Professor Richard D. Wolff: Marxian Class Analysis Theory and Practice

[RedZero]

I'm about 50 or so minutes into this video, and Richard Wolff states, basically, that what Marx meant by communism is this: the people who produce a surplus of goods in a community are those who receive that surplus..as opposed to the surplus going elsewhere or into the hands of someone else. These people who created the surplus get to decide where in the community that it goes. And he also says that the government or state is irrelevant to Marx's definition of communism (because when communism is brought up today, people like to point out that under communism the state/govt would control everything).

I guess what I'm wondering is this: is his statement accurate? This video has actually helped me understand a lot of different terms and about how people view classes. Here's the video: http://rdwolff.com/content/marxian-class-analysis-theory-and-practice-online-course

I plan on finishing it tomorrow, but so far it has been helpful and informative to me, at least. By the way, what are your opinions on this guy/the video, if you have any? Just curious.

[Comrade Gwydion]

The second statement is true: The state wasn't really relevant to Marx's theories. Ultimately, the state was a weapon of the ruling class, which currently means a weapon of the bourgouisie. After the revolution, it could be a tool of the working class, but basically it would be unrecognizably different from what we have as a 'state' right now.


The first statement, I'm less sure of. I'd have to see the context, but I've no time to watch the video. When you say, people who produce a surplus, you could/should mean the whole group of people, as the whole working class contributes to that surplus.

[Искра]

I'm sick of liberals talking about Marx. Someone should again kick some butts just like Paul Mattick kicked Samuelson's.

[NewSocialist]

:rolleyes: It should be called “Proudhonian Class Analysis“. This guy is totally revising Marx to fit a definition of “communism“ which Marx himself argued *against* much of his life. Wolff is a market socialist, and I've even heard him blame women, technology, and immigrants on stagnating wages in the US when he should be blaming capitalists!

I think what Wolff is doing is taking Marx's definition of *primitive* communism -tribes collectively allocating resources- and and applying it to individual cooperatives democratically allocating their surplus product. Pretty lame if you ask me.

[u.s.red]

I think Wolff is right about capitalism being based on the appropriation of surplus value (or profit) from the working class by capitalists. However, to argue that Marx did not believe that the state was not involved in replacing capitalism is simply to ignore everything that Marx said about the state, society and class struggle.

It is ok for U.S. academics to talk about surplus value, profit, socialism, even communism as long as it is a "humanistic" communisim....However, it is absolutely verboten to talk about the necessity of a dictatorship of the working class to destroy the capitalist structure.

[RedZero]

*Sigh*

I worried that this guy might be misconstruing Marx's message in some way. I'll probably finish the video regardless -- to see what he has to say -- but since a couple of you seem to think he is a joke and since I'm clearly a beginner in learning about this: can you recommend anyone who actually talks about Marx, communism, socialism, and whatever else...in clearly-defined terms and is easy to understand?

That's why I enjoyed watching this video, because it was easy for me to understand...but I guess he's diluting and twisting the message? Yes, I do plan on reading Marx's work myself (Capital, for example), but it also helps to watch or listen someone else talk about it. Any suggestions?

And thank you for the replies so far.

[RadioRaheem84]

Wolff is a market socialist, and I've even heard him blame women, technology, and immigrants on stagnating wages in the US when he should be blaming capitalists!

Say what? I think he was always blaming the capitalists but explaining that their excuse for stagnating our wages was due to immigrants and women whom they view as unworthy of high pay, and technology for replacing skilled labor.

[u.s.red]

I would not dismiss Wolff out of hand....he does explain Marxist economics fairly well, up to a certain point. The main point he understands, in my view, is that profit originates in work done, in labor, not in the market exchange of products. But, I have not really read much of his work...only seen him a few times on tv.

I think you do ask a legitimate question. Where are the Marxists who can articulate Marxism? They seem to have been marginalized to sites like this. Even the occupy movement in the U.S. bends over backward to distance themselves from Marxism, socialism, and especially communism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

:rolleyes: It should be called “Proudhonian Class Analysis“. This guy is totally revising Marx to fit a definition of “communism“ which Marx himself argued *against* much of his life. Wolff is a market socialist, and I've even heard him blame women, technology, and immigrants on stagnating wages in the US when he should be blaming capitalists!

I think what Wolff is doing is taking Marx's definition of *primitive* communism -tribes collectively allocating resources- and and applying it to individual cooperatives democratically allocating their surplus product. Pretty lame if you ask me.

Any proof to suggest that Wolff is a market socialist? Links?

[NewSocialist]

Any proof to suggest that Wolff is a market socialist? Links?

Watch “Capitalism Hits the Fan“ or any of his lectures. His radical “communist“ solution to capitalism is co-operative businesses, nothing more.

[NewSocialist]

Say what? I think he was always blaming the capitalists but explaining that their excuse for stagnating our wages was due to immigrants and women whom they view as unworthy of high pay, and technology for replacing skilled labor.

That's not what he says at all. He claims capitalists *want* women and immigrants in the labor market because it increases competition per job and “drives down wage“ which is standard nationalist rhetoric.

[Die Neue Zeit]

:rolleyes: It should be called “Proudhonian Class Analysis“.

[...]

I think what Wolff is doing is taking Marx's definition of *primitive* communism -tribes collectively allocating resources- and and applying it to individual cooperatives democratically allocating their surplus product. Pretty lame if you ask me.


Watch “Capitalism Hits the Fan“ or any of his lectures. His radical “communist“ solution to capitalism is co-operative businesses, nothing more.

What you've described, if correct, isn't really Proudhonist BS. Wolff stresses the role of political action (and of course party-movements), unlike most cooperative movements. I say he might some sort of unconscious neo-Lassallean, without nationalist trappings or Iron Law of Wages fallacies. That, in fact, is a *huge* *political* step forward!

[RadioRaheem84]

That's not what he says at all. He claims capitalists *want* women and immigrants in the labor market because it increases competition per job and “drives down wage“ which is standard nationalist rhetoric.

I think it's their rationale.