Richard D. Wolff

Prof. Wolff i have listened to many of your lectures online and i find a lot of what you say speaks to me. I also listen to other economists such as Mark Blyth and read some Mises and Adam Smith. I have conducted my own look into capitalism and i find that i agree with you. If we take Marx's C-M-C and M-C-M framework and apply some variable to understand them better we can show the following: MP = CC - (MI+MW) [Profit = End product value - Cost of Production] CC = MI + CL [End product value = Initial investment + Labor Value] MP = (MI + CL) - (MI + MW) [substitute in values] MP = CL - MW [Profit = Labor Value - Wages paid to Laborer] *where MI is investment money for equitable labor, and MW is Money payed to wages or living labor. I am not aware if this has been done before, it seems like a fairly straight forward representation of marxs argument. It points out the inherant flaw of capitalism which is that Labor is necessary for the economy to function and the motive of capitalists is profits. This puts wages and profits in direct competition with each other and to the capitalist increasing profits is the name of the game so we can already see who the victor is. combining that with your EL + LL = TL equation Raw Materials + LL = EL (goods) [Which the capitalists buys] EL + LL = TL [capitalist supplies the goods laborers supply the labor] Cost - TL = Surplus. [Cost is the markets willingness to pay a price that was above and beyond the combination of equitable labor and living labor] This means that in the capitalist system the only way to protect wages is to secure the surplus so that it belongs equally to the investor and the laborer. At the end of the day the cost compensates the equitable goods to the investor as well as the laborer and both own the surplus. This in the long run dismantles capitalism does it not since if a company is to grow they use the profits generated to grow and the equitable goods purchased with cooperatively owned surplus belongs to both the laborers and investors. This changes it from a capitalist enterprise to a socialist one. Have i understood the lectures so far would be my question? Am i missing anything important a subtle argument perhaps or is this understanding good? Because the investor is supplying property and the laborer is supplying Labor