Richard Wolff gives a brief world survey of Marxism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- "I wanted to do a brief, bold, and highly incomplete survey of what Marxism has done already in the way of shaping modern culture, influencing modern ways of thought. It’s a much more pervasive and deeply ingrained way of thinking than many people recognize, and to that end I want to do this brief survey. Some of the names I'm going to mention to you are known very well, others are almost unknown. It's the breadth, the depth, the range of people whose work is influenced by Marxism that I want to underscore."
Watch entire episode:
• Economic Update: Under...
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work. Become an EU patron on Patreon: / economicupdate
Want to help us translate and transcribe our videos?
Learn about joining our translation team: bit.ly/2J2uIHH
Jump right in: bit.ly/2J3bEZR
Follow us ONLINE:
Patreon: / economicupdate
Websites: www.democracyat...
www.rdwolff.com
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Instagram: / democracyatwrk
Subscribe to our podcast: economicupdate....
Shop our Store: bit.ly/2JkxIfy
Prof. Wolff's latest book "Understanding Marxism"
Paperback: bit.ly/2BH0lkL
Ebook: bit.ly/2K6iI8v
____________________________________________
A list of the names mentioned in this clip:
In Austria: Hilferding, Adler brothers interacting with Freud
In Russia: Lenin, Trostky, Gorky, Eisenstein
In Germany: Kautsky, Luxemburg, Brecht, Frankfurt school (Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno) Einstein
In Hungary: Lukacs and the critique of consciousness
In Italy: Gramsci and the critique of culture
In France: Surrealists, Sartre, Althusser, Derrida, Levi-Strauss
In the UK: great economists Joan Robinson, Maurice Dobb
Beyond Europe (connected to its anti-imperialism)
US: Sweezy in economics, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn in labor organizing, Jameson in literature and criticism, Lewontin in biology, Cornel West and WEB DuBois in philosophy and racism, Chris Hedges,
China: Mao and so many others
Asia: Nazim Hikmet, the Dutt family in India, Ho Cho Minh in Vietnam
Africa: Fanon in the north, ANC in the South, Nkrumah and Cabral in the middle
South America: Rodney and Williams on slavery, Castro and Guevara and Zapatistas, Mexico’s muralists (Rivera, Orozco, Siquieros, Frida Kahlo), Pablo Neruda
For when idiots try to say Socialism stifles innovation.
www.forbes.com/sites/ivonaiacob/2016/07/24/venezuelas-failed-socialist-experiment/#7735fff941dd
@Bainsworth You got the pictures flipped, flim flam. Funny how you can say that's the case for socialism when many, likely including you, work a job you despise, for bosses you hate, making fortunes for them while they sip champagne, while you bring in scraps fit solely for survival and nothing else. I absolutely LOVE the irony of your words, if i didn't know better, i'd think you were being ironic.
But sadly, i know people like you are seriously led to believe this line of thinking. When you are told something often enough, it becomes truth, regardless if it's the case or not.. But, even then, truth is true when denied or not. And even if you run from it, it will find you eventually.
And when it does, you'll wish to fucking christ it didn't. Because it's a far cry from the fantasy land you currently live in.
@Bainsworth You are a bit misguided. On so many levels. The British labour party may have started off with Socialist roots, but it is a Social Democratic party, which is dedicated to staying within the framework of Capitalism. You don't seem contemptuous, or dismissive so i will actually take the time to explain it to you in a constructive manner, as opposed to the other person above who just threw an idiotic biased article about "socialist" venezuela, who's economy is 2/3rds privately owned, 1/3rd nationalized and a whooping 0/3rds socialist. But that's beside the point. If you care enough to read this massive wall of text, hopefully you'll understand.
I'm not from Australia. I'm from America, and i'm inside the belly of the beast living it every day.
*First though, the history.* Unions and Class war is an aspect of Socialism, but the whole notion of putting an apathetic few who do not care about you in charge of pretending to care about you describes two systems perfectly. The Soviet Union's system which is likely what you think is typical of socialism, and America's system. The two are indeed different, but they both put a corrupt and greedy few in charge of the many. America does this by choice, the USSR devolved into that unintentionally. There is a lot of missing historical context, details, and missing information that details exactly why the USSR ended up the way it did. I could honestly be here a while getting into all the dirty details. But they were not exactly allowed to form and grow like they should have, for the first several months of the USSR's existence, they were a beacon of Socialism. They had tons of institutions that ensured the masses, and the party, had a strong relationship. They had workers councils that ran industry, trade unions, intra and extra party democracy, and a group called Workers Opposition which, though was aligned with the party, existed to keep the party in check and ensure they never went against the wishes of the people. But, civil war, the threat of foreign invasion by every single major power at that time, and economic sabotage and espionage which undermined all of that. Lenin dissolved most of these Socialist experiments to achieve "peace at any cost" using his own words, and this absolutely destroyed party legitimacy. It became something ABOVE the people, not WITH the people. It was in the name of survival of the nation, but even with that, there is no denying that the bad done by the USSR was exaggerated, while the good they achieved was downplayed greatly. Even still, it went on to become what Micheal Parenti would call "siege socialism." Unfortunately most socialist countries had this, as most had external pressures and problems, as well as internal difficulties, and economic obstacles since most of these newly Socialist countries were boycotted and economically blockaded.
*Next the theory.* Socialism is a bottom up system, while it is anti-liberal democracy, it is not anti-democracy. It is first and foremost a critique of capitalism. We are at the whims of a few, who use workers as pawns to grow their personal profit. If you know about Classwarfare, i need not explain. Socialism seeks to tip that order on it's head, not create more of the same. There are many different theories of Socialism/Anarchism that try to accomplish the same goal with different methods. Some are not compatible with each other, others are definitely not great, and yes others simply do not work well or at all. But some are clearly better than others. The kind i advocate for is Libertarian Socialism, or Socialism with heavy influence from Anarchism. The theory of most Libertarian Socialist forms of government are as follows. *Economic.)* Common ownership of industry and enterprise, meaning not in the hands of the capitalists *or* the state politicians, but in the hands of citizens. This is accomplished through expanding the worker coop concept, granting not only the workers, but the city/town they are based in full control over that industry. This would ensure the workers acted within their own interest, and the interest of the town. As opposed to capitalism, where workers act within the interest of their bosses, and often against the interests of the community. *Political.)* Bottom up organization, representative democracy/council communism, with focus on giving the people as much power as possible, while also giving them the knowledge to use it. In the words of the EZLN "...Here the people command and the government obeys." And should it ever go against the will of the people, it's legitimacy will be revoked and it will be overturned. Either peacefully, or if needed, by force. The political and economic aspects are also very deeply tied together. Those same workers who run their factories, the citizens who run their towns, also run the larger government. Not the other way around.
*Lastly, Practice.* While history shows what can happen in the worst case scenario, there are a few examples of what can happen in the best case scenario. The CNT in spain showed what real socialism could look like, before they got crushed by the nazis and their puppet state in spain of course. But even now, there are modern examples. The EZLN in Mexico who i mentioned earlier, and the PYD in Rojava. They have slightly different kinds of systems, but both are different forms of Socialism. Both are literally the exact opposite of what you've come to believe constitutes all Socialism in general. Both pretty much practice what they preach as much as they possibly can, and their societies are significantly better off for it. Even Vietnam, which is a modern Marxist-Lenninist government that has adopted quite a few elements of Capitalism, they still care for their people more than say.. China, or the USSR ever did. Cuba as well. While Cuba and Vietnam aren't ideal, they aren't bad either. They even manage to beat us in some aspects, even though they are considered "developing countries." Chile was a unique example as well, as it had the first democratically elected Socialist president. But of course, the CIA meddled in the election, tried their best to get Salvador Allende knocked out of the election, and when against all odds he got elected, they ended up setting up a devastating economic blockade that collapsed their economy before orchestrating a coup that put a literal fascist in power. During his time as president, even through the harsh economic crash, Allende's government not only kept his population fed, but also provided numerous benefits for them. While Socialism can indeed go wrong, and end up creating a dysfunctional and deeply deformed society, it has also showed multiple times that it not only works, but works well when not having to deal with the whole capitalist world baring down on it with the goal to subvert and destroy it.
You are taught all about Stalin's reign of terror, but they gloss over Revolutionary Catalonia. The Communism taught in middle school is a far cry from Communism in reality, and cold war propaganda either generalizes, twists, or flat out buries facts details and context surrounding Socialism. I hope you can understand my point of view a bit more, as an avid Socialist, i'm telling you thing's aren't as black and white as they'd like it to seem.
@@lisarahon3347 Ah, venezuela, the "socialist" failure of the century, whose economy was actually 2/3rds privately owned by the capitalist class, and 1/3rd nationalized with a whooping 0/3rds of the economy under worker control. Many things also not considered is the sabotage, preexisting internal tension and corruption, and the tiny fact that multiple major nations are swarming all over Venezuela trying to influence it. Figures you'd stick me with an article from Forbes, talk about a biased source.
Venezuela crashed largely thanks to the price of their sole export taking a nose dive, and it's funny how this article even mentions the price drop of oil but still attributes the crash to some nonexistent socialism. Venezuela also faced a similar crash back when it was under the control of a very conservative government, yet that's glossed over.
But speaking of things getting glossed over, one thing that's *always* glossed over is when capitalist countries fail. The media is so quick to swarm over the failure of any country even slightly left of center and claim it's systematic, yet when a capitalist country like say Honduras, or Hati, or Puerto Rico, or Peru, or Egypt, or Nigeria, or Guatemala, or Mexico, or Somalia fails nobody bats an eye, and are quick to attribute it to something else. The majority of the world is Capitalist. The majority of the world is also poor. Those "developing nations" are almost entirely composed of failed capitalist countries. Yet, Capitalism somehow works? Hmm...
Truth is, you wouldn't know Socialism if it slapped you in the face. Venezuela may have been on the path to a type of Socialism, but they were far from Socialism in general, both in both theory and in practice. So if you want to try and sway me, and my countless years of being an avid Socialist who not only looked int the theory and practice of the system i advocate, but also critiques both within and without it, it's gonna take a fuck of a lot more than some idiotic article written by Forbes, that basically amounts to "lul venezuela." to do so. Especially when i see the stark contrast between working Socialism, and "working" capitalism everyday of my life.
@Bainsworth Obviously you did not read the entirety of what i wrote. I did my best to explain the history, theory, and practice of socialism. While i don't know everything about it, the goal was to show you just how off the mark such generalizations are and to show that things are far more complex and nuanced than the media and the propagandists like to portray. Marx was excited about the cooperative nature of our past. Kropotkin looked at the cooperative social order of not only Humans, but many species of animals. What Marx was excited about, was the fact that we could do better than Capitalism. You seem to be arguing on religious grounds, but your argument against Atheistic Socialism is also quite Ironic, since what you are describing is literally what the Church did and how the Church thought at the height of it's rule. Trick the poor into giving them power. Make them Rely on these powerful men to free them from mortal toil, and deliver them to salvation? Leading them to become willing soldiers of the crusade, for we are just stupid children who know not the glory of god and must prove to him our devotion by slaughtering his enemies?? Hmm....
One thing you do not understand is that Jesus, the central figure of Christianity, and his original teachings actually align quite nicely with modern Socialist thought. Communist principles are found in abundance in the words of Christ. That is, before religion morphed from a positive philosophy into a tool for the elite to exercise control over the masses. Not only do you miss the point of Socialism, but you are misguided on the history and evolution of religion as well. Mr. Rogers did a lot of things that could be described as communistic in nature. He was also a Presbyterian minister. He was a far cry from those televangelists who preached prosperity gospel to the poor in order to keep them in line. He was a god damn good man, who did as much for his fellow man as he could, and who considered everyone on this planet his neighbor. That, is what Socialism is about. And that, is what it means to be a Socialist. Not to put a small elite of people who pretend they care about you in power, but to put *yourself* and your people, your community, your *neighbors* in power. To rule yourselves, for the benefit of yourselves. Not for someone else's benefit. Anytime you see a dictatorship, plutocracy, oligarchy, aristocracy, or fascistic government, you are seeing the antithesis of Socialism.
Essential stuff for the historical moment.
Agreed. I really dont see humans surviving much longer so there wont be that moment as nice as it seems. No offense. I agree. Your just a bit optimistic. You think humans will somehow solve our issues? I give you the entirety of human and ask what makes you positive? No trolling and no insult.
Viva la POUM!
Alerta, alerta, antifascista!
I believe Lenin talks about Hilferding's analysis in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism."
Let us not forget the legendary Oscar Wilde and his contribution "The Soul of Man Under Socialism"
Oscar Wilde was not a socialist he was an anarchist and he meant communism not socialism
@@PoliticalEconomy101 just pointing out another famous person many know in history as advocating things that are drastically to the left of the modern middle, should have mentioned Helen Keller too, her history is also whitewashed as just a feel good story alone; ignoring her political contributions to the American socialist left.
This video is about Marxism. Wilde was not a Marxist.
I would include in my list Richard D. Wolff and David Harvey.
George Novack, Jim Cannon, Farrell Dobbs were Marxist revolutionaries in the US.
Thanks for this Professor Wolff
Hopefully after future President Sanders implements social democracy and the foundations for socialism, him and the movement will increasingly use the word Marxism and focus more on workplace democracy. Once even some of his initial programs are put in place and the lives of the working class improve drastically, then I believe huge public support and an engaged activist base can push us to where this becomes possible.
:,(
I would absolutely have included the great Marxist African leader Thomas Sankara on that list. But great video!
thank you, Professor!
He says fuck you.
I'm done with capitalism. I want democracy.
@Anne George
Is this a joke, or are you serious?
Socialism is the democratization of the workplace. Under capitalism, the workplace is autocratic.
I see no joke here.
@Charles Washington
And who created the workplace, so that people can earn their living? And who is going to create workplaces, once socialism is in place? And who exactly will make decisions in a particular workplace? The people who work there? What about the people who don't work there and are excluded? So everybody in the country? Socialism is a joke, and also lethal. Trying to implement it in the real world killed over 100'000'000 (!!!) people in the 20th centrury. How about we don't do that again.
By the way, I don't blame you for beliving in socialism, I'm sure you mean only well. But I blame your Marxist professors for indoctrinating you.
@@christianrochat7919 him: i want a democratic workplace
You: let me tell about the USSR which didn't have democratic workplaces, did you know it was a bad country.
@Somebody Once
You didn't answer the questions I posed. So... try again!
(Hint: you can't, because you don't have the answers. You just have a cosy nice feeling of how nice a 'democratic' workplace would be. Also, I didn't talk about only the USSR. I talked about EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY that tried socialism, or as you call it, democratic workplaces. So, you know, the USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, Afganistan, East Germany, bunch of African countries, and now Venezuela. Funny, how it never worked, but always created tyranny, misery and death, isn't it!?)
A quite contradictory collection. Trotzky and Kautsky, compared to Lenin, Mao, Du Bois, Che. Interestingly, even though all the last ones greatly appreciated Stalin, The Man of Steel himself wasnt mentioned, but atleast his comrade with the feather, Gorki was.
They aren't allowed to praise Stalin on this channel
@@revatronprime4120 Nor should he ever be.
@@timekeeper2538 keep telling yourself that
a tendentious way of grouping them, especially considering Stalin wasnt exactly brilliant as a theoretician or statesman by any credible standard.
Kautsky made many important contributions, but as the years wore on, his right-centrist impulses became the dominant mode in his thought and action.
of Trotsky, it's important to distinguish between fact and falsification. for starters, certainly he didn't rise to become co-leader of the Russian Revolution or commisar of war through incompetence.
the contradictions help account for diversity, innovation, etc
I would add Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, the first president of Tanzania, after colonialism; who brought the African/Tanzania ujamaa traditional socialism to his new country; who led a peaceful transition post-colonialism, and who led a life of integrity; he's frequently overlooked when it comes to socialist leaders
I am taking notes, I have a lot of researching and reading to do after this.
Sir you left the name of great Pakistani poet FAIZ AHMAD FAIZ .He was great Marxist. He is a Lenin prize holder.
Masterful analysis as usual.
Thank you 👏🏼
Professor Wolff, please make udemy courses on Marxism economics.
Thank you Professor. And also, Edward Said.
Thanks for the acknowledgement of Walter Rodney.
Prof. Wolff, I was pleasantly surprised with the substantial degree of concord between you and Peter Schiff about the current direction of the economy. Can you please comment on where the Austrian Scool is juxtaposed between Keynesian and Marxian economics, if that's the correct way of lining them at all, thanks.
Thank you professor
You missed Shibdas ghosh from Calcutta
Thanks. This needed to be done !!
Own something which has to do but own nothing which had to do.
Wow!
Thanks for the info, proff.
Good resume. But Wolf was short on South America. I give one more name : Jose Carlos Mariátegui, Perú.
Do one with anarchists professor!
Did not even mention Zizek because he's a troll off-course.
Derrida wasnt a marxist nor greatly influenced by marxism
The danger of seeing Marx as a "bleeding heart do-gooder" must be avoided: he was a scientist and his views are based on solid facts and logic. But I don't believe referring to him as a humanitarian is beside the point: he and Engels were much influenced by the appalling social outcomes of the Industrial Revolution, and it is axiomatic that any system that works optimally in the world must be, after all, a human system. That's why we hate fascism and neoliberalism, isn't it?
And add Kerala - India
no mention of john maclean : /
Wasnt Rosa assassinated by socdems?
we consider those far right around here
This is super cool, but there weren't any women of color mentioned. It's a major oversight. Claudia Jones, Angela Davis, Ruth Wilson Gilmore - there are many.
You missed out Robert Mugabe.
We have a lot to be proud of (?)
Why is this unlisted?
It was in my feed.
In mine.
Me too
I would argue Hugo Chávez also belongs on that list.
Mao doesn't like like a pr figure for marxist. Right
As Marx famously said: "From each according intersectionality, to each according to their identity!"
Joking?
@@tickle296 Its called sarcasm
Poe’s law
I'd actually say ya could easily double that list with one catagory expansion: Anarchism.
Obviously anarchism predates Marx just as socialism predates both but anarchism actually had some influences on Marx including him borrowing the idea that "the liberation of the working class is the affair of the working class themselves" from Proudhon and Marx had a massive influence on the anarchist tradition.
But massive mistake I hear ignorant ass anarchists and Marxists make is putting a line between the two and acting like they're completely different and mutually exclusive, despite Bakunin basically saying that he agreed with Marx on just about everything important and their disagreements mostly boil down to personal beef, semantics and a few details. But Bakunin was a Marxist for all intents and purposes, making essentially all anarchists in his tradition and the many traditions he informed Marxian at the very least. That's why it's so frustrating to hear some MLs say "anarchism has no theory" which is incorrect on it's face but anywhere that anarchism seems lacking it's usually because Marx already wrote it!
Chris Hedges is a Christian-anarchist and Marxist, Noam Chomsky is an anarchist "with strong Marxist leanings", Howard Zinn is an anarchist and Marxist, the EZLN and forces in Rojava beautifully blend Marxist and anarchist thought and praxis. The bulk of the revolutions we've seen from the Paris Commune (applauded by both Bakunin and Marx, both saying it was their principals at work lol) to the 1905 and 1917 Russian Revolutions to the Spartacus Uprising to the Spanish Civil War and many, many other revolutions and uprisings throughout the world. No matter how they ended up, they usually included Marxists and anarchists working side by side, as did most labor movements and communist parties. In many places like the US it was difficult to tell who was what because it really didn't matter and it was mostly a matter of emphasis on a few things here and there rather than any deep disagreement. They had the same goals and mostly advocated the same tactics so it only made sense to act as one. It wasn't until Lenin came along that we started to see that divide open back up again and keep on growing. And we've never seen the same success since.
I definitely identify more with the anarchist tradition, but I am still a Marxist. Which is why I've taken to referring to myself as an autonomist. Confuses everyone so I don't have to worry about only confusing some.
we dont need to ideolize one system of economy over another. each time merely apply humanist values and study outcomes and adjust. no need to buy into a system, which is bound to have faults and unintended consequences and whether you're interpreting the marxist scripture correctly.
He left out Ayn Rand.
Are those Gucci glasses?
You forgot Stalin. Someone help me out here, Wolff never seems to talk about the historical catastrophes of Marxism - am I missing something?
Di Fox it would be cherry picking to point out capitalist “catastrophes” since many thousands of men have led capitalist countries. On the other hand, pointing out Stalin or Mao isn’t cherry picking because there have been very few self proclaimed Marxist leaders in comparison.
Oulanem (poetic excerpts by Carl Marx
... I shall howl gigantic curses on mankind:
Ha! Eternity! She is an eternal grief ..
.
Ourselves being clockwork, blindly mechanical,
Made to be the foul-calendars of Time and Space
,
Having no purpose save to happen, to be ruined,
So that there shall be something to ruin ...
If there is a something which devours,
I'll leap within it, though I bring the world to ruins-
The world which bulks between me and the Abyss
I will smash to pieces with my enduring curses.
I'll throw my arms around its harsh reality:
Embracing me, the world will dumbly pass away,
And then sink down to utter nothingness,
Perished, with no existence - that would be really living!
_________
Something like 100,000,000 corpses sounds like success to me.
Cool