Link to an article by Joshua Sperber:
Link to an article by Joshua Sperber:
Richard Wolff recently wrote an article “Socialism and Workers’ Coops.” This article glosses over important points and offers, at best, an entirely vague notion of how workers’ coops fit a “socialist” conception of society. Wolff’s article is short, but it is typical of much of his writing.
First off, he talks about “actually existing socialisms” without really pointing to any in particular. He mentions the “1917 Soviet revolution” so he at least includes the former USSR. So when the says “traditional socialisms” had “abandoned some limited efforts at democratizing enterprise structures relatively early and reverted to the employer-employee model of enterprise organization” how do we know what he is referring to here? Wolff’s article is primarily directed at a Western audience, mostly in the USA. His stated goal is “identifying and evaluating missing elements [that] can provide today’s socialist movements with better means to surpass capitalism than earlier socialist movements had.” OK, then what exactly is he analyzing from the historical record? Is he, for instance, alluding to so-called “war communism” in the early USSR, which was implemented by Lenin in the face of a civil war and widespread famine in a nation of mostly peasants, largely illiterate, without significant industrialization? Or is he referring to the way that Stalin’s rise to power resulted in the outright murder of most of the “old Bolsheviks”? Hard to say. Kuzbass Autonomous Colony was founded by the USSR and exists to this day. It was the exception rather than the rule, but these points are meant to illustrate that Wolff is being so general as to allow him to make apples-to-oranges comparisons. What lessons should the modern-day USA, with its advanced industrialized economy, massive wealth–albeit in the face of tremendous inequality and attendant widespread poverty–learn from difficult tactical decisions that Lenin made during the unique circumstances of civil war, famine and the absence of industrialization that prevailed during “war communism”? Or what lessons should the USA take from Mao’s China? These are actually important points, because the transition from an agrarian economy to an industrialized one took place in the USA during a period of legalized chattel slavery. Edward Baptist’s The Half Has Never Been Told alludes to a connection between chattel slavery and industrialization in the USA, just as Moshe Lewin’s The Soviet Century shows how Stalin’s gulag/mek system was a crucial part of the USSR’s industrialization. In either locale, those are circumstances of the past, but they each represent hugely different circumstances from the present (recognizing that present circumstances continue to be influenced by those historical legacies). Wolff trades in rather empty historical generalizations here. While he deserves credit for suggesting that there were real achievements in “actually existing socialism”, his points about what was allegedly missing might be disingenuous strawman arguments when historical conditions show that such choices were impossible (Lars Lih’s scholarship is useful here, as is the fictional work of the writer Andrey Platonov).
Second, and perhaps more importantly, Wolff frames his article as being about “socialism” (he does not use the word “communism”). But his arguments about worker coops seem rooted in anarchism, or anarcho-syndicalism. This is significant. Perhaps his analysis about things to “add” to socialist projects is wrong not because socialists have failed to consider them, or failed to implement them, but because communists/socialists are opposed to anarchist concepts and their political tactics. The definitive work on on this point is of course Lenin’s The State and Revolution — the single most widely published book written in the 20th Century. Wolff offers no engagement with any of those concepts. In the contemporary age, Fredric Jameson’s An American Utopia: Dual Power and the Universal Army really presents the clearest statement of the analysis missing from Wolff’s article (and his writing and commentary in general). Jameson cogently notes that the question of federalism is central to any utopian project (communist/socialist or otherwise). This is precisely what Wolff fails to explain or address. Worker coops are problematic—or perhaps a better term is limited—for a number of reasons. Following Jameson’s question about federalism, we can ask how the various coops would be selected and organized. Are we simply converting the existing economy to one with coops, without any clear mechanism to decide when and how to introduce new industries (and associated new coops), akin to a modern, industrialized version of an Amish society? Should we be supporting coops in destructive industries, such as fracking or mercenary armies? Who decides where coops (and their workers) should be located? What if large numbers of workers all decide they want to have coops making useless products? Or if few if any workers wish to work in industries in which chronic shortages of labor or products arise? These are all questions of federalism. While, no doubt, worker coops might alleviate some burdens on workers in a capitalist society, just as being in a trade union might, Wolff basically ignores problems like chauvinism—just like “states rights” is the argument of the “Lost Cause of the Confederacy” against federalism, coops will undoubtedly give rise to much of the same (as they have historically!). Aside from Jameson, Staughton Lynd has also written in somewhat similar terms, quoting Victor Serge saying that anarchism is about “idealistic aspiration” but anarchist thinking is impractical and anarchists lack any answer to the question of power. Jodi Dean is also a useful thinker here. As François Mitterrand said upon the failure of his political program in the 1980s: “In economics, there are two solutions. Either you are a Leninist. Or you won’t change anything.” Wolff falls in the “won’t change anything” camp, but doesn’t seem to realize it. Now, if Wolff was instead arguing that coops merely provide a kind of temporary respite from the ravages of late capitalism, from which a meaningful revolution might be waged, that would at least get him as far as Hardt and Negri’s Emprie. But even that is still insufficient, because it still lacks any acting upon a system of federalism from the start and therefore provides no real motivation or mechanism for the implied second revolution. Wolff doges the question of power too much.
John Bellamy Foster:
It is possible to disagree with his formulation of “neoliberalism” (drawn from the unreliable Michel Foucault) and still gain insights for this analysis, including the historical overview. Though a bit more Gramsci would boost this analysis, plus maybe a dose of Bourdieu.
Link to an article by Iishana Artra:
Link to an article by Kent Allen Halliburton:
Link to an article by Geoffrey Dutton:
Curiously absent from this otherwise excellent discussion of the present-day facts about recycling practices in the USA is why municipalities are expected to submit to a “market” rather than intervening directly in it or circumventing/modifying it (as governments often do). Why shouldn’t municipalities create their own recycling entities and manufacturing facilities to bypass markets, or engage in more far-reaching bans (like banning all materials that are not provably and practically recyclable)? The article simply tacitly accepts that municipal governments should look to private businesses and markets in significant ways, or simply treat private profitability as the uncrossable horizon of municipal politics, as if this is self-evident, which is precisely the goal of all political propaganda—“to annihilate an unnoticed possibility of the situation“.
Link to an article by Kristina Betinis:
“A right-wing pressure campaign has been launched to press the musicians into accepting what is declared by the ruling elite to be an incontrovertible social fact: that no worker should receive a decent pension. This idea is advanced as though it were self-evident.”
Julian Assange has been arrested. See the following articles:
The smears keep piling on, including even multiple comedy bits on Saturday Night Live calling him an “Internet troll” and suggesting that he was stealing passwords and snooping on ordinary people (rather than what he actually did: publish the secret, anti-democratic machinations of the powerful). But even many of Assange’s supporters make numerous distortions.
First (as implied by Pilger, for instance) is to call his situation a roll-back of press freedoms and a new attack on journalism. Aside from the deeply chauvinistic aspect of these claims (which constitute journalists talking about how important journalists are), they present a false history. Specially, they act as if (in the USA), the law protected disclosure of truthful information that government officials wish to keep secret. While this is one possible interpretation of a constitutional provision, it has never been officially adopted or enforced. Hence the prosecution of Assange is not a deviation but consistent with a pattern. What these supporters tend to do, specifically, is distort the Pentagon Papers incident from the 1970s involving Daniel Ellsberg, Beacon Press and the New York Times. The reason Ellsberg, Beacon Press and the New York Times were not ultimately held legally accountable (though there were legal proceedings initiated against each and every one of them) was because then Alaskan Senator Mike Gravel read the Pentagon Papers into the congressional record, and legislators are given immunity from prosecution for actions (and statements) on the legislative floor (though Senate rules were subsequently changed to try to prohibit this from happening again). Once the “cat was out of the bag” with Gravel’s actions, the legal cases against the leakers/publishers were dropped or lost — but only because the information was in the public record by that point (judges do not necessarily honestly describe this in their written opinions). There was no grand defense of press freedoms established by the courts though. People who claim otherwise are distorting the historical record and claiming a false victory in order to push a myth about “press freedoms” that obscures the need to actively work to establish those press freedoms for the first time. Yet Glenn Greenwald has carefully explained how the criminal charges against Assange are still different and more expansive than those levied against those associated with the Pentagon Papers publications. Though aside from these judicial niceties, as Jim Kavanagh notes, all this may well have a social impact on the attitudes of journalists.
Second, when Jonathan Cook describes Wikileaks as “a digital platform that for the first time in history gave ordinary people a glimpse into the darkest recesses of the most secure vaults in the deepest of Deep States” he is only correct is the most semantic sense by saying Wikileaks is “digital”. Really the difference was the speed and volume at which Wikileaks published these things in a “digital” environment. Of course, there was other precedent for ordinary people getting a glimpse into the “darkest recesses of the most secure vaults in the deepest of Deep State”: the publication of the secret allied treaties in the Bolshevik paper Pravda during WWI. This is still a major reason for anti-Russian sentiment a full century later! Cook not so surprisingly avoids mentioning this because to do so would open the door for suggesting that communist politics present a systemic break from the false universalism of liberal “freedoms”.
Agamben has it right here. He echoes this older sentiment about Assange: “he is not spying on the people for those in power, he is spying on those in power for the people.” (“Assange Works for the People – Now We Need to Save Him”). (See also “Jónasson: The Icelandic Minister Who Refused Cooperation With the FBI”). Notice how the SNL skit claims the exact opposite, blaming Assange for the sort of conduct that Facebook, Alphabet/Google, the NSA, the FBI, and countless other organizations do on a daily basis (which, ironically, Assange has helped expose!)?
Link to a review of High Flying Bird by Derek Nystrom:
Link to an article by Victor Pickard: