike, shooting a gun, watching TV- these are the ways we normally interact with commodities. They have value to us because we can use them. This is called "use value". If we didn't have a use for something, we wouldn't buy it. And if no one had a use for something, capitalist wouldn't hire workers to make it. Thus use-value is a very important dimension to the nature of the commodity. Yet use-values are subjective. I like hot sauce, you don't. I like red cars, you like blue cars. I like scotch, you like gin. There are billions of different subjective preferences out there. That's why we say that use-value is a heterogeneous concept. This will be an important point later.Now we'll jump to the first dimension I listed: making.All of these commodities have to be made by someone. If something doesn't require work to exist then it isn't a commodity. Sunlight- not a commodity. Weeds- not a commodity. Hugs- not a commodity. Water, watches, coal- all commodities. Commodities require labor. Thus do we get a second type of value: labor value. A pancake requires very little labor to make, thus it has a very low labor value. I'm eating a stack of pancakes right now and it cost me about 3 dollars. A car takes a lot of labor to make- many different persons labor together, performing very difficult tasks. The raw materials, machines, and power used to make cars are all products of labor too. These impart a fraction of their value to each commodity. Cars have a very high labor value. That's why they are so expensive. Let's compare this to use-value. This morning I chose to get up and go to a cafe to eat some pancakes instead of going to buy a car. Pancakes have more use to me at the moment. Thus they have a greater use-vale to me. This has nothing to do with their labor-value. The fact that I wanted pancakes more than a car doesn't make pancakes more expensive! So though use-value and labor vale are important aspects of commodities, they help us explain different things. This is why we will generally turn to labor value to help us explain our third dimension: selling/buying.We call the dimension of selling and buying "exchange". Like many other things we've discussed thus far, exchange at first seems like a pretty self-explanatory dimension. Yet it is here in the realm of the buyer and seller that the most mystification happens. It is here where the true nature of things are obscured from view. We must approach with caution.

Channel: Education
Uploaded: December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm
Author: brendanmcooney

Length: 09:23
Rating: 4.79
Views: 1186

Tags: bourgeois  buy  capitalism  class  commodities  communism  economics  engels  exchange  labor  labour  marx  sell  socialism  us  value  

Video Url:


Embed Code:

Video Comments

McOath (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Never truely strayed from socialism but Das Kapital has been picked up and dusted off for the first time in years. I completely agree with you nbm34.
kaufmann789 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Communism is about equality. In the UdSSR the "owning" class was replaced by a "commanding" class. Which is more or less the same thing for the workers. Inspite of there is still a diffrence between State-Socialism and State-Capitalism. State Capitalism arise from the dynamics of the market. By the will of the capitalist class. While State Socialism arise by the will of the working class. Both can lead to the result that politicians become too powerfull. Check out "Inclusive Democracy".
brendanmcooney (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
When the bolsheviks went about running the first "communist" experiment they ended up creating an economic/political order very different than the one they originally envisioned. The USSR has been termed a "deformed worker's state", "state capitalist", "centrally planned communism" by different people... Scholars have debated these definitions endlessly. I do not think that a future communist society needs to go through a bolshevik-style phase (whether or not you call it state capitalism.)
seigneurvoland666 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Does communism and state capitalism have some common ground? if so, how are they the same, are they even the same? do they have similiarities? does communism = state capitalism. I've come across this many times and i tihnk is a misconception. Are they distinguishable?
nbm34 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
BRILLIANT this man teaches important social science as it is. So people just enjoy,and dont speculate what a socialist future would do in control of the means of production.Of course human beings are infalliable, how we would control corruption and exploitation by corrupt socialist elitists,is another story.BRENDAN you have awakened my soul to Socialism again.PLEASE KEEP UP this important work you are doing.
jbmetzler (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Hey Cooney, I just started watching these videos. I've drifted away from this kinda stuff before (drifted away on a sea of "isms"), but you've made it so much easier to understand. I'm looking forward to watching the rest (the chess board is a interesting touch :-)
opchidexio (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Thanks, pal. I appreciate your help.
brendanmcooney (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Well, there's no such thing as "under marxism". Marxism is a social science devoted to understanding political economy. Marx never created any models of post-capitalist societies. But he was a communist, before that was a term associated with the USSR. There are many models people have come up with for post capitalist societies. And yes, I think they would all involve less work and less garbage as well as less crime, grater democracy, more freedom, more justice, etc.
opchidexio (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Under Marxism people would no longer "live to work"? (5:02) And there would be LESS pollution and garbage? (5:33) Are you saying that these two negative aspects of CAPITALISM that Marxism does not promote? (Long hours and piles of garbage.) Hmmm...
opchidexio (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Dude, there ain't NUTHIN wrong with your videos. I'm SURE that folks will flock to "consume" this stuff. (I think it has high "use value.") You just wait.

Futures Trading Center



Futures Trading Center © 2007 All Rights Reserved.