"Intro to Marxian Economics" 1 (1of6) - Richard D Wolff 

Dayum, I'm addicted to this dude's talks!

I studied Marxian theory in the late 1980s under Dr. Michael Perelman at CSU-C. The library at CSU-C has a 1st edition of Capital (I & II)! It did me no favors in academia, however. I was nominated for the Smale Award but was only awarded "runner up" solely BECAUSE my models incorporated Marxian thought. The laugh is on my opponents though. My economic models have accurately forecast every downturn in US macro-economics since 1990.

thank you so much for releasing this without a pricetag.

interesting, marxism isn't taught in the american education system but there seems to be no shortage of anti-marxism experts... i remember doing a number of papers in college challenging my professors in their pro-capitalist, pro-american, and pro-christianity teachings, they never failed to give me a bad mark in doing so. american education is a capitalist propaganda machine.

"Communism is the positive abolition of private property, of human self-alienation, and thus the real appropriation of human nature through and for man. It is, therefore, the return of man himself as a social, i.e., really human being, a complete and conscious return which assimilates all the wealth of previous development. Communism as a fully developed naturalism is humanism and as a fully developed humanism is naturalism. It is the definitive resolution of the antagonism between man and nature, and between man and man. It is the true solution of the conflict between existence and essence, between objectification and self-affirmation, between freedom and necessity, between individual and species. It is the solution of the riddle of history and knows itself to be this solution."

Brilliant set of lectures! Wonderful teacher, very animated (sight and sound) and full of life. Needs to hit more of the mainstream. Did not know about this gentleman. THANK YOU!!

WOW, i can't belive how many schools this guy went to that are well cream of the crop.and his points hit home hard, I came into Atheism and Marxism at Age 12 one day i had lunch when i went to a paid catholic school and one day i got Toast and some drink for lunch and i went to them and said "hey, i think we should get more food than this,we pay for our uniforms and everything. there should be enough money to give us food" and i was just basically shuu'd away. i then Begged my parent's to go to public school. defund wall street if we can bail out fucking Rich traders and bankers/s we can bail out the student's,pay teachers and have healthcare. and so on. sorry i'm terrible at english but i would say atleast my heart is in the right place.

"It's like asking what is heavier, Monday or Friday?" this made me laugh

I really wish the audio was cleaned up on this. I share it all the time to friends and people who I think are listening, but the audio makes it harder to pay attention.

Dr Wolf - appreciate you posting these lectures. As you point out, there's a severe paucity of formal Marxist education and you are helping this student in autodidactic efforts to correct this deficiency. Thanks!

Legendary series, excellent lecture sir.

Your teachings are gold.. they stick to my mind and makes me see the truth and helps me reason out everything that is going on in the name of capitalism.. Thank you very much for introducing marxism economics..

Is there are reading list for this course? I'd really like to be able to do the readings along with the lecture series.

You are inspirational!!! Thank you, I am currently in Masters Program at Hunter College for Education and truly appreciate your candid true representations! Thank you!!!

Thanks for making videos like these; they really are important. How can society pass judgement on something it doesn't understand? And, like you said, Marx simply provides a viewpoint from which to view capitalism. Thanks for helping me become educated.

Excellent sir..

Prof. Wolff, could you upload the complete lecture, please? Thank you!

Bliss to listen to.

I know you care about putting out quality educational content and it is because of this that I let you know - Your recording device may have been recording you, but you did not use that recording for this upload. If you still have the original recording I would be happy to show you how to transpose it.

Considering that Marxism is a criticism of capitalism, not an outline for a future, communist society, I'd really love to hear more about how it was put into practice in those two countries. And then, after that, maybe you can explain to me how Roger Ebert's review of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo resulted in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Very very good and nice.

It's refreshing to see Marx approached, and approached in the more rigorous way (Das Kapital as opposed to the Communist Manifesto). I'm a center-left progressive who has taken up an interest in Marxian crisis theory. I've come to the conclusion that a "full employment profit squeeze" is might be a good way to reduce inequality. If the next Fed chair is a dove and keeps the labor markets tight, Marxian theory suggests it might push up wages and squeeze excessive profits out of the economy.

Wasn't Marx' dissertation on Democritus and Epicurus (which was already showing the development of his materialistic philosophy)? Epictetus, on the other hand, was a stoic philosopher and to my knowledge didn't have as much influence on Marx

There's a video of a public domain protest folk song that ties-in, somewhat, to this course, titled "The Workers All Wealth Create" that ties-in, somewhat, to this course, recently posted at following link: The Workers All Wealth Create--Bob A. Feldman

Minor point, but re: 14:00--Marx's diss. was on Epicurus, not Epictetus.

The sound reminds me of Marxian times too.

OMG..this is kind of like attending real college class but on video.

good argument, how old are you?

I'm puzzled by the statement at 11:25 "Marx never wrote a book about communism." Didn't Marx and Engels write the Communist Manifesto? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto#Writing

I think it is factually incorrect to claim that Marx never wrote a book about communism or socialism...he has written 'communist manifesto' which is considered to be the most important work alongside 'Das Capital'...Though I agree with the fact that 'Das capital' was more of a critique of the capitalist economic model, in his other works(communist manifesto, Critique of the Gotha Program) he seems to have chalked out the transition from capitalism to communism through socialism...if someone has another perspective on this,please share your opinion. I also find that Marxist followers often pick out the certain aspects of Marxian works which are varied from economics to sociology to suit their narrative and it changes according to the audience.

I really respect professor , but I have a long time question ... Why professor did not engaged with any communist party to change the present mode of production....

I'm from India and want to learn this in detail which among Karl Marx books is best suited to learn in detail about Marxian Economics.

Fast forward to 2020?

Something is like after development of machine,they should be told to go away as things becomes human in nature

interesting fact.....Marx thought capitalism was impossible without the state....ironically, we call that socialism today!

Marx wrote about communism, just very little.

Why does this guy remind me of Q from Star Trek...

We the people have to take our Government back from the Corporate Capital Money Rule, for the money is the peoples, also we all should have a say on how it is all being used and how it's being done! Take the cap off of Social Security and people that our rich should not receive it for it was form to help the least of our brothers and sisters, also have another branch of Social Security for our Identity protections and have in the fed & states offices???

5:04

11:25 Um... Dude, you of all people... Ever heard of the Communist Manifesto???

The Communist Manifesto isn't a book about communism or socialism?

capitalism generates hostile feelings in people too. what is your point?

marx never wrote about communism? what about the communist manifesto? can someone explain this to me? i saw this on wikipedia: "According to Sylvia Nasar, Marx never learned to properly speak English and never visited an English factory despite living in England during his last thirty years." whats that all about?

If universities are afraid to hire Marxist economics professors, then why are they so willing to hire Marxist literature, sociology, and history professors? I realize that academic departments usually do their own hiring, but it doesn't seem to be the case that universities are afraid of Marxists when Marxists are disproportionally represented among university professors. Also, Wolff's experience of having never been assigned Marx throughout college appears to be a unique one. A large survey of US college course syllabuses found The Communist Manifesto to be the fourth most frequently assigned text: www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/03/what-ivy-league-students-are-reading-that-you-arent/

Labor surplus means there are not enough jobs. This means that the price for labor is above the market equilibrium rate -- i.e. the rate at which the demand will be equal to the supply. Labor surplus is self-correcting in a free market, because the more the surplus, the less people will be willing to work for, because they will be that much more desperate just to _HAVE_ a job, any job, that would be all the more scarce yet if the wage rates were arbitrarily set above ME. It does no favors to the unemployed. The remarkable thing about this, however, is that as this surplus is eliminated (by falling wages which creates more jobs), you will have a much more productive economy, with lower prices, creating a lot of demand (for both labor and the stuff being produced -- remember, supply being higher than demand lowers prices further, stimulating more demand, which stimulates more production and hiring, which increases the supply (of both jobs and goods), this in turn results in _higher_ wages as the labor surplus is naturally eliminated, not by central planning but be the natural workings of incentives, and reality. It's how the 'invisible hand' works. Having a labor surplus means that the wages need to come _down_ in order to eliminate itself. ...Or, you could just 'eliminate' all of the otherwise workers... ahem.. There is a balance to things. Wages being too high will create AN EVEN BIGGER LABOR SURPLUS. Wages being too low (in a free economy) will mean that you will not _have_ any labor surplus to speak of, but rather, a _shortage_ of labor (or, a surplus of jobs), and 'just right' (as Goldilocks would say) is the rate at which there is neither a shortage of labor _or_ jobs. What good is it to have more jobs, if those jobs are not able to be filled, or higher wages, if it comes at the cost of jobs, and are self-defeating anyway as they rob not only the labor pool (creating an even greater labor surplus -- the "problem," right?) but the economy itself, such as to rob those workers of the *_VALUE_* of the money they make anyway. That's what people don't get, that value is relative. What then would "high" vs "low" wages mean? Can you define these? NO, you can not. People are childishly simple in their thinking about these things, either not being aware of or ignoring the dynamics which determine value and purchasing power, as they all relate to supply and demand, and not realizing that the value of a dollar isn't just set by fiat, and neither then, can _prices._ Economics is like a rubix cube that when left to it's own devices, solves itself, but which can _NEVER_ do this from, or with, deliberate human intervention. But, some people don't like the color of the rubix cube, and so are never happy until they achieve the sort of pattern that can _never_ be obtained, at least not anywhere but in the imagination of the beholder, and the more they try to _make_ it fit their preferred picture, the _further_ away from it it gets, which is inevitable, and understood as well as the reason for which, by those who actually understand economics. _Real_ economics, but economics none the less (which Marxism has nothing to do with). Karl Marx was not an economist. You will find no "economic theory" in any of his writings. Nothing new there. Merely the observation of and lamenting at the fact that we see certain outcomes less favorable from a subjective (as opposed to objective) standpoint than some envisaged alternative existing nowhere but in the imagination of the utopian dreamer. It's stupid. It's Childish. Imagine having a 3 year old running the entire economy of the world (or trying to), through central planning, and passing a new law called the "Every child gets a free pony Act." Why, _who_ would be opposed to this? And why would they not care for the happiness and well-being of the children? The _CHIIIIIIILDREN!!!_ ..... _That_ is the level of stupidity, of communism and central planning, and no exaggeration either, is the scary thing. In fact, it doesn't do it justice. Seriously, how could _anyone_ be stupid enough to think it's a good idea? Even _without_ studying and understand economics? Just look at *_REALITY._* You know what Einstein said about insanity.. And of course, Edmund Burke -- The only lesson of history is that people never learn the lessons of history.

KARL MARX IS THE TRUTH ✊

comparing Marxism to capitalism when you don't understand capitalism just makes you look foolish. home boy should read real capitalist literature and not refer the the rubbish that he was force fed in the education system.

11:29 Marx never wrote a book about communism? Get real, dude!

The example on the two children, where one loves and the one that critics the family life. I wish he could draw the line between adam smith, karl marx and the two children. Adam smith (loving child) grew up, was a successful teacher and strived to be a human. Where as the Karl Marx (unloving child) took everything from everyone around him, drank all the time, lived off Engels, complained, failed at nearly every job that had to be given to him. Why do we take his work seriously, when the man himself couldn't have survived without the people around him who were successful in the very system he despised. If people want Marxism or Communism, there is no need to push for it, because the workers will rise up and create it when they are fed up, according to the theory. By foisting it on people you are not going to achieve marxism but something similar to Stalinism. So how about we just let the ideas exist, but let it rest. Let people make their own minds up instead of forcing ideas on them.

"Like every other economic system human beings have ever lived in has had the people who love it and have had the people who don't." How will socialism or communism be any different? We all know Marx never described what a communist society would look like, and yet you say he "wanted to get beyond capitalism." Was he insane? What if what comes after capitalism is infinitely worse than the system we are living under now?

One of the most interesting aspects of communist thought, is that it relies upon the railing (not even an argument proper) against an economic system that doesn't even exist, as the basis of supporting an economic system that never *_could_* exist, at least not anywhere but outside of reality. Ever noticed how even communists never really assert outright that they know of a system that can produce better outcomes than capitalism, or at least, they never really argue this (because they can't, with a straight face), but rather, leave it up to the _assumption_ of the naïve and impressionable listener, to deduce on their own, that such is the case -- and that this is, of course, communism, or, "Marxism." Even communists know they can't make any argument in favor of communism, that holds up to scrutiny (and REALITY); rather, they can only offer criticisms of "capitalism" while usually referring to situations which are hardly capitalist, if at all, but rather, _fascist/socialist._

Evolution Economy is a free open market that evolves thru time is the best working model. Martxism, Socialism or Communism didnt work they tried it and failed. Current world ecocnomy is gobalised its too complex and modern for Martx.

no one learns marxism bc it is so easy to disprove......premise: the labor theory of value does not account for prices or value. Conclusion: there is no exploitation in the market. conclusion 2: marx is incorrect and capitalism rocks!