"Intro to Marxian Economics" 1 (3of6) - Richard D Wolff

[@MechanicusTV]

You have done a great service to mankind with this series.

[@mikehayne538]

You are smart. Look at some of the other comments which are hateful to this genius lecturer.

[@madraun]

i love the way you presented this lecture- i haven’t learned anything on the topic of marxism before this, it’s currently one in the morning, and i don’t think i’ve ever felt as engrossed in a topic as i do now

[@nestorsdragon8057]

Good lectures

[@stp52x]

This lecture provides a momentary breath of reason in an otherwise unbearable journey through the foliage of intellectual absurdity.

[@DaSlacker01]

10:13-ish, I feel his take on relativism disagrees with mine. While there definitely isn't a definitive "right" way to eat a meal, there are best and worse ways to eat a meal. For example, throwing the plate into the air and trying to catch the food with your mouth is definitely a "less ideal" (and, therefore, I would postulate: wrong) way to eat a meal, with respect to, and assuming, that we value the efficiency of transporting food to mouth. Hence we can say there are 'right' ways in this.

[@Kingfish179]

I thought the same thing. There are better and worse ways to achieve particular goals. We just have different values, goals and perspectives --and thus competing visions of progress.

[@No1WillMakeItOutAlive]

Agreed

[@JoshuaGreyJensen]

I think about utility when it comes to "good" or "bad". What is the utility of the utensil haha

[@Bblackjackk]

You Sir are obviously an excellent teacher. I have only a high school education, so using your "way of thinking" am I to assume you will blow off any remark i make as not experienced enough etc. You seem to be taking liberties with the stimulus of your "what do you see" experiment... your assumption is that the stimulus is vague and non-specific therefor people disagree on what they see. my question to you....IS ECONOMICS VAGUE AND NONSPECIFIC THEREFOR ...only "theories" need apply??

[@mikehayne538]

In 1900, the richest man in the United States Andrew Carnegie, noticed there was something wrong with capitalism. He began building libraries and is the reason we have free public libraries today. Does that help?

[@h2flow1]

don't really like his relativism here, or maybe it's a gross oversimplification. but I can see how those on top are happy with there position, while those on the opposite side of the spectrum are not. But to make any substantial change some objective truth needs to be understood.Is someone's success oppressive, or immoral. there needs some solid ground in which to present your case.

[@mikehayne538]

The problem is the 50,000 homeless Elvis Pressleys in Holywood. If you stick to the Murphy Brown or Sopranos narrative, that's where you wind up. No room at the top it used to be called.

[@KarlBonner1982]

10:08 "Which is heavier - Monday or Friday?" Nice one there, lol

[@mikehayne538]

United States broadcasters, both right and left, ignore the truth that the development is capitalism, socialism, communism.

[@whatabouttheearth]

If you as a Communist or Socialist it's Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism (final part of 2nd stage Communism) If you ask an Anarchist it's Capitalism, Anarchism (Libertarian Socialism/Libertarian Communism, aka final part of 2nd stage Communism). The anarchists (Libertarian Communists/Libertarian Communists) have always thought you just bypass any government form of Socialism and establish Libertarian Socialism/Communism, which is final stage Communism.

[@livanoguerrero3385]

La antieconomia??

[@admvdb]

NeverOddOreveN: Hegel, not Hagel

[@PatrickTMayer]

The shallow relativism endorsed here is not an accurate account of either Hegel or Marx.

[@nestorsdragon8057]

Patrick Mayer Everything is relative

[@Hexanitrobenzene]

I thought so too. For example, we know that the view "Earth is flat" is wrong, not only different.

[@augustolealdebrittovelho7161]

There is a bit of post modernist thought in his explanation, it is wrong but i believe he just wanted to make a counterpoint to other modernists and try to put dialectics too simply. Still a great video. Let's remember he is an economist not a philosopher.

[@SansAppellation]

Good luck eating a steak with chopsticks, or ramen with a knife and fork. Some tools are better for particular situations. But if you want to use a knife and fork with ramen. It will certainly be "different"

[@damonberry9123]

Eating ramen with a fork is easy.

[@jasonrobinson1883]

I love rich. but... is he drunk? just saying..

[@lukaskoube]

this video is a tired cliche and a snooze fest.

[@mikehayne538]

Go watch Hannity.

[@96stealth]

I have not read much on Marx, but I have read a lot on Hitler. When this professor talks about Marx on labor, it’s pretty much word for word what Hitler thought. Gee, I wonder where Hitler got that from? No Hitler did not agree with Marx on how to handle labor, but the fundamentals are of the same roots. Like capitalism exploits the workers. Even though it’s not hard to explain why it doesn’t. There’s also a clear jealousy of successful people by this professor & Marx. Plus a victim mentality. His explanation of how 2 children could view family structure differently is a complete joke. I know because that’s exactly what happened with my sister and I. My sister to this day has been treated better than me and my mother even admitted to why. The fact that I can take care of myself and my sister is and has always been a complete mess. She had financial support into her 40’s. Goes from job to job. Sometimes 4-6 a year. The reasons for switching so much is usually because everyone hates her at work. She’s always had this poor me attitude and no one understands her and what she’s been through. It’s a race to the bottom for her, but it can’t possibly be her fault. She was actually diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder not to long ago, but thinks she’s an introvert and an empath. So far everything I’ve read or heard about Marx is he was someone like my sister. I don’t know if it’s true or not because I don’t really care but I read that he was leaching of of Engels for a while and eventually Engels had enough of Marx’s bs. So far this “lecture” or whatever has been a waste of time. Like how many times in the first clip did he say he was a professional economist? Someone that has to reiterate over and over how great they are is someone who is highly insecure and most likely manipulative.

[@whatabouttheearth]

😂 that is some bullshit. Under capitalism most people pay their bosses more than they get paid through surplus value, that same surplus value stolen from the workers is more than the taxes they pay. After the initial investment in a company is paid off from stealing the workers surplus value to pay it off it is the workers stolen surplus value that pays for everything the company does including materials to make commodities and even pay the workers again with their own profits, and it's that surplus value that feeds and funds the entire capitalist class and the workers that get their surplus value stolen have absolutely no choice about it. CAPITALISM IS AN EXPLOITATIVE THIEVERY SYSTEM! STUDY Furthermore he's talking about subjectivity in that other part. His wife is a psychotherapist, he knows a thing or two.

[@96stealth]

@@whatabouttheearth So be your own boss. Nothing is stopping from doing that. You think workers have no power over corporations and businesses? Everyone can quit at any time. Look up the story of the Hersey plant. All of the workers came together and quit, forcing them to pay better etc. No one is forcing you to do anything you don’t want to do.

[@robbhewitt8863]

It's obvious that the most brilliant of us should decide how the rest of us should live or not and that the world certainly would become heaven on earth as a result.

[@NathanDudani]

No, go away Lenin

[@whatabouttheearth]

😂 some dumb ass tanky shit. It's not that getting rid of capitalism is telling anyone how to live. It's saying what is not acceptable and how society should not be organize through theft, exploitation and alienation from labor.

[@Swing_park]

I enjoy seeing the speaker all smug when he mentions that his peers don't know Marxian economics concepts like surplus value theory and that they are incapable of having intelligent conversation with him. Well I'll tell you why. Because the surplus value theory turned out to be WRONG almost more than a century ago, duh! Wage is determined by supply and demand and employer has very little room to push down on an employee's wage beyond reasonable degree because he/she would then find employment elsewhere. It is an intuitively incorrect concept as well as in-practice so why should it be taught? Should we require kids to be educated on flat-earth theory? For the sake of relativism and diversity of thought? It surely must be the oppression of mainstream thinking that prohibits it, correct? Just laughable.

[@luckylui3282]

Says the equally smug one who conflates wage with surplus value. Maybe start by specifically explaining how Marx's contribution to the labor theory of value is "WRONG" beyond your firm opinion and without conflating it with wage. Did someone say "just laughable"?

[@Swing_park]

@@luckylui3282 labor theory of value is wrong because it can't explain how Mona Lisa costs million times more than the work of an average painter. Value is clearly not determined by hours of labor put into produce it. Lucky lui can write all the dumb Marxist stuff all day on KZbin and it won't produce a dime!

[@luckylui3282]

@@Swing_park : Painfully obvious your either have not read Marx, don't understand his writings or are simply lying to fit your fantasy. Value, use value, exchange value and price all have clear definitions for Marx. But, sure keep on trolling with your reductionist, fallacious ways you might get some traction.

[@Swing_park]

@@luckylui3282 lol I knew you were gonna say that. That I don't know marxism. but I probably know more about it than you do. not only do I know those concepts u mentioned, I know commodification and transformation duh! All of these concepts are unnecessarily convoluted and offer no utility of explaining how value is determined since it is hinged on the incorrect assumption that labor is the value creating substance. Pile of garbage and nonsense. Take econ 101/102 and you would be doing yourself more service than brainwashing yourself with antiquated, intellectually bankrupt pile of horse manure that is called Marxism. 😂

[@luckylui3282]

@@Swing_park : The answer is --because you say so, found it hard to follow and, maybe, a bit too specific. Who could of guessed you prefer more nebulous notions, just like all snake oil peddlers. Funny how I have said nothing of what I believe or don't but, somehow, apparently you know? I suppose you acquired mind reading powers during your study time. Your gift to YT is --labor doesn't create value (as defined by Marx). Gee, ah, thanks. Troll on, putz!