"Intro to Marxian Economics" 1 (2of6) - Richard D Wolff 

hello from the further future

Correct. Then socialism is replaced with what we now have, organized crime and Communism.

@@mikehayne538 you think our world order is communist? LOL

Do u know his argument as to why he thought that?

Communists (Marxists, Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists and several others), socialists (of all forms, even Democratic Socialists), Anarchists (Libertarian Socialists, Libertarian Communists), And some economists like him, All believe in variations of the same thing, except some socialists think you should stop at socialism, and anarchists think you should bypass state socialism and go straight to final stage communism (aka Anarchism). The difference is that it is seen as inevitable by many but some see it as something that can be quickened, or has to be created.

@@mikehayne538 What universe are you living in?

he forgot that Google exists

Because Marx ain't a snitch He don't work with no Alphabet agencies

Danquebec01 True, they completely went against the neoliberalism gospel of no tariffs, privatisation of public utilities, no hindrance to foreign investment etc. And built successful capitalist economies. For the converse, look at the economic basket case Chile became after the Chicago School got their hands on it during Pinochet's regime.

Yep.

No. Communism and real Socialism have never existed in actuality. Let alone final stage communism (aka Anarchism). And Capitalism is inherently non democratic since in order to create capital from labor the workers surplus value must be stolen by a hierarchical class that lives off of that surplus value.

Danquebec01 check out Thomas sankara and his leadership of his country, as well as his neighboring countries

Danquebec01 No, because the free market is a fantasy, a utopia

I believe it was just his way of expressing that the huge majority of Marx's work was to do with capitalism and to analyse capitalism. Definitely a little inaccurate in his wording though, I'd say a few pieces could be described as "about" communism or socialism. I'm not really troubled by it myself but yeah.

He co authored a pamphlet that was the Manifesto of the Communist Party that was commissioned by the Communist League of England that explained dialectical materialism, historical modes of production and capitalism, vaguely talking about the idea of Communism. He did not write a book on the political economy of communism like Capital is about the political economy of capitalism, the nuts and bolts of it. Marx is known for his analysis on capitalism, not communism. I don't even think he mentions revolution in Capital (his last books).

The transition from Capitalism to Communism is called Socialism to communists. But to some self identified (I use a lower case s) socialists, socialism is the goal...but not upper case Socialism that leads to Communism, which leads to final stage Communism which leads to Anarchism Marxism is a form of Communism that goes more by Marx's analysis of Capitalism. There are also Marxist Leninist and Marxist Leninists Maoists, and more. The terms like Leninism and Maoism (and others) are specific add ons to Marx's analysis of the political economy of capitalism (so Lenin's or Maos thoughts on capitalism also) with their own specific ideologies on the formation of Socialism and Communism (which Marx left out). It's not just about Marx. ------------------------------------------- Think of it this way COMMUNISM: Socialism --- Communism (1st stage) --- 2nd stage Communism/Anarchism. SOCIALISM: Socialism --- Communism (1st stage) --- 2nd stage Communism/Anarchism. ANARCHISM (aka Libertarian Socialists/Libertarian Communists): ----- Anarchism (aka 2nd stage Communism) "socialism": --- "socialism" (these guys are different)

Feline Frequency lmao yeah it wasn’t a copy but he just meant the French rev had a strong influence on American rev... lmao he’s a genius just give him a break

I thought America had their revolution before France and that was what inspired France to revolt

@@marcosvidal4940 No, that is correct, the French Revolution was AFTER the American Revolution. Know your history before shit talking someone or at least rewind the video to see what Wollf actually said.

He's saying that the Americans before their revolution were influenced greatly by the French radical scene, "people like Rousseau". Not that the American Revolution copied the French Revolution. The French Revolution was after the American Revolution.

Johnny W capitalism hasn’t guided millions out of poverty, innovation has, and innovation (contrary to popular belief) isn’t exclusive to ,or even optimised by, capitalism.

@@thejfoshow1320 name me one valuable innovation to come out of socialist countries besides unseen level of efficiency in starving people to death 🤣 for real tho. guess where your iPhone comes from? And the world wide web to which you go to vomit anti-capitalism word garbage? 🤦‍♀️

Johnny W there hasn’t been a democratic socialist country in modern times. But if you want to see socialism working then I advise you to check out the mondragon cooperatives in Spain, or Germany. Why was the iPhone invented? Motivation and risk taking to get there. Why is risk taking and motivation exclusive to capitalism? Why is it that the chance to be a billionaire is the only driver of risk? Why can’t it be the chance to be a millionaire?

@@thejfoshow1320 show me results not some hypothetical socialist wet dreams 🤨 obviously you can't differentiate between a million dollar innovation and a billion dollar innovation 🤦‍♀️ stick with Nokia homie

Johnny W unfortunately we only have hypotheticals because in order to achieve democratic socialism (democratising the workplace, with the workers owning the means of production) you need to vote away the wealth of the owner class (as revolution inevitably leads to a new elite made up by the leaders of the revolution) which just won’t happen because people are more scared of losing capitalism than they are pissed at getting screwed by corporate tyranny. The problem with capitalism is corporate tyranny, they have too much power. The problem with communism is state tyranny. Democratic socialism has neither of these problems as the means of production are directly owned by the workers. Because there’s no tyranny it’s the hardest system to achieve, therefore we work in hypotheticals. That’s doesn’t discredit it though as 1) we have examples of it working even with large corporations like Mondregal in Spain (7th biggest corp in Spain) and 2) the fact that it’s hard to achieve if anything proves that it’s a good and equal system, as the rich block it.

"intellectually dishonest academics, like the guy in this video, stray away from specifics and rely on popular assumptions as "evidence"." like you just did?

I can understand that you deeply disagree with his ideas, as I would've years ago, but saying he's "intellectually dishonest" is absurd. He's absolutely not

@@marcosvidal4940 you are wrong and probably an idiot. Socialists have more blood on their hands than Nazis and their ideas are worth less than dirt. Anyone giving an ounce of respect to a socialist or Marxist is a loser who deserves to stay poor.

@@Gr8erThan8 ok, your comment sounds scientific to me!

You are accurate in a way, but the problem is that it is highly debatable that those countries were ever true socialist countries. This is especially the case since they stressed a high emphasis on public ownership (i.e. state ownership) over common ownership ("real" communism) or collective ownership (market socialism). Better communities to look at would be the anarcho-communist communties of the spanish revolution and the makhno free territory in Ukraine. Both of those communties were shown to (at least for the most part) highly advocate liberty, equality, and fraternity.

marxism has no prescritpiton for society, marxism is scientific claim about what has and will happen not one about what should happen. north korea and other such countries had nothing to do with communism or socialism, but rather are composed of a form of hyper capitalism. capitalism is categorized by ownership of the means of production, a class without property selling it's labor to a class with, and a market economy witch all exists in said countries. the private property concentration in those countries is a lot larger then places like the .u.s. with the state replacing the old capitalists and becoming the new ones. communism and socialism conversely being being wear the means of production are commonly controlled instead of being owned (socialism) and that coupled with economic distribution according to need, the absence of economic classes or specific relations to production and the state. hardly what was and is present in russia, north korea and so forth.

Certainly definitions matter. I suppose if you define Marxism to be solely a scientific analysis of capitalism without a prescription then you have to ignore the Communist Manifesto while you include Capital. You also have to ignore all those thinkers and political leaders who claimed they were communists,such as Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao... Most people by convention include these.

***** that statement ignores that 1: just because marxists were advocates of communism doesn't mean Marxism involved such an advocation and 2: just because people say they are marxists does not mean they are.

Fine! You have every right to your definition. I have a Christian friend and when I mention the crusades and the Inquisition he points out that is contrary to his interpretation of the Bible and just because Popes and John Calvin claimed they were Christian does not make them Christian. Ironically I point out that I know Marxists who make up analogous definitions. Have a good day.