Dialectic At Work: A Theoretical Rupture: Overdetermination 

I especially like his way of breaking it down because a lot of people regurgitate some of the "laws" of dialectical materialism without really understanding where they come from. The notion of overdetermination encapsulates Engels' main idea that whatever we identify as causes, or even whatever we identify as a "thing" at all, is always sort of a fuzzy abstraction that is not the entire story as the natural world really is not fragmented in such way, it is not broken up into "things" or "essential causes." We only fragment it in our minds as a way to deal with it more easily. When we look more closely, thus, we find there are always contradictions between our abstraction and reality as it actually is. Additionally, we always find that the seemingly sharp and fragmented borders between things disappear when we look a bit more closely and there are no hard-and-fast lines separating anything in nature, i.e. between every _qualitative_ thing there is an infinite series of _quantitative_ interconnected steps. The "laws" thus derive from seeing the world in this way.

Capitalism only becomes problematic when the working class becomes divided and unorganized. But that lack of organization also causes problems in every other economic structure because it enables a ruling class to develop that take advantage of that division. When the ruling class becomes conscious of their ability to divide the public to benefit themselves, everything goes haywire... That's how revolutions happen. Either the working class revolts against the ruling class or against themselves.

​@@limitisillusion7, where in history where individuals were organized to the extent that capitalism worked well for the masses and for how long?

Hate the category of elderly being lumped with disabled and sick. This is usually true but not always, but the thought that it is true results in age discrimination even for those that this pigeonhole is not true.

@@EmHotep4520 The economic structure that is capitalism doesn't fail in and of itself. That's because "capitalism" isn't pulling any strings. Sociology pulls the strings. Sociology describes the relationships between people. If those relationships are characterized by competing identities and the accompanying division within the working class, then free-market economies _and_ government-regulated economies alike will create inequality. On the other hand, when the working class is vigilant and united within capitalistic economies, labor movements that serve the working class will be prominent... unions, worker cooperatives, boycotts, strikes, etc. Alternatively, if a heavily regulated communistic economy is serving the working class, it is _because_ the voters were vigilant and united enough to elect the right representatives who then write good economic policy. In other words, the labor movements in the capitalistic, free-market economy serve the same functional regulatory purpose that economic policy serves in the communistic economy. They are just two different ways to distribute the means of production effectively and sustainably. The compartmentalization of government regulation and free-market labor movements is misleading, because both serve to regulate the economy. The compartmentalization tends to formalize government regulation and deformalize the labor movements that _also_ regulate. The most important thing to recognize though is that both regulatory strategies are dependent on the same thing: working class consciousness. Both regulatory strategies are different ways to skin the cat that is the ruling class. If the working class in a free-market economy becomes divided amongst themselves, the owners will exploit them while the working class blames themselves. Likewise, if the working class becomes divided in a communistic economy, the government will exploit them by stealing their tax dollars. The owners and the government in these two examples are the same people! The effective result is the same in both cases. Oligarchy, plutocracy, kleptocracy, and corporatocracy are all just different words used to describe the same power and wealth imbalance between the ruling class and working class. Ruling classes can display themselves in many ways. One way is through a purely free-market economy that exploits labor. Another is through an authoritarian Communist regime. But the ruling class in both scenarios depend on dividing the public to hinder their capacity to organize against them. The ruling class we have in the US today is a mix of the two. The free-market created a ruling class that captured the government by convincing the public to vote for corrupt politicians, just as they convinced the public to accept low wages in the first place. This has created a state-corporate merger, along with a "socialism for the rich" phenomenon. The government does the bidding of the corporations. The solution is for the working class to disregard culture wars (including the capitalism vs communism culture war) and organize in order to create free-market labor movements _and_ to elect better representatives who will fix economic policy. The solution is to address the both sides of the state-corporate merger. Elect better representatives to address the state corruption, and create labor movements to address the corporate corruption. It's not capitalism vs socialism/communism, it's capitalism and socialism for the _rich_ vs capitalism and socialism for the _poor._ In order for these solutions to manifest, the working class must reject corporate media and _all_ of their candidates. The working class must use independent media to create free-market labor movements and organizations at the ballot box. So to answer your question (Where in history were individuals organized to the extent that capitalism worked for the masses and for how long?): Almost no where, and not for very long. Individuals have always been unorganized and divided compared to the oligarchs and dictators, whether capitalism, communism, feudalism etc. However, the difference today is that we have technology that has greatly improved our capacity to organize. But it has also greatly improved the capacity for the ruling class to divide us. So the choice is yours: keep pedaling anti-capitalism arguments that 50% of the population scoff at or start working with that 50% to regulate the economy with labor movements _and_ economic policy. The ruling class uses corporate media to carry out the divide and conquer strategy. It's the only play in their playbook. If you fall into their trap, you are their pawn. Reject culture wars, whether race, gender, political, religious, etc.

@@limitisillusion7 "Free market economy" in modern capitalism? Lol, sure, ok.

You cannot separate yourself from what your analyzing, this is true all the way down, however, I don't think that means we should say all analysis is equal. We should just recognize this fact and be willing to accept that there are many ways to analyze and categorize things that may all have relevance and may all play real roles in the determination, even in a backwards sense simultaneously being what is determined (as Engels put it, cause and effect run into each other). But I do not think that necessarily leads you to the conclusion that all analyses should be given equal weight. Russian side and western European side give different accounts to why the war between Russia and Ukraine started, but if someone claims that the war started because aliens secretly took over the Russian government and are trying to recover a UFO buried under Kyiv, I feel like that is a very different _class_ of analysis, like it is so far out there it should not even considered in the discussion and doesn't contribute much to anything in understanding the situation.

@amihartz So in the end, we have to make judgments and weigh the information we have at hand. If this is the case, then devolving into relation is a fiction in that we have to make, or create if you will, some basis for acting in the world. I think the Buddha, with his sense of "no permanent abiding self" and his "all dhammas (things) are conditioned leads to his conclusion that futility of greed, hatred, and delusion as to how things really are a sound way to point to an ethical position, maybe born out of relativity, but still grounded in not doing to others what we would not want done to ourselves. Therefore, constructing a world on that basis is a platform on which to conduct ourselves and construct our systems. We need some basis other than to each his own. For me, socialism suits that direction many times more than capitalism, so I refuse to be a relativist in that regard.

And as a side note, the Western rational for the war in Ukraine is intentionally childish. One look at the numerous reasons that culminated in Russia's SMO point to a drive by the US/NATO to corner Russia. It goes back to 1990, not Feb 24, 2022. The West was full aware that Russia would react and hoped to weaken and ultimately balkanize Russia. After numerous attempts at a negotiated settlement, Russia acted. I refuse to devolve to a wishy-washy relativism in the face of the "facts", the kind of facts Wolff denigrate as only relative and therefore not able to base any action on. In many ways, I think the Franklin school was a gift to capitalists because it demoralized the Left in ineffective handwringing . If you see the work of Gabriel Rockhill, the Franklin school was highly funded by Western/CIA front groups like The Rockefeller Institute and the Ford Foundation. A demoralized Left is the result. Relativism is destructive to the change Wolff purports to want to see.

All explanations are incomplete and selective. That doesn't mean they all have equal value. Though that begs the question: how do we determine the value or worth of one explanation (or story) over another? Why do we pick some explanations over others, if we can't know which is the stronger one? Well, I could try and "explain" why, but that would take us nowhere since it is circular, as you can see. And it could lead you to the sense that there's no way out of this circular reasoning so no explanation matters more than another. I think what Wolff would say is our practice shoes otherwise: despite ultimately knowing that one explanation is no more complete than another, people still choose some over others... Why? Because of your own political goals and motivations. If you're a Marxist, the variables or causes you will focus on to explain something will come back to capitalism, because you want to change the economic structure. If you're a capitalist, the variables or causes you will use to explain something might come down to poor individual choices, because you don't want to change the economic structure. You're both trying to explain some issue you're observing, but your explanation and the reason we gravitate to one over the other has everything to do with our political goals. Of course you could then ask: well, why do I have the political goals and beliefs that I do? Maybe a class essentialist would say because it's in your class interest, as a poor person, to believe it's capitalism. Wolff would say: no! the reasons are too vast, ie overdetermined, to know which variables are primary or not; but we can't avoid an answer, so we simply have to recognize that our answers are motivated by our goals! But isn't that a kind of explanation, too? And so you see what I mean by the reasoning is circular, and I see what you mean about how that circularity can lead one to nihilism (well, none of it matters then!), or another possibility, is that recognizing that circularity means that we simply have to accept we always make our decisions and explanations without certainty and motivated by our own political aims. In the end, it's all politics! But again, how did you come to your politics! Is it your class interest? Is it something else? Is it external circumstances or internal beliefs? Etc etc. If there's no knowing for sure, are we all just stuck in a battle of wills (Nietzsche)? Is all this circularity based off a desire for certainty? Needing to have the right answer? Where did that come from? Hegel believed that these kinds of problems -- e.g. if we can't know for sure what prime causes -- are an indication of asking the wrong questions: we need to resolve this dilemma by inquiring into the assumption motivating the problem: why do we need certainty? Why do we need to know the prime variables? Then once we investigate that dilemma it resolves into another question: because we want to change our circumstances. Why do we want to change our circumstances... Well, a capitalist would say because you're resentful at your poverty. A marxist might say because there are things you want to do in the world that our economic structure makes impossible, like live a life free of fear of starvation. You decide which one is better explanation, and like Wolff said, you have every right to be passionately committed to your truth. You can try and convince others of your truth, or not. But claiming you have THE truth is the problem. Again, not sure it's most convincing but that's for you to decide.

@@Alloballo123 Thanks for the thoughtful response and for giving me ideas to ponder.

To know and not do, is not to know.

Another Wolff interview of a similar nature (that is, where he goes beyond "topical" issues into more theoretical and abstract concerns) is "Richard Wolff: Why Marx? Why now?" It's a podcast where he delves into theological issues and discusses --- among other things --- his relationship with theologian Paul Tillich. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-GY_WAYykjx0.html

This is a misrepresentation of Deng Xiaoping. He was definitely not saying socialism does not matter. Deng had also argued that he did not view markets and planning as the main distinction between capitalism and socialism, but instead whether or not the public sector dominates the economy or the private sector. He was thus only advocating for the utilization of markets as a way to integrate China into the world economy. In fact, Deng was very much a communist and even further left than modern day leadership in China. He explicitly stated that any economic reforms should never lead to the public sector losing its overwhelming dominant position as that would undermine socialism and that it should only serve to strengthen the public sector's development. He even stated explicitly that if a new capitalist class had emerged, that would be proof the reforms had failed.

@@amihartz Your interpretation of what Deng XP meant cannot be proved one way or another as he is not around now to be asked to elaborate. Nevertheless what works matters and it is not dogmatism, whether you call it capitalism, socialism or communism, it does not matter as long as the practice works. Even call it socialism with a "Chinese " characteristics! New terminology. Black cats white cats does not matters, the successful technics precedes the dogmas.

Agreed. Pragmatism. Math. Science. 1+1 =2. Work = force x distance. Hypothesis are okay, but do they work and how well? We can hypothesize until our death but the fact is we have to eat.

@@wmchan44 It is not an "interpretation" and it is proven. Deng Xiaoping was indeed asked many times to elaborate when he was around. You can in fact go look at his original speech _Restore Agricultural Production_ and see that there is nothing in there about capitalism, but only speaks of having to restore some markets to the agricultural sector, specifically for the purpose of "consolidating the socialist system." You can also look at his speech _Reform Is the Only Way For China to Developed Its Productive Forces_ where he goes into detail on what the purpose of the reforms are and what his expectations are, and again he never says anything you are suggesting but quite the opposite: _"our reform requires that we keep public ownership predominant and guard against polarization. In the last four years we have been proceeding along these lines. That is, we have been keeping to socialism."_ You are just making up a false history and then pretending like history cannot be verified, when it can be. You're patently wrong. You have become so opposed to essentialism that you've sunken into postmodern confusion believing that every opinion is equal and there are no right or wrong answers, but we have to somehow mix everything together into a confused incoherent hodgepodge. Deng Xiaoping did not believe this: he did indeed promote pragmatism, but pragmatism guided by scientific analysis. He did not advocate for what you want, which is just to abandon analysis altogether and blend up every possible idea into one.

@@wmchan44 (1) This is not an interpretation, it is what Deng literally said. (2) It is proved one way or the other as these speeches are publicly available and can be verified. (3) Deng was indeed asked to elaborate on record while still alive. (4) Your "pragmatism" is just postmodern nihilism. You insist that all approaches to the world, spiritualism or scientific, are equal, and so the "right answer" is just some hodgepodge mixture of all different ideas. Deng definitely did not think that way at all. Pragmatism for him did not mean all ideas are equal and the right answer is somehow "in the middle" of them.