Marx Quiz

many people supporters and opponents of marx think that they already know all there is to know about Marx’s theory of value let’s take a brief quiz to find out how much you know here are 10 true or false questions take out a paper and pencil and keep track of your answers I’ll give the answers at the end 1 Marxist theory of value holds that any human labor creates value – for marx value and price are the same thing 3 Marxist theory of value is the same as his predecessor David Ricardo for Marx didn’t believe the forces of supply and demand were relevant to explaining value 5 Marx’s theory of value is a theory of what workers should get paid six Marxist theory of value was a theory about how communist society should be run seven marks did not think consumer demand played a role in prices value or other economic phenomena eight Marxist theory of value doesn’t work in free markets nine Marxist theory of value can’t explain why useless things like mud pies don’t have value Tim marks hated babies the answer to all of these questions is false if you answered true to any of them then perhaps you do not know enough about Marx’s theory of value to actually make an informed judgment about it if you are interested in understanding one of the most there are theoretical critics of capitalism ever created then perhaps this video series might be a good starting point if you already know that you are going to hate Marx’s analysis then perhaps watching this video series would be a good starting point in educating yourself so that you do not sound like a total idiot when you go mudding aweful over the Internet

  1. Loving these new videos–all your videos—Though I definitely choose the left over the right, when I think about Marxism and communism, what comes to mind is how countries have used it as a vehicle for totalitarianism—Is there a way that Marxist beliefs can be implemented while avoiding the errors of Stalin, Mao—Where do they go wrong? Can those areas be recognized, isolated and avoided so as to avoid any type of misuse that could lead to oppression?
    Thanks again!

  2. @MrEverpresent
    I believe what happened in the Soviet Union or China can go wrong in capitalism and does to a great extent in our own country–but this stuff can happen in any system—-any type of corruption, totalitarianism, oppression, needs to be examined and well understood–and it takes a lot of honesty and self reflection on behalf of well educated and informed people–one problem in our society is that education is to expensive and peoples focus is too career oriented-in my oppinion

  3. @MrEverpresent
    In my opinion we should examine other ways for people to exist that are productive/positive–when I say productive I don't mean in creating profit–& I don't even mean employment–I mean people self cultivating, staying healthy, continually growing at their pace in a healthy, non-coercive environment -where they have their rights guaranteed-not the right to be super wealthy and powerful bu-

  4. @MrEverpresent
    cont-Not the right to be super wealthy or powerful but freedom of expression,speech, more options and choices when it comes to work–like how much time you want to put towards labor –and how much time you want to expend self cultivating, working at keeping family or household in good shape, —I believe all people should have equal access to tools and resources that aid in self cultivation–

  5. @MrEverpresent
    No matter how adamant we are about our beliefs Marxist,Libertarian,Republican whatever-we need to acknowledge that life isn't black and white and that oppression and confusion sneaks in to all human endeavor and we should be as keen to this as we can–

  6. This is classic, absolutely classic. I know too many people who would crash and burn on that quiz and still claim to know all there is to know about Marx, and they all have university educations too – that's capitalist propaganda for you.

  7. @MrEverpresent It's a myth that Marx never wrote about socialism. While he never left a detailed blueprint of a communist society, he talks about its character as a "free association of producers" quite often, even in the 3 vols of Capital. Take a look at the The Paris Manuscripts, Civil War in France or Critique of the Gotha Programme. He also wrote a lot criticising other forms of socialism (eg Proudhon). From these, it's easy enough to see what Marx's concept of socialism was.

  8. There is an error in the quiz. Question eight needs to be reworded. "Marx's theory of value doesn't work in free markets" needs to be restated "Marx's theory of value was belived by Marx (or Marxians) not to work in free markets". As it stands, since a theory of value based on labor inputs doesn't work under ANY conditions (and was refuted before Marx even espoused it), the answer to question eight as it appears in the video is absolutely true.

  9. The origins of the LTV are often misattributed to Adam Smith (who provided confusion on the issue) but responses to Ricardo's errors already showed the fallacies of any input-related valuation system. Subsequently, Schumpeter, Bohm-Bawerk and others expanded upon those criticisms demonstrating, most notably, its failure to incorporate the relationship of time to value (a dollar today is worth more than a dollar a year from now) which makes input-based valuations completely untenable.

  10. Yes, I mentioned only one. Several exist dating all the way back to Smith's diamonds/water paradox. And, of course there's the wild vs. cultivated apple example. I admit that I have not read Hilferding's response, but both Rubin's and Bukharin's attempted responses to marginal utility theory fail to conform to observable phenomena (Bukharin's in particular). It is no accident that Marx promised a positive proof of LTV in Capital that ultimately NEVER appeared.

  11. I am currently going through Hilferding's response now and the logicla fallacies are already quite evident proceding immediately after his reiteration (less than perfect) of Bohm-Bawerk's critique and arguing that exchange does not take place until an item no longer has utility for the individual willing to exchange rather than simply lesser utility than that for which he can exchange it. And, no, the LTV was not designed to address the diamond/water paradox.


  12. Neither expressly named the marginal utility theory per se so far as I am aware. Still, the two competing theories were ultimately the crux of the debate. It is well documented that Marx promised to provide a positive proof of the LTV by the time he completed "Capital". One does not exist to this day as he could not – perhaps explaining the absence of the phrase in his magnum opus.


  13. I'll get you specifics on Bukharin once I'm finished with Hilferding (tomorrow, perhaps – it's admitedly been a while) but the probem of an intrinsic value system has never been solved and the maintenance of a distinction between types of value (use vs. exchange) rather the diverse valuations among parties pursuing their own interests has never been consistent with human activity.

  14. I'll ultimately reply later but I AM reading Hilferding's text (and conceded at the outset that it was just the beginning). Yes, it's obvious that [most] capitalist production is not for personal use (an irrelevant point), but there is nothing obvious about the specious concept of "surplus value" that could only be valid if the underlying intrinsic valuation under the LTV were valid (which it is not).


  15. Further, the final product of capitalist production virtually never has "no use" to the maker – there often being consumer products for which the worker has a use albeit not in the quantities produced. But here you make another needless (and useless) distinction between capitalist production (within the framework you provide) and proletarian production in the absence of invested capital (as performed by pre-IR domestic industry).

  16. One last for now: Now you are being disingenuous. You know as well as I do that the assertion that he never used the phrase "labor theory of value" is a cheap dodge. Marx put forth a theory of value based upon labor inputs he described as "socially necessary labour values". No one – not even devout Marxists – argue that this is not a labor theory of value and there remains no support in the real world for its existence.

  17. haha very welll done brendan, the illustrations and all. The ending was my favourite part. And i did answer some questions to be true :$. Guess i need to keep on learning

  18. i thought i was more ignorant than your quiz indicates. i got 9 out of 10! pretty good. i said true for number 4, because according to my understanding, he thought supply/demand impacted EXCHANGE value, but not value. am i wrong on that?

  19. thanks for the informative response. 🙂
    you say that "some" make the distinction btwn social and individual value of a commodity. are these "some" credible students of marxism? is it a generally accepted view or is it quite contentious?

  20. I just answered based on what I believe instead of what Marx said. I got all the same… except for the last one. Stupid babies. >:C

  21. I was wait for you to say "All of the answer were false, except the last one." and then point to some obscure Marx/Engles letter where Marx states his hatred for infants.

  22. "4. Marx didn't believe the forces of supply and demand were relevant to explaining value."

    Correct. Supply and demand does not control a commoditys value, but it's price. Value = total amount of labor required to produce it.

  23. OK I love the content, but the animation is nightmare fuel. This whole series's graphics are a drug-trip inspired nightmare fuel.

  24. but where would the internet be without idiots mouthing off their unfiltered thoughts and ideas? Mainstream media would have forgotten it years ago were it not for the faux outrage that idiot trolls and trolling idiots and trolls and idiots inspire.

  25. 10/10 I have never read any Marx, mostly just Bakunin and Proudhon and a lil Stirner… However, I realized after the first four that they all were false lmao

  26. 7/10. Not bad for a free market fag. Looks like I got some more books to read (that most likely includes a revisit of Wage Labor and Capital).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *