Marxism After Marx: Richard Wolff 

As a fan of Wolff, I'm very happy that this didn't end up being a takedown video.

after years of dealing with the public he realized he has to teach everyone basic concepts that they can handle and accept first before getting into the deeper more uncomfortable truths about the system as a whole.. bernie did the same thing..

I'm actually kinda proud of myself for, albeit with great difficulty and rewatchs, following along, specially at the end... holly molly was that dense... I do need to read more theory though. All of us do, I think the left is in a period of going back to the drawing board. I feel is more a testament in how you presented and summarized the relevant parts of theory. You did an amazing job.

About time somebody said it, for a minute I thought I was the only one who bothered to read the man's books. I was introduced to wolff by Abby martin, the first book I bought was his collection of essays on the 2008 economic crisis and that sent me down the spiral of Marxism.

I think it doesn't take long to see that Wolff's videos and lectures has a different target audience, which mostly explains the disparities.

Hakim did an interview with him and I was super impressed. I've always enjoyed his content, but Hakim asked him about a lot of theory and boy does he know his stuff. And I think his application of it to actually existing socialist countries was very nuanced and insightful.

This was really informative. Would love to see see a Marxism After Marx: David Harvey sometime in the future!

Incredibly well done, much needed video. Ppl really do be calling the man a socdem after just watching 1 of his introductory videos

Being fellow readers of Marx, are you not worried about the volume of anti-communist rhetoric from ordinary citizens following the russo-ukrainian war, even though not a single communist is involved. The anger that a possible association with communism generates in otherwise rational people is truly. amazing.

Excellent video. Thanks for taking the time to read Wolff and reveal his depth.

Please keep these videos coming !

To quote C Derick Varn, there are two totally different Richard Wolffs: one exoteric and one esoteric. The two versions don’t have much in common.

Thanks for starting right off with the meme. Top tier production quality.

would you do a video on Paul Cockshott?

I am low key binging on this channel.. amazing work.

Prof Wolff's views are not diminished by his theories. Whether one likes or hates his views on capitalism doesn't diminish the fact that our for of capitalism has failed the majority of the American people for the past 40yrs.

Thanks for this video. Dr. Wolff is very insightful but because his “niche” opinions on, say, past socialist projects, etc, this should discount his decades of political work as tireless or revisionist. He’s good for the left ultimately, and isolating him harms a lot more then it would help advance socialism, especially for many in the U.S.

super interesting, but the point around 16:30 about the "tendency for the equalization of profit rates" was kinda empirically disproven by Shaikh, Cottrel and others, wasn't it?

Fascinating video. Quick (and kind of unrelated) question: I’m about to start reading Capital (wish me luck!). What companion book(s) do you recommend I use to help better grasp the material?

That intro is the greatest thing I have ever seen

Now that you are into this, I dare to suggest you to touch the discussion between Anwar Shaik on one side, and Baran, Sweezy and actually Wolff. Thanks for the videos !!!

I think there's a use for co-ops in building dual power but they can't be the main target or even the main model with which to build the new society

Yea I know some of these words Jk lol great video and stellar job at demonstrating how Wolff is much much, much more than RU-vid videos

Althusser is more about the “whole” as opposed to the (Hegelian) totality.

Thank You

Where do you find good reading notes on marxist epistemology. i need it for my exam

Great, now I am somewhat confused. (which all things considered is a good motivator)

This analysis of Wolff, particularly his early books with Resnick, is worth seeing, despite the fact that the narrator, like so many leftist academics, becomes so mired in “ivory tower” verbiage that it seems more like an exercise in intellectual masturbation than a realistic attempt to clarify understanding of Marx. Just who is the audience being addressed here? If we want to immerse ourselves in scholastic esoterica, fine ---- there are plenty of forums for that. But why launch implicit criticisms of Wolff's online presentations for being inadequate to a full understanding of the man? I see Wolff’s online work as merely an attempt to make complex subjects more easily accessible to those without an academic grounding in economics (much less epistemology). If those presentations inevitably fall short in certain respects, should we blame the man or the "medium of exchange"? I would blame the latter; ergo, to implicitly take Wolff to task for not delving deeply into the more arcane aspects of Marxism seems rather pointless. It’s like expecting a two-hour documentary on Milton or Goethe to tell us everything we need to know. In other words, watching RU-vid videos can never be assumed to reveal everything an author has to say, about economics, philosophy, or anything else. That's why books exist in the first place ---- to fill in the gaps which lectures alone can't fill.

As to determination, “self-determination” is the core of all determination and is also known as “participation”. So, in a competitive system, all people will participate and define themselves using competitive logic and principles and this logic is common to all competitions both economic and gaming. Retrospectively, all systems have positive and negative attributes or artifacts but it is the negative attributes that give cause to change the system. In capitalism (competitive economics, competitive self-determination), the negative artifacts are vanity, secrecy, coercion, corruption, anxiety, despair and chance. It is these artifacts that people will use to define themselves and guide their participation. This is unavoidable as these traits are self-referencing, self-evident and built into the competitive system by definition. This is why competitive self-determination (capitalism) will never become a good thing because it fosters and engenders negative outcomes by default. However, in this problem lies the answer and the solution. Cooperative self-determination is whereby people are allowed to participate with each other (i.e. solve problems) using open knowledge and democracy. With this, their participation will forego the incentives to vanity, secrecy, coercion etc. How a person will go about defining themselves will not be hindered by these competitive artifacts. This is the right path.

Meme at the beginning is from a channel called “socialism done left”

Great video comrade! I want to ask you a question: will you do a video about mass repression/gulag/deportations In the USSR similar to the one you do for collectivisation? Are you planning to do similar videos also for China or other socialist countries?

I’m a card-carrying member of the co-op party

Thanks for making this short video. I'm glad to see how Wolff, Resnick, et al, could erase the supposed gap between value and price that the Chicago School preaches to corrupt our youth with market fundamentalism. Wolff still speaks today about the reality of markets in a socialist system, but little about their nature. My impression is that markets would be more rational, humane, and directed in a welfare-based economy.

Keep your hands off Wolff: his contributions are essential to the current moment in history. He might be simplifying things but this is an essential aspect of his role as an organic intellectual to the working class. The only way forward for humanity is for the working class and more in general all oppressed people and all the 99% to be helped to understand how Marxism can be used as a tool of liberation or everything. For this Wolff has a pivotal role. Once peoples' minds have been opened to the analytical capabilities of Marxism it is much easier for people then to be able to embrace more and more complexity.

algorithm

Can you add subtitles please?

Would love to see your take on MMT and how it compares to Marxs theory of money

Can you Please Please Please Please make a video on state capitalism?

nice explanation !

How is the equalization of profit rates "imposed"? How do the competitive forces of the market "impose" the equalization of the profit rates? This is where Marx becomes like quicksand. It seems that there must be some sort of arbitrage between 2 or more markets where the entire system rests on that market which exploits its labor the most. This would have to be in the periphery where people are poorest and the ratio of person to machine (the organic composition of capital) is lowest.

Thank you for this, from a beginner.

Feed the algorithm

Wow I stopped watching right at the beginning because richard wolff clearly knows nothing! (Sarcasm obviously)

good video

So, what you're saying is that the book is better?

I need to contact mail id of the administrators of the marxist project.

Who is to blame for the public's not being aware of Wolff's more academic work in past decades? The man is constantly out there, talking. Is he not allowed to talk about it?

But can we just get some co ops please

👀👀

What is the difference between "reductionism" and "simplification"? Arguably, not much of a difference exists between the two terms. Simplifying concepts is a proven method of teaching. So yeah, Wolff, as do many other in many fields, utilize reductionist/simplified phrasing of concepts to teach it to those who have no formal education in philosophy and economics, or who are in the process of formalizing their education in those fields. Some leftists who criticize Wolff or anyone who uses what they call "reductionist" language seem to forget that they aren't really the target audience for much of Wolff's content. I still haven't made up my mind whether or not I think that those decrying Wolff as a reductionist are doing a disservice to the spread of leftists philosophy.

The title "Rethinking Marxism" say it ALL.

In recent times, I’ve come to realize wolff is more of an anarchist. And his stance on the Karen Klown Konvoy was disappointing.

To define what Marxism is one must say everything in the universe that is not Marxism, but to get the full story we need to go all the way back to Feudal Europe.

👍

When did Marx ever advocate for workers cooperatives? Not that I can see.

am i crazy or are wolff's epistemology and overedetermination basically reitaration of althusser's points?

The problem with this kind of analysis, is that you are using the phrasing of the time without revising it to modern standards. Overdetermination is just that everything we do as individual people in society has to be looked at as part of a greater whole, because everything we do influences the things someone else is able to do. Using words like processes is incredibly distracting and not going to bring in people who aren't already theory nerds. Is some technical precision lost in translation? Possibly. Will people have to pause and rewind and take notes to understand the important idea? Nope. Wolff dumbs it down too much, but he speaks to large masses. I think we can find a middle ground of using plain language and still having a detailed discussion. I honestly couldn't get past 7 minutes, and I'm a motivated Marx sympathizing viewer. If your goal is to reach new people, phrase it like you would in a conversation with your friend instead of how you would when writing an essay for the final. If you are using more than 1 word you wouldn't normally use in a 4-5 minute span, you are covering too many topics at once. If your goal is just to add more theory that won't ever lead to anything, my apologies: carry on. Do not mistake me: I appreciate how much work went into researching and carefully writing this script. But that's the problem. It shows. And it requires the viewer be on that same level of interest to connect with. Peace and love, comrade.

*☭*

I love Richard Wolff... he is great

Richard Wolff never prescribed a pure definition of what is Socialism. He's always been open to the various interpretations of Socialism. You're trying to peg Richard Wolff into one category of Marxism / Socialism when he himself has not placed a precise definition on the philosophy. By way of example, in a discussion with Paul Krugman his opening statement leaves Socialism open to discussion never pinning it to one meaning or structure. His opening statement begins at 5 minutes 55 seconds, however the entire discussion is well worth watching. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z6J3ROV4IPc.html

I think prof. Wolff’s attitude is delightfully pragmatic, an imperative when we consider any form of socialism now in 2021. The important base values of Marxism are as valid as i.e. the charter of human rights, but our society is vastly different to back when Marx (and others) made their observations. As the video also explains, any process depend on all the others (causality). Pure communism didn’t stand the test, because of what some economists call “the human factor”. We must try to integrate individual human psychology into this, because some of us will “fail” and some of us will “seek power” when measured against any social theory. When power is established (neoliberal right or socialist left), history shows that the narrative freezes up, and further dynamic adaptation stops. Individuals either strengthen their own power (get rich, get party roles) or feel left out (get poor, can’t influence). A fresh look on any form of socialism must take such “human factors” into consideration, and also learn how to communicate better with the electorate. Society is never static, and fails if it tries to remain static. Like now. Best of luck, nevertheless!

Online leftists calling academic leftists radlibs and socdems? Yeah, what's new?

Based

Do one on Hilferding, he debunked Bohm-Bawerk and the subjective theory of value. The subjective theory of value is wrong because labor as of right now is a commodity. Labor's use value comes from the fact that it adds use value to good x, good x previously would not have an exchange-value. Now it does as a result of there being a use-value. What this proves is that the use value of labor is separate from the exchange value of labor which is something that Bohm-Bawerk denies. Labor's use-value is that it adds a use-value to a good which can then reach a previously unattainable exchange value. The exchange value of stocks for example would be nothing if there was no use value, the exchange value here is held up by the use-value that it will produce profit (capital). The subjective theory of vale says that the use-value and the exchange value of labor are the same. They're not, there would be no exchange value of labor if commodity production (production for profit) was eliminated. If it was eliminated, labor would be paid in accordance to how much value it adds to a good whose use-value is now present.

I stopped listening to Wolff as more and more of his content followed the theme of "types of socialism" when pointing to "not socialism." Like he's done concerning China, calling it "socialism with Chinese characteristics," despite it resembling nothing of the socialism that Mao et al wrote about. Or like the USSR under Stalin, which he explicitly rejected as being socialism in the video referenced at the beginning. This whole "types of socialism" argument he loves to fall back on is BS. The socialists in the movements/countries have different ideas on how to approach the issue of transitioning from their specific conditions towards a socialist future, but the difference is never really in the socialist future itself, because that's something they tend to agree on. So it's not "types of socialism," but more honestly and accurately, "taking the local conditions into account when building the movement towards socialism." Because that's what socialists do. There is no master plan for how anyone anywhere at any time can achieve socialism, because conditions are different everywhere at every time. Every time I hear Wolff's "types of socialism" nonsense, it pisses me off, because what he's really doing is changing the language to suit anti-socialists, which only gives them fodder to attack actual socialists who say "that's not socialism, and it's not what we advocate for." Something to note from the video: Wolff has authored a lot of books, which I'm told are more consistent with Marxism and the like...but most people will not ever read them. Most people won't watch his longer lectures explaining the concepts, but more will than will read his books. Most people who get exposure to Wolff will instead be exposed primarily to his shorter youtube videos, which is where the problem starts becoming obvious. It's the short, digestible content that people get, so when he talks about the USSR and China as "types of socialism," that's what people hear a prominent Marxist talk about, and that, as I mentioned, gives them fodder for their anti-socialist beliefs and arguments. All of that said, he's great at bringing worker cooperatives into the discussion (probably not so great at actually analyzing them, such as why Mondragon shifted towards more standard capitalist corporatism and what other cooperatives can learn from that), and I'm happy that he continues to do so. It's important work, especially for a Marxist, because it is one of the first steps towards normalizing democratic practices in the general populace, which are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for a socialist future, since socialism is worker democracy on the global scale. Another great movie. Thanks for making this content available/digestible.

Socialism can also be Anarchism, so...

socialism is so based

The first 5 seconds of Prof. Wolff could totally be a meme.

FeUdAlIsM

The man can spit…

Wolff is just trying to make it simple for all the ignorant people in america. Please leave him alone. Don’t you think marx himself also talks in simplified terms when he’s with a bunch of ignorant people who don’t know how to think straight? Even the title of Wolff’s book, which you identify, indicates that.

Algy

Pipe dream not going to work

The edit at the start has been edited to represent him falsely. Smearing someone is not a good start a critique with.

To the gulag with you! 🤣🤣🤣

What a load of nonsense.

Co-ops can be created today by anybody.....but they are not for one simple reason....they do not work because leadership, inventiveness, hard work, and required capital are all missing from co-ops. Wolff mischaracterizes the entire business process by ignoring the idealist takes to create products, the costs, the capital it takes, the risks involved, and the basic fact that the average IQ is 100 in the population. Profit or capital gains are available to anybody who buys the stock of the public company. There is nothing preventing the "worker" from investing in the company and collecting their portion of the profits. I find Wolff very deceptive in his discussions as he fails to understand the reality of what it takes to create a company and run it successfully. Just look at North Korea and South Korea....MArxists verses Capitalists... Russia has a GDP less than Italy due to its history of Marxism. China makes junk, steals intellectual property, is committing mass murder daily , and controls its currency exchange rate to make things appear inexpensive. The only successful part of China was Hong Kong which was a Capitalist society and now it is on the road to destruction . Name a single global product produced by a Marxist society that has been successful. You can't because they don't exist.

He's a revisionist and a reformist and I cannot believe you posted this. I am stunned. He's about the worst person I could think of for you to post. He's a LIBERAL and focuses on reform and economism and proposes working within the capitalist structure with his bullshit worker-co-op crap. Marxism is revolutionary, not "evolutionary" and Wolff is worse than a social democrat. Just NO. Those worker co-ops he drones about in Spain rely on the same shit as any other business model under capitalism. They outsource labor and exploit it just as any other capitalist enterprises do. Don't you believe his bullshit. Read Marx for YOURSELF. Nothing worse than a liberal claiming to be a Marxist----more harmful than direct assault from the so-called conservatives in a classical LIBERAL political economy.

Put it in layman's terms bozo

If you are late to work in Soviet Russia, you are arrested for underperforming. If you are early to work, you are arrested for trying to overperform your comrades. If you are on time for work, you are arrested for possessing a foreign-made watch.

Your just babbling on about economics. Wolff gets it. We (I did not) do not. His has made capitalism clearer to me. After all your waffle, what is the solution? Wolff is suggesting really democratising the work place. What is your is yours. Without solutions academia is just waffling.

there is no marxism after marx. racists have tried with post-modernism and critical race theory, in a sense there is a 'good guy' and 'bad guy,' but this is at most a post-marxism, non-socialism, and even at that, an insult to the term marxism.

It's amazing to me that conservative values and Republican values get taken down by RU-vid but they'll leave crap like this up

wolff is a bit of a proto-marxist, and that is better than being a leninist or a maoist, as lenin and mao really perverted and destroyed the essence of marxism. determinism isn't going to get you anywhere nowadays, though. what we really need is quantum marxism.