Ask Prof Wolff: Top Down or Bottom Up - Proudhon vs. Marx

This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.

_________________________________________________________________________

“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.”

_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[marcopolo]

Two quick points about the Paris Commune:
1-Marxism was simply non-existant inside the Commune
2- The reason why the Commune did not succeed was not that "they didn't know what to do with the State". There were a number of reasons, and tactical decisions regarding State institutions is only one of many. Ultimately the Comunne was supressed in Manslaughter perpetrated by the Versailles army.

[tatianawhittaker]

"The real problem is that "limited government" invariably leads to unlimited government. If history is to be any guide and current experience is to be any guide, we in the United States 200 years ago started out with the notion of limited government - virtually no government interference - and we now have a massive quasi-totalitarian government."
Murray Bookchin

With all due respect, seizing the state ultimately preserves the state as power corrupts and the State or rather those managing the State only seek to grab more power.

[jseluigi]

Everyday when I feel he can’t blow my mind anymore…after 3 years following. Wolff blows it again 🤯

[AndyKaknes]

At the 5:40 mark Professor Wolf mentions the Paris Commune. The Paris Commune developed near the end of the Franco/Prussian War in 1871. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon died in 1865. What I believe he meant to reference was the French Revolution of 1848.

[brentirving]

Agree that this two pronged approach is the one needed but am editting after reading another comment from Jan Sasawi about the dangers of using the state. We definitely have to be very conscious of this. The next question of course is transition from capitalism to what? I know professor Wolffe has addressed part of this in his proposed worker co-ops which I generally agree with but I also believe we need a more substantial vision, not a blueprint, of the society and its institutions we want. I have been sympathetic to participatory economics or PARRCON, but am becoming more sympathetic to inclusive democracy as explained by Takis Fotopoulos, which has a substantial critique of participatory economics.

Professor Wolffe, do you feel it is important that the left has a more rigorous vision of the society it wants and the institutions required to support that society that it can more fully coalesce and unify around and do you support any particular vision or have critiques of the ones I have mentioned?

Unfortunately the left seems more prone to infighting than coalescing these days.

[jeromyrutter]

Personally, I get to libertarian socialism from classical liberalism.. kind of Thomas Jefferson meets Proudhon. Influenced by anarchism, but not seeing it truly possible anytime soon (it basically requires the entire world to get there at once), i'd argue for a left minarchist state that basically has the functions of Starfleet in Star Trek: science and education, universal healthcare, perhaps Proudhon's People's bank, mutual defense (until all imperialism is gone at least), and diplomacy. I agree with democratizing the state, but I also think that if it can be left to the people (below) it should be. The state is a social construct that should be a tool of the people, not a ruling body.

[GhostOnTheHalfShell]

I would say being organized from below grants the people the independence from those above. Coops and other support social structures with them such as unions, and community groups at least are a devolving of power back to the people.

[LandOfTheFallen]

Those that seize the state will ultimately see the anarchists as a threat. So if you find yourself seizing the state, be nice to us anarchists.

[jansasawi]

The problem is that it is either or. The Anarchist critique is that AFTER the seizing of the state those who did so would be changed before they where able to abolish the institution that they where now in control of and, that they would fail to do so not because of personal failings but because their material incentives have changed, because their class interest has changed from that of proletarian to bourgeoisie-statist. If you abolish the state via the construction of rival institutions of dual power however this does not become an issue as the state functions are truly "withered away" until the capitalist, and all other exploitative classes are forced into either quite expropriation or open revolutionary combat with the new organized revolutionary society. You cannot have your cake an eat it too, you cannot create a society free of something with the thing you want to be free of, means and ends are connected, capitalism does not create socialism and statism does not create a state-less society, so if we want a communist society with: no capitalism, no markets, no money, no states, no borders, ect. we cannot use those things in the positive construction of a new society now, nor can they be deferred indefinitely to some vague point "after the revolution", they must be worked towards and accomplished as much as possible now.

[미향주-js]

This is safe with a square grass of under trees and peaceful cozy where listening up Richard Wolff's voice to new earth land all the world

[PoliticalEconomy]

Public ownership is the glue that hold socialist society together and can uphold the socialist social contract which we need.

[JonathanLopezUT]

Prof. Wolff, thank you for your insights, as always, they are appreciated.

[PoliticalEconomy]

We dont even need a private sector except for maybe small businesses and the self employed. All other business should be state owned or publicly owned at the local level.

[Kimwilliams]

This is a wonderful reconciliation of two philosophies as was an earlier video on Marxism and the State.

I have always thought that the best way to use State power is to have real democracy but on the original ideas of soviets - people's councils. Every neighbourhood of say up to 500 people could be a neighbourhood council, who would determine what goes on for their area. For wider issues they would elect a representative to a community council. This representative would convey and if necessary, vote in accordance with the wishes of the neighbourhood council, and so on up to area, regional national and international levels.

[kifinnsson]

Thank you for this one as a Proudhonian Anarcho-Mutualist, I've never been opposed to using the State myself. There is much to learn from both Marx, and Proudhon. Both philosophies have more in common than they differ.

[joeows]

All politics are local! Think Global, Act Local. A strong Foundation is the base needed to create meaningful change.

[anarchimedes]

It’s also a false dichotomy because it’s an inaccurate depiction of Marx’s views on the matter. Even so-called “old Marx” (because there is another inaccurate depiction of young Marx being more libertarian and old Marx being more authoritarian) argued that, “The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself.” Marx praised the Paris Commune for its various attempts to reorganize society, but went on to write that, "One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' ” While Marx did feel the state would play a role in our emancipation, he felt it would be the result of more democratic pressures forcing the matter: "Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it."

[ebindanjan]

Well put. Agreed. In an advance capitalist economy or in a semi colonial semi feudal economy we need both approach. In an advance capitalist country no need for a peoples army but a peoples army is needed in a semi colonial semi feudal economy.

[ladymorwendaebrethil-feani]

Honestly, I see Richard Wolff's ideas as a synthesis between Proudhon and Marx.
Historically, Marxism moved away from cooperativism during the 20th century, but Proudhon's theory focuses on cooperatives. Democracy at Work is a recovery of Proudhon's ideas by contemporary Marxism that seeks to reinvent itself after the collapse of the Marxist-Leninist experience, looking in cooperative democracy as a way to create a new strategy of struggle in the 21st century.

[paulschumacher]

Democratize everything! All business! Schools! Hospitals! Politics! (Remove all money) The so-called Security Services! Does this mean there will be no expertise? No, just the reverse. More and better expertise. Fabulous video!