Richard Wolff on Marxism, Capitalism, and the Evolution of Socialist Thought

This podcast episode features Richard Wolff, a prominent Marxist economist, who delves into the multifaceted nature of Marxism, distinguishing Karl Marx's original critique of capitalism from its diverse historical implementations. Wolff explains that Marxism, at its core, is a tradition inspired by Marx's critical analysis of capitalism, focusing on the inherent exploitation within class structures where one group produces a surplus appropriated by another, leading to class struggle. He emphasizes that Marx himself primarily focused on dissecting capitalism, with his ideas on communism or socialism being fragmentary, and that the subsequent global spread of his ideas led to varied interpretations influenced by different cultural, religious, and economic contexts. The discussion highlights a significant bifurcation in Marxism: one wing continuing the critique of capitalism, and another developing into specific notions of what a post-capitalist society should look like, often diverging significantly from Marx's original intent.\n\nThe conversation explores key historical moments that shaped Marxism's evolution, such as the short-lived Paris Commune of 1871, which briefly transformed Marxism into a theory of societal organization, and more profoundly, the 1917 Russian Revolution. This event forced Marxists like Lenin and Trotsky to translate theoretical critique into practical governance, leading to the development of distinct schools of thought like Leninism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, and later Maoism, each with unique characteristics regarding central planning, the role of the state, and national versus international focus. Wolff points out that these implementations, particularly the Soviet model, often conflated the capture of the state by a socialist party with the achievement of socialism itself, a departure from Marx's vision of a deeper societal transformation.\n\nWolff argues that many historical attempts to move beyond capitalism, particularly the state-centric models, did not fully grasp Marx's fundamental interest in the relationships of people within the process of production—the factory, office, or store. He defines exploitation as the mathematical reality where workers produce more than they consume, with the surplus appropriated by others. He also discusses the ongoing debate within Marxism between reformism (achieving change through elections and state capture) and revolution (overthrowing the system), noting that historically, reformist movements often achieved significant successes, citing the American New Deal of the 1930s as a prime example of substantial gains for the working class funded by taxes on corporations and the wealthy.\n\nFinally, the episode touches upon the historical amnesia and taboo surrounding Marxism in the United States, where the "official Marxism" of the Soviet era is often mistakenly presented as the sole or canonical interpretation, obscuring the rich and diverse intellectual history of Marxist thought before and after the Soviet period. Wolff underscores the importance of critically examining demonized ideas and challenging dogmatically accepted truths, advocating for a deeper understanding of Marx's original focus on workplace relations and the fundamental critique of exploitation, rather than solely focusing on state-centric implementations.

"slaves produce a surplus which the master gets surfs produce a surplus which the Lord gets employees produce a surplus which the employer gets it's very simple these are exploitative class structures because one class produces a surplus appropriated distributed by another group of people not the ones who produced it which creates hostility enmity Envy anger resentment and all of the problems you can lump under the heading class struggle"

"Marxism as a kind of first flush definition is the totality of all these very different ways of Coming to Terms uh with it"

"Marx himself that's all he really did he never wrote a book about communism he never wrote a book really about socialism either his comments were occasional fragmentary dispersed what he was really interested in was a critical analysis of capitalism"

"Human Society can do better than capitalism and it ought to try"

"the ideas you put out are a little bit like having a child you have a lot of influence but the child is his own or her own person and will find his or her own way and these ideas once they're out there go their own way"

"the Marxism they take as canonical is that old Soviet Marxism which wasn't the Canon before 1917 and hasn't been since at least the 1960s but they don't know"

"Marx was interested in the relationship of people in the process of production that he's interested in the factory the office the store what goes on and by that he means what are the relationships among the people that come together in a workplace"

"exploitation which he defines mathematically in the following way whenever in a society any society you organize people such adults not the children not the sick but you know healthy adults in the following way a big block of them a clear majority work that is they use their brains and their muscles to transform nature... but they always produce more chairs more sweaters more hamburgers than they themselves consume"

"Lenin... says in a famous speech Let's Not fool ourselves we have captured the state but we don't have socialism we have to create that we have to move towards that"

"socialism becomes when you capture the state not when the state capture has enabled you to do XYZ other things no no the state itself once you have it is socialism"

"Central planning... has nothing to do with Marx how else can you do I don't think you can find yes anywhere in Marx's writing anything about Central planning or any other kind of planning"

"it was paid for by taxes on corporations and the rich so when people today say well you can tax the Corp the the joke is I have to teach American history to Americans uh because it has been erased from Consciousness"