A year ago, I watched the lectures on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and found Robert Wolff to be an interesting person and lecturer, but now I'm super excited for this series and am greatly enjoying Wolff's more personal stances. Previously, I've watched David Harvey's reading of Capital and I'm hoping this will be a lot easier to digest, both due to presentation and because I have an idea of what to expect. Keep up this invaluable service!

@Hic_Rhodus

3 жыл бұрын

@Ken Richard Do you mean this as a light-hearted joke... or as a genuine (Zizekian) criticism of Prof Wolff's account of Marx as substance-less ?

This professor can really turn a phrase. Thanks for making this so accessible and entertaining.

This Professor is captivating. Break it down.

This is one of the best lectures I have ever listened to. Just amazing.

I would like to add my thanks to all the others thanking you for these lectures. I am sure they will garner many more viewers in the future. I have listened to all Professor Wolff's lectures on 'Idealogical critique' and have become a big fan.

I wish I had encountered prof. Wolff sooner. Great stuff.

What a wonderful stroke of genius to start Marx with a reason to read the bible. Looking forward to the lectures. Thanks for posting online.

@lissayackshina9174

6 жыл бұрын

I would absolutely disagree with that statement. Hegel, Marx's teacher, was a deeply religious man, but what he did was to create a new and revolutionary religion which basically paid no attention to religion as it is derived from the Bible. Instead he saw God as a logical and ongoing....read "evolutionary" process. Creation did not occur in seven days, God never stopped creating the world. Marx took a great deal from Marx one of which being that history is an ongoing, evolutionary process. Marx just chipped God out of Hegel's religious thought, while at the same time lifting much of what he said. Unless the Bible preaches evolution....and it doesn't.....then the dialectical method is not derived from the Bible.

Thanks for posting this. I’ve been waiting for this since I watched his Freud lectures. I hope you post the rest the them.

This is our world 23 thousands hits for a pure genius .No wonder he had so many personal issues ,his brain is incredible.What an absolute pleasure ,Thanks very much Prof W ( and others responsible )

Thank you very much for publishing this lecture. I hope that future lectures will not find troubles to get to KZread later. Большое спасибо.

Thank you so much for posting this. We are a group of students from Brazil and professor Wolff's lectures are helping us a great deal!

Thank you so much for making this available .

This man I believe is an example of Maslow’s self-actualizing people.

I know too many that say you must be able to question anything in a free society that still mewl and shriek at any criticism of capitalism.

@stevena8719

4 жыл бұрын

Makes sense, a free society and a capitalist society are synonymous.

@blakemeads9225

4 жыл бұрын

That’s because in America, anyone to the left of Milton Friedman on economic issues is a Sandinista.

Oh boy. How lucky I was to stumble into this modern day guru. Now I am hooked.

I have always wanted to have the time to read and understand both Kant and Marx. There is no better than Prof Wollf to do justice to both. Thanks, for sharing!

I waited so long for this. Amazing!

Intellectually stimulating! Thanks Prof. Wolf.

Monday has now become my favourite day

Great lecture.

Thank you for this lecture, Prof Alex..

the very best seminars, Prof.Dr.Nasir Fazal Cambridge .

Thanks for these lectures. I've decided to consume the lectures of Professor Paul Wolff, Raymond Geuss and Ian Shapiro with regards to Marxism!

I’ve been studying Marx for more than 20 years. I have also written a text, which I’m about to published, not about Marx but based on his epistemology, and I can say that professor Wolff’s lectures are the best ones that I have attended or watch on videos. I’m very grateful of this distinguished, smart and wise man because his lectures are an invitation to deepen in other aspects of Marx’s major work. I’ve been reading Marx form the Hegelian perspective which I still think is the correct way to approach him

I'm so happy that the Marx lectures are finally happening, I could cry.

Thank you Prof. Wolff!!!!

Thanks Prof. Wolff.

Thx for this lecture..so brilliant..

A great lecture needs to entice the audience to plunge deeply into the subject. This is great.

good to see u back sir

Does anyone know if Robert Wolff is related to the economist Richard Wolff they both taught at UMass, Amherst and both studied and taught Marx.

@isedairi

6 жыл бұрын

They are not related.

@intherabbithole5995

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

i have a question, i just started to learn about marx, where should i begin and what books should i read?

@alexcampbell7886

3 жыл бұрын

If you want primary material, a good text to start with is The Communist Manifesto. A good secondary text to start with is Jonathan Wolff's Why Read Marx Today?

@Mikeyeuoi

3 жыл бұрын

@@alexcampbell7886 omg thank you so much

@alexcampbell7886

3 жыл бұрын

@@Mikeyeuoi Yep!

@THANHSONDN

2 жыл бұрын

Việt Nam, North korea, Cuba more than enough

It was quite interesting to me to learn that in Russia Leo Tolstoy had done his best to warn the Czar that civil war would come soon because of the great disparity between wealth and poverty that existed. Tolstoy was fully familiar with the socialist writers and with Marx. Yet, Tolstoy came to embrace the solutions put forward by the American political economist Henry George.

wonderful. Thanks very much.

so should we expect a series and start reading?

Very helpful!

Hey thanks

I am surprised that Prof. Wolfe did not mention J. M. Keynes a great economist.

I will never forget the time where i emailed him and he answered me back ..

Thanks for posting this!!!

32:57 great decision

What does he mean by capitalism having arrived and the distinction between it and late feudal period? 47:32

@Taliesin2

6 жыл бұрын

Can you specify the question? What about that confuses you?

@fla1fla1

6 жыл бұрын

Taliesin2 When did capitalism start?

@Taliesin2

6 жыл бұрын

Well that is not an easy question to answer I would wager and I am not a historian... But if he talks about capitalism as we understand it now and it starting in England, he probably meant industrial capitalism. In most European countries the nobility was still very influential and there was serfdom, which meant that a big amount of the labour force was bound to the soil it worked on, which is great if you run a feudal Kingdom but not so great if you try and run a centralised gouvernment or a capitalist society. To make things worse, in the cities Guilds were deciding who was allowed to take on what trade and how many, and who was allowed to sell what at what price. Then there was a proto-Capitalism called mercantilism before that where several European kings handed out Monopolies to Companies, hoping to "win" at trading against the other countries because back then the economy (and the wealth) of a nation was limited by the amount of silver (or gold or both) in the country. And after that capitalism started ... mid 18th century in England (according to this video and also wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism ) in other countries later. (It's a bit like the Renaissance, that started in Italy (sometimes a lot) earlier than in other countries)

Isaiah Berlin said that Marx didn't possess charismatic personality akin to that of La Salle. It doesn't matter anyway.

15:00

30:09

And .... From my perspective, it was Henry George who emerged as the last the great political economists.

The question is whether the introduction of new methods of producing goods (i.e., industrialization) and new methods of finance (i.e., fractional reserve money creation) were transformative or merely incremental adjustments to the socio-political arrangements that existed to secure and protect entrenched landed and inherited privilege. Underlying the new modes of production and the resulting concentrated ownership of capital goods one continues to see at the root the maintenance of agrarian landlordism. What became known as capitalism would, I argue, be best described as "agrarian-commercial-industrial-financial landlordism. Our world today is dominated, as predicted by Turgot, by rent-seeking and the power of rentier privilege.

19 30

Dear Professor, judging the nature of Marx's personal and social relationships from the lens of your historical context (i.e. he was not a nice person etc) is contrary to the task you have undertaken, i.e. of explaining the sophisticated science of society he gave birth to. None of his friends thought that he was not a nice person. Rather every one of them valued their association with Marx very highly. It is your choice that you have decided to form your opinion about Marx's personal life based on one historian's biography of him. It is well known that he madly loved his wife and his children, and loved all his friends. Surely, this is a quality that is not unique to Marx. What is indeed unique to him is that he never hated anyone, a fact that Engels proudly spoke of, when he said that Marx never had a single personal enemy. He never saw any individual as inherently good or bad, but different relativistic characters enmeshed in the social matrix of their times, and serving different roles thrust on them by the historical-social dynamic. (And here is how his materialism differs from that of Feuerbach) The chief goal that he set for himself in life was not an individual goal, but for all of humanity - true freedom of each and everyone on the planet! Shouldn't the opinion about someone being nice or not nice be based on their actual works in life? And I'm loving your lecture. Much thanks for posting them on youtube.

@czarquetzal8344

5 ай бұрын

I don't know why an author's personality matters in the study of his works.

Those who are interested in the real weaving together of the three strands should read --[drum roll] Lyndon Larouche, who actually knew what he was doing, and who in addition connected the entire thing to 1] a profound philosophy of science and 2] a much more complete history of physical science (than is usually encountered in anglophone contexts and 3] a profound understanding of American history and political philosophy. Larouche had some "crank" aspects, was a very uneven writer and also got himself tangled up in cult like activity and indeed counter-intel (and landed in prison for a while as a result), but he is a crucial figure in dealing with exactly this set of issues, and he does so with a depth and originality that cannot be matched.

@brandgardner211

5 жыл бұрын

God Complex I actually agree with most of what you say, maybe all in fact. We only have to look at how he and his org now shill for China, one belt one road etc; [the CIA's dream come true !! for all your rat line needs lol]. I'm just talking about certain core ideas re philosophy of science, history of science, and economics. His Marxism was actually very heterodox. There is an inner core set of ideas that I disconnect from the other stuff [same with Chomsky -- just his linguistics [about which Larouche knew absolute zilch]]. Have you published things on Larouche by any chance?

Karl Marx is my great great great grandson Jesse Marx

@mikemiken1963

3 жыл бұрын

Are you a time traveller?

Sorry im the grandson

hegelism! haha...

"In the rest of the world, Marx is one of the great figures of all time..." How is that possible when every country that embraced his ideals have abandoned and repudiated them?

@LeonWagg

4 жыл бұрын

He was talking about Marx in academia. In academia, Marx is still one of the most influential figures. And tbh most left-wing parties in Europe are more or less influenced by Marx.

@wedas67

3 жыл бұрын

PrimoMagazine I advice you to watch the 2018 Speech of the Chinese president commentating the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx... another thing, if u may, how old are you ?!?

@PrimoMagazine

3 жыл бұрын

@@LeonWagg Why? If his ideas fail, constantly. Does a chemistry professor share the results of failed theories and practices? No. Does an English professor share the works with students of an author who writes poorly? No. If we keep on teaching students bad examples of history and philosophy, then they are bound to follow it to their detriment.

@LeonWagg

3 жыл бұрын

Heidegger was a fucking nazi but also a damn great philosopher. Should we stop teaching him too? Philosophy and social sciences are not like natural sciences no matter what you think of Marx; his ideas are essential to academia and the world in general. He's one of the founders of the modern discipline of social sciences (especially sociology) along with Durkheim and Weber, and he revolutionized the field of philosophy by influenced many great philosophical traditions. Marx also has a huge impact on trade union and worker movements that have brought the world two days weekend, worker protections, limited working hours, child labor law, welfare states in Europe, etc. Marx’s work is much more important this whatever happened in the USSR. If you learn to be open-minded enough, you will get

@PrimoMagazine

3 жыл бұрын

@@LeonWagg You can teach Marx and others as part of a Major curriculum and also one of many for a philosophy introduction or core requirement. My point is consider how we teach a lot about the Russian Revolution but nothing about the Venetian Republic. The early period of the Soviet Union is taught but not Genoa and the early mercantile prosperity of that 500 year old Republic. There are many peaceful, prosperous societies that contributed mightily to world history but are not taught in our high schools and colleges while failed societies plagued with civil strife, civil war and terrible living standards are analyzed and taught constantly.

Robert Paul Wolff is a high priest of process theology but isn't aware of the fact. The Categorical Imperative is the epistemology of process theology. The Categorical Imperative is the ethic of the US Army Ranger School. within the context of Clausewitz. Hegel comes in handy when it comes to understanding Clausewitz. The only problem with Marx is that his social construct is mostly crap. It's the same mistake Moses made that led to 613 Laws of the Talmud. In the Muslim tradition it's knowing how many stones The Prophet used to wipe his ass. Jesus dumps all that social engineering for an expanded version of the Shema. Marxism is based on a Marx's misunderstanding OR deliberate misconstruing of Hegel. Epistemologically, Newton's F=MA is an irreversible inflection point. F-MA is my shorthand as the Big Bang moment of the Age of Aquarius.. F=MA introduces Chaos into the dialogue of the global intelligentsia, only there was no language to describe what they were dealing with. I am a disciple of Kurt Lewin and my understanding of Chaos begins with Group Dynamics. I'm not sure I had ever heard the term employed in sociology before 1989, when I began my masters program in Organization Development. I had been doing Organization Development as a venture capitalist since 1975, but didn't know I was doing anything at all until I read about Ltc Frank Burns, the commanding officer of Task Force Δ, which was the Army's R&D program created to import human potential performance technology into the Army community. The "Be All You Can Be" warrior culture of the All Volunteer Army since 1972 is one result. Frank and I are Process Theology gurus and we are the best in the world at what we do and he's dead. One of the things we do as gurus is to identify unaware apostles of Process Theology and the Categorical Imperative, and give them the secret password of the Society of Servant Leaders and Social Engineers: On the Bounce! This is a relic of the clandestine society of Army ROTC officers who earned their commissions in 1968 and later and realized how fucked up the Army was. It wasn't so much that West Pointers were excluded: it's that they largely avoided the cultural warfare on the civilian campuses. I read Marx in 1952 when I was 15 as part of my personal preparation for a military career. I read Capital straight through like I read the Bible the first time, and Kant and Hegel. The only figure I remember clearly is his corruption of Transaction Theory with motive to establish the evil of profit. He uses the same ratiocination to construct this model that Edgar Allen Poe will use a few years later to solve the mystery of The Purloined Letter. Intuitively, I was reassured that George Kennan's "long Telegram" characterized thee decadence of Marxism accurately and that his "Containment Policy" would work as advertised. Which it did. Vietnam was an accelerator of the entropy of Sino-Soviet Marxism and, because of Vietnam, both Brezhnev and Mao accepted that Marxism is untenable and joined in Nixon's aspiration to reconfigure the global Military Industrial Complex into the Aerospace-Entrepreneurial Matrix Werner von Braun described after Apollo 11 that will be required to sustain a NASA-Soyuz colony on the moon for the next 100 years, if not an epoch, Newton, Kant and Hegel isolated paradox and Hume demonstrates that paradox exists just beyond the leading edge of Reason: you can't get there from here with Reason. Paradox is the point where Process Theology begins. Reason can't even approach Chaos, but it can observe it and articulate its elements, forensically. For example, Reason cannot operate with in a flame, but it can identify heat, fuel and oxygen as nedessary to its manifestation, but it can control those elements to prodece a bonfire or the optimal aspiration for f fule-injected Maserati. In sociology, Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing are recognizable phases of the chaos of Group Synamics. Marxism is a form of Fascism, but without the evil intentions of the Nazification of William F. Buckley's crypto-Nazi manifesto and marketing strategy for the 1960 agenda of the John Birch Society. Marxist like Wolff really, really loved the ideas of Marx, and not the man except in admiration of a towering genius, and the ideas became a form of economic theology , like the Harvard MBA program business mode, capitalism as a religion., the difference being that Marxist considered money to be evil while Harvard is organized around the love of money. Marx and Harvard agree that Capital and Labor are antagonistic agendas and both seek to suppress or subvert worker Esprit de Corps, which is why Jeff Bezos is anti-union: he shares the same violation of the 4th Law of Logic that paradox cannot be reduced that Marx violates because both misunderstand Hegel.

@czarquetzal8344

5 ай бұрын

Develop that essay-length comment in to a book, I suggest.

@Thomasw540

5 ай бұрын

@@czarquetzal8344 Thanks for the compliment. I'm working around a different subject. Marxism is a factor and not the principle subject.

@czarquetzal8344

5 ай бұрын

@@Thomasw540 I believe you have serious misreading of Marx. Actually, he flipped Hegelian philosophy as a cosmology and later retained Hegelian dialectics as a method of reading the elements of capitalist society. Kant's categorical imperative is nowhere to be found in the Intercollective subjectivity of Hegel. Categorical imperative is the duty-based ethics ( deontology) of Immanuel Kant based on the concept of a priori subjectivity. Hegel's modification of Kantian concept of noumenon is the teleological account of history. Marx understood Hegel in the ground of rationality as the basis of reality as one of two implications of Hegelian doctrine of the similarity of Pure Being and Nothingness. The complexity of " Phenomenology of the Spirit" based on its modification of Spinoza,, Kant, and Fietche resulted to various interpretations . Marx never claimed that his reading of Hegel is the only valid one nor he wanted to be faithful to Hegelian cosmology. Actually, he even included Saint Simon and Feuerbach in the development of his thoughts. I also believe you misconstrued Marx as you only focus on his account of political economy. The 1844 Paris Manuscript, however, shows a different face of Marxxism that undermines Soviet Marxism and other misappropriation of Marxist concepts that usually results to fascism or totalitarianism. Your reading of Marx is definitely inadequate.

@czarquetzal8344

5 ай бұрын

There is another point I considered a crime. You contradicted yourself and you further misunderstood Kant. First, your statement that " categorical imperative is the epistemology of process theology" is wrong. Kant developed " categorical imperative", which considers human autonomy through reason as its foundation. Hence, it is ' NOT an epistemology or a theory of knowledge, but an ethical doctrine. I don't know where did you get the phrase " process theology". If you are referring to Hegelian dialectic, the process of the affirmation of synthesis through negation is the epistemology itself. Therefore, dialectics does not have separate epistemology because it is in itself a theory of knowledge. Next, you said ' Kant separated chaos or paradox ', yet you claimed that categorical imperative is the start of " process theology". I said developed your comment into a book because I didn't read it then. After reading your comment, I realized it is seriously flawed.

@Thomasw540

5 ай бұрын

@@czarquetzal8344 More precisely, Kant's Categorical Imperative is a mechanism of epistemology, It is a schematic of the cognitive structures of the human psyche, including thee relationship of Reason to the Fight/Flight response of requisite variety, that is, the necessary capacity to thrive in nature. The epistemology begins with Hume's theory of perception and his, Hume's, observation that judgement cannot be free of emotion, which is why he developed the Rules of Evidence, which allows God Fearers to conduct systematic inquiry as if they were, like Hume, Atheists. The resolution of Kierkegaard's complaint that Kant's body-mind duality is the Fight/Flight Response, which I refer as the Pucker Factor for what should be obvious reasons. It is a Cartesian conceit that the mind can isolate itself, reliably, from emotion. As I say, Hume's rules of evidence provides a method to accoumplish this consciously and deliberately, The dialectic is a method of epistemology employed by the mechanisms of the Categorical Imperative, Hegel's epistemology is, in the final analysis, Gestalt Theory, which he eventually demonstrates with The Phenomenology of Spirit, with the Figure of History moving through the Field of Sociology and Anthropology,, It so happens that Gestalt Theiry is how we actually perceive nominal existence. I mean, you can't shoot skeet without Gestalt Theory, Newton isolated Chaos, as we understand it today in terms of Lewin's field theory and Group Dynamics, when he was able to violate the 4th Law of Logic by removing the Kinetic from Motion to determine Velocity at a particular instant, the A in F=MA creating the calculus of gravity, The 4th Law of Logic, of course, is the imperative that you cannot interrupt paradox. In this respect, Kant's Categorical Imperative depends upon the Pucker Factor as the point of paradox between Mind and Body, I don't believe that Napoleon was influenced by Hegel, the timing being off, but his maxim The Moral is to the Material and 3 is to 1 is a tool of command to reduce the Chaos of Battle to the Moral of Thesis and the Material of Antithesis that ressolves as the Dialectical Synthesis of Paradox. I mean, if you have ever done Team Building, the Formin-Storming-Normin-Performing describes is a chaotic process completey mundane in human behavoir. Before Newton, this phenomena of Natural Law was totally ignored. Chaos was assumed to be a social state the opposite of order, as in Othello's observation to Iago, refering to Desdemona before he kills her "Ah, Excellent wench, Iago! And when I lover her not, Chaos is come again. Porcess Theology is based on the translation of Genesis 1:1 "God began creating the Heavens and the Earth". Unlike Alfred North Whitehead, I am not id doubt regarding The One,

42:00 leftist robot detected

@brucekern7083

4 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣

“Marx had terrible character” “we should listen to him anyways he wouldn’t do anything intentionally deceptive & nefarious”

@someonewhoexist

4 жыл бұрын

Yes, sometimes i think to myself if he just did it as a cruel joke, for every terrible point he brings up of capitalism, is a Moot Law or end's up being completely moot. but i don't know i don't have a far flung idealogy for better or worse. but There seems to be alot of whimsical language in all this bullshit anyways, i agree with the free education,workers right's. thing's that make people's life better is what i would take from it personally.

@stevena8719

4 жыл бұрын

someonewhoexist I think he did it because he was a clever word smith who wanted money and fame. He wanted power like every other shmuck in history, he was just sexy about claiming he didn’t and it was in other people’s interests.

@hmt4173

Жыл бұрын

is this what you got out of this?

@stevena8719

Жыл бұрын

@@hmt4173 no, what I got out of listening to these lectures is that not only was marx a fraud and a charlatan, his misunderstanding of economics and value was so great that it’s hard to believe he actually held the views he was writing

@hmt4173

Жыл бұрын

@@stevena8719 oh, you're just retarded. Nevermind, carry on.

Marxists: Sowell's criticism of Marx is crap, he did not acknowledge that Marx knew LTV was an oversimplification at the time of publication of volume I. Also Marxists: hold my beer while I spend 5 hrs drooling over how amazing Das Kapital is. We have over 100 yrs of empirical data showing that Marx was a two bit shyster and a demagogue and still Wolff's religious reverence can make any Westborough Baptist green with envy. Yet another red diaper baby disconnected from the reality of his ideological doctrine by the cancer called tenure.

@dltzonev5386

6 жыл бұрын

"important in history" Is that your motivation? Hahahaha... I'm sure you'll make an outstanding polit-commissar, just remember if you stop clapping first you might end up in the same labor camp as me. "relevant in history" hahahahaha, no, you're right I am crying.

@dltzonev5386

6 жыл бұрын

I contribute 14hrs every day and then I try to explain to people like you that Marxism is crap since I saw it first hand for 20 years. You know that Pol Pot came closest to the utopia only after he killed everyone who wore glasses and you still fall for this nonsense but I'm a dumbass, yeah alright. ("it was because of bad praxis" excuse coming in 3...2...1...)

@dltzonev5386

6 жыл бұрын

"...The writings of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Lin Piao, and Mao Tse-tung had lead the Pol Pot group to accept the need for a communist revolution. Lenin and others convinced them that a vanguard party could create a revolution that leaped the stage of mature capitalism originally described by Marx as a prerequisite for communist revolution..." (books.google.ca/books?id=29u-vt_KgGEC&lpg=PA202&pg=PA202#v=onepage&q&f=false) If you read "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany" by Marx, Schapper, Engels, etc. you'll see that almost all 17 demands were fulfilled in Democratic Kampuchea. Of course he was a murderous monster who misinterpreted Marxism - they all were from (A)ndropov to (Z)hivkov, from Lenin to Un and Raul Castro. That's my point. The "...muh, it wasn't real Marxism..." argument isn't worth much if you avoid like the plague addressing why every attempt to implement it always ends up in a genocidal dictatorship sprinkled with gulags and hunger. Does that say something about Marxists or humans in general?

@dltzonev5386

6 жыл бұрын

Sam E - law degree (humanities), ancom (Rojava), blames colonialism for everything (Ward Churchill), missed the physics thing but 3 out of 4 is pretty good hahahaha You know, you can fly first class to Miami, rent a Lexus, drive down to the Keys, rent a room in a 5 star hotel, take the door from the room, buy a bunch of Coke in jugs, empty them, use the door, the empty jugs and the spare tire from the Lexus to make a raft, take a selfie with your iPhone, post it on Instagram with a hammer an sickle emoji in the title and then sail 90 miles through shark infested waters to "free" healthcare. All thanks to Western civilization. Unemployed Canadians vacation in Cuba. Where do unemployed Cubans go on vacation?

@dltzonev5386

6 жыл бұрын

"The Khmer Rouge's ideology combined elements of Marxism with an extreme version of Khmer nationalism and xenophobia." No one is disputing the xenophobic/ultra nationalist part. It doesn't negate the Marxist component. Every Marxist implementation has its own flavor. Many other communist dictatorships performed ethnic cleansing in one form or another, to one degree of severity or another. Stalin did it to half a dozen ethnicities. I witnessed the "big excursion" in 89. Nationalism might explain the disdain for minorities but the Marxist part explains this: "Anyone thought to be an intellectual of any sort was killed. Often people were condemned for wearing glasses or knowing a foreign language. Hundreds of thousands of the educated middle-classes were tortured and executed in special centers."

Thank you professor Wolff!