Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael Mohr's avatar

I remember Wolff; about a decade ago, when I was much further left politically than I am now, I saw him speak in Berkeley. Loury debating Wolff sounds fantastic: they should do a longer, extended debate in my opinion, perhaps over the course of many Stacks. There’s so much to unpack.

I do think the notion that the universities don’t teach Socialism/Marxism seems hard to believe. For one thing: Capitalism is very much NOT in vogue amongst millennials and Gen Z, especially in colleges across America. It’s become much more popular and common to hate the whole concept of capitalism, and to view racism, sexism, colonialism etc exclusively through a malevolent capitalist lens. So I’m not seeing Wolff’s POV on that.

Personally I think socialism should be discussed more: Let’s show it to be the failure that it is. History has taught us this already. It might work in theory but it always goes too far. People often talk about ‘socialist’ European countries; but they’re actually capitalist countries with some socialistic elements. Big difference. Yes we can learn some from Europe: But there’s no free lunch; everything economic involves trade-offs. Pros n cons. It’s complex, not simple. Is capitalism perfect? Obviously not. Is it the best system we have so far? I think so, yes. Can it be improved? Of course.

Michael Mohr

‘Sincere American Writing’

https://michaelmohr.substack.com/

Expand full comment
Alex Lekas's avatar

How "proud and committed" a Marxist is Wolff really? Is he keeping the money that comes his way from supporting a failed and murderous ideology? This man has deluded himself into believing that "Marxism has changed in the last 40 years." How? Changed to what? Systems don't change; people change. We see that all the time. People who got fat and wealthy from capitalism decry it, calling instead for 'democratic socialism,' whatever that is, hoping their audiences are too stupid to realize that all of the free stuff promised will be paid for by someone else's taxes. Because the money has to come from somewhere.

Maybe Marxism is not taught in grad-level econ classes because it has so abjectly failed that teaching it would be akin to teaching that water is wet or the sun rises in the east. It's lack of utility across broad populations is so self-evident that no further conversation should be necessary. Wolff's sad attempt to indict professors for not wasting time on Marxism as some sort of economic protectionism ignores human history which has been quite clear - no system of organizing an economy has lifted more people from poverty than free market capitalism. Where economic freedom exists, political freedom tends to follow. It is impossible to have the latter without the former, even if the reverse is not always true. What place that has anything to a Marxist style of economy has a semblance of political freedom?

Wolff's stated preference is not being repressed; it is being accorded the level of respect that is due to an idea that has been soundly defeated over time. No one is making the case for slavery as an alternative means of organizing society, either, because it has also been defeated as a viable means of doing anything useful. That it still exists in some places is true, but as Marxism and things like it exist in places that no American is willing to live in. That, really, is the ultimate acid test - what would people pick given a choice? We see folks here voting with their feet all the time, leaving one state for another. Look at the states losing population vs. the ones gaining; are there notable differences? Usually, yes. The people who point to California's economy as a symbol of something miss what that symbol is - it is how capitalism can overcome just about any stupid idea that govt can conjure. The state's economy is not the result of one-party rule; it's in spite of one-party rule and it was significant when CA had two competitive parties.

I'll finish where this began - as with the climate cult, I will take people like Wolff far more seriously when they walk their talk. Live like the average person did in the Soviet Union or does in Cuba. Not like the few in charge of the place, but rather like the vast majority who dare not talk of the emperor's clothes out loud. It is beyond amazing that for all the lectures we get about "follow the science," the loudest proponents of that idea are the least likely to put it into practice. They are willing to follow the money, they are willing to mangle the language in order to resurrect dead arguments, and they are willing to act as if no discussion has been had of their particular hobby horse only to find that it is, in fact, a nag.

Expand full comment
172 more comments...

No posts