Richard Wolff's Class analysis, institutions not societies.

[RGacky3]

I don't know how many here are familiar with Richard Wolffs Marxist class analysis, but he focuses much more on institutions as the real class entities rather than nations or societies, and that these should be more the focus of class analysis, it kind of goes like this.

Non exploitative structures: (producers of surplus control surplus)
Ancient: (with private property): self employed, individual buisiness
Communal: (communal property, or none): Cooperatives, Joint Ventures, partnerships, Collectives.

Exploitattive structures: (producers of surplus do not control surplus)
Slavery: (With private property): prostitution, professional athletes (in the sense that you sell and buy them).
Feudalism: (No private property): The traditional household (wife as home maker), gangs and other mob organizations
Capitalism: (with private property): Wage/Salery workers.

Basically it is analysis of individual institutions, who makes the surplus value and who gets it/distributes it.


He's saying that the marxian analysis is not property or power class analysis, both of which are important, but surplus value created in institutions.


So in societies you have various class systmes all the time, in the US you have all 4, in the USSR you had various as well, and that a national class system is basically just what is the prominant structure. For example in midevil europe, feaudalism was the main structure, but there was plenty of communal productive institutions, and plenty of capitalist institutions and individual ones as well.


So anyway, any views on this analysis (I'm hugely condensing it) and its implications?

[RGacky3]

There are obvious problems with some applications of his analysis, for example the family, yes, the work the woman does is a feudal situation where here surplus is taken by the husband, but also legally she owns 50% of his wages, one could say the the surplus of his wages (the amount above what he needs for himself) is taken by the wife, although it could also be argued that she does'nt control that wealth, she just has a right to it, its a complicated argument when you have layers of class structures. Also with professional athletes, they are paid saleries, but they are in a sense Owned.

You also have the problem of calculation of what is neccessary labor and surplus labor, for example in a non exploitive situation its hard to figure out what is neccessary labor and surplus considering the decision is made by the producer (if 90% of the income goes to wages, does that make 90% of the labor neccessary rather than surplus?). Whereas exploitative systems its very easy to figure it out, because the exploiter will necessarily want to have the highest percentage be surplus value.

Just a couple issues, but overall I feel this is an overlooked and EXTREMELY important class analysis, and shoots down the idea of communism being some mystical unnattainable paradise. (must be world revolution + anarchy + no property + perfect).

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Fascinating. Seems to incorporate Bourdieu's analysis of institutions and habitus.

[RGacky3]

also many institutional economists consider Marx to be in that tradition.

[Meridian]

I don't understand quite how professional athletes are categorized as being in a relationship of slavery to their team managers/owners.

They do their activities which increases income for the managers/team establishment, while receiving wages which is naturally less than the surplus they create. Isn't this simply what's categorized as capitalism?

[RGacky3]

I agree thats a gray line, but the differenciating lines is that they are "owned," rather than just their labor being rented.

[danyboy27]

good stuff, but he isnt talking about the unproductive forces of capitalism.

stores for exemples do nothing but selling the stuff back at an added values, they dont produce anything.

[RGacky3]

They are in the process however, distribution is not value creation perse, but the same principle applies.