No video :(

"Intro to Marxian Economics" 2 (8of8) - Richard D Wolff

Подписаться 195 тыс.

Просмотров 10 тыс.

50% 1

This four part course provides a working foundation in the core concepts of Marxian economic theory -- necessary and surplus labor, labor power, surplus value, exploitation, capital accumulation, distributions of the surplus, capitalist crises, and the differences between capitalist and other class structures. In addition, these core concepts will be systematically used to understand current social problems (including political and cultural as well as economic problems). The goal is to enable students to apply Marxian economics in their own efforts to analyze society and to strategize politically today.
This course was taught in the Spring of 2009 at the Brecht Forum in New York, NY.
Full Video: blip.tv/file/26...
Professor Wolff's RSS Feed: rdwolff.blip.tv...
Professor Wolff's Website: rdwolff.com

Опубликовано:

28 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 19

@josephmercer 13 лет назад

I thank Dr. Wolff for posting these very educational lectures.

@VandeShri 4 года назад

Only Marx could have written it the way he wrote, and only you could explain it the way it's supposed to be explained. Thank you so much.

@VurdulakMortem 11 лет назад

Great lectures

@jumpoutatree 12 лет назад

If any person A sells C to any person B for more than C costs A to produce, the surplus value is extracted from person B's labor. Person B labored to produce the $1.50 that he is giving to person A for the can of soda. The profit represents a surplus of labor extracted from person B.

@mytube1246 3 месяца назад

Learning a lot here. Thank you for these lectures good sir. A thought just popped into my head as to how RU-vid, and most of the other Social Media platforms are inherently, as a model by themselves, are a great platform to practice anti-capitalism. Take this course you are teaching us here as an example. We are not necessarily paying you money, but in time wherein the commodity you provide is the knowledge and also your time. Hence your labour is the expertise and time (effort). You do this without charging us the exorbitant fee that people generally have to pay to get an education of this standard, that is there is no surplus making attitude involved -- no institution (college) out to rip us off. However, you are getting incentivized by RU-vid by the time we spend here - views. Which all seems like a fair distribution of overall resources, i.e, abstract labour. By this, we are getting educated (in your case) or entertained (in other cases - also yours, you're quite entertaining) and these affects will only help us enhance our living condition and skill and productivity. That is, make us better at whatever we want to achieve. So is it fair to say, internet and particularly RU-vid is a massive platform to practice anti-capitalism? I had majorly written this down to know if I had grasped the concepts you've taught here so far. I feel like I have. My effort is to apply these learnings in the world around me and not really shoot into the future or change the world as a whole. Since, I happen to be a filmmaker from India, I find the industry to be cut-throat. Everyone is out here to make movies for a (massive) surplus and there's little to no democratic distribution of resources and wealth. This naturally stems creativity and creates more of the same - another one of Capitalism's banes. Hence, I've been looking at RU-vid, FilmFestivals and other such sources as platforms to share my art on and would like to look beyond my naiveté in this pursuit.

@GodlessPhilosopher 12 лет назад

@MetaCraken I think your question is answered on brendanmcooney's video "DIY exploitation 1 of 2" at 1m38s.

@FREDNAJAH 2 года назад

I totally disagree with your premises. 1. labor should make money for the company they work for. 2. a tree in behind a factory is not useful as commodity but the chairs and table created from that tree is what sells and I would say the extra value that industry gets in its profit is tuning a tree worth $10 dollars into 100 chairs and 10 tables worth $1000 and the net profit is calculated by the cost of the tree plus labor plus rent plus lease of equipment plus taxes plus interest paid to the bank for the building and equipment bought. and in some years the factory looses money because of recession then should the workers pay the factory to cover the losses.

@lafirulierbii329 4 года назад

WHAT THE FUCK DID I JUST WATCHED?! I AM SITTING HERE WATCHING THIS THING FROM FUCKING ROMANIA AND I FEEL LIKE I AM GOING TO FUCKING LOOSE MY MIND!

@SolidAir54321 9 лет назад

I've been watching a lot of Wolff videos lately and I generally agree with what he says and I believe capitalism leads to trouble in the end. But based only on this material it doesn't seem quite right to say the worker is getting ripped off. The industrial capitalist, the investor, is taking a risk that the product won't sell while the worker takes no risk. The worker gets paid the same whether the product sells or not. But the capitalist might lose money.

@lsmlsm2115 6 лет назад

Definitely a good point. I feel the need to point out two things. Firstly, the investor/owner is taking a risk in mostly theoretical terms. What usually happens in practical terms is that people either invest with borrowed money that isn't actually their own or they are in the fortuitous position of having large enough amounts of disposable income that the absence of a return on their investment will not lead to financial ruin. Secondly, an employee/worker gets paid less than the sum their labour is actually worth. For example, a bar tender sells 200 bottles of beer over a weekend but gets paid far less than the total cost of 200 bottles of beer. This means the bar tender is selling his Labour to his boss/investor at a fraction of it's intrinsic value. Hence, he is being 'ripped off'. Not saying I'm right. Just throwing it out there.

@cam-gv2gf 4 года назад

what is the fucking risk to the capitalist? the only risk is that of becoming part of the proletariat, i.e. becoming one of the people he formerly hired.

@jorgemachado5317 3 года назад

You are right in the sense that marxists shouldn't use that moral language - "ripped off". Marx was not trying to make a moral claim about capitalism. To make a moral claim is the oposite of dialectical historical materialism. Marx analises the world from the material to the abstract, not the contrary. Words like "risk" is just a concept that exists within capitalism. There's no "risk" outside the logic of capitalism and this concept is just an ideal trying to explain why we can justify the system we are in. But you can't justify a system using a concept that exist just in the same system you are trying to justify. Someone could advocate for the maintenance of slavery just using concepts like "natural order" that was already pressuposed in the slave system

@SolidAir54321 3 года назад

@@jorgemachado5317 Well that was five years ago and I probably wouldn't post the same thing today, or I might argue against my old self. lsm lsm above is right. And in addition, if the worker loses his job he loses his entire income where capitalists usually only incurs partial loses. Today I might make a more socialist argument. That there's no reason for a company to make a profit. And excess money can be used to fund more companies. No interest earned by just lending money. Etc.