The Conversation: Richard Wolff

[Smiley and West]

 

Socialist economist Richard Wolff offers his alternative perspective on the Great Recession and democracy in the workplace.

Richard Wollff official website

 

 

 

 

 

[Denise Marchese Chicoine]

Brilliant man. Thank you both for another enlightening conversation. What is it about sharing with others that is so threatening? I'm on the board of a non-profit, and our most generous donors are the working poor. They manage to find something to give no matter their circumstances. As you speak about so powerfully, Dr. West - wealth inequality is a moral issue, a spiritual crisis for the country. I don't believe we can tackle this problem without addressing the spiritual aspects of this issue.

[Daniel Doyle]

I'm delighted to see Prof Wolff on the show and looking forward to listening to this, though right off the bat I have to correct whomever did the brief write-up above: Wolff is a Marxian communist, not a socialist. Unless he's shifted rightward since I last read his writings and listened to his talks, Wolff takes issue with all forms of capitalism, including socialism, which is state capitalism. He has said explicitly that he disagrees with socialists, and is known to have extensive debates with them. His Brecht Forum lectures on Marxian class analysis and Marxian economics versus bourgeois economics make this clear -- and it may be that this is where Wolff's conception of class differs with Smiley & West's: Wolff is concerned primarily with the organization of production -- that is, what people are doing and whether they have the chance to pursue their own life projects. This concern is distinct from class analyses concerned with the distribution of power or property, though this isn't to say that those other forms of class analysis aren't important. If anyone wants to talk small 'c' communism, hit me up!

[Candace McCarty]

Another wonderfully enlightening conversation.  I don't care what "Label" you want to put on him. . . he speaks the truth and sounds like he's got a whole heap of COMMON SENSE!

[Christopher Kruger, Attorney]

Bro, what's in a word? I think what is important is the application of ideas to issues, not their sectarian lable. I know who defended the Scottsborough boys, if that is relevant to teaching someone how to take a position in the world we currently live in, then talk about it.  You are talking the talk that killed the New Left, I know, I was there. We now need to find some paths and walk the walk.

Daniel Doyle said:

I'm delighted to see Prof Wolff on the show and looking forward to listening to this, though right off the bat I have to correct whomever did the brief write-up above: Wolff is a Marxian communist, not a socialist. Unless he's shifted rightward since I last read his writings and listened to his talks, Wolff takes issue with all forms of capitalism, including socialism, which is state capitalism. He has said explicitly that he disagrees with socialists, and is known to have extensive debates with them. His Brecht Forum lectures on Marxian class analysis and Marxian economics versus bourgeois economics make this clear -- and it may be that this is where Wolff's conception of class differs with Smiley & West's: Wolff is concerned primarily with the organization of production -- that is, what people are doing and whether they have the chance to pursue their own life projects. This concern is distinct from class analyses concerned with the distribution of power or property, though this isn't to say that those other forms of class analysis aren't important. If anyone wants to talk small 'c' communism, hit me up!

[Daniel Doyle]

What's in a word? Ideologies are in words, bro! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis

[addition:] And I know Dr. West knows this all too well; his interrogation not long ago of Ed Sec. Arne Duncan's emphases on "innovation" and "competition" in our education system as opposed to cooperation got at this notion all too well.

[Karen Pallist]

Great show, great guest I always love these conversations:

 I did want to also point out what Noam Chomsky talks about in regards to technology and how it provides economic benefits for the top elites and keeps class divisions alive and well.

The IT market today, which created jobs and sent many of us to school so we could work in that sector in the ‘80’s and 90’s was created and funded by taxpayers in the 1940's and 50's in the form of contracts given to private companies who were commissioned by the government to make new technology. And the primary customer would be the government, i.e. the taxpayer. That R&D was publicly funded because corporations could never handle that type of initial expense. This form of corporate welfare continues up until today, for the purposes of stimulating the economy and also so our political leaders can claim that we are a “free market” economy.  If you define free market as funded and regulated and defended by the government, then I suppose that definition would be most accurate.

The vast majority of the technological breakthroughs made in information technology came about initially from Pentagon-based research. The Military Industrial Economy is what shaped our economy and is still a heavy influence. The PC could not have existed as an affordable tool without government-funded R&D. NASA and the Department of Energy is part of the Pentagon-based economy. Public Research Institutions (such as U of Chicago, MIT, etc) conduct tax-funded research done in the name of weapons manufacturing, surveillance, communications - all necessary for going to and winning in war (though winning a war is a questionable goal) done for the Pentagon. "Star Wars" was a tool to further fund corporate technology R&D by the taxpayer. We didn't get safer, though we could threaten the rest of the world with the project AND give defense companies even more business.

What technologies created by government projects that were later improved to the point where it could actually be used as a profitable enterprise, or could increase a company's productivity was sold to private enterprise: IBM, AT&T, etc... all benefitted in many ways from government -funded research.

Where am I going with this?  Simply that our technology, designed by and for corporate interests, were anti-labor from the beginning.  What is preventing anyone from designing a production-based system that eliminates management positions, that is worker controlled, that enhances transparency and democratic decision-making?  Nothing, except it just wouldn’t work for the management.

[Karen Pallist]

@DannyDoyle: I understand your point about ideologies, but are we really at the stage where we can say everyone sees these terms in the same way? Have we ever?  Can we really say political ideologies have solid, permanent meanings? Communism and Socialism, among the other -isms were formed in another era, before our technological revolution would certainly have to be viewed differently now than in the 18th or 19th century.  In the current society, a Centrist (some would say 'right-wing:) president is now being labelled a socialist. Other left-leaning activists are regularly branded communists.  Socialists know the idea of Obama being socialist is absurd, but millions say otherwise.  The term, like liberal and communist has been demonized to the point where it can't be used to great effect in this country's political discourse, though that could change, I'll grant you.  Communism has long been associated with Stalinism in this country and its pure form is dismissed by the media and right wing conservatives as tantamount to Devil Worship and totalitarian rule.  One can deal in critical analysis and rational discourse about the terms, naturally, but one can't ignore politics and the reality of irrational discourse in the country: emotions and prejudices will alway subvert facts and tidy neat terminology.

The big picture is what unites people, and obviously Dr. Wolff is willing to forego his devotion to Marxism in order to have a productive and meaningful discussion with a self-described Democratic Socialist.  That's what give power to any movement:  the convergence of ideas, the openness to listening to other viewpoints, and the willingness to rise out of labels and our comfort zones in order to form alliances based on a common cause.

  
 
Daniel Doyle said:

What's in a word? Ideologies are in words, bro! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_discourse_analysis

[addition:] And I know Dr. West knows this all too well; his interrogation not long ago of Ed Sec. Arne Duncan's emphases on "innovation" and "competition" in our education system as opposed to cooperation got at this notion all too well.

[Tina Bea]

Very interesting show. Computers are not the first labor-saving innovation, but they raise the stakes geometrically. To get this-- you have to talk about how the division of labor, or the labor theory of value. Say, 10 people work 10 hours each, and produce a certain amount of Somethings. Technology now changes the scene. What used to take 100 hours now takes 10. The society has a choice-- You COULD have 10 people EACH do an hours' work. OR, you could force ONE person to work 10p hours (forced overtime) and leave the other nine, unemployed. And, oh yeah, one person who OWNS the company gets their profit from the other 9 hours'. As Richard Wolff said, it's a power problem, not a tech problem.

[dwdeclare]

every generation has its giants of social democracy who struggle to create a more just and compassionate world, who have a real sense of fairness and a hypersensitivity to the suffering of others. aren't we lucky to have people like richard wolff and cornel west as two of the most caring intellectual spokespeople of our time for loving justice. tirelessly giving voice to those suffering millions and enlightening the hearts and minds of so many, so that all of us together may pull society ever closer toward that beloved community envisioned by dr. martin luther king jr.