Tweet
Welcome to the discussion group on Marx’s theories on class analysis. In his usual way Prof Wolff lays out the foundation and history of class analysis in his first class. We all know the broad terms rich, poor, powerful, powerless. Wolff shows us how Marx looked at class from a different perspective. All of the sessions of this course are on one web page:
Marxian Class Analysis Theory and Practice
In all of his courses Prof Wolff talks about other works of Marx that are connected to his opus, Capital. I thought a short review of these published works might be in order. In addition to Capital and essays and articles published in various journals in the 1850s-80s, Marx wrote 3 major works in his lifetime. These books cover one or more topics in more depth than is covered in Capital.
Grundrisse, written in 1857 and was not intended to be published and indeed wasn’t until 1939. It is a collection of notebooks of Marx in his research on capitalism. It contains more in depth material on some of the topics covered in Capital. David Harvey’s course Reading Vols 2 and 3 of Capital refers to text in it. It is available through Penguin Classics.
A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Written in 1859 it was intended to be the first installment of a much larger work on capitalism. It was overtaken by Capital. Its sections on the history of money and theories of surplus value add depth to those topics as covered by Capital. It’s now available from Forgotten Books, either as a free ebook download or hardcopy through Amazon. Both are facsimile copies of the 1904 International Library Publishing Company edition.
Theories of Surplus Value. Written in 1861 this 3-volume work, almost as big as Capital, is Marx’s notes on portions of the theories of classical economists Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others. Good luck finding complete sets of this work. Separate volumes are out there, various editions published by Progress Publishers, Moscow in the 1960a and 70s, about $20 a copy. There’s nothing wrong with having different editions, the translations are the same. There are no paperback editions unless you go to International Publishers, where it’s spread out over 3 volumes in the Complete Works of Marx and Engels, something close to 40 volumes. There are other writings in the 1st and 3rd volumes so you’ll have more than just Theories. $24.95 a copy.
For those who don’t have a problem reading really long texts online all of Marx’s and Engels’ works are on the Marxist archive website:
This is one section of the much larger Marxists Internet Archive. All you fans of Emma Goldman and Rosa Luxemburg will have a ball here.
So, what did you think of the first session?
Class 2 next week.
32 Comments
Afternoon, freedom fighters
Thanks, SD. I have, in general, stayed away from Wolff’s work because I always have something else pressing to do or read. I will try to get to his work now.
Woohoo. Looks like I can get in on the ground floor this time.
I’ll watch the first class this evening.
Thanks SD.
Thank you, SD, more than words may convey, for the extended bibliography and for providing us access to Wolff’s discussion of the “repressed discourse”, Class Analysis.
Recommended to all who would seek to understand the role of “money” and “power” …
Superb.
DW
Okay, for next week we’ll cover claas 2. Please watch the video for the class before next Tuesday. The link for the course is at the top of the post.
What did I think?
Well, I’ve been end of the month busy at work today. I did not have the lesson plan ahead of time. I definitely will go back through and refresh myself so I may discuss it tomorrow.
Very, very happy that you are doing the theory step by step again. We must think about things and take a different look at what we can do to make a difference in the world.
This is cool. When I turn in my dissertation in late November, this is one of the bookmarks I’ll return to first. Of course, some will argue that I should have read this stuff BEFORE I wrote the dissertation but. . .
This first session was first class.
Wolff’s ability to weave history, “economic systems”, and Marx’s “class analysis” together into a coherent whole is completely enthralling, as well as enlightening and suggestive of possibility and dare I say, rational and reasonable hope of building something, not just an “economy”, but a civil society that is just, humane, compassionate, and sustainable.
Wolff is deliberately laying out what must be nothing less than the fundamental basis of a plan for successful, transformative, action, as he informs those willing to listen, on such a profoundly solid psychological and social level, about the essential relationships between people, bringing it “home” so “personally” as to allow anyone who hears what he says to say to themselves, “Wow! this explains many things in a fashion which must resonate with anyone who has considered why our society is the “way” it is!”
Wolff speaks simply, yet profoundly powerfully about not only why things are the way the are, but he also hints broadly, as well, that the evolution of consciousness is tied directly to unexamined assumptions of social organization, from the economic”system” as a whole, to the relationship between members of a family.
Again, SD, I thank you for the stellar education you have provided us and, having a bit of time, over the next several days, I intend to make use of it by checking out the other sessions in this series.
I hope that many here at FDL will avail themselves of an amazing and, I consider, thoroughly useful “method” of analysis.
DW
Noooooooooo! I missed the first discussion!!
What’s the topic of your dissertation and is it related to Marx?
The bit about how entrepeneurs seem to miraculously “discover” secrets to creating a successful business by democratizing the management in a way that Marx would approve was a delicious irony. The good capitalists of silicon valley don’t even know that they’re Marxists!
What I found interesting was Wolff’s discussion of how we experience different economic systems in different areas of our lives. Home life is more a feudal system but we leave the home and enter a capitalist system. (I’m sure he also used an example of slavery, but I don’t remember the specifics.) All exist simultaneously, and we move between the systems without recognizing any but capitalism.
To totally oversimplify the lesson, I think the point Wolff emphasized the most and will likely be the basis of the next lessons is that Marx created a system of social classification that is based on how production is accomplished.
Whereas other classification systems group people according to, say, the resources they own or the social power they have, Marx grouped people according to how they functioned in the system of producing goods and services and how or whether they participated in deciding how the products were distributed throughout the society.
From wiki:
Here is a contemporary picture of Marx, also from wiki. He looks like a hipster!!
I have to admit that prior to hearing Prof Wolff explain it, I’d never really absorbed the notion of a “repressed discourse”.
Now it seems to me that approaching Class Analysis must be even more repressed than talk about sex, money, and death.
Why do we avoid this subject?
Rhetorical question, of course…
But by avoiding the subject, we collude in our own oppression.
I don’t think it’s a rhetorical question.
I’m asking what is the motivation for the repression, not what is the outcome.
Collusion in our own oppression is an outcome, but I don’t think it’s the motivation.
I think there must be something about the topic of CA that touches deep-seated fears?
Maybe it’s related to authority?
I think you’re correct; the reason is fear.
Each individual has long functioned in our capitalist society. Individuals are driven by goals founded on hope and ideals of class and social mobility. These things are founded on the belief of equality and liberty. We believe we all have a chance to make a better life, in other words.
If an individual admits that the deck is stacked against us at the very foundations of our capitalist society, then all hope is lost. Not only is all hope lost, but the admission itself implies that the individual has been complicit. We as Americans have long reveled in ‘self’ while our fellows around us have suffered intolerable grievances. If we admit that we, and by implication all others, do not have opportunities or equality or even true freedom, then we admit that we have been complicit in this as cogs in the machine of oppression that is the American Society.
Just my 2 cents.
Not only how it is accomplished. In Capital Marx looks at how surplus is produced in all societies. As Wolff states he uses the word mehr, “more” in German, rather than surplus, which is what we see in the translations.
Marx asks the question(s) who produces the surplus (more) and who gets the surplus (more). His analysis of class is based on those questions.
I also think that we hide from these truths out of the same fear that addicts or alcoholics hide from truth. If we admit an understanding to our failures, we’ve brought those failures to light. In recognizing our failures, we create an obligation to correct them. It then becomes our responsibility to change things for the better. This is why alcoholics and addicts self-sabotage. They do not want to succeed, because success creates expectations of continued success or improvement.
If the average American were to admit to themselves that they live in a society where the game is rigged, and that they have been complicit in their own oppression and the oppression of their fellows, then they are suddenly faced with the responsibility to try to change things. This is where the fear really asserts itself, IMHO.
How many have we seen on these very boards who are confronted with hard truths, only to say ‘well I can’t protest about that tomorrow. I might lose my job!’. This is the expression of what I mean by the above paragraph. People are afraid to acknowledge the truth, because that acknowledgement would highlight their failure and create a need for change, and the need for change could result in seriously uncomfortable, or even dangerous, circumstances and situations.
In short, the capitalists who control just about everything weren’t about to allow an idea that threatened their existence a foot in the door. In his Intro to Marxian Economics Wolff notes the absence of any teaching of Marx’s theories in economic or business classes in universities.
His latest book gives us an idea of probably the most effective way we’ll have to compete with the capitalists. It ain’t perfect but it’s a step in the right direction. Democracy At Work.
When this diary drops off the recent diaries list you can go here to pick it back up:
http://my.firedoglake.com/southerndragon/
Agree entirely. All men are created equal, but if we aren’t all “middle class”, then we aren’t equal, right? Better not talk about it, then… Further, if we aren’t equal, can we really be free? I think the answer is no.
So, to admit that we don’t have freedom or equality is to reject the tenants of our country’s founding principles.
Remember, the radicals of Marx’s generation were driven by the fact that the ideals of the French Revolution, liberty, equality and brotherhood, were not met. The more things change the more they remain the same. *g*
Thanks for that. “More” as the original word Marx used in German for surplus makes a tremendous amount of sense to me, and it makes the idea a little bit more accessible, IMO.
Yeah, I actually think of the French Revolution when I think about Marx now. Liberty, equality and brotherhood are all mixed up with Marx for me.
…which is kind of interesting because prior to this series I thought of totalitarianism when I thought of Marx. I suspect that is so because I’ve been propagandized.
That’s because Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin identified as Marxists when they didn’t understand or ignored his class analysis and reverted back to the power and property classifications. Had they reorganized the workplace we may have seen a different outcome in Russia.
Marx was never interested in the future. His interests lay in why the ideals of the French Revolution weren’t realized, which led him to his study and critique of Capitalism. Communism to Marx was a group of people who got together to produce something, a commune. That’s why it’s so funny to think of a bunch of Republican software developers working out of somebody’s garage or a rented storefront as communists, which is what they are.
As much as the workplace, the “relationships” around “work” in the home needed to be reorganized, as do both “places”, here.
Ah, but you, SD, already know that.
DW
Alright. Finished the first lecture. I’ll watch the 2nd before next week’s course.
Thank you again for this SD. A lot of new ideas and theories here (for me), and I’m really enjoying learning about them and kicking them around in my head.
Shit – I’m using Marxian Class Analysis on my own household right now. Lord help me; I’m a feudal asshole!
Me too.
I’ve come to the conclusion that my home is organized under the futile system.
Class analysis jokes = Lulz.
SD thanks for the link to the Wolff lectures on Marx.
Exploitation results in an entirely different understanding of class.
Charles Anderson recorded a two-semester class he gave on the development of western economic thought back in 1984/85 at the University of Wisconsin. In this 54 hours of lectures, Plato and Adam Smith each got three hours of lecture, Aristotle got two hours, but Marx was lectured on for five hours! More than any other philosopher.
This 54 hour course is available on iTunes and at:
Western Culture: Political, Economic & Social Thought, Integrated Liberal Studies, University of Wisconsin:
http://www.uwalumni.com/andersonlectures.aspx
Anderson’s students were assigned to read The Communist Manifesto by Marx. Those that read this manifesto out in public reported that they were sneered and stared at as if they were reading pornography (note that Reagan was president then and he was always talking about the “evil empire”).