'Intro to Marxian Economics' 4 (6of8) - Richard D Wolff

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.

[TruthAndLoyalty]

The "king of the castle" mentality is very feudal and I can see where that applies to the traditional family social structure.

[robertfelts]

His lectures are solid gold

His relation of personal relationships to economic systems is a great way to connect ideas

[sunglasseslizard]

Holy shit this is impeccable. Absolutely thrilled that this amazing quality of content is available for free on here.

[robertfelts]

I'm just going to keep on commenting. I'm surprised at the low number of views for this series of videos. I feel like I'm getting in at the ground level on ideas that will be skyrocketing soon. I wish I came across this information when I was younger.

I came across Wolff during the covid lockdown. Watching these things a decade after they were spoken outloud to groups of people is eerie. This is one of the reasons I don't stress what goes on too much, I believe solutions exist for the problems and I believe that society (or the deciders of society) aren't ready to accept the solutions yet. Much the same way an addict knows how to get sober, and they will do it when they are ready if they don't perish from the I toxicity first. We know what to do, and when we are ready to do it we can get healthy again. I'm also not a highly marginalized person, only run of the mill marginalized millennial child of boomers

I see many my age struggling with the economics of relationships and households. From marriage to dating to roommates, it is fantastic to compare those things to societal economic orientation because there are many overlaps that I believe people can connect ideas with

I hope with time and exposure the ideas in these lectures reach the masses that are desperate to make sense of this mess we are in. Half of the ones that have the most valid greiviances are totally unaware of the positions that exist in these lectures. To put it in terms of the family dynamic, when they realize what's going on they will get a divorce end seek a more appropriate arrangement

[IDidactI]

@Truth and Loyalty Records
The surplus that the man produced was already appropriated by the capitalists he works for. His wage is such that it is less than the value of the fruits of his labour, so he has no 'surplus'. What he then does is pay for the food, water, power, kitchenware, etc. that are analogous to the means of production in capitalism - since he doesn't then *pay* the woman anything at all, *anything* she produces above her own sustenance is surplus, because surplus is equal to the gap between wages and value of output. Of course, what she makes for herself doesn't count as surplus because the commodity (food, for example) pays for itself by having a use value to her. 

[MarkoKraguljac]

Knowledge and observations that should be common but are rarer than national lottery winners.

[Cid]

@RichardDWolff - We'd love to see any articles you can point us to a related to Marxian theory applied to other areas outside of the enterprise (like viewing the household the way you discuss)

[nthperson]

As I have written previously, feudalism broke down party under the pressure of the introduction of luxury goods via the Mediterranean trade. Then, there is the experience of the people of Britain, where feudal arrangements were dissolved with Magna Carta. This treaty between the king and the lords led to the beginning of the end of the commons, the appropriation of land rent by the landlords, and set the stage for displacement of the peasant population by cattle and sheep. The rural population was forced to migrate into the cities to compete for subsistence wages; and, when employment could not be found, to climb aboard ships to take them to the distant empty lands where Britain sought to establish colonial footholds. And, of course, Britain was far from alone in this process.

Was the history of settlement in North America really all that different. The historian Jackson Turner Main examined class structure and wealth ownership in colonial N.A. in the mid-1700s. He concluded that most the assets owned by that generation were inherited. Economic activity in the colonies was already dominated by land speculation. Washington, Jefferson and many of the founding generation inherited landed wealth (and slaves) and were the beneficiaries of a system of law and taxation that secured and protected rentier interests.

Edward J. Dodson, M.L.A.
Director
School of Cooperative Individualism

[pbeeeeee]

Surplus appropriation debates aside, the heavy-hitting analysis here is the explanation of the decline of the American family.

[whatabouttheearth]

Where is any source that the marriage ceremony originated with feudal vows to a lord? I can find no such source

[TruthAndLoyalty]

I get what you're saying, but doesn't a portion of the income support the woman at home? She's distributing her surplus, but isn't he also? I'd find the issue to be more about the common perception of it. That steak she prepared distributed surplus to him, but isn't her portion of that steak surplus he delivered to her? I see the feudal reference in that he has exploitative power there, but I don't see a major issue with the distribution of surplus under decent conditions.

[whatabouttheearth]

8:20

This isn't taking into account cultural context of the change in women's attitudes towards patriarchal societal conditions outside of labor relations, sure the patriarchal aspects are related to labor but the change in women's approach to their own agency is not completely in a labor context. It's essentially economically reductionist. He pretty much ignored over half of a century of the feminist movement and that you can not break all the motives or relations down to labor.

Marxists ideas are great and all but they always reduce all human affairs to labor relations and only bring up other aspects like emotions, psychology, desire, when it suits that reductionist view. (Probably why I'm a red and black).

He's acting like that wasn't addressed all over the damn place. The household surplus labor was and is very much addressed, has been since the 60s at least.

[fcblaugrana]

By the same token then, are you not invalidating Richard's point? Isn't the husband not taking the wife's surplus because he also simply consumes the steak and doesn't sell it? He also simply consumes the labor put into the ironing of his shirt - he does not turn around and sell it...