I'd actually like to commend Dr. Wolff for coming on the show. While I find his work increasingly less convincing, I've noticed that he's never really shied away from coming on shows that might be hostile. However, knowing what he surely knows about Glenn (conservative economist) may have played a role in him only granting a 1 hour (originally 30 minute) interview. He did 3+ hours on Lex Friedman. having also seen that interview I have a sense he was giving a shorthand interview here and a lot of the topics mentioned in the comments weren't adequately discussed due to time (though also possibly because he has bad answers). Lecturing is this guy's life and I'm sure he has the 30 min, 60 min and 120 min versions of his well-rehearsed spiel.
I actually think Dr. Wolff has some interesting things to say and a view of Marxism that may represent a much needed upgrade. I think he's aware of the context that has brought him to the forefront of public debate and I think he is reasonably open to an understanding that these are difficult topics that have almost as much to do with the preferences and decision-making apparatus of societies as it does any kind of mechanistic view of economics. Having listened to him a handful of times since around 2014 or so, I would guess that he could spend his whole career answering the same questions about GDP numbers, entrepreneurs, Theory of Labor etc. into perpetuity and never get to say the one or two interesting things he has to say, largely because any discussion of Marxism inevitably goes back to all the fundamental ways Marx misunderstood economics and all of the ways Communists have gotten it wrong.
But, these are real problems with 21st century Marxism. It raises a LOT of questions and concerns and there's not a ton of good news to point to. But it doesn't leave Capitalism without its set of concerns either. There's a fundamental rift between the two ideologies, something I'm not equipped to answer, but it's almost like Capitalism is focused on the question of what we should do with money and Marxism is focused on how can we protect the vulnerable; one looks forward and the other backward and there seems to be such a gulf between the two that they cannot be reconciled. Perhaps this is revealing and the two ideologies are things that can (and often do) exist in the same fruit bowl.
Being concerned with the plight of the labor force is a worthy topic and not a thing that can simply be waved away with statistics like, "highest living standard in 2k years," or whatever, and these issues can have major political and social ramifications, particularly if they are left to fester. The big problem for Marxists, as I see it is not merely taking an overly-mechanistic approach to economics, but failing to account for the extremely important aspects of reality like demographics, resources, transportation, strategy, etc. and so on. I think it's why so many here find Thomas Sowell a more compelling economist: his story makes more sense.
The last thing I'll say is the one thing about Wollf's description of labor that really bugged me was his notion that the employees have to make all kinds of sacrifices like taking the risk of moving their family to some new place for a job that might evaporate. I simply can't buy this. I doubt most people are moving anywhere for jobs, except, perhaps highly trained and experienced people who take higher roles in a company. While I can admit a mill worker might move to the mill town to have a shorter commute or better schools for his children, the idea that he's going to pick up and move 4 states over when the mill closes seems wrong...he'll just fight over a job at Home Depot like everyone else in his community. The risks taken by entrepreneurs are real even if they have a mountain of silks to fall upon if they fail. At the end of the day, the oversimplifications Dr. Wollf used to describe his views got in the way of what he may have been trying to communicate and with economics, there's no real way to punch through without getting deep into data.
I didn't mean to imply he only has one or two interesting things to say, more that in a 60 minute lecture, getting one or two novel points solidly communicated to an audience is an accomplishment.
I think he said something like that. One problem is that he would say things that raised questions in my mind and that would distract me. Too many disjunctive statements and I start to drift.
I'd actually like to commend Dr. Wolff for coming on the show. While I find his work increasingly less convincing, I've noticed that he's never really shied away from coming on shows that might be hostile. However, knowing what he surely knows about Glenn (conservative economist) may have played a role in him only granting a 1 hour (originally 30 minute) interview. He did 3+ hours on Lex Friedman. having also seen that interview I have a sense he was giving a shorthand interview here and a lot of the topics mentioned in the comments weren't adequately discussed due to time (though also possibly because he has bad answers). Lecturing is this guy's life and I'm sure he has the 30 min, 60 min and 120 min versions of his well-rehearsed spiel.
I actually think Dr. Wolff has some interesting things to say and a view of Marxism that may represent a much needed upgrade. I think he's aware of the context that has brought him to the forefront of public debate and I think he is reasonably open to an understanding that these are difficult topics that have almost as much to do with the preferences and decision-making apparatus of societies as it does any kind of mechanistic view of economics. Having listened to him a handful of times since around 2014 or so, I would guess that he could spend his whole career answering the same questions about GDP numbers, entrepreneurs, Theory of Labor etc. into perpetuity and never get to say the one or two interesting things he has to say, largely because any discussion of Marxism inevitably goes back to all the fundamental ways Marx misunderstood economics and all of the ways Communists have gotten it wrong.
But, these are real problems with 21st century Marxism. It raises a LOT of questions and concerns and there's not a ton of good news to point to. But it doesn't leave Capitalism without its set of concerns either. There's a fundamental rift between the two ideologies, something I'm not equipped to answer, but it's almost like Capitalism is focused on the question of what we should do with money and Marxism is focused on how can we protect the vulnerable; one looks forward and the other backward and there seems to be such a gulf between the two that they cannot be reconciled. Perhaps this is revealing and the two ideologies are things that can (and often do) exist in the same fruit bowl.
Being concerned with the plight of the labor force is a worthy topic and not a thing that can simply be waved away with statistics like, "highest living standard in 2k years," or whatever, and these issues can have major political and social ramifications, particularly if they are left to fester. The big problem for Marxists, as I see it is not merely taking an overly-mechanistic approach to economics, but failing to account for the extremely important aspects of reality like demographics, resources, transportation, strategy, etc. and so on. I think it's why so many here find Thomas Sowell a more compelling economist: his story makes more sense.
The last thing I'll say is the one thing about Wollf's description of labor that really bugged me was his notion that the employees have to make all kinds of sacrifices like taking the risk of moving their family to some new place for a job that might evaporate. I simply can't buy this. I doubt most people are moving anywhere for jobs, except, perhaps highly trained and experienced people who take higher roles in a company. While I can admit a mill worker might move to the mill town to have a shorter commute or better schools for his children, the idea that he's going to pick up and move 4 states over when the mill closes seems wrong...he'll just fight over a job at Home Depot like everyone else in his community. The risks taken by entrepreneurs are real even if they have a mountain of silks to fall upon if they fail. At the end of the day, the oversimplifications Dr. Wollf used to describe his views got in the way of what he may have been trying to communicate and with economics, there's no real way to punch through without getting deep into data.
I didn't mean to imply he only has one or two interesting things to say, more that in a 60 minute lecture, getting one or two novel points solidly communicated to an audience is an accomplishment.
I think he said something like that. One problem is that he would say things that raised questions in my mind and that would distract me. Too many disjunctive statements and I start to drift.