What's the verdict, user? Good introductory material?

What's the verdict, user? Good introductory material?

Attached: Understanding Marxism.png (493x746, 179.06K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Haven't read it but if Wolff wrote it it has to be good


I don't hold high hopes for a book written by Mr. "Different forms of societal socialisms." There's already loads of introductory material out there for free.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-06-04 at 12.48.06 PM.png (1679x242, 76.17K)

What is even the beef with this statement? He's not talking about full communism. He's talking about a possible transitional phase out of capitalism. He even words it specifically so he's not saying that co-ops aren't capitalist (they still operate on law of value and the MCM cycle), but that they are "non-capitalist production relationships." Like, are you saying there aren't any socialists who argue for market socialism as a route to real socialism?

He's pretty clearly (even without context) giving markets the benefit of the doubt and describing what kind of scenario would preserve their existence. It sounds like he's responding to a "skeptic" who thinks muh free market will fix everything. When you're explaining socialism to normies you have to put it in terms they understand, which can easily come off as "revisionist."

Context on this quote? It sounds like he's just describing that different socialist projects took different forms.

Attached: RDW 'the market'.webm (1440x1080, 6.46M)

"Actual large-scale socialism would thus predominantly entail worker cooperative enterprises such as these…Different forms of societal socialisms will emerge: some with markets, private property and large corporations, and others with centralized and/or decentralized planning systems, socialized property, constraints on enterprise size etc. Debates, experiments and choices among them will likely characterize the multiple forms that socialism will take…
Previous economic systems likewise often displayed coexistences among more or less regulated private enterprises and state enterprises. In slave societies, for example, alongside the private masters of slaves working on plantations, states often owned and operated slave plantations. "
Wolff is totally fine with markets and limited private property "coexisting" since he sees them as being transhistorical (apparently ignoring palace economies). He does not want to abolish the law of value. Even as a transitory measure market socialism is totally bogus. "Co-operatives and trade unions are totally incapable of transforming the capitalist mode of production. This is really understood by Bernstein, though in a confused manner. For he refers to co-operatives and trade unions as a means of reducing the profit of the capitalists and thus enriching the workers. In this way, he renounces the struggle against the capitalist mode of production and attempts to direct the socialist movement to struggle against “capitalist distribution.”

Attached: kapitalqt.png (573x854, 362.87K)

So, exactly what I said here but change the tense from past to future.
He's describing different attempts to achieve socialism by transitioning different ways, which is what has happened in the past.

That's historically accurate. Capitalism didn't appear out of thin air in the 18th century. It developed within slave societies and feudalism first. Markets are not exclusive to capitalism. You'd have to believe the lolbert meme that capitalism is eternal to believe that markets are exclusive to capitalism.

You're gonna need to post better justification for that. "Markets aren't exclusive to capitalism" =/= "Markets are transhistorical." I posted a take from him on the nature of markets already (the video)
I don't think it's a good idea, but this seems like autistic gatekeeping to me. It would be like if I, an anarchist, said "Because state socialism has a record of regression to capitalism, state socialists aren't socialist, and their material is worthless."

Who are you quoting? Wolff is also very "Marxist" in the sense that he doesn't really advocate for a particular solution so much as analyze how the system works and where he thinks it will lead. His focus on co-ops is a way of showing people that a lot of the assumptions about capitalism are demonstrably wrong, like needing a boss to keep the workers in line.

Why are some so intent on trashing papa Wolff? It's like they really want him to be something he isn't.

Yes and the point of marxism is the abolish political economy/exchange value in general. "The value form of products therefore already contains in embryo the whole capitalist form of production, the antagonism between capitalists and wage-workers, the industrial reserve army, crises"-Anti-Dühring IV Distribution.
If Wolf thinks markets can coexist with socialism (he's vague on this front) because they're not unique to capitalism by definition he's keeping the law of value.
Only Stalinist believe in the state socialism meme. In the "Tax in Kind" Lenin says the nature of the transition from state-capitalism to socialism (the DoP) gives the USSR the right to call itself socialist. Hell ☘️Trotsky)) predicted the regression of the USSR into pure capitalism.
Rosa Luxemburg "Reform or Revolution"
By the same token you can uphold any socdem like Bernie cuz they make "socialism" less of a dirty word. Wolf and his group of DSA are just Edward Bernstein rebranded.

Because he is a Wolff in sheep's clothing ::DDD. Unlike me. Fugg any of these so-called socialists with concrete ideas about what to do. They're not telling you to wait for revolution to happen on its own and create full communism overnight, so they are doodoo revisionists and probably plants too. Armchairs and books, not organizing and agitating, ok?

for the peanut gallery
I'm not advocating market socialism.
I'm against marksoc, and so if Wolff from what I can tell. He has plenty of critiques for markets vs planning. Trying to "cancel" Wolff (lol, fucking liberal) over him allegedly being a market socialist is retarded.

Thinking markets and socialism can coexist in some context is not the same thing as wanting to preserve the law of value.

More like making an attempt to achieve socialism made their movement socialist. Being flawed doesn't make it worthless. You really are a liberal, god damn.

Cool, I thought you were just trying to quote-wank. Thanks for confirming it. Since you're so willing to grab quotes to "debunk" Wolff, why don't you diligently go find me where Wolff asserts that "co-operatives and trade unions are totally incapable of tranforming the capitalist mode of production," and that you're not just working from presuppositions you got from a book written way before Wolff's time.

That is a good thing you retard. If you haven't noticed, communism and "socialism" have become far more popular directly after Bernie's campaign in 2016. Bernie isn't going to bring the revolution but he can be useful to us, even as a useful idiot. Your purity bullshit is blinding you to even the most basic pragmatism. Zealots like you have as much place in a scientific movement as these dipshits >>>Zig Forums2905832

Markets-→commodity exchange–→law of value
lmao if we vote labour or syriza THIS time…
Sorel, Bakunin and Rocker are all liberal
Ahahaha and there it is. We must join the popular front and "muh purity." This isn't even a fucking uncommon position in the left to not be a cuck who votes the left wing of capital.

Attached: dsa.png (1240x632, 187.57K)

explains a lot
Yeah, no fucking shit. That's not the argument you spastic fuck. The argument you made is that because Wolff said you could have "market socialism" means that he thinks it's desirable and doesn't want to abolish law of value, which is at best a non-sequitur and at worst a willful misinterpretation via reading in deception. Rosa saying co-ops can't destroy capitalism doesn't mean that co-ops are the mortal enemy of socialism. Shit is more complicated than that, and masking your black and white worldview with socialist terms is totally transparent.
Once again, this is pure projection. You're too dumb to actually fucking read what's right in front of you.
No, you're just too dumb for the arguments you're trying to make.
Things don't happen in a vacuum. Bernie's whole existence isn't reducible to a fucking ballot. He didn't get nominated, meaning almost all of his effect recently has been to change the ideological conditions. It's a perfect example of how winning elections is over-valued. His loss proved many of his criticisms right.

Pic related is you.

Attached: 0333a854a75690b219ca3f6a9febea6076d077b17c3ab9efdb18d21e52b39683.png (1074x327, 352.68K)

Look faggot, even supporting co-ops as a transitional demand or as a stopgap to socialism is no different than the Sandinistas or all manner of labor party leaders who conducted nationalizations. Let me give Wolff the benefit of the doubt and say he really does only support co-opts in the absence of impending revolution. He's a fool if he thinks some macora law will bring co-ops won't be incorporated into the staus quo. Mondragon was founded by a catholic priest specifically because he thought they would ameliorate class struggle since in essence it makes them small scale property holders.
Any ideological change ur looking for cuz of Bernie is going to swept up into reforms and incorporated into the state just like Bakunin, etc said. You can support em on the basis they make lives less shitty but dont be some faggot who pretends this is going to cascade into a challenge against capital

I can smell your idealism from here. Even Lenin knew better than this stupid logic. "Capitalists will sell us the rope we hang them with." The ideological reasons for something doesn't rule it's material effect.

Bernie gave us Americans the gift of not being an instant pariah for calling ourselves socialists, and identified class as the primary political struggle. The detail of his ideology pales in comparison to that. There certainly is an attempt by the political/media establishment to court Sanderistas, but that's precisely because it isn't a given that they'll become pro-capitalist. It's a fight. That's why they're fighting. If victory was assured for all these people there'd be no reason for them to fight. It's not an all-or-nothing battle either. Some portion of the people Sanders "woke" up are going to stay liberals, but some are going to keep moving left. The ideological path of the masses is a branching network, not a linear path everyone follows uniformly. How many people Sanders "woke" become genuine socialists vs how many remain liberals is a function of how effectively those people are reached by socialists and pushed in that direction.

If you can't write an analysis other than "co-op man bad" using various wordy synonyms for "bad," then run along.

He really did not. Bernie uses the language common to all technocrats: the 1%, income inequality and billionaires, something David Graeber noted. Again can co-operatives, unions have a beneficial material effect on workers? Are they embryonic forms of class consciousness? Yes. Are they useful for any sort of transition? no.
I don't even think they're useful in "raising class consciousness." Look at old lefty holdovers like co-determination laws, socialized medicine bourse du travail and look how cucked Europe is. All the old labor movements are either dead or controlled opposition. If you still cant understand me saying co-ops might materially benefit the workers but they're not any sorta path to socialism i cant help you

Although, the 1% or plutocrats, or however you want to describe them certainly have a different relationship to the economy than the petite bourgeois or even the regular bourgeoisie. They are pretty much in control as the de facto ruling class over even most of the bourgeoisie. Sure the analysis is based on a weak, liberal-minded understanding of class, but it's not wrong to point to the 1% as a major problem when they pretty much pull the strings on what the economy does.
Is Wolff stating the former? Yes. Is he stating the latter? Can you show me where he says it?
Also, "embryonic forms of class consciousness"? Co-ops are a material condition, not an ideological one. They're a reform to the mode of production, specifically the relations of production, as noted in the quote posted here

You don't see a distinction between reforming the superstructure and reforming the base? The main advantage of co-ops is that they remove most of the alienation involved in production. Instead of doing things because the boss said to, the co-op workers do things because of what the market economy and capital accumulation demand. This doesn't help raise class consciousness other than "bosses are bad," but it does raise a consciousness of capitalism by having the workers interface with the system more directly instead of having the process be obscure to them.
All attempts to overthrow a system fail, until one doesn't. Your banal observation here isn't a critique. It's a limp wristed handwave.
I know what you're saying, and I'm saying it's not the ebin takedown of Wolff that you think it is. His work is to explain to people how the system works and how things might be different. Co-ops are a useful example of how the rules of capitalism aren't set in stone and that the economy could be structured differently, which is genuinely a radical concept to most people and something you have to break through on before you can get precise about what sort of plan would take down capitalism. If they help workers directly within capitalism, that's nice too.

I'm sure you feel like you have a real big dick for knowing how and why other ideologies are bullshit, but you have to learn to walk before you can crawl. An organic and spontaneous revolution requires workers to know shit, and in order for them to know shit, they have to make an ideological journey to get there. Talking about socialism with training wheels goes a lot farther than being smug ever will.

prove pic related wrong tho

"The issue for transition to socialism is the need to balance the tradition which overemphasized the macro level (socialize property and substitute planning for markets) and undervalued the micro level (democratizing the organization of enterprises). Thats why I stress the worker coop project. Once that is accepted as a core part of the socialist transition, we can discuss how to use markets, to what extent and the same for planning. Capitalism - a la Marx - is more about the organization of production (inside enterprises) than about the macro level. So socialism - if it is to be a genuine alternative- must stress the microtransformation or it risks the dead end of the past efforts at transition."
Co-ops don't even pose a structural challenge like other lefty reforms. medicare for all is going to hurt the profits of the healthcare industry and limit their sphere of operation. Co-ops aren't going to displace businesses unless they adopt corporate tactics. The last bit is nonsense. Not only do many cooperatives have an explicitly leftist bent many workers already have to deal with finance and even self-employment.
That's not an argument for bashing your head against a wall.
It's well above average thanks but you know you're the chief faggot spewing invectives and shit here. "Training wheel socialism" is precisely what i was talking about when i mentioned all the lefty reforms in Europe which ultimately ended in the death of the old militant labor movement. If you parroting the same talking points used by woke billionaires something's wrong.

What he's arguing here is the necessity of worker control. Co-operatives are an example of that in capitalism, and of an existing drive toward worker ownership. It would be foolish not to build on existing movements or to take the material and ideological conditions into account.

You emphasize "core part of the socialist transition" but ignore that this isn't what you claimed he said. He's not saying co-ops will fix it like you suggest back here but is contextualizing the worker co-op movement as the restructuring of the relations of production as worker ownership. He's said similar things in his lectures before, that past movements have stressed the "macroeconomics" and let the hierarchical organization remain in place at the level of the firm. He's not making the argument that we should have co-ops in the sense that we have co-ops in capitalism, that is, worker-owned businesses in a market economy. His argument is that the worker-ownership that we can already see in co-operatives is a necessary component of a successful socialist project.

The bit about markets vs planning is him saying that this is a separate argument. He's explicitly separating the relations of production and the external forces as separate issues that both need to be addressed. The whole point of doing that is to de-couple "worker co-operatives" from the capitalist context, and instead regard the "microeconomic" aspect as the important one - the relations of production (class). He's extracting that element to work on people's conceptions about how production has to take place and leaving the questions of markets vs planning for a different time. And he does make critiques of the market. It's just not his focus.

Again, his job is to be an educator. He's putting socialism into a relatable context for his audience. He's working against decades of bullshitting (as are we all) that subverted the labor movement. The concerns of the workplace are a much more natural starting point for your average worker than national level economic planning. He's straight up describing the procedure for explaining these things to people. First, explain "democracy at work" as a concept. Then, move on to macroeconomics. It's right there as part of his program to deal with that, but he emphasizes you need to ensure that whatever shape the program takes, the workers have to be in charge of production because (as he sees it) the failure to do so was the downfall of so many other projects.

No shit, that's why Wolff emphasizes focusing on structural change at the base level. He says as much right in the bit you just quoted. He pretty often talks about learning from past attempts and trying approaches that should work better than before.

They're not supposed to. Worker control is an end in itself. Like you quoted he says it's a necessary part of socialism to have worker control of production.
Not in the context of competition over production, but they very well could in the context of the labor market. That's not what anybody was arguing though, so that's a sidenote.
Yeah, and that rubs off on anybody who works there ideally.
They don't get a direct say in the top-level production at the companies to whom they sell their work as freelancers or what have you.

I'm not talking about reforms. I'm talking about introducing people to the concepts underpinning socialism. You have to start somewhere. It's not going to be revealed to people all at once like Mohammed receiving the Quran or some shit. You keep conflating an educational process with reforms of the state. it's fucking bizarre.
Such fucking as?

Screencap of the comments in question. He makes some of the same points.

Attached: wolff r_socialism.png (893x1055, 199.93K)

Totally non-controversial and something Rosa Luxemburg says in "Reform or Revolution."If co-ops are totally just a teaching tool I don't have a quarrel. But if you're totally ambiguous like he as to the extent to which reforms are useful and whether or not socialism abolishes generalized commodity production and wage labor i have a problem.

I haven't read Wolff but I've been thinking for a while now that a cooperative movement would be really useful right now, so long as it is explicitly tied to a socialist platform and project. Workers are so thoroughly accustomed to capitalist social relations, everyone speaks in terms of wages/profits/investment, there really needs to be a space where organized workers can experiment not just with workplace democracy but non-capitalist modes of production, and show their results to everyone else.

Maybe the problem isn't Wolff per se, but that there's no one around who is taking his arguments to the next level, and actually building an independent socialist movement. The guy is stuck in a niche making introductory despooking lectures, and will likely be there forever if he's acting on his own because there's a near-infinite vacuum of knowledge on Marx and socialism within the modern working class.

For the general population the starting point of that journey is a workplace struggle, with unionization or some other method of self-organization of wage laborers, not from giving some shitty TED talks. That has been the case through the entire history of workers' movement: in the beginning there was a general mass of workers remaining more or less under the spell of traditional ideologies, but becoming increasingly organized as a class effectively challenged their ideological convictions, as they increasingly began to prioritize the notions related to position as wage workers. Even at the eve of revolution most workers can(or maybe even will) profess reformism on the level of personal convictions, while at the same time acting in a revolutionary manner due to the situation.
Nowadays nobody seems to grasp this, which is pretty-much why labor movement is now in retreat and "the left" is mostly middle-class retards whose primacy of ideological evangelism attracts only other middle-class retards.

And yet the spontaneous self-organization of wage laborers is not happening in the West. With the exception of highly credentialed workers (teachers) or niche professional workers (software devs, journalists), wage laborers are simply not interested in organizing themselves or engaging in any kind of collective action. People are a hundred times more likely to quit their jobs or try and find some individual workaround, than they are to work together, even for mild reforms.

It also depends where, since in some countries the workers' organizations still have some momentum. But yeah, this is the principal problem we're facing at the moment and we won't see much progress until workers start acting in a more collective manner. Attempting to organize more apathetic segments of working class in unions or otherwise is the main practical task at the moment and there is no way around this.

Attached: 1555712676795.gif (499x374, 496.43K)

I haven't read it, but there's a tendency of self-described marxists to not read primary sources and end up swallowing ideology. I'm guessing the co-op man's book is sort of the same and will be selected readings to support his ideology in the same manner as leninists do with their supervised reading plans that turn people into edgy socdems. My advice would be to read Marx or Ruhle's aight abridgement of capital if ur strapped for time for yourself without any damn readers or companions to $$$help$$$ you by inserting ideology in your head.

Or stan co-op man for being a true revolutionary and end up a 40 year fag still stanning for bernie as he calls in comrade cop to enforce socialist austerity like the flower clutching fags most of you are.

Attached: D431BVeWAAAHHgf.jpeg (2048x1257, 207.63K)

Wolff's goal is to introduce basic Marxist ideas into modern American discourse. The problem he encounters is that modern American discourse is totally different than discourse in Marx's day. Which means he has to emphasize certain points and not others and also use language that is understandable to a modern audience. I don't criticize Wolff because he's operating in very difficult circumstances. His great virtue is that he can introduce Marxist ideas in a very understandable way and give a "solution" that most people don't have an argument against: worker control.

After many years of studying Marx, I realized there is a clear blueprint on how we can build socialism today. But this is something that needs to be designed to fit the conditions of specific times and places. Right now, even if Wolff could articulate such a plan in America, there is no organization ready to adopt his program and fight for it. The situation throughout the capitalist world is one of theoretical confusion but also a historical low-point in terms of worker self-organization. But this is rapidly changing since young people in particular realize that individual solutions are no longer working. There are simply not enough good jobs to go around. Reforms might help the situation, but they are politically impossible to achieve due to the fact that bourgeois democracy is now almost totally under the control of financial interests. (CitiGroup actually provided the list of hires for Obama's cabinet.)

There are, in fact, many encouraging signs that worker consciousness is rising after a long period of defeat and disorientation. Bernie Sanders did not make socialism popular in the U.S., it was the mounting popularity of socialism that made Bernie Sanders a popular figure. People like Wolff are now finding that there is a large audience for these ideas after the lost decade since the global financial crisis.

This is exactly the situation. But like I said above, there are signs that younger workers are rapidly awakening. If they can combine organization with a concrete program of action there will be a possibility for real social change.

Also, I'm going to use this opportunity to plug >>>/marxism/

It's a new board and hopefully we can generate some discussion about real Marxist theory.

Is this another tankie board like that previous "Marxist" board? Why do we need another board to discuss something easily discussed here?

i don't know what's going on with this board tbh, seems like this board is rapidly losing users.

Marx’s sentences alone are necessary to understand Marx’s
sentences and to express what one has understood about them.

Attached: 42aece4d13d772879a1c10a676f675affe1dc70688ba59fc388f6336025d8a86.png (1211x1784, 836.68K)

The fire rises

Attached: 6d80c2990a4b1ba7c39b76e9f0ac0a8b33689620290d387dc8976725e94ca430.png (567x193, 13.65K)

So, like, third-worldism for the first world?

Doesn't help that newsanon seems to be off duty.

Marxism is a reification of revolutionary theory. Anyone who calls themselves a Marxist is a retard.

No, you're thinking of Leninism.

Not really. Educate yourself: notbored.org/marxisms.pdf

Look, you guys come over as really desperate trying to make him sound as all his co-op shit is just 4D Halma and he's actually a revolutionary socialist. Wolff distorts Marxism. Marxism isn't some cryptic metaphysical ideology and neither do workers need to make exegesis with Marx's words. It's perfectly possible to explain Marxism to workers without the co-op crap, why would I even want a co-op? So I am going bankrupt when the co-op fails? At least as a stupid wage-laboherer I usually don't have to give a shit if the capitalist fails. The idea that we should conceal what socialism is so fucking stupid.


Negative Autism Level detected.
Also he's right, Wolff is a meme

Marxist literature is shit and should be burned. Nobooksism is the truth path to revolution. I’d kill Marx if he was alive today

So you got your theory from memes and youtube e-celebs, got it.

Only illiterates who never actually have read Marx claim that he is unreadable.

In the same way that radicals can help reformists (by exerting pressure and making reform seem like a lesser evil to the ruling class), reformists can help radicals (by drawing attention to how things could be better without scaring them away first).

Attached: hotpockets.png (503x522, 286.32K)

In the West that's largely true. When a firm goes insolvent there is usually just another holding taking over. I'm making the muh risk argument but the law of value demands from the workers in co-ops to lower their own wages to stay in business or to pay themselves out and go out of business.



Read Marx.

Attached: MLs_quoting_marx.jpg (640x435, 33.89K)

Stop linking me your cult literature

The Video Of The Book, released today:


The first quote is a bit of a mistranslation. Marx always makes a distinction between Genossenschaften and Kooperativfabriken, the former is what Wolff argues for, the latter is an actual new mode of production.

The second quote literally argues for a planned economy.

The third quote argues for seizing political power.

As for the other post, Marx means cooperative production on a societal level. This also isn't what Wolff argues for.

Nice attempt though to justify Wolff though.