Marx, Robert Paul Wolff Lecture 7

[@egrittsunami]

Professor W. I gave you a standing ovation from inside my car after listening to the entire series. Bless you!!!

[@lawron2]

He's a great professor. I just hope he was a capitalist 😊😊

[@snoski2697]

I have now binged through this whole lecture series while, at the same time, performing manual labour. Despite being a grad student in philosophy, trained in the production of books rather than labour, value has been derived from work which does not require particular skill. However, I must say that this lecture series has aided me in reflecting over the work that I perform; likewise, performing manual labour has aided me in properly digesting the contents of this lecture series. The two exist in a mutual relationship, where this lecture series has transformed my labour into physical meditation and that labour has transformed this lecture series into something relevant for me in the concrete sense. Although I do not particularly thank my employer, I want to thank you, prof. Wolff, for a fantastic lecture series th at has managed to elucidate the work of Marx like no other lecturer has. The explanations and examples have been lucid and insightful, and if God forbid I ever manage to find myself in the same line of work as you, I hope that I could myself be such a clear lecturer. Thank you.

[@nasirfazal3586]

I always thought that senior citizen professions should teach younger generations,that is exactly what you are doing,thank you. Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge

[@renejavion345]

A trick : you can watch movies on KaldroStream. Been using it for watching lots of of movies recently.

[@eliseoemery3767]

@Rene Javion yup, I have been watching on kaldroStream for months myself :)

[@kintarooe8622]

thank you, mr. wolf. watched the whole lecture a second time. your style of teaching is examplary; substantial, witty and honest. thank you, mr. campbell for uploading and sharing.

[@chemadelgadoq]

These series of excellent lectures have given me ideas that have deepened broadened my understanding of Capital. My heartfelt thanks to Professor Wolff

[@leanmchungry4735]

I have found these lectures a helpful guide for reading volume one of capital, it's been a difficult book but the lectures have helped a lot. Robert Wolff is an inspiring teacher with a lot of insight into this material, many thanks for posting these here.

[@yandigilov469]

I thought he said he would talk about what he got right and what he got wrong in order to discuss the likelihood of socialism being implemented today. Is this it? He said he would bring it all to the present, no?

[@ziggyzhang4156]

He's 84, guess he forgets things :-(

[@mautolv]

You can get the answer from his blog and his artical in the share drive.

[@kenma6224]

Didn't he prove the labour surplus theory of value mathematically, historically and culturally? And is spreading the word as clearly and widely as possible? What else do you want him to do? It's up to us to spread the word as well to break the mystification that capitalism is somehow a just system by allocating resources based on marginal utility/production in the market - as by that logic labour can never get any increase in the share of the pie that labour is simply inputs to production with any additional input of labour the marginal output decreases hence their wage will always compress - that's horse shit!

[@juansstein]

@@kenma6224 no

[@vp4744]

Thank you very much. I'll have to re-watch and perhaps even work out the linear equations. Thanks for instilling some excitement in economics.

[@blairhakamies4132]

As more I listen as more admiration I have for the Professor👏. I will order some book written by him. Some of the books will be for me some will be to friends. A deep thanking note to the organizers to make available online. 🌹

[@rhubarb_crumble]

amazing series of lectures. would love to see more

[@beatrizalvarez3035]

I already miss your next lecture, thanks

[@banpaksebangfaixaibouri1107]

29:50

[@farhadsharifi1628]

Could finish watching all 7 lectures by 9/3/2022! y it took me so long? been busy producing abstract socially necessary labour! :)

[@commontater1785]

I made it to the end and I'm more confused than I started. How is profit ever possible? Supposedly profit comes from paying workers less than the value of what they produce. But the price of any commodity is determined by the cost of production. So If I pay my workers less, my cost of production drops, but the price of my produced commodities drops with it. What am I getting wrong?

[@mattypeters6296]

14:00 you can see the price equations. They multiply the price of the corn, iron and labour (wage) by (1+pi). Multiplying by the 1 means you are including the price inputs and pi is the profit margin. So yes the price of the final product is tied to the cost of production, but with the profit margin factored in. Paying the worker more means either charging more for the output commodity (and presumably selling less cos it’s not competitive in the marketplace) or selling at the same price, pi is smaller leaving the capitalist with a smaller profit rate. Eat the rich !

[@patriciatinajero410]

I wish you post more on Marx

[@8vI]

Thank you so much for this invaluable resource!

[@brenttester4775]

Thank you very much for these videos!

[@thewisecraker8727]

what mathmaticians is he referring to?

[@commontater1785]

Can anyone explain something to me? Marx seems to contradict himself. He says that prices are determined by the cost of production. And he also says that commodities trade at their full labor value. But the full labor value (paid plus unpaid labor time) is greater than the cost of production (paid labor time only). I'm confused. (And yes, I did read "Value, price and profit.")

[@myusernameusedtobereallycr2075]

could you ask Robert Paul Wolff to do a Heidegger one next or maybe a spinoza one

[@georgemchugh8689]

I think the proof that leads to abandoning the labor theory of value was very clear. I appreciate the distinction using the fixed zero/near-zero ROIC of the labor market to model and describe the theory of exploitation.

[@PandaBearWithMic]

Thank you very much for these lectures! They are great! One thing I've missed in a lecture and maybe should go through them second time, but is it was said at any point why Marks thought that he capitalism will lead itself to it's own destruction? The other question I have (and maybe someone can answer it?) Communism, specifically in the USSR, with whole ideology of overworking, completing 5 year plans in 1 year, prices and wages set by a governor and etc. Isn't it at its core the ultimate scheme of exploitation of the extra hours of the workers described by Marx?

[@Matt-ox4gz]

I realize this was at least a year ago, so maybe you've found your answer or lost interest or what have you, but maybe I can help, if only for somebody else with the same question. Though I admit I still have a lot to learn, so I'll do my best. I'm not sure if he outright said it's inevitable, but since he made the comparison, I'm almost positive he thought that capitalism inherently creates the necessary conditions to bring forth socialism, just as capitalism itself did to feudalism. To start, the USSR was not yet communist, which would imply a stateless, classless, moneyless society. All of those things still existed. The Soviet Union began as a state-capitalist nation with the NEP, then after collectivization organized into a socialist state under the control of the proletariat class (which is where some contention between leftists can arise--was Stalin's government really accountable to the proletariat?) as opposed to control by the bourgeoisie. With that out of the way, if you remember from a previous lecture, there were essentially 3 questions that have guided all of human history: Who gets the surplus? What do they do with the surplus? How did they get the surplus? It's not about eliminating surplus, it's about changing the answer to these 3 questions. Currently, the capitalists get the surplus, they use it to benefit the capitalist class, they get it by exploiting the workers. The goal of socialism is to make it so that the proletariat gets the surplus, they use it to benefit the proletariat, they get it by seizing the means of production.

[@clockfixer5049]

You got too many things wrong. For that alone I need to admit that you have to take more time to read about the USSR, by far the most social yet not socialist society.

[@nthperson]

I now offer my own final comments on this series of lectures by Professor Wolff. During this series he only touched on what during Marx's time was generally referred to as "the land question" or "the land problem." Who legitimately had a claim on the rent of land? Marx deals with these issues most thoroughly in his third volume. Rather than offer what needs to be a somewhat detailed analysis of Marx's analysis, I provide the link to an article written in 1939 by a contributing writer to the English publication "Land & Liberty." This article, titled "Karl Marx on the Rent of Land" was written by Francis C.R. Douglas: www.cooperative-individualism.org/douglas-francis_karl-marx-on-the-rent-of-land-1939-feb.pdf The deep different between the principles embraced by Henry George and those embraced by Karl Marx is that George championed what amounts to a labor and capital goods basis of private property, and a demand theory of exchange value.

[@nasirfazal3586]

correction: professionals personal stories were priceles,these were like cherries on top of ice cream cake.lovely. Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal

[@Buckyball_philosopher]

hooray! I am glad you left on an agnostic note... though I was waiting for the analysis of why socialist conditions are being developed but the outlook is grim :P

[@danielh5159]

me too. I think I will post that question on his blog. Perhaps you can too. We deserve an answer after that major tease! Loved the lectures🌺🤩🦾

[@liqiqi2922]

I leave you go out and change the world！

[@uristrauss6106]

At the end of the series, I am left a little unsatisfied, because while I agree that capitalism is exploitative of the working class, and I think I understand and agree that the labour theory of value does not capture why, I am left without an explanation. The best I can manage is "exploitation involves moral judgment, which is subjective," but there's got to be a more convincing explanation that captures judgments that while not objective, are very widespread.

[@paracovo]

It's not a moral judgement. Marx's analysis in Das Kap basically demonstrates that capitalism has inherently contradictory behavior and that this behavior, this irrationality, is what creates all of its problems and will (hopefully) lead to its collapse. The LTV does capture the reason why this happens, but then you do have to read Das Kap to understand why. That's the objective analysis you're looking for, basically.

[@danielh5159]

And it is immoral like its predecessors slavery and feudalism, yet is portrayed as anything but, st least here in the good ol' US of A@@paracovo

[@daviddorsey8754]

More!!!!

[@commontater1785]

"Why is there no such thing as corn-power?" Very interesting. Is there such a thing as corn exploitation? Wolff seems to say so. Perhaps any commodity an be "exploited" for surplus-value, but only where that commodity is an input to production. Labor is a universal input, so more commonly exploited, but not the solely exploitable commodity, and thus not the sole source of value.

[@mt70092]

Man these videos just made me slowly come to the realization of how illogical and unfair capitalism is lol

[@christopher.2042]

Where is the gloom n doom prediction?

[@banpaksebangfaixaibouri1107]

37.19

[@Firmus777]

This is what happens when you reject Hegel.

[@tjejojyj]

So “corn-power” is the value of corn required to reproduce itself. Wait a moment. Corn doesn’t have the capacity to produce itself, it is itself. We need one unit of corn to produce one unit of corn. Done. How can a “surplus somewhere in the system” (whatever that is supposed to mean) change this? Labour-power is different as it is distinct from the use value of labour. Wolff doesn’t properly discuss the difference between exchange-value and use-value (I can’t recall him discussing it directly at all). Wolff’s linear algebra is an empty abstraction if he can’t tell the difference. Marx said surplus value was the form of capitalist exploitation of the working class. Wolff cannot consistently say “Marx was right that capitalism is exploitative” when he denies the manner in which Marx uses it. On his blog he says “… in economics I am a Marxist.” What does that mean when he rejects Marx’s fundamental discoveries? Isn’t he just a variant of “academic Marxism” that rejects Marx but claims his reputation? (Not just academic did this of course, the Stalinists, Maoists and Pabloites did too with much more deadly consequences) -- Please read/watch the following if you really want to know about Marx. Two Hundred Years Since the Birth of Karl Marx Nick Beams www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/10/31/marx-o31.html

[@banpaksebangfaixaibouri1107]

12

[@crossman3940]

You get the chance to be smart and profit from others . Don't get it .

[@mysticseer19]

He lost me on the equations … bottom line workers are totally exploited. Got it 🤖

[@almilligan7317]

This is not science but political theory? The suppressed premise is that spelled out as the cause of surplus labor, the exploitation of labor, as we saw in the child labor at the beginning of the industrial revolution. But it turned out to be false. The practical application of the ideal in Marxism led to poverty and autocratic government. The idea of property as theft is false. If I plow the ground and grow food on it, how is that theft? I remember the story of the rich landowner who chose to pay the laborers the same wage no matter the time of day they started. Was he being exploitive to those who began earlier? Rather he replies, may I not choose to do with mine what I please? While I agree that any ideal can be exploitive, we must look to the practical outcome when implemented. Of course, the answer is that the former USSR or China today are not really Marxist. This only shows that Marxism is not science in that it can not be falsified. I'd rather be free to be exploited than a means to another person's command. And today, because of a mixed capitalism, even those of modest means live better than any age before us.

[@pablobear4241]

What evidence do you have to support the notion that China and Russia are not really Marxist? This is blatantly false.