Tweet
Namaste
This is the final Session of Prof Richard Wolff’s online course Introduction to Marxian Economics. Session 4 applies Marx’s theory of surplus to today’s economy and gives us a look at how the theory can be applied outside of the industrial production process, using the household as an example.
This 4 session course essentially teaches Marx’s theory of surplus value in industrial production, the subject of Capital, Vol 1. It is neither a discussion of nor advocacy for socialism or communism. Marx, among others, realized that the principle goals of the French revolution, liberty, equality and brotherhood, had not been attained and he saw capitalism as a primary factor in that failure. He spent years writing on the subject of capitalism, analyzing and critiquing the theories of neoclassical economists, most notably Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, culminating in the publishing of the 1st volume of Capital in 1867. In the years following Marx’s death in 1883 his notebooks were edited and published as Vols 2 and 3. The 3-volume Theories of Surplus Value is commonly referred to as Volume 4 of Capital, indeed, the Progress Publishers, Moscow edition shows (Volume IV of Capital) on the title page. Marx thought of his work as separate from the work of the neoclassical economists, being a critical analysis of capitalism rather than extolling its virtues.
For those joining us for the first time you can find the entire course at the link below. It’s an autoplay link so it will take you from start to finish without having to search for the segments.
Introduction to Marxian Economics
This is the 5th diary covering this course. Here are #1, #2, #3 and #4.
Next up is Advanced & Applied Marxian Economics Intensive Course. This video series has not been put on YouTube. There are 4 sessions, each about 1 1/2 hours and they automatically advance. You can switch from one session to another but there are no segments as there were for the Intro course.
Marx in the Morning will return on 10 April for a discussion of Session 1 of the Advanced course.
I’ve really enjoyed doing this and hope y’all have learned something from it.
For those who wish to pursue Marx in more depth all 3 volumes of Capital have been published by Penguin Classics and can be ordered through your fave, preferably independent, bookseller. Another major work by Marx has also been published by Penguin: The Grundrisse, “[a] series of seven notebooks [that] were rough-drafted by Marx, chiefly for purposes of self-clarification, during the winter of 1857-8.” “It is an extremely rich and thought-provoking work, showing signs of humanism and the influence of Hegelian dialectic method. Do note, though, Marx did not intend it for publication as is, so it can be stylistically very rough in places.” (from a note preceding the Grundrisse at the Marxist Internet Archive)
55 Comments
Afternoon, pups
The Peasant which is not a King waves a good afternoon to you.
Hou, PeasantParty
That mental conscious of consumption for your economic future is a kick in the head, huh?
Loans plus Interest from the Capitalists instead of higher wages is also a kick in the head.
Seems to me that labor may have harmed itself by accepting the Capitalists’ propaganda about the American dream, home ownership, buy-now-pay-later. While I believe the labor has the power, they also seem to have conscience and acceptance of responsibility.
In the current economic miasma, I’ve always wondered why labor allows itself to be exploited: tell the masters to clean their own damn toilets. But I believe it’s human nature to want to take care of family and self; if the Mittster (or any of his ilk) refuse to pay a fair rate to his maid or gardener, there is always another labor source who is more desperate, hungrier, frightened than the one he replaces. S/He is, indeed, willing to work for less. The erosion of ‘labor power’ has gotten us where we are today. To undo 30, 40 years of erosion will not be an easy task, nor, I suspect, one quickly attainable. Baby steps or anarchy?
The labour movement aka labour unions are able to negotiate wages and benefits. It cannot, on its own, change the system and systemic change is what is required. Baby steps. Mondragon in the Basque country started out small and now has about 100K workers.
It seems to me that Marx’s vision to the degree that it was articulated was one of production occurring without employer-employee relationships. Occurring between economic equals and thus political equals.
The difficulty we face is how to accomplish this within an economy in which survival of large numbers depends on a very complicated division of labor and very expensive equipment. In the face of competition that can be expected to devote large quantities of resources to the psyops of marketing.
There are now over 15 million workers unemployed in this country mainly as a direct result of almost 60,000 (sixty-thousand) mines, mills and factories being closed as Wall Street sought— and continues to seek— cheaper resources and labor markets. I really doubt that Mondragon type initiatives can solve this massive problem.
Marx advanced the socialist alternative to capitalism.
Marx saw the need for strong Communist Parties.
Marx advanced the idea Communist Parties must always enter into discussions, dialog and debate by raising “the ownership question.”
In today’s world we need to be talking about getting America back to work.
How do we get so many people back to work without bringing forward the need to nationalize and bring under public ownership these 60,000 closed mines, mills and factories?
In addition, we need to consider the WAY to put people to work is by creating jobs designed to solve the problems of the people— a national public health care system, a national public child care system, WPA and CCC.
“Baby steps” will never solve our problems.
Marx pointed out that any nation engaged in militarism and wars might as well be dumping the wealth of the nation (wealth is created by workers) into the deepest depths of the oceans.
When we talk about “jobs, jobs, jobs” we must talk about real living wage jobs with the minimum wage indexed to all cost of living factors otherwise we end up in the same situation we are in now— tens of millions of working people creating tremendous wealth but living in poverty themselves.
Marx pointed out that it is labor with no small amount of help from Mother Nature creating ALL wealth— Wall Street exploits labor and rapes Mother Nature.
The time is now, not for “baby steps;” but, for the massive redistribution of wealth and the wise use of the wealth created by labor.
Is it not good to be a serf? /s
Aren’t the rich the rich because they are just better than us, have contributed more, worked harder, have a relative that worked on his own and was greatly rewarded via his ability to monetize his efforts. Isn’t the real problem folks not learning how to monetize their efforts? Didn’t Marx forget we are all lazy and will not work without a fear of starving – that the government trying interfere with the natural order of things in order to get liberty, equality and brotherhood just slows down our advance toward a better life? /s
Sorry – for a moment I felt the need to channel Ayn Rand and Alan Greensberg and the Koch brothers and the GOP. I’ll try to control it better in the future.
:-)
Back to work. Lemme think about that, TD.
Namaste
For Maki
I’d sure like to see some substantiation for those comments. In Marx’s writings, not somebody else’s interpretation of his writings. And quoting the Manifesto doesn’t cut it.
Baby steps, indeed. Many a little makes a mickle.
I’m fascinated by the way in which Marx’s vision seems to defy the trend in Western thought towards specialization, a trend which was strong in his lifetime and even stronger now, and without being any less well-reasoned or scientific for it. He brings in data from various fields of human endeavor — religion, politics, philosophy, early psychiatry/alienism, et cetera — and uses it all to underpin his work. No wonder why he needed four books — three of which he never lived to see published — to even begin to encompass it all! (Also no wonder why he couldn’t take time out to set forth the details of a proposed solution; just figuring out the right questions to ask took him his entire life.)
Along these lines , I think that trying to revive the old term “political economy” might be a good idea, as I see this as a way of acknowledging biases rather than hiding behind the pretense of a “neutral” or “fair and balanced” position (as opposed to a truthful position, apparently). Acknowledging biases is important in such fields as psychiatry and psychology, for good reason.
True. It is difficult, but Marx did have a suggestion and your subconscious already knows it. (grins)
My first knee-jerk thoughts are let the capitalist banksters play havoc with their own money. In other words, have all the other non-elites take their money out of the banks and the system that is robbing them. Not everyone will do that.
Even if they eventually do, you have to be ready to restructure because switching from state to private doesn’t make a difference to the producers and fails to withstand time.
I agree with most everything you said, however, I did not get the impression that Marx favored Communism. In fact, he did his analysis on all the isms and found the exploitation rampant in all of them.
I am not as far along in the studies as Southern Dragon, but that is my impression. Otherwise, carry on with your pointed analysis for it is clear as clear can be!
Ahhh, yes. Tis much better to be a Peasant than an Elite. A Peasant only need worry about their next meal, a form of light and heat, and what the next day may bring. The Elites have much more to worry about like keeping the wealth flow going, advertising campaigns, and propaganda reports.
PW,
You said it! We should use the correct terms. Not using the correct terminology is what has caused society to fall into the quick sand we are in now. A Corporate Controlled Political Economy is what we have and there are other more specific names for it. It just so happens that it leaves all the producers without any way of dealing with the surplus.
Er, find an occupation?
My subconscious is hiding at the moment.
LOL! Yes, or find more ways to cut out the Non-Worker that decides the appropriation and distribution of surplus.
cmauken has a great diary, which certainly looks like one of those ‘baby steps’ that could work: Cooperative Housing – An Answer for some.http://my.firedoglake.com/cmaukonen/2012/03/20/cooperative-housing-an-answer-for-some/
You mean doing it the old SC way. Hand Jamie Dimon a shovel and point him to the barn.
Oh, sorry. I thought Marx was one of the primary authors of the Communist Manifesto. My mistake.
Marx and Engels authored the Communist Manifesto in 1848 on behalf of the Communist League. All of the available editions are not the original but were edited by Engels after the Paris Commune in 1870 (unless you can find a scan of the 1858 version, which would be in German).
Capital is a later work. It was first published in 1867. Aside from the contents of the Communist Manifesto, written when Marx was 30, no one knows what Marx’s proposal for the successor to the capitalism he described in Capital was. That is, what the mature Marx would have proposed. This means that actual “communist” revolutions have been inventions from scratch – the Russian by Lenin and others, the Chinese by Mao and others, the Cuban by Castro and others.
What has been missed in 150 years of controversy over Marx is what he actually said in Capital. And the analytical tools it provides for looking at the political economy. And recapturing the notion that the whole purpose of Marx’s intellectual effort was to understand why the industrialization that had gone one since the eighteenth century was moving nations, even those that had liberal revolutions, away from liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Correction: “scan of the 1848 version”
Marx was hired by the Communist League to write the Manifesto based on what they wanted covered in it. Marx makes little mention of his vision for the future after that. I suggest you update your reading of Marx. If nothing else, your understanding of capitalism will be enhanced.
Quoting the Communist Manifesto doesnt cut it??
SD, you have the patience of Job.
It seems Americans think Marx invented Communism, which they all, every one of them, know all about, and the all about they think they know is that Communism is evil and godless and America defeated communism because God is on our side and president Reagan was a brave, free-market capitalist.
Now you’d like to help us understand a framework that explains how it might just be hysterical pirate-capitalism is responsible for our current economic ills and not militant islamo-fascists who hate our freedoms and our God?
My God, where were you on 9/11, didn’t you see the towers fall?
Where were you in 2008 when the election was stolen by a secret muslim using the votes of dead gay people to take over our country?
This is the USA, where people have been innoculated against any attempts to teach Marx.
This is America, where in 1972 Alabama dropped the requirement that High School students learn math, and added the requirement that they take a class called The Evils of Communism by J.Edgar Hoover.
We’ll all be living in a hobo jungle, out behind the local Wal-Mart, and sitting ’round the fire fighting with each other about whether free-market capitalism ever got a fair chance to prove itself.
SD, you have the patience of Job.
No, it doesn’t.
There are those who will always exalt in parading their ignorance, passing it off as knowledge. Nothing I can do about that.
If you read a good biography of J. Edgar Hoover, his thinking and his PR shaped a lot of what people think Marxism is. Of course part of the credit goes to whoever coined the phrase “Marxist-Leninist revolution”. Interesting co-option if you look back on it historically.
J. Edgar Hoover learned his anti-communism early, during the Palmer raids, and saw it as his ticket to power in DC. Before The Evils of Communism was a high school requirement, most American History and Civics teachers in the US (yeah, a lot of coaches) assigned Hoover’s Masters of Deceit as required reading. In the 1950s, states passed laws requiring “Americanism” to be taught in public schools.
And seemingly the ghost of Hoover still haunts the halls at FBI.
Old joke.
“When asked what the difference was between capitalism and communism was, a fellow from the USSR replied. ‘Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism it’s exactly the other way around.’”
I hope you understood my comment to be a sincere compliment.
Keep up the good work.
I think we better set up a new place for this. Half of the people involved my end up getting banned from FDL.
Got any suggestions for friendlier environs to continue these discussions?
An interesting essay on Capital:
http://my.firedoglake.com/alanmaki/2012/03/20/the-difference-between-capital-and-capitalism-the-emergence-of-social-capital/
I have never heard anything so absurd to suggest that Marx had no vision for socialism being the alternative to capitalism.
Together, Marx and Engels FOUNDED the German workers’ communist club.
Marx also contributed to numerous socialist publications advocating the socialist alternative to capitalism.
Engels wrote, “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.” Perhaps I am wrong, but as I recall, Marx had quite a little to say about this most important pamphlet.
Also, there was Marx’ own “Poverty of Philosophy.”
To insinuate that Marx wrote the “Communist Manifesto,”or “The Manifesto of the Communist Party,” for mere pay rather than for what he believed is one of the worst smears against Marx and Engels I have ever heard.
The “Communist Manifesto” clearly articulates why the working class should get rid of capitalism and create a new socialist society.
To suggest that Marx merely critiqued capitalism without being for its replacement with socialism is completely ridiculous.
It has yet to really sink in to the average person how long and hard the 1% has been working to co-opt any and all opposition. They never sleep, they never give up and they never forget.
Meanwhile, the progressives it seems, declare victory every twenty years or so and go promptly back to sleep.
We thought we won when Nixon resigned, then when Clinton was elected and again when Obama was elected.
When Obama was elected, you’d have thought the Berlin wall was falling.
Money is the source of all injustice and inequality. We’re talking about jobs, but all those jobs are getting mechanized, computerized, gettin that good ole efficiency make over. Those jobs aren’t coming back as they shouldn’t.
The Zeitgeist Movement has a lot of answers to all the problems. Save the world, stop the wars, use technology as it is meant to be used, to work for us, rather than the other way around, resource based economy…..I bet we could come up with some brilliant ideas if only we would actually be able to talk about them, focus on them, and put human minds behind them, rather than having them sit in the labs creating bigger explosions with a higher kill rate.
But I like Marx, and I like that you have workshops set up for someone to learn. It’d be cool if there was a website that created that for any lesson in life.
Thanks for the history.
That Marx wrote Capital after the Manifesto is important to note. It would be a shame to discount Marx’s later works because he co-authored the Manifesto years before. I want to avoid holding Marx accountable for every single bad thing that happened under Communism.
I do believe the some 70 active Occupy encampments in the US are doing this sort of talking. As wells as the several hundred local Occupy movement outside of encampments that go to some of the smaller cities and towns in the US. And then there is the Occupy movement outside the US.
It doesn’t take much to set up a website. Go do it. Tell us when it’s up.
What exactly is the culpability of a writer whose readers get the harebrained idea to go do it and then have to figure out the details after they’ve committed to the action?
What is the culpability of Thomas Paine for the French Revolution? Or Edmund Burke for the Bush years?
I know you didn’t ask me, but I don’t think anyone suggested anything of the sort.
Actually, I believe this series of posts is meant to aquaint the reader with Marxism, that is Marx’s most important legacy, an analytical framework within which we can begin understand the historical developement and operations of the capitalist system.
Once a person is armed with an adequate understanding of capitalism they can draw their own conclusion about the next step, if it seems a next step is necessary.
In my estimation, Marxism is much more than a “mere critique” of capitalism. Marxism provides us a window of understanding into the true operation of the captalist system, a system whose true nature is deliberately obscured by it’s owners.
I’d also point out that the constant conflation of socialism with communism has a negative effect on the discussion at hand.
Be that as it may, I value Marx’s contribution to understanding capitalism far more than his thoughts on the alternatives because what we have here, at this moment in history, is a country full of people who don’t understand what has happened to them.
I’d like to know a little something about what has happened before someone starts telling me what I must do next.
Let’s not get the cart before the horse.
I did and thank you. Those who know nothing more about Marx than what TarheelDem has described try my patience.
We are talking about after 1850. You will not find any of these pre-1848 ideas in his writings after that. In 1850 Marx remarked to Engels in a letter that he no longer thought revolution possible. That is when he started his studies into the neoclassical theories of capitalism. He may mention socialism or communism in some minor context but he had made quite clear to his associates that he wasn’t interested in the future. It is reported that when asked once what the future of socialism was he told the questioner to go to the fair and ask the lady with the crystal ball.
If you’d like to discuss Marx’s theory as set forth in Capital that’s fine but I’d not like to have to discuss socialism or communism with you every time I post one of these diaries.
Lawd Haf Mercy!
I leave for a few hours and come back to see all this. Okay, gotta go read em.
Exactly.
Is there something you dislike about us reviewing history and economic theory? Discuss the particulars of the lesson and we are with you. I’m not sure what you wish for us to respond to in your comments.
TWOOPH!
I got to thinking about editions and translations this evening. During my many trips to Hong Kong in the 60s I usually went to the Chinese Communist store just off the ferry landing in Kowloon. Their bookshop was amazing. So was their jade and ivory. I bought a lot of Marx’s works there. Published by Foreign Language Press, Peking. I pulled that copy of the Manifesto and looked at the publication data. It’s a reproduction of the translation made by Samuel Moore in 1888 from the original German edition of 1848. Haven’t read this edition in years. Have to read it again.
Heh, the 2002 Penguin Classics edition is also the Moore translation. Guess people gave up on Engel’s edited edition.
I was merely responding to outrageous claims that were made.
I posted an essay by a very prominent Marxist, Professor Sidney Gluck, because it directly relates to Marx’ “Capital” and raises questions about types of capital. I thought it was pertinent to this discussion.
Why would you suggest there might be something I dislike about the topic under discussion?
I just think Marx is being distorted when it is insinuated he had no real intent to change a system he saw fatally flawed.
I commented as a response to the insinuation that Marx was mainly interested in studying capitalism more so than getting rid of capitalism and replacing it with socialism.
I don’t understand why this comment was made if a response wasn’t welcome. I didn’t bring this point up to begin with.
I do recall some Marxist said something to the point, “Some philosophers interpret the world; the point is to change it.”
This stuff about “baby steps” is not a Marxist approach to social change.
I have made an observation that there is this trend by some of the supporters of Obama to disguise their support for Obama behind a perverted form of Marxism claiming that we need to be patient with Obama and we need to take care to seek mere “baby steps” and “incremental steps” towards change lest we offend Obama’s Wall Street backers.
I’m gonna be real blunt. I want you to limit your comments to a discussion of the contents of the video being discussed. I’m not interested in your views of Obama, Marx, socialism, communism or anything else not contained in the videos. I am not going to allow you to hijack my threads.
My guess he wants to do some of what his buddy likely got banned for doing — threadjacking, stalking, trolling, etc.
I have a right to comment concerning the short-comings of the video. This is part of the discussion is it not?
I also find it interesting you have no problem with Phoenix Woman making these ridiculous accusations.
To suggest that “Capital” can be discussed in isolation from the “Communist Manifesto” if one wants to use Marxism as a guide to action for real change that improves the working conditions and standard of living of the working class as most of the Communist movements around the world do is very short-sighted.
“Capital” is all about explaining how wealth is created and who owns the wealth while explaining the nature of how exploitation of the working class by the capitalist class takes place.
I find it quite interesting that some of you who don’t want to defend your views hide behind the catchall of “thread hijacking.”
“This is part of the discussion is it not?”
No, it is not.
I’m not interested in how you perceive how this thread is put together. If I have to ask for the assistance of the mods to keep you from disrupting the discussion I will do so. If you’d like to present your views on the subject matter write your own diary.
I can’t begin to tell you how tiring it is to have to put up with your two-year-old mentality and tactics.
Please stop it, or go away.
See you guys on April 10. Thanks again, SD, for these diaries. Looking forward to the next session.
I think you’re missing a critical distinction that must be understood about these related, but separate topics.
Marxism in general, Capital in particular is an analysis of historical fact, of things as they are if you will.
The Communist Manifesto deals with the future, with things as they could be.
It’s an entirely reasonable request to limit the discussion on this thread to Marxism as that is the topic at hand.
The reason for that should be obvious; it’s entirely possible with a little effort to have a clear understanding of Marx’s analysis of historical fact, and meaningful discussion thereof.
OTOH, the Communist Manifesto deals with what could be, and that is a less settled topic, after all;