R. Wolff and David Harvey on Charlie Rose

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Here (http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12474) is the interview, not bad for having two notorious Marxists on mainstream television, Good.

[L.A.P.]

Charlie Rose seems like a pretty cool guy. He interviewed Zizek once

[Teacher]

You could tell Charlie Rose was not happy with their answers

I don't blame him though.. it is kind of hilarious to see Harvey and Wolff get tied up into knots when he asked them for concrete examples of their ideas in action. "Cuba? Where is that? The Soviet what?" Something like 1/5 of the world lived under "communist" governments at one point. How will people ever take radicals seriously if they pretend like real-life communism never happened?

[Teacher]

Charlie Rose seems like a pretty cool guy. He interviewed Zizek once

Yeah, I think he enjoyed Zizek a lot more. But then again Zizek is an entertainer and he sucked up to Rose quite a bit.

[Lucretia]

Um, they cite capitalist co-ops as examples of the kind of society they'd like to have. These are Marxists? :confused:

[The Jay]

Yeah, I think he enjoyed Zizek a lot more. But then again Zizek is an entertainer and he sucked up to Rose quite a bit.

I think it's because he didn't understand two words Zizek said. During the whole thing he was just staring at Zizek with a wide-eyed wonder. Rose just heard a few buzz words and Zizek had to re-explain himself five times.

[The Jay]

Um, they cite capitalist co-ops as examples of the kind of society they'd like to have. These are Marxists? :confused:

Wolff calls co-ops an alternative to capitalism, and technically it is since it eliminates wage labor from the equation as long as there's not hiring outside the co-op. Wolff does not call that socialism, but it's much easier to explain why co-ops are better to the average person than to try to convince them that money isn't necessary. There's what he says to the public and there's what he supports as a whole.

I haven't read Harvey.

[RadioRaheem84]

Rose came off like a typical journalist who asks the same questions all journalists ask leftists.

It seems like a lot of these journalists really do share the same presuppositions as the ruling class. It's like they're not even there to really impose any tough questions but dictate the dominant paradigm.

He interrupted them at every turn. These journalists act like no one questions capitalism.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Rose came off like a typical journalist who asks the same questions all journalists ask leftists.

It seems like a lot of these journalists really do share the same presuppositions as the ruling class. It's like they're not even there to really impose any tough questions but dictate the dominant paradigm.

He interrupted them at every turn. These journalists act like no one questions capitalism.
Which is funny in the context of the conversation.

[cynicles]

The interruptions are the worst, interviewers need to learn when to shut-up sometimes.

[Beeth]

I have read both Harvey and Wolff. They are very, very good. They explain everything beautifully. But while speaking to an American audience, they try to be anti capitalist rather than communist for obvious reasons.

[campesino]

Why didn't they defend Cuba? Why did they not speak against the bourgeois state, against the reactionary political movements, it is hard to believe on can be a marxist/communist and not a revolutionary. They are ivory tower 'communist' promoting co-ops and not criticizing the power structure.

[Positivist]

You could tell Charlie Rose was not happy with their answers

I don't blame him though.. it is kind of hilarious to see Harvey and Wolff get tied up into knots when he asked them for concrete examples of their ideas in action. "Cuba? Where is that? The Soviet what?" Something like 1/5 of the world lived under "communist" governments at one point. How will people ever take radicals seriously if they pretend like real-life communism never happened?

Are you suggesting that "real-life communism" has happened?

[L.A.P.]

No, but simply dismissing them as "that wasn't real communism" ruins your credibility

[Peoples' War]

Neither Harvey nor Wolff are Marxist-Leninists, nor are they Trotskyists...as far as I know.

So, they don't defend regimes they see as capitalist.

I mean, socialism has never occurred. Asking for concrete examples is just some stupid talking point. They could have just said show me a concrete example of capitalism working for more than a minority of people....and Rose would be silent.

Fuck.

[RadioRaheem84]

Welcome to the world of American media. Leftists are not going to be full blown communists when interviewed. They know it will make them look like moon bats because there is a framework built into the media system.

[Lucretia]

Wolff calls co-ops an alternative to capitalism, and technically it is since it eliminates wage labor from the equation as long as there's not hiring outside the co-op. Wolff does not call that socialism, but it's much easier to explain why co-ops are better to the average person than to try to convince them that money isn't necessary. There's what he says to the public and there's what he supports as a whole.

I haven't read Harvey.

A workers' cooperative in a capitalist society is not an alternative to capitalism. The relationship between the workers might formally resemble the kinds of egalitarian relationships one would see in a socialist society, but production decisions are still dictated by competition and the law of value. Thus dead labor is still dominating living labor, and labor is still abstract and alienated -- even though the exploiters and exploited in the case of co-ops are the exact same people.

[~Spectre]

Rose is an asshole. To see him get owned, look up his interview with Chomsky.

[~Spectre]

No, but simply dismissing them as "that wasn't real communism" ruins your credibility

As opposed to claiming that "that WAS real communism"?

[L.A.P.]

No, not as opposed to that. I mean, first of all, they could have mentioned how much of the Russian bourgeoisie actually supported the Bolsheviks to develop Russia passed the feudal-backwardness of the Tsarist empire. Then they could have dabbled in a bit of how the development of Russia and China had many benefits (social services, education, labor power, etc.) but, when it all comes down to it, developed in the interests of capital. After that, talk about how communism/socialism was merely the state ideology of the Eastern Bloc and such, just how liberal democracy is the state ideology of the West though the structure of these states is far from democratic in any sense. And then they can talk about real communism effectively.

[~Spectre]

No, not as opposed to that. I mean, first of all, they could have mentioned how much of the Russian bourgeoisie actually supported the Bolsheviks to develop Russia passed the feudal-backwardness of the Tsarist empire. Then they could have dabbled in a bit of how the development of Russia and China had many benefits (social services, education, labor power, etc.) but, when it all comes down to it, developed in the interests of capital.

So, they should sing the praises of this thing that wasn't communism, while trying to defend communism.

[RedHammer]

Are you suggesting that "real-life communism" has happened?

I'll chime in and say that if we continually dismiss the historical attempts at socialism with the "that wasn't real socialism/communism" line, we come across the same way as idealistic lolbertarians or otherwise people who are out of touch with reality and history. We do indeed lose our credibility.

Instead, what's more fruitful is to detail the material conditions surrounding the states that attempted socialism; to explain, with detailed analysis, what went right and want went wrong; to draw parallels; and to suggest models for the future based on what was learned in the past. Like it or not, socialism was attempted in history and we need to recognize that and analyze that and not dismiss it out of hand.

[aty]

Both of them are a sad reminder of the setbacks for marxism after the 70s. Their thinking is not upgraded one bit, and Harvey even rejects Marxs law of value theory.
Wolff I have never read anything about but he did not come with any interesting answers.

I dont think they understand that we live in revolutionary times and marxism is getting reignited.

It is sad watching this interview.

[The Jay]

A workers' cooperative in a capitalist society is not an alternative to capitalism. The relationship between the workers might formally resemble the kinds of egalitarian relationships one would see in a socialist society, but production decisions are still dictated by competition and the law of value. Thus dead labor is still dominating living labor, and labor is still abstract and alienated -- even though the exploiters and exploited in the case of co-ops are the exact same people.


Are you saying that having a democratic structure at the workplace is not an improvement? I think that everyone here that likes the IWW would disagree. It is true that even if all businesses were set up as co-ops it would simply be a form of market socialism or something similar, but as Wolff points out it is doubtful that many of the business decisions that harm workers would be made.

Even that would not be Socialism, but think about how much easier a revolution in a system using those co-ops would be than under the current system. Most of the work to be done would be done would be to unite the businesses, combine the democratic processes between them, set up consumer councils, and - of course - take the government. That would be easier than completely re-constructing the workplace environment and expecting people to be used to using such structures the day after the revolution.

Co-ops are beneficial to our cause. They take some of the work from our post-revolution construction.

[L.A.P.]

So, they should sing the praises of this thing that wasn't communism, while trying to defend communism.

I don't know where I said to prasie in song of the Soviet Union and China, but whatever

[Lynx]

The interview was too short to explore the Russian Revolution or anything beyond sound byte level. And, as mentioned, the purported audience is American.
Wolff is big on WSDE's (Worker Self-Directed Enterprises) as the "American way" towards communism. Progress on that front would be more like evolution than revolution, as it would take a long long time to make inroads against the traditional top-down private ownership model.
Worker owned and run businesses are already legal. Legislation could make it easier, and expropriation even more so. That of course was not discussed.

[Teacher]

I'll chime in and say that if we continually dismiss the historical attempts at socialism with the "that wasn't real socialism/communism" line, we come across the same way as idealistic lolbertarians or otherwise people who are out of touch with reality and history. We do indeed lose our credibility.

Instead, what's more fruitful is to detail the material conditions surrounding the states that attempted socialism; to explain, with detailed analysis, what went right and want went wrong; to draw parallels; and to suggest models for the future based on what was learned in the past. Like it or not, socialism was attempted in history and we need to recognize that and analyze that and not dismiss it out of hand.

This.

[Lucretia]

Are you saying that having a democratic structure at the workplace is not an improvement? I think that everyone here that likes the IWW would disagree. It is true that even if all businesses were set up as co-ops it would simply be a form of market socialism or something similar, but as Wolff points out it is doubtful that many of the business decisions that harm workers would be made.

Even that would not be Socialism, but think about how much easier a revolution in a system using those co-ops would be than under the current system. Most of the work to be done would be done would be to unite the businesses, combine the democratic processes between them, set up consumer councils, and - of course - take the government. That would be easier than completely re-constructing the workplace environment and expecting people to be used to using such structures the day after the revolution.

Co-ops are beneficial to our cause. They take some of the work from our post-revolution construction.


Me: "A workers' co-op under capitalism is not an alternative to capitalism; it's just a different form of having capitalism."

You: "Are you saying the co-op form of capitalism isn't an improvement over the current form?!"

I think that basically sums things up.

[The Jay]

Me: "A workers' co-op under capitalism is not an alternative to capitalism; it's just a different form of having capitalism."

You: "Are you saying the co-op form of capitalism isn't an improvement over the current form?!"

I think that basically sums things up.

Firstly, I already said that socialism was the better option. Secondly, I'm trying to actually engage you in a dialogue and you seem to be taking the sarcastic asshole route. Would you care to re-phrase without the straw man?

[Lucretia]

Firstly, I already said that socialism was the better option. Secondly, I'm trying to actually engage you in a dialogue and you seem to be taking the sarcastic asshole route. Would you care to re-phrase without the straw man?

You are having a dialogue with some imaginary person who claimed that co-op democracy is not an improvement within existing capitalist relations (though I might add, such 'democracy' tends to fray under pressure from competition, competition which recognizes the synergy between hierarchy and efficiency and isn't afraid of either).

As can be seen from even a cursory reading of my initial response, I never said that capitalist co-ops weren't an improvement. I said they weren't an alternative to capitalism. Ergo Harvey and Wolff's answer to Rose made little sense.

I don't know what other kind of dialogue we can have about this point.

[The Jay]

You are having a dialogue with some imaginary person who claimed that co-op democracy is not an improvement within existing capitalist relations (though I might add, such 'democracy' tends to fray under pressure from competition, which tends to recognize the synergy between hierarchy and efficiency).

I would love for some citation there. If you're my imagination then Rafiq is going to throw a fit.


As can be seen from even a cursory reading of my initial response, and restated briefly in my follow-up, I never said that capitalist co-ops weren't an improvement. I said they weren't an alternative to capitalism. Ergo Harvey and Wolff's answer to Rose made little sense.

I don't know what other kind of dialogue we can have about this point.

You were hinting that promoting co-ops was not a Marxist thing to do, and I was saying that it could be a step in pre-revolutionary strategy and preparation.

[Lucretia]

I would love for some citation there. If you're my imagination then Rafiq is going to throw a fit.



You were hinting that promoting co-ops was not a Marxist thing to do, and I was saying that it could be a step in pre-revolutionary strategy and preparation.


I was not "hinting" anything. What I said was clear and direct: a co-operative form of capitalism is still capitalism, not an alternative to capitalism. You responded by asking whether or not I thought co-ops under capitalism represented an improvement in terms of workplace relationships, thereby implying that is what I had stated. I clearly did not state that or "hint" at it in any way. And I can't see anybody else here who has stated that. So if you are debating somebody on this point, it must be an imaginary person.

[The Jay]

Um, they cite capitalist co-ops as examples of the kind of society they'd like to have. These are Marxists? :confused:

First you said this, implying that supporting co-ops is not a thing a Marxist would do. Then you change your story to this:


I was not "hinting" anything. What I said was clear and direct: a co-operative form of capitalism is still capitalism, not an alternative to capitalism. You responded by asking whether or not I thought co-ops under capitalism represented an improvement in terms of workplace relationships, thereby implying that is what I had stated. I clearly did not state that or "hint" at it in any way. And I can't see anybody else here who has stated that. So if you are debating somebody on this point, it must be an imaginary person.

Maybe you misspoke in your first post or maybe I misunderstood you. What is true is that your first post is open to wide interpretation, so I asked you what you meant and then you got mad.

[Lucretia]

First you said this, implying that supporting co-ops is not a thing a Marxist would do. Then you change your story to this:



Maybe you misspoke in your first post or maybe I misunderstood you. What is true is that your first post is open to wide interpretation, so I asked you what you meant and then you got mad.

Perhaps my initial formulation was not specific enough to prevent misinterpretation. Marxists do not want capitalist co-ops as an end result. At best, it would have to be a bridge to a non-capitalist (socialist) society -- which is what the goal of Marxists is.

[right to left]

Here is the interview, not bad for having two notorious Marxists on mainstream television, Good.
I first came across Richard Wolff on a podcast of an episode of Alternative Radio, which featured a lecture by Richard Wolff when he was on a promotional tour for his book: Capitalism Hits The Fan. He did a very insightful analysis of how capitalism has failed in the last three decades, but he was very short on specifics about how to replace the capitalist system. All he mentioned was workplace democracy as an alternative. But, if the workplace is making some frivolous ad-driven product, democratizing the workplace doesn't answer much about how to fix the system!

[Gormanilius]

The interview was pretty good, although keep in mind this stuffed 2 marxists into 30 minutes, and so they each had about 15 minutes to make their case.

Worth noting is that when Harvey was asked for an example of socialism working (which normally is a tactic of red-baiters) he mentioned Kerala in India. Although immediately after Rose tried turning the conversation to Cuba.

Cuba, in my own opinion, is irrelevant to the conversation they were having. It often makes people either defend or attack something they may not know everything about. I refuse to talk about other countries, because it always degrades the conversation.

They are mainly worth talking about in the context of history, but as the conversation was centered around the US and not the current affairs of Cuba, it causes a departure from the core argument.