Ask Prof Wolff: Marx's Flaws

A patron of Economic Update asks: "Hi Prof. Wolff! What are Marx's flaws that you've briefly mentioned before? The labor theory of value? Communism itself? Any of your personal critiques?"
This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.
Submit your own question to be considered for a video response by Prof. Wolff on Patreon: / community .
Ask Prof Wolff is a‪@democracyatwrk‬ production. We are committed to providing these videos to you free of ads. Please consider supporting us on Patreon.com/economicupdate. Become a part of the growing Patreon community and gain access to exclusive patron-only content, along with the ability to ask Prof. Wolff questions like this one! Your support also helps keep this content free to the public. Spreading Prof. Wolff's message is more important than ever. Help us continue to make this possible.
_________________________________________________________________________
Learn more about Prof Wolff's new book, "The Sickness is the System: When Capitalism Fails to Save Us from Pandemics or Itself," available now at www.democracyatwork.info/books
“A magnificent source of hope and insight.” Yanis Varoufakis, Greek economist, academic, philosopher, politician, author of Talking to my daughter about the economy.
_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:
Web: www.rdwolff.com
Patreon: / economicupdate
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Subscribe to the EU podcast: economicupdate.libsyn.com
Shop our worker CO-OP made MERCH: democracy-at-work-shop.myshop...

[@benjaminhenderson7059]

This is the big difference between propaganda and information. Someone giving you information can address its criticism, someone giving you propaganda cannot.

[@alpharius6206]

Any information is propaganda of some sort. If I tell you 3 Newton's laws of physics, I propagate the idea of scientific mechanics. Don't consider propaganda as something bad. It can teach good, for example posters that propagate playing sports.

[@tonywilson4713]

That is a great well thought comment.

[@WackadoodleMalarkey]

Holy bovine rectal castings Batman! We've really stepped in it this time! That's right Robin, turning the frogs gay was a red herring the whole time for their real scheme to put the salamanders on newtberty blockers! We haven't a moment to lose!

[@radscorpion8]

Yeah...but the fact that someone merely isn't engaging in propaganda, isn't exactly a high bar. Its more like the bare minimum, which you can find at any university lecture on economics

[@rogerburn5132]

My Propaganda is the truth.

[@davidtildesley3197]

Most of what you speak was addressed after Marx's death from Marx's notes on Lewis Henry Morgans work by his good friend and collaborator Frederick Engels in his book - the Origin of the Family, Private property and the State.

[@gobeyondaj]

Thank you for sharing you knowledge and expertise w the world Prof Wolff!! 🐺 🐺 Pack!

[@toyotaprius79]

_awoo_

[@wilhamwheater8417]

@@toyotaprius79 oppoppopopppppoppppppoppp

[@48Ballen]

Wolff has no expertise and leaves out the most important facts about the results of the garbage he is pushing. The utter economic ruin, mass murders, and enslavement of people. All are a result of the Communists/Marxists.

[@gobeyondaj]

@@48Ballen that's funny bc one could argue that the US has a mass murder problem both foreign and domestic; additionally, one could argue that the US is in economic ruin except for a very small group of it's citizens.

[@CarlosIsDown]

"dirty rooms get cleaned into organized rooms" You don't know my life, Wolff

[@ronnysmobilephone]

They are only dirty rooms... if you consider them dirty.

[@constanzamejia]

Thank you professor for your insightful and easy to understand talks. Wish more people would open their minds and listen to you, so thy can understand and learn.

[@marktomasetti8642]

What a brilliant teacher. It’s encouraging that such an intelligent person chooses to keep these ideas growing into our time for the benefit of all rather than use his brains to perpetuate and profit from the current western system.

[@48Ballen]

He is fraud and has never told the truth about the sickness called Marxism. His examples show he knows nothing about running a successful business.

[@marktomasetti8642]

@@48Ballen - A fraud is someone who represents himself to an audience in one way but is actually something different. What has the Prof. done that fits the word fraud?

[@samsonlovesyou]

Lenin took up the analysis of the capitalist state, and did a great job in "State and Revolution" and "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism". Everyone views his analysis of the socialist state different, although personally I appreciate it.

[@MazBringsby]

Will give Lenin a read. Thanks.

[@swrcomswrcom5306]

See I would go the opposite direction on this. The Bolsheviks were a perversion of Marxism in their adamant refusal to abolish class, and instead centralize within the State.

[@itzenormous]

^^ Of course, we're going to get the Western "Synthetic Left" critique from someone who imagines that they could create what they call "Real Socialism" if they were running a country. What kind of Socialism have you built @swrcom swrcom ?? @samsonlovesyou There was no student of Marx more astute than Lenin. The flaw in Marx's work lies in the fact that it was a work of its time - the mid-19th Century - Marx did not foresee the characteristics that Capitalism would take on ... in the future ... or the adaptations it would make. Lenin brought Marxist thought into the 20th Century, and updated Marx's analysis through his own analysis of Finance Capital and Imperialism. Lenin was just as important as Marx, every bit as much. This is why those of us who call ourselves "Marxist-Leninists" do so.

[@georgefurman4371]

@@swrcomswrcom5306 as we say in Spanish. .. Enchilame estas tambien. Our as if we're that easy. The bolchevikes were not at fault. The corporate class experience and fast reaction stopped the Russian people from advancing through not only war but multiple invasions and a permanent sabotage to the day. The world wars were that campaign to dismantle the working class organizations and political forces. But the working class still has the power to make the intrinsic incapacity of the wealthy to solve its contradictions. The revolution still is a pending and in process event. It is inevitable or the option will be as Trotsky said it would.

[@Darklord1201FTW]

@@swrcomswrcom5306 i feel like you haven’t read any works of Lenin.

[@princesskenyetta4745]

"Childish" - That is an important point. It points to the character of political discourse that is best described as at the adolescent level of moral development. See: Kohlberg model of moral development, stage three.

[@Jane-no3id]

Wonderful explanation Professor! ❤

[@Camcolito]

How inconsiderate of Marx not to figure out the entire world and anticipate and pre-emptively answer objections from insightful right-wing ideologues centuries later. Selfish bastard! :-D

[@jeffengel2607]

Yeah, the "flaws" can be "uncovered stuff we'd've liked covered", and some of that latter can be "jesus, why is this even an issue?!"

[@tankie9997]

Not only that but he was a horrible transphobe, not once did he consider the interests of the gender fluid.

[@juliahenriques210]

@@tankie9997 To be fair, not once he considered the interests of anyone, really, besides subsistence. If anything, he would argue that once subsistence was guaranteed, people could very well do whatever (and he kinda did, but he thought people would pursue higher learning, the arts, etc)... possibly including self-adjustment by gender transition (a possibility he could have considered if he had accepted that invitation to a Tardis ride, perhaps)? But seriously, his underestimation of other relations besides economic ones is probably his greatest shortcoming, but that's a pretty much a shortcoming of his time and place, and couldn't have really been addressed before Sociology and Non-Ethnocentric Anthropology.

[@jeffengel2607]

@@juliahenriques210 I think Marx took himself to be correcting the concentration on ideology abstracted far away from the nitty-gritty of making a living represented by Hegel and followers. It's a place in the dialectic that makes it hard to be perfectly balanced _and_ get the necessary point across well enough. There's trouble for not being able to participate in conversations not yet started, but there's also trouble for _having_ to take part in the conversations already going on and that many people in the future are free to forget.

[@locuraromantica]

@@juliahenriques210 You are right in part, other relations exist. But the economic ones are the ones who are more important. After all they are the ones that chain you to a transphobe boss, a racist boss, or whatever...The main point is that he or she is the owner of the means of production. And at the end the activists call you "economicist" If you tell them how power really works, at the end in reallity what people stuck is in parcialized fights and beging for recognition. Don't beg! Take! How? Class struggle, take the economic power, the real one, and no one can mess with you, fight along the working class and do a revolution. That blindness is why since the birth of crithical theory, structuralists and post-structuralist, culture changed, capitalism adapted to it and even refreshed itself, and also capitalism got worse, to the point we are now. I am not saying they are bad thinking, they are a good tool for self-reflection and to analyze alienation, I am saying they didn't bring nothing that helped ending capitalism. And for changing the mode of production and to make a revolution, they are useless, they did the contrary. The 1st of may, in a demosntration the syndicate leader where I was started to talk about radical feminism and queer theory. Workers that were men have listened half an hour of discourse telling them that women have being paramount in the defense of the COVID and in industry( The first thing is right the second isn't, men also worked and deserved the same praise), and later half an hour about queer vindications that are not bad. But they came as working class, to demonstrate for their problems as workers. That is why alt right is conquering the working class, the mayority, with their fascism tactics, talking nice to workers, despite they are going to betray them.

Great to see the synthesis of your and Dr. Fraad’s ideas. Seeing your videos really makes me want to read Policing the Family by Donzelot.

[@nikhtose]

Marx understood the petit bourgeois "family" as an autocratic institution, but saw it as the foundation for the reproduction of bourgeois social relations. He also didn't predict the nature of a future proletarian state--decided in the course of the struggle--but DID insist (critique of the Gotha Program) that socialists must demand that the bourgeois state cease to exist. Here he has something to teach Prof. Wolff, who supports the reformist Green Party.

[@helengarrett6378]

Sometimes absolute purity is not attainable or helpful. We move toward our goals and attemp to achieve what we can at the moment. A child looks for black and white answers but an adult sees shades of gray. I want it all but if all I can get is a little relief I'll take it.

[@nikhtose]

@@helengarrett6378 It's called gradualism. Tried many times. Failed always.

[@andrewsullivan3874]

Thank you!

[@yabyum108]

Very helpful. Thanks 😎

[@DecMurphy]

This is a very insightful video, especially the last bit about the relations of production being separate and distinct from property types, I often conflate the two without thinking about it but you're right that you can still have exploitative employer/employee relations even with common ownership, as happened in the Soviety Union or China. Common ownership by itself is not sufficient to break these material bonds without a democratisation of the relations of production.

[@johnlewis1333]

Your comments about Marx combining private property and the employer and employee relationship are deeply appreciated! That has always have led to some level of confusion and frustration for me.

[@eziodeldegan414]

excellent lecture prof wolff, i learned something new today.. thank you

[@marcoantoniov.t.9558]

Amazingly explained! Thanks Professor Wolff!

[@helengarrett6378]

Yes! Always learn something.

[@aptorres01]

Great video thanks

[@stephaniecarrow4898]

Thanks again, Prof Wolff, for your lucid and helpful explanations.

[@gustavchambert7072]

I would go further as regards the slavery-feudalism-capitalism relationship. It wasn't only that slavery and captialism coexisted in the early US. Rather what we saw was a form of slave-capitalism, where large parts of early industrial capitalism (both in Europe and the Americas) was reliant on materials produced through slavery, mainly cotton and sugar.

[@stephaniecarrow4898]

Good point. Not to mention the slave trade itself, which seems a hybrid of both systems.

[@gustavchambert7072]

@@stephaniecarrow4898 Right. That version of slavery is arguably the ultimate commodification of labour. It also both drove, and was highly dependent on, industrial capitalism. It at the same time provided cheap raw materials and cheap calories for the industral cities, and needed the immense demand for both in order to sustain itself.

[@Gigika313]

Thank you

[@bobcornwell403]

Very good clarification of the difference between an ideology as a compass as opposed to one as a map. I look forward to watching your videos.

[@ronnysmobilephone]

yeah, but nothing he says is Marxist or has to do with Marxism... what he said is what HE thinks.... these are just Prof Wolff's opinions.

[@dmgarage9029]

Thank you for your profound knowledge.

[@MrTubaplayer123]

Learned a lot, thank you Wolff!

[@joancroker8612]

Wow, Professor Wolf! This has helped me immensely. Thank you.

[@helengarrett6378]

Watched this again. Still learning.

[@helpyourcattodrive]

I like the way you read the script so clearly.

[@auferstandenausruinen]

Capitalism is not merely employer-employee relationship. Private ownership of means of production, a labor market and commodity production and exchange for the sake of expanding capital in its money form are all inseparable parts of capitalism.

[@stephaniecarrow4898]

Prof Wolff has pointed out in other videos that the state can also own the means of production -- as in China or former USSR -- but that's merely state capitalism, because the employer/employee hierarchy is the same, and the workers still don't own the means of production.

[@auferstandenausruinen]

@@stephaniecarrow4898If surplus extraction is for enriching a specific bureaucrat class or accumulation some depository fund for the investment of other industries/services then it's state capitalism. If the production solely answers to the societal need (could be based on economic plans made by the state as the enterprise might the information needed on a societal level) then it's called a public owned enterprise in a socialist economy. As long as a Co-op needs to compete with capitalist enterprises in terms of profit rate in a market economy, workers can not exercise full control of their own enterprise, because the competition to accumulate surplus would force them to make decisions they might not like.

[@stephaniecarrow4898]

@@auferstandenausruinen I'm not sure I understand your response. I was merely paraphrasing Prof Wolff's position that it's not only private ownership that entirely determines capitalism. If the means of production are state owned but follow the same employer/employee structure as in private ownership, it is simply state capitalism. (Also, I imagine that even worker coops might seek the expansion of capital, which as a group the workers would determine how to use and distribute.)

[@auferstandenausruinen]

@@stephaniecarrow4898In a publicly owned enterprise in a socialist economy, the decisions should in theory be made by the society as a whole (through planning and representative participation, not necessarily the Gosplan style), workers within the said enterprise just utilize the means of production, which are owned by the society as a whole, to produce what the society needs. The workers are also members of the society so they should be able to participate the decision making process too. If badly managed, it could appear as they are employed by the state. A Co-op however, excludes other members of the society to participate the decision making process, that's the difference. During the transition period between capitalism and socialism, large scale manufacturing plants should be publicly owned and a small local business might be more suitable for collective ownership. In the end, with advanced means of information exchange and logistics as well as means of production, the public decision making process should be easier on smaller scales, so that the goal of producing each according to one's need could be met.

[@buttercuptaylor7135]

Your point that Feudalism, Capitalism and Marxism may all exist at once rings true to me. When I was in the U.S. military I often wondered why I was working in a Feudal system in order to defend a Capitalist one.

[@NeverCryWolf64]

Wonderful.

[@muhammadasifkhan4198]

Very nice analysis

[@khaldunia]

Useful.

[@parthoprotimganguly2125]

I respect you sir. Very nice.

[@thegoodspringguy]

1. Marx didn't analyse the state enough - fair critique but insignificant now because Lenin built on it so all good from a post-Lenin perspective. 2 and 3. Yes 4. My issue with Marx is with regards to falling rates of profit. Let's say, under capitalism, automation makes 100% of labor uneccesary in the future I don't see how that can create a falling rate of profit unless we're looking at an extreme scenario where the workers can't sell the labor to the capitalists, they don't get a wage and thus can't purchase their commodities. Therefore, since there are no customers, there are no sales and without sales, there are no profits.

[@tanujSE]

Well said

[@dilbyjones]

Just great

[@holistic_radical]

I lived my teenage years in a fundamentalist Christian cult, and then there was a Reformation-like rebellion in which many left, and chose other paths. I started catching up on the life-affirming trends of the 60's, in the 70's, and in college ended up finally getting good grades in senior year, when Marxist perspectives enabled me to organize my ideas well enough to write papers that got A’s. Several years later, I realized that I had gone from being a fundamentalist Christian to being a fundamentaist Marxist. I decided that dogmatism is a pervasive and disastrous human flaw. Being eclectic is an antidote to dogmatism. Marx has remained important in my diversity, without in-depth attention, mostly. Profs Wolff and Harvey are guiding me in appreciating the soulful and holistic (an opposite of dogmatic) qualities of Marx, who I have not been in depth with since I was dogmatic about it. As a young dogmatic Marxist-Athiest, I did not appreciate the value of psychology, any spirituality, or speculative fiction, etc. Now, I’m immersed in absorbing the community-sourced deep reading appreciation provided by the Tolkien Professor Podcast, and the resonances between that experience and my renewed attention to Marx are tasty. For example, the scope of what both authors hoped to express was so much greater than their lifetimes allowed.

[@holistic_radical]

Wow. Two minutes in I got triggerd to tell a piece of my life story. Now I can watch the rest of the video :-).

[@wtan1851]

Weaknesses: Inadequate theory of the state, inevitable tendency for the profit rate to fall, questionable primacy of class, and inadequate blueprint for new system. Thanks for the lecture.

[@Bonafide188]

Great video, I am going through Capital again right now and this video helps for some context

[@neue01]

Don’t waste your time

[@123456789tube100]

@@neue01 why?

[@nicholasl9148]

@@123456789tube100 The book is bad. Almost all economists including those that are allies of Piketty even said it was bad. The only people that appreciate the tome are laymen that seek truth from arcane writing.

[@stephaniecarrow4898]

Prof Wolff also has a book on understanding Marxism that might be helpful.

[@wildeben]

Another important issues that Marx missed or maybe failed to elucidate is the more impactful aspect of primitive accumulation, specifically as it relates to female labor and female production and rearing of laborers. Caliban and the Witch is a great short book that does a great job making this point.

[@DavidCodyPeppers.]

Thank you for the care in your presentation. It is always a pleasure watching your channel (would $applaud if you had the button). Peace! \o/

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

anthropology discusses three levels of social exchange reciprocity (oldest/familial/alliance), barter, and contract. Each stage is more and more abstract and non personal. Sometimes failing to reference this other knowledge is a detriment

[@jeffengel2607]

Politics have erected some obnoxious barriers between academic disciplines.

[@selwynr]

Read David Graeber on the myth of barter. An anarchist anthropologist, doesn't get better than that.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

@@selwynr it seems like he is simply stating that most exchange fell under reciprocity. yet barter itself was held in longer term relationships. siblings engage in it in some circumstances. the higher order bit here is the relative intensity of long term social bonds. reciprocity relies on the notion that a community exchanges goods or services on the faith that one’s own future needs will be reciprocated. it is never tit for tat and iirc that would be considered offensive.

[@rubycreel7515]

I think this is so important to go into more detail on. Because when I bring up the Marxism ideas. The push back I get always is the issue with private property. And I get shut out each time with that. I have no answer to give than my own opinion. Which is that there should still be private property and that I am more focusing on the relationship between employee and employer. But because I dont have a complete answer I am shut out.

[@walmenreis]

This is possibly one of the most important - if not 'the most important' of the - videos produced by Prof. Wolff for his channels. Thinking those issues right is key to making a more accurate, systematic sense of the human society and its countless variations, let alone the mechanics of capitalism with regard to the other possibilities of managing human production. We don't still see such possibilities as they are, and in consequence don't believe that there is thriving economic life beyond the walls of capitalism.

[@JorgeDiaz-xo8kb]

Some of Marx's "flaw"' were lack of time constraints torced. Even on the 'capital' discourses he had to abandon developments he had started to lay down for taking up more pressing issues with actual class struggle .

[@themeninwhite195]

Marx talk about a state theory in "civil war in France". That event made him and Engels change a little the Manifesto. In that book he essentialy says "this is the right way"

[@georgefurman4371]

Finally someone who understood Marx Engels and Lenin.

[@themeninwhite195]

@@georgefurman4371 Thank you i guess? I don't think i fully understand marxism. People study the subject since 200 years, if we can grasp a good comprehension of marxist theory and praxis is because we are dwarfs astride the shoulders of giants.

[@georgefurman4371]

@@themeninwhite195 there must be giants to emerge soon . we are living transcendental moments in history. Imperative need . An emergent vanguard with the inherited lessons to apply asap

[@georgefurman4371]

@@themeninwhite195 if you read Trotsky's the revolution of October you'll see class warfare science applied by Lenin and the vanguard of the insurrection. An almost bloodless insurrection. I suggest Trotsky after the insurrection writings. He predicted the present crossroads socialism or chaos, devolution of barbaric destruction .

[@themeninwhite195]

@@georgefurman4371 yes also Rosa Luxembourg talked about that. I read "history of the russian revolution", really insightful and essential for all communists

[@thomasjamison2050]

I just finished listening to "A People's Tragedy" by Orlando Figes. It is on youtube as of my posting this. It is an utterly fascinating account of the Russian Revolution and of the circumstances and exogenesis relative to the intent of the Communist party to create a Marxist Society. To my surprise, among other things, it is an account of the first realization of a Marxist government to the need of keep elements of capitalism alive even in a Marxist economy. One might suggest that Communist China is the current state of the art of this phenomena. All told, it gives one a much better perspective of how progress has been made in implementing a Marxist philosophy, and the results are definitely improving. The negative values associated with all this remain firmly ensconced in popular thinking, but that misses the value of the struggle, to say the least. I have also become more aware recently of the implementation of German socialism in WWII, and there is much to be learned there also. What was too big of a nut to crack in 1917 in Russia became a much different situation in Germany in WWII, and given the examples of Communist China as well as that of Jeffrey Bezos, the idea of a very successful centrally managed economy is a far, far more practical idea today in the age of the internet.

[@jxmai7687]

bravo！

[@spanosspanos]

I recently listened to a very interesting podcast about how Marx ultimately had difficulty separating labor and capital in terms of production value added. Essentially the speaker was saying, that capital also adds value, though Marx was sort of backed into a corner through his own arguments, that only labor adds the value that then provides for profits....

[@donhawkins9742]

Morning...

[@jamesgraham767]

Another development in Modern Society that I think Marx did not fully Anticipate was the growth of the "PROFESSIONAL CLASS" within Capitalism which includes Doctors, Lawyers, judges, Career Politicians, Educators at the University Level , RN's and Technical Medical Professionals , and Middle Management MBA's, Career Military Officers, who for the most part are Highly Paid and Highly Respected and thus are allowed to partake of a number of "perks " once reserved for the OWNERS alone. Manny of these Professionals consider themselves to be "LIBERALS" of one sort or another but share a biding Faith in and indeed have a rather large ( but small compared to the BILLIONAIRES ) Stake in Capitalism as it currently exists. Their Loyalty is steadfastly with the Status Quo and the Employer/ Owner CLASS that maintains it.

[@GR3YS0RG4N1CS]

While Marx didn't coin the phrase, Marxists have called the "professional class" as you call it, the Lumpenbourgeoisie. But some of those you mentioned are/ were class traitors who became Lumpenbourgeoisie (career military officials)

[@stevenhe198911]

nice

[@cloroxbleach2520]

Exclusion is *all* there is to property.

[@manuelmanolini6756]

Marx's (borrowed by Marx from capitalist philosopher David Ricardo) labor theory of value does not necessarily empirically prove theft of the employee's labor. This theory's explanatory power depends on the circumstances of the particular capitalist enterprise and the market. The basic problem with the employer / employee relationship is one of power unbalance. The employee does not FREELY enter into any particular labor contract because he or she MUST work to survive. Thus the employee is compeled to UNFAIRLY submit to the employer's whims in the workplace. Although not necessarily clear, the employee's contribution could justify greater input in the enterprise decisions. IN THE END , THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF LACK OF FREEDOM AND FAIRNESS, NOT NECESSARILY THEFT.

[@saikatbhattacharya8282]

5. Failing to understand over production crisis in western world can be countered using lack of capital accumulation in non western world. 6. Class struggle is never primary determining factor bringing political change, it is one factor among many that includes geopolitical, gender, geography.

[@georgefurman4371]

You don't comprehend science in the social historic perspective. Class warfare had been the motor of economic development since the beginning of division of work. You need to review the Marxist theory from the basics. The need to accumulate wealth and the consequent development of that division and specialization determined the different stages of socioeconomic evolution. It is in that division of duties to secure existence and survival. As well as primacy that determined the growth and greater capacity to produce and accumulate as well as rest for a special group to become the providers and generators of knowledge and technology. We could say they division of work produced a necessary but eventually obsolete dominant class to explote human production. Marx saw that dynamic force as part of our evolutionary transformation to become a revolutionary transformed society without need anymore for inequality. The present times are that historic qualitative moment where we must decide if to stay and devolve or completely change a evolve from anew stage. The conflict between two classes is the simplification the evolutionary process led us to. Capitalism is the last evolutionary stage . Socialism will be the revolutionary stage where the past will be a prehistory of humanity.

[@saikatbhattacharya8282]

@@georgefurman4371 cattle rearers of steppes remain cattle rearers because of geography of steppes. India China Iraq formed agricultural civilization because of geography. Cattle rearers often attacked and became ruling class of agricultural societies because the former were better warriors again due to geography. Here geography is prior which defined steppes way of life different from agricultural way of life and that geographic difference ignited the historical dynamics. Surely class within steppes society and agricultural society can have their roles but those will remain secondary to geography.

[@georgefurman4371]

@@saikatbhattacharya8282 your sociology is incomplete explanation of history. As simple as that. Your giving the environment the fundamental factor as changing social dynamics makes the influence of the human associations no value and not determinant value on the growth or stagnant condition of a given society without movement. It is in the dynamic of societies relationships along history they the social organization becomes a progressive force. Regardless of local geography or culture all societies engaging in clash or assimilation simplified the local limitation as time passes. We are living in the present product of the multiple human evolution along the constant economic growth the social classes provoked with their participation. What one regional race or ethnic didn't accomplish was done by other resulting in a single human social organization capable to jump in the bigger dimension of the same dynamical organism. One we know as capitalism . in Tibet and in the Amazon the immense majority of people are now capable and part of the same system and condition . Worker and dispossessed and salary dependent or seller of your work product on one side. And on the other the owner of the means of production and profiters of other people's work on the other. Capitalist and worker. As a class there remains no more kind of socioeconomic separation. Two classes in conflict one to sustain its exploitation of the other and the other fighting and in need for better reimbursement of his work. Capitalism is the pinnacle of social and economic evolution since it simplified the historical conundrum of inequality and fairness . the productive forces now are capable and sufficient as well as nature to provide without the need of classes anymore. No more need of poverty and oppression . everybody can be supplied with sufficient food and health and education and able to rest and create in peace and equals all in all realms of life. No need for war and conflict. Just dedicating our selves to create and produce positive things.

[@saikatbhattacharya8282]

@@georgefurman4371 try to explain your points. I am saying geography is prior reason for difference in ways of life and their contradictions. You try to explain how class is prior?

[@georgefurman4371]

@@saikatbhattacharya8282 I am not saying that geography is not important as factor in a specific regional development in the history of a particular region's population limited to that culture. I am saying that regardless of those limitations as a whole the evolution of the socio-economic organisms along history has since the moment of the first communities organized together to form the first cultures in order to progress in their capacity to produce sufficient for the survival and growth of them as a culture had first to delegate, to make a division of work a specialization of their skills. That separation increased and developed into a hierarchy that created the first classes a dominant one and the rest as a superstructure that determined the appearance of rest , giving the leadership time to think and invest in the development of thinking and the future science or expertise, experience needed for knowledge. The division of duties and leadership became The constant struggle between the ones with the knowledge capable to learn and practice the art of war and alliances against a worked tired majority. The primitive conditions didn't allow for the majority to rest and think to form alliances and to practice the athletic discipline of war and strength for combat. They needed a leadership as well. It was a necessary but since then inevitable conflict because of the inclination for abuse by the high hierarchies wanting more leisure. That conflict is what made humanity more capable to produce with time. In the long run of history cultures evolved into great civilizations others didn't evolve much. But it is the necessity for leisure and for a better life that has been the motor of history . ones to remain as the leisure class the lower ones to become capable and deserving of the work product. The stagnant cultures had been absorbed by the dynamic advanced ones .

[@36cmbr]

Marx seems overly dense if we try to out think his simple truth: "how the subject labor is treated by the organization managers gives a preview of how the organization will fair when the inevitable contradictions emerge". Its that simple. Marx was a bit anal about the subject with his looks at fuedalism, autocracy, socialism, democracy and etc in trying to lay the blame for capitalist contradictions at the door step of the idea itself. He could not do that successfully and in the end he had to admit that ideas are not in and of themselves bad. Marx was saying that organizational capitalism, like any organizational management, can succeed when properly managed and viewed through the eyes of labor. In this talk Wolff opines that Marx got it wrong and labor could be a management group within itself. This seems to me more of a neoliberal position than Wolff will ever acknowledge. Marx is right and any materialist dialect will falter if not actualized based on the experience it is providing to its labor forces.

[@Labor_Jones]

Self Employment? - means? = not capturing others to do the work and rewarding those workers less than their creation are worth. This is the KEY - It talks about independence and choice which so many worry is the Opposite they believe is happening with Socialism.

[@AMF463]

It sounds like Prof. Wolff is implying that Marx conceived of a linear evolution of history (slavery, feudalism, capitalism). This has some truth. When Prof. Wolff says that these systems can and do coexist simultaneously, this also implies that they can regress too - in a cyclical manner, so capitalism, back to feudalism, etc. Capitalism also promises economic growth to the people, which feudalism does not. But if capitalism doesn't or can't deliver growth to the people, it becomes little different to feudalism. Piketty talks about Brahmin Lefts and Mercantilist Rights across Western democracies; Kotkin discusses Neo-Feudalism. Dugin also talks about neo-mediaevalism. If wealth is now simply inherited rather than facing any redistribution as happened in the 30s-50s (when Alvin Hansen complained of "secular stagnation" and which built the original Western Middle classes), then what is to stop Neo-Feudalism from returning today? Is it enough to just dismiss the concept and assume, like most BBC thinkpieces, that feudalism disappeared 500 years ago and cannot return?

[@thegoodspringguy]

Prof Wolff is always so serious. Do you think he ever watches that distorted voice meme clip of him saying socialism is what the government does, and the more stuff it does, the more socialist it is and laughs for ten minutes straight?

[@theimportantperson]

Maybe i'm falling into the same trap but doesn't it feel weird to distinguish private property from capitalism? There's no way to legitimize the employer-employee distinction without a reason for why people are categorized in different ways. I understand that other factors other than property can legitimize heirarchy (Caste system, religious justifications, racism, etc.) but then we're no longer talking about capitalism and we're back to feudalism, slavery or mercantilism right? In capitalism, the employer maintains their title strictly because they have the property (land, intellectual (like copyright), means or even access) to withhold from the employee unless they enter an asymmetrical relationship to use those means for production. The exchange of wages is not just compensation for labor expended but instead a meager incentive to get the working class to choose to manufacture for one capitalist and not the other, i.e. it is marketized. Am I making sensehere? Does anyone have insight?

[@roguetool8869]

How many different economic systems do you engage in, in a day? For example, what economic system does your household have? Do you charge guests for meals? Admission fees to your home to watch TV? Here’s a flip side, what sort of government do you have at your employer? What about at a business or store? What about your household? Democratic? Authoritative? Socialist? Tyranny? We pride ourselves on democracy and all those ideas but if it isn’t part of most everyday life, we don’t practice it enough!

[@jamesgraham767]

Regarding Marx's view of Marriage, and correct me if I am wrong, I have read that Karl Marx( who had a Happy Marriage and was considered a Family man ) did state that Marriage could no longer exist in a Communist Society since its roots were in Feudalism and its very nature tends to ( in most cases ) de-value the Work of Women and keeps them in a form of indentured Servitude which is in Contradiction with Communal Life. In a Factual Communal Society Marriage ( as we currently understand it) would cease to exist and be replaced with other and more Democratic relationships with the support of the Community itself. Consequently Partnerships between Human beings would no longer be "Divinely Ordained" so that Human Beings could engage in other types of Partnerships even on a temporary basis with the prime responsibility of the raising and Nourishment of Children shared by the Community as a whole. It is worth noting here I believe, that the Current Billionaire Class and their first Lieutenants DO NOT consider themselves Bound by any "MARRIAGE" but secretly and quietly ignore it and also hire Child Care Professionals to raise their Children.

[@stephenwallace8782]

Any chance we're gonna see something like Vivek Chibber and Richard Wolff join forces?

[@FaroBeatz]

wolff gang 🐺

[@syourke3]

Marx’s biggest error was his adoption of the labor theory of value from Smith and Ricardo. Marx denied that machines create value. That was the basis of his belief in the falling rate of profit and the inevitability of revolution. It’s a huge error.

[@qinzake9613]

prof Harvey said that the capital is about how capitalism works at pure state，i think this explains some of the flaws in his work，it is all about focus on what really matters form his point of view

[@kezyay7830]

Please talk more on Lenins work!

[@tanujSE]

I hope Professor Richard Wolff is fine and doing well with struggle

[@jennyohara4011]

As long as you can get Chocolate, Coke and Vanilla Ice cream there are no flaws

[@allenschmitz9644]

What's 'New' Speak for a 'WINK*' is it a 'BLINK' now in the Age of Aquarius and fluid thinking of New Think?

[@respobabs]

re: the state, marx was pretty clear. it's also common sense that you need a state to defend your revolution as long as capitalism still exists in a strong way. engels wrote about this as well, as did lenin.

[@TheBigGSN5]

Yeah, a socialist state, not a dictatorship rambling about communism.

[@CripplingDuality]

@@TheBigGSN5 what would that state look like?

[@anilliyanage1505]

@@CripplingDuality It would depend on what state we are talking about. In capitalism state is an apparatus set up by the ruling class to repress the working class people's power in order to let the capitalists to exploit people. In socialism it is organized by the proletarians ie. The people for the benefit of the people. Socialist state's power is vested upon workers.

[@nicholasl9148]

@Shnarfy McShmoombles Patronizing a person to get rid of brainworms over a fairly level headed comment..... how socialist of you....

[@coololi07]

the problem lies in seizing the existing state power. Rather than building a proletarian state the capitalist state is taken and expected to work for the proletariat. We need proletariat institutions not proletariat leaders in capitalist institutions.

[@user-mu4np4ze3y]

👌🏼‼️

[@skylord8625]

Thank you Professor Wolff for this insight. I have a follow on question. Recently Jordan Peterson has been getting lambasted on the internet due to his views about gender identity, capitalism, and marxism viewpoints. He stated (paraphrasing) that one of the fundamental flaws of Marxism is that in order to ensure and guarantee a stable market, economy, and social structure there would need to be a large amount of a power and authority ceded to the state. A state which might start off with the correct insight and intent to regulate in good faith a Marxist system but that would eventually become corrupted and therefore cause harm to those it started out to protect. Thus, Marxism is inherently unstable and an undesirable system. What response would you have to Jordan Peterson? Thank you sir.

[@catherinemoore9534]

Private property almost inevitably leads to speculation. Speculation is a kind of relationship between capital and poverty/ lack of power. Marx may have considered private property as a social relationship with winners and losers?

[@comrademay]

I have a picture of Marx on my wall above my computer and he looks like he's angry at me, lol.

[@alpharius6206]

I think employee-employer relationship is tightly tied with the property problem. Employees (i talk about factory workers mostly) use employer's means of production, or "rent out" their ability to work, practically making themselves property of the employer for the time of work. Destroying this employee-employer relationship means also destroying private (not personal or individual) property and vice versa. Why this relationship was still a thing in USSR? State property not always means not private property. State was an employer and you were an employee. Was it socialism? Probably yes, because the state relied on proletariat, like capitalist state relies on bourgeoisie. Why it was still a thing? My guess is that you cannot fully get rid of that relationship when state as an institution still exists, but they both will fade out bit by bit when society is closer and closer to communism.

[@horhay3608]

Lenin and Trotsky both said it wasn't socialism. The workers served the state bureaucracy. "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen." - Trotsky

[@alpharius6206]

@William Mulvaney It's a tactical perspective. But compared to capitalists and social-democrats like Bernie, communists discussing stuff that some german philosopher wrote have some long term strategic plans. Capitalism will never allow far left parties even to participate in elections in normal circumstances. There's no much use of them anyway.

[@alpharius6206]

@William Mulvaney Name != essence. I can say almost for sure that it's a "communist" party, just a facade, social-democrats at best. In my country that's the case anyway. Other somewhat far left parties *suddenly* confront problems while trying to participate in some elections to try to gain some leverage or voice out there.

[@joandelur4407]

it's of that good, it's of that simply and clear what explain for a difficult topic as Marxism relationship among things or individuals in Capitalism that Mr Wolf has, that makes the difficult becomes simple thing to comprehend. Brilliant considering a donkey likes me could go to explain now what this things mean and represent to anothers!. Unbelievable; thanks Prof Wolff.

[@renardleblanc5556]

One day, ages hence, students will ask their economics professors: "For all his merits, are there any criticisms of Richard Wolff?" :)

[@stephaniecarrow4898]

And the resounding answer will be "No!" 🙂🙂

[@ExPwner]

@@stephaniecarrow4898 on the contrary, his many lies are criticisms.

[@36cmbr]

Marx set out a rational logic as to why the good life, i.e. Western economies, repeated the contradiction of war. In his obitar dictum, Das Kapital, he is saying if we look at our list of failed organizations from the stand point of labor, the reasons for human inability to avoid war would be readily clarified. Indeed, Wolfe is looking at all organizations and deciding it is the system that is at fault rather than how the organizational manager is operating such a system that is the cause of the failure. It’s the “god is the bad guy” therefore, there is no god conundrum. Wolfe seems to be demeaning Marx’s thesis by declaring that every micro system is to blame for failure of the macro organization. However, Marx was proving that when the macro organization comes into scrutiny because of imminent prospect of war, the writ large presentation will be guilty of having viewed itself as operating from a deflationary POV. Hence, the systems are inert in and of themselves. One must recognize when working from a top down dynamic in an organization intent on capitol accumulation, such an organization might become inflationary and over valued and subject to eruptions without proper adjustments. Such adjustments can always be observed by studying any organization from the standpoint of its labor force before the prospect of war becomes inevitible. It sounds like Wolfe is finding fault with the parts in an effort to condemn the whole; and that would be neoliberal jibber jabber capable of turning icons of labor, Marx and Jesus, upon their heads. In the game of accumulation, the capitalist should always look to expand the real purchasing power of the base. Real purchasing power has to do with recognizing and adherence to the stability of the form of labor at the base, i.e., proletariat, family farmer, disenfranchised slaves, devalued wives, soldiers out of work, etc. Sometime I think Wolfe is acting the part of the Uber Liberal among us who is grooming the base to fail, laying a groundwork to profit from the next organizational contradiction and war.

[@jgalt308]

That would require someone actually knowing he existed in the first place...and that is unlikely.

[@nthperson]

I believe the fundamental issue surrounding the creation of "the state" is whether we humans ever existed in "a state of nature". We are born totally dependent upon being nurtured, mostly by our biological parents but also by an extended family and community. Throughout all of human history we have lived together in primarily cooperative relations with one another. At the same time, an unfortunate characteristic of our species is an instinctive counter to cooperation resulting in behaviors that result in hierarchical privilege and the domination of some over others (by a combination of coercion, mysticism, and institutionalized ritual. What is lost as communities increase in numbers and as hierarchy becomes permanent is the just balance between rights and duties. Henry George, I conclude, did a far better job of addressing these issues than did Marx.

[@wiiuwiiu2020]

Thank you prof Wolff. The question of housework feels especially crucial--I wonder how the Wages for Housework movement will play out in the coming years

[@ronnysmobilephone]

There are no wages for house work because the family member isn't a worker, and surplus value isn't extracted. Keeping your house in order isn't work.... A wage is paid to a worker because the capitalist controls that which is produced. Which they then transform into money through sales. At the point a portion of that money goes to the workers wage and the rest to profit. No money is created during house 'work'. Nothing is sold production isn't transformed into surplus.

[@wiiuwiiu2020]

@@ronnysmobilephone you are right it is not wage-labor, it is a distinct kind of work that is unwaged, similar to the historical form of slave labor. If you think housework and childcare aren't real work that sustain capitalist society and capital accumulation, you need to learn more about the material realities and history. See Silvia Federici, Marilyn Waring, Maria Mies among others www.nfb.ca/film/whos_counting/ (nice documentary on the UN SNA, the particular measurements of economies that render invisible work of women and the value of the environment) caringlabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/federici-wages-against-housework.pdf (Wages Against Housework - Silvia Federici) www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/03/04/opinion/women-unpaid-labor.html?smid=url-share (short article on the value of women's unpaid labor)

[@helengarrett6378]

If we want a family we must all work to support it one way or another. The government is not going to diaper a baby or bandage a working person's blistered hands. Nor is the government, at any level, going to kiss you goodnight when you need a hug and a kiss. We could, of course, live in dormitories, see our spouses for recreation and sex only, relegate our babies to their grandparents for care or to the state for care in institutional flocks. Something like that has been tried in China where people leave the countryside to work in factories. Ultimately, that does not satisfy basic needs and desires of human beings. So, we are back to families. The dynamics within that group are negotiable but the work to make a family thrive is unpaid. Sometimes the hours are excessively long, as when a child is sick and requires constant care. Sometimes the working conditions are difficult and sometimes the effort is not evenly distributed accross all members within the family because the effort outside the family is unevenly distributed. But we do many things in a family that are unpaid in financial terms for nonmaterial rewards. We try to make functional accommodations to keep the unit moving forward and thriving. Family, if it is functional and if adults within. It are stable and mature, is based on getting as many needs and wants accommodated for as many individuals is as possible. It isn't based on sale of labor.

[@ekaterinastaneva9922]

@@ronnysmobilephone what 😀 housework is litherally work and it litheraly generates money. Keeping the house in check is work and is paid, it is called a cleaner. Looking after a baby is work, a babysitter does it for a wage. You have three options to have your house in check: quit work and do it yourself where you loose money; get someone to do it for a pay where you loose money; or get a family memeber to do it for free. Depending on what would be the wage of the housekeeper in comparison to a hired person it will either be cheaper or more expensive to have a family member to do it. Therefore it generates money...or doesn't.

[@ekaterinastaneva9922]

@@helengarrett6378 this is completely naive and ignorant opinion. The work at home should not by any mean always be free. It has litherally been putting women in a situation of complete dependency and terror for centuries and in many ways still does, exactly because of propaganda stating that it should only be based on love. I assume you haven't red the Wages For Housework essay at all before you commented

[@gladiator652004]

What about the universal franchise? Must make a huge difference for later Marxists, or ought to do so.

[@Sarial99]

Do Lenin next

[@meowwwww6350]

Second

[@dreadarchive-6915]

First

[@muuhpropertyyy2465]

Would Prof. Wolff talk about 'the great reset' of the World Economic Forum?

[@kevchard5214]

No system is perfect and need adjusting according to the times it is implemented. Marx's wrote his theories and works a very long time ago but the majority of it is still relevant today. I have heard the propaganda regurgitated by the US government for years on how great capitalism is and how evil Marx's, socialism, and communism is but no one will try and use all of this information to better society. This is the biggest problem with the US especially today the people can't look outside the box for something better even if it helps them personally.

[@JohnT.4321]

The Socialist Industrial Union Program: Under socialism, all power to make social decisions will be vested in the people. Our industries, their ownership, and how they are run are far more important to our lives and welfare than any other aspect of our existence. Socialist society and government will be based on these truths. Accordingly: The industries (the means of producing all goods and services) will be owned collectively by all the people. The industries will be administered democratically from bottom to top by representatives elected directly by the workers in each industry of the Union and subject to their control. All representatives will be subject to recall at any time by those who elected them. This industrial administration will, in fact, be the new government. The Congress of Labor.

[@respobabs]

how can you say that the employer-employee relationship has primacy over property? it's all about who can do what with the property. wtf

[@SuperMrHiggins]

Which is still a relational attribute(?)

[@billyoldman9209]

He was referring to the non-debate of state owned vs privately owned enterprise, being implied that both lead to the same domination.

[@raqueljacobs1542]

The private property only serves as the leverage that creates the power dynamic that defines the employee/employer relationship. But there are other conceivable leverages that could serve to facilitate that same power dynamic. So yeah, the dynamic is more important than how it is achieved.

[@respobabs]

@@raqueljacobs1542 "But there are other conceivable leverages that could serve to facilitate that same power dynamic." - Such as?

[@respobabs]

@@billyoldman9209 "He was referring to the non-debate of state owned vs privately owned enterprise, being implied that both lead to the same domination." - How do you know this?

[@realdanrusso]

12:00 Don't you have to collapse critique of property and critique of employer/employee relationship? Like, isn't the problem of the employer/employee strengthened by the fact that those who own property (outside of personal property) have greater ability to exploit labor power from those who do not?

[@_ata_3]

He said that, that private property plays a role in the employer/employee relationship but that it is not that relationship foundation. Also that private property is not exclusive of capitalism.

[@realdanrusso]

@@_ata_3 For sure. what is the foundation, if you know? capital? accumulated, spendable wealth? credit?

[@_ata_3]

@@realdanrusso Buying of workforce. After all that's the definition of employer.

[@laurieauld7687]

Totally agree! Marx was brilliant, and he was woke as f**k! But, there are unanswered questions regarding how the society looks after the bourgeoisie is overthrown.

[@nikolademitri731]

Sounds like you got allergy problems going on too, Prof.. My allergies are out of control this year.

[@Guitarpima]

Once the workers realize that they are the capital, we can implement capitalism. Be at master slave or Lord serve, we have not changed how we do things. Employee employer is the same thing as all the rest. You say it all the time: your brains your muscles and then you describe the tally. I realize you are the expert but, I am right. Inflation is the deflation of capital. Corporations cannot do projects unless they have workers, capital. No workers, all they have is currency. If this had been pointed out to Carl Marx, he would have a greed. Or, he did figure it out but did not know how to voice the opinion. It is like the blues, take it past where you found it. Make it better.

[@bluhmer1990]

You know this is going to be one of the more popular videos because people will be looking for this ammo. Such is life.

[@georgefurman4371]

We are presently seeing a fascist enemy expending most their ammo in all fronts. You are right on the money.

[@kaijessen3654]

My wife was in the party in Germany but left due to the common complaint of misogamy in a political party. It was not all for naught because her connections from that time helped to get her son a position at Volkswagen. Anyway, her takeaway from communism is that there is a worldwide top down conspiracy to keep the worker suppressed. My view is that neoliberalism is running our lives today. The difference may seem subtle but it never fails to engender an argument that never resolves. Maybe I should really be addressing Dr. Wolff’s wife about this but it does highlight a problem with the left where we constantly tear each other apart and that deficiency has been with us since the time of Marx.

[@ignacemorel641]

With regard to Marx's unfinished theory on the State, Lenin completed it with his book entitled "The State and the Revolution". Marx did an outstanding job as a 19th century philosopher, but it falls on the shoulders of the successors of Marx, Engels and Lenin to continue developing the theory in the 21st century. Great job as usual Prof. Wolff.

[@swrcomswrcom5306]

See I would go the opposite direction on this. The Bolsheviks were a perversion of Marxism in their adamant refusal to abolish class, and instead centralize within the State.

[@georgefurman4371]

@@swrcomswrcom5306 I would better say that Stalin highjacked the communist party to become the most sinister man in history at the time. He dismantled the vanguard leadership of the revolution to impose himself over the central comitee and finished it with the murder of Trotsky. Trotsky founded the international that pursued the continuation of the revolution but. The rest is history. Stalinism represents a stop to the internationalization of the revolution. Socialism is impossible within the national borders of any nation . it is a world market system.

[@ignacemorel641]

@@swrcomswrcom5306 the abolishment of classes is the ultimate goal of communism but it cannot be achieved without a transition period during which the proletariat becomes the dominant class.

[@SamuelOrjiM]

Richard if you started here, I would have loved your work more over the years

[@_ata_3]

Oh I see, you are blaming Prof Wolff for not reading Marx or try to understand him by yourself. Nice

[@itzenormous]

Prof Wolff, in discussing the nature of the state, never differentiates between a Bourgeois State and a Proletarian State. Any attempt to equate the 2, is beneath him, yet his analysis in this video, seems to do just that. Certainly, a man of his pedigree, being someone who has studied Marx for most of his life, understands that Socialism can not be built simply by creating a few worker-owned enterprises. The working class needs to seize state power, because, right now, the bourgeois class controls the arms of the state. The working class does not; it lives under the boot of the bourgeois state, and the nature of production is never going to change as long as the capitalists own the state mechanism. By the way, it's the very same state mechanism that they used to constantly and relentlessly encircle, blockade, harass, embargo, perform sabotage, and subterfuge against the Soviet Union. And let us not forget that the international capitalist class sent 2 all-out invasions into the Soviet Union (1919 and 1941), which cost the lives of nearly 40 million people. It takes real arrogance and a certain kind of hubris for any Western Leftist to imagine that they could have, somehow, produced different results under similar circumstances.

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

Is it necessary to teach the proletariat that they are proletariat and have power along with teaching them the responsibilities that entails or will they just rise up from their atomized existence and create revolution out of nowhere?

[@georgefurman4371]

@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 I had been repeating ever since I have a chance that as long as the working class of this nation and the world's . But specifically this nation's one . The nest of the empire, lost their class identity in a state of amnesia by abdicating to the opportunity it had to dealt a mortal blow to capitalism . Instead of calling a constitutional assembly gave FDR the chance to save capitalism at its weakest moment. Starting a process of domestication and betrayal of the world revolution. There was a communist party and socialists organizations leading the working class and unions . They lost the position of leadership to the false democracy known as new deal state. And their identity as proletariat, as working class . now Most call themselves middle class for their privileges among the non unionized working class. Scraps that are now about to loose since that deal was just a truce. The truce is over.

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

@@georgefurman4371 I'm not arguing but you didn't answer my question.

[@paigelove2666]

While there's differences in history and rhetoric, the raw function of the "Proletarian" State and the "Bourgeois" State are identical. The State is itself quite often an expression of I-it relationships, such as that of employer-employee, lord-serf, or master-slave. That is the fundamental critique, and that is overwhelmingly a flaw of "Communist" States. So long as the State exists in an even remotely recognizable form, there can be no socialism. The USSR was deeply invested in the profits of its operations, was violent with how it treated its citizens, and incentivized chains of employer-employee relationships. It was, as Prof Wolff has described it and China and many other "Communist" regimes, a State Capitalist enterprise. If it is a State, it is not "Proletarian", and any state that calls itself that is as much the enemy of the worker as any other capitalist.

[@georgefurman4371]

@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 I did in the sense that by recovering our identity as a class means to take a stand in disobeying laws established to prohibit our capacity to strike. The wheels of the economy are the Achilles heel of the corporate class. We as proletariat having our hands on a daily basis on those wheels are for that reason with the most power. The power of the state is more subjective than ours . The day that the working class of the USA became a reason to fear is when the general strike was exercised The obstacle is the leadership that must be replaced or woken up. Bernie and the progressives have the platform but are afraid or unwilling to use it to call to that instrument of power . If only they were to comprehend that one call from their position will provoke a chain reaction in a sudden recovery of the old memory lost . Just a call will make the corporate class and state tremble. But the present leadership believes that must ask for permission. Absurd. Where is civil disobedience as a weapon.

[@nicka731]

2:05 Neither did Jesus or Buddha and yet SOME of their followers...😬

[@NoPrivateProperty]

Blasphemy