Marxist economist Richard Wolff draws overflow crowds

[Ichingcarpenter]

LOS ANGELES -- "I've got to pinch myself; I'm having the time of my life," proclaimed Prof. Richard Wolff, as a standing-room-only throng of 550 mobbed the musicians union hall in Hollywood. The Jan. 18 appearance was co-presented by Pacifica Radio's KPFK and LAProgressive.com. Like the estimated 650 listeners at a church in Berkeley on Jan. 15, they flocked to hear the unapologetically self-avowed "Marxian economist" who has long toiled in the obscurity of academia and left circles. Born in Youngstown, Ohio, in 1942, Wolff holds a B.A. from Harvard, a Master's from Stanford, and a Ph.D. in economics from Yale. He's a UMass Amherst professor emeritus and visiting professor in international affairs at the New School University.

"It's not me; it's the message, which has remained the same," Wolff said modestly, as his critique of capitalism has propelled him into the limelight with repeat TV appearances with Bill Moyers and Charlie Rose, plus much other media coverage. Since the 2008 financial meltdown, as the contradictions and collapse of a capitalist system no longer able to deliver the goods become blatantly obvious, Wolff is finding increasingly receptive audiences. Wolff stresses not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," but "democratization of the workplace" as an alternative to capitalism's failure.

During his Hollywood address, Wolff said: "The capitalist workplace is one of the most profoundly undemocratic institutions on the face of the Earth. Workers have no say over decisions affecting them. If you really gave a damn about democracy the workplace would be the first place to institute it. ... But the government goes to war to bring democracy to Iraq."

Wolff calls workplace democratization the alternative to top-down Stalinist command models, wherein workers may have owned, but did not run, industries. "The main traditions of socialism and communism devoted themselves to changing the ownership of the means of production from private to social or national, and going from markets as a means of distribution to state planning," he said. "This has little or nothing to say about the organization of the enterprise itself. That was a major mistake and missing element that did a lot to undermine what traditional socialism did achieve."


http://www.peoplesworld.org/marxist-economist-richard-wolff-draws-overflow-crowds/

[socialist_n_TN]

1. RE: the last paragraph......

From what I've read, this type of organization of the workplace is what Lenin and Trotsky envisioned FOR the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR. It was not a top-down bureaucracy running things.

Wolff might be an economic Marxist, but if he doesn't believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, he's not really a Marxist. That's a basic tenet that Marx and Engels themselves held for the reordered society.

Of course the dictatorship of the proletariat is different in Marxist terms from what it's been portrayed by the capitalist media and misinformation campaigns. It actually means pretty close to what Wolff is talking about. Workplace and neighborhood councils making decisions locally in all cases possible and electing immediately recallable delegates, earning no more money than the average wage in the workplace or area, for regional and national committees to discuss and set regional and national policies. A true bottom up democracy. The dictatorship of the proletariat in Marxist terms is counterposed to the dictatorship of capital or the bourgeoisie, which is what the "one share/one vote" system we're living under now means.

I do believe that for some national enterprises in life sustaining areas, there needs to be representation of ALL the people on the boards, not just the workers in those enterprises. Some sort of mixed system of representation on the boards in these industries with representation for, not only the workers in those industries, but also the people affected BY those industries. That would only be fair. But for non-necessary consumer goods, yes the workers SHOULD own and run those enterprises.

[TBF]

2. "representation of ALL the people on the boards"

That's for sure and you would think that with the technology these days everyone could have a state-issued log-in (eg SS#) to vote on things. At this point we could replace Congress with our smartphones and I'd bet the legislation would look a hell of a lot different than it does right now.

[socialist_n_TN]

3. Considering how much different Americans' support on issues are...........

compared to what we get in legislation, I wouldn't bet against that last sentence no matter what the return. We could actually HAVE a democracy by referendum using current technology. And as above, local workers could control local enterprises in non-necessary, "consumer driven" businesses.

[2banon]

4. "democracy by referendum using current technology"

I'd love to see this theory actualized. Curious as to how that might play out in terms of implementation. IOW, how do we get this idea in play, technically speaking? I understand getting "the word out" vis a vis mass communication, twitter, fb etc, but how do we get from there to the end result?

Don't mean to be dense, just trying to figure out all the steps in achieving that goal, which I would love to see happen.

[socialist_n_TN]

6. I'm not really sure of the steps involved, EXCEPT.......

I don't really think that it would be possible without a change in the political set up of the country. However, just at a guess and in a reformist fashion, it would probably have to be set up at the state level and in states that have a referendum process. After having shown that it could work at the state level, then you could move on to lobby for it at the national level. Kind of like the marijuana reform legislation.

One question though. Do we even have a process for national referenda? I don't know.

[2banon]

7. Referendums on the state level is extremely difficult process faced with the obstacle of the

political party bosses lording over whether or not even overwhelmingly popular resolutions are even "allowed" to be put to a vote. I saw this over and over in California wrt to anti-war resolutions etc. And I'm not referring to the Republican party bosses, I'm referring to the Democratic Party bosses. It was gut-wrenching.. sickening actually.

[socialist_n_TN]

8. Yep. And that's what I was talking about when I talked about......

not being able to get it done with the current system in place. That's also why I don't think you'll be able to "reform" the system into getting these types of things in place governmentally.

Now you might be able to do something similar extra-governmentally with petitions and such. If enough people sign on through some sort of Internet process, that might get the idea a hearing, but I doubt that it would be more than a hearing.

But really this is just another facet of the old (2nd International I believe) "reform vs revolution" debate. Personally, I don't believe we'll EVER get these types of changes by reform because it would be too much of a threat to the system.

[2banon]

9. "threat to the system"

when that system violently unleashes their security apparatus on the population during mass (peaceful) demonstrations.. (peaceful demonstrations is considered a threat to the system) then you know "reforms" could never be actualized. I keep seeing the phrase "the storm is coming".... we'll see.

[2banon]

5. I wonder what that "Charlie Rose" interview was like.

Wait, don't tell me. Wolff couldn't get a word in edgewise in order to intelligently respond to Roses' inane questions, His MO is more much about interrupting at every turn to demonstrate what a fucking ignorant capitalist tool he really is above and beyond informing his viewers.

The capitalist monkey : look at me! look at me! aren't I clever?