What do you think?
Rate this book
Understanding Socialism
A blend of history, analysis, and theory, "Understanding Socialism" is an honest and approachable text that knocks down false narratives, confronts failures and challenges of various socialist experiments throughout history, and offers a path to a new socialism based on workplace democracy.
"Richard Wolff's book is the best accessible and reliable treatment we have of what socialism is, was, and should be.” - Cornel West
“In the same accessible style that has made his programs and lectures such a hit, he explains his subject in a way that's not only smart, but makes the rest of us feel smart. It's actionable intelligence for the every person.” - Laura Flanders
“Lucid, brilliant and uncompromising in his dissection of the capitalist system he also provides a sane and just socialist alternative to capitalist exploitation, one we must all fight to achieve.” - Chris Hedges
"Richard Wolff's book is the best accessible and reliable treatment we have of what socialism is, was, and should be.” - Cornel West
“In the same accessible style that has made his programs and lectures such a hit, he explains his subject in a way that's not only smart, but makes the rest of us feel smart. It's actionable intelligence for the every person.” - Laura Flanders
“Lucid, brilliant and uncompromising in his dissection of the capitalist system he also provides a sane and just socialist alternative to capitalist exploitation, one we must all fight to achieve.” - Chris Hedges
168 pages, Hardcover
First published December 2, 2019
80 people are currently reading
2455 people want to read
About the author
Richard D. Wolff
46 books850 followersRichard D. Wolff is an American economist, well-known for his work on Marxian economics, economic methodology, and class analysis. He is Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University in New York. Wolff has also taught economics at Yale University, City University of New York, University of Paris I (Sorbonne), and The Brecht Forum in New York City. In 2010, Wolff published Capitalism Hits the Fan: The Global Economic Meltdown and What to Do About It, also released as a DVD. He will release three new books in 2012: Occupy the Economy: Challenging Capitalism, with David Barsamian (San Francisco: City Lights Books), Contending Economic Theories: Neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxian, with Stephen Resnick (Cambridge, MA, and London: MIT University Press), and Democracy at Work (Chicago: Haymarket Books).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
March 25, 2020
I’ve read very few books about socialism, but this seems to be one of the best introductory overviews for the subject. In my view, Wolff provides the most convincing definition of socialism which encapsulates its many diverse forms. In my own rephrasing, socialism is generally reaction to capitalist hierarchies (which are inherently oppressive). Additionally, Wolff is an economics genius, so he has good ideas for how socialism can best exist in practice in the real world.
In this book, Wolff covers what socialism is (and thus delineates what isn’t socialism), the history of socialism, how it relates to fascism, and a convincing argument for the future of socialism which focuses on change at the microeconomic level via democratic worker co-ops. This book has made me excited for the potential of humanity in the future.
In this book, Wolff covers what socialism is (and thus delineates what isn’t socialism), the history of socialism, how it relates to fascism, and a convincing argument for the future of socialism which focuses on change at the microeconomic level via democratic worker co-ops. This book has made me excited for the potential of humanity in the future.
April 23, 2020
Lenin said the Russian Revolution had achieved “state capitalism” – the employers had been changed but the employer/employee structure of capitalism had been retained. Lenin never said he had achieved socialism, but knew it was the goal. He knew that the state capitalism Russia had achieved still needed to be transitioned to socialism. After Lenin, Stalin ignored all that and stated: state capitalism is now somehow socialism – we have arrived – end of subject. No further references to Russia as state capitalism were to be tolerated and communism talk was banished to the distant future. Now thanks to Stalin redefining his Russia as socialism, it’s not surprising that American critics harped on the evils of socialism instead of the evils of Stalin. After Lenin, Stalin makes USSR’s Industrialization as Priority #1. Stalinism is the brutal forced implementation of Stalin’s Industrial policy – done at the expense of the Russian people, in order to recover from WWI, WWII, and hostile economies. Russian attempts at freeing women from subordination, as well as democratizing the workplace was deemed “too socially disruptive” under Stalin. “The Soviet revolution had changed who the employer was”- it was a move from private capitalism to state capitalism. The price paid under Stalin’s nearly thirty years of dictatorship was many deaths, “underdeveloped agriculture, limited wage gains, many unmet consumer needs, and continued constraints on civil liberties, political freedoms, etc.”. Workers and agriculture had been squeezed hard “to fund more industrialization”.
The US response to something potentially kinder than capitalism was to cripple all socialist economies (like Cuba) so that you could identify their lack of success with socialism and with not incessant US meddling. Many unread Americans still conflate political dictatorships with socialism and communism rather than conflate them with Russian state capitalism under Stalin; such Americans ignore US supported capitalist dictatorships throughout history and that there has also been socialism without dictatorships. What China has now is a “hybrid state capitalism that included communist and social-democratic streams” which grew “faster over the years than any capitalist economy had ever done.” The Cold War stopped instruction in US colleges about socialism. The great fear of the US elites is a state powerful enough to do wealth redistribution through universal suffrage.
The goal of the people is liberty, equality and democracy. When Capitalism came along, the theory was that it would bring liberty, equality and democracy. But Capitalism banned all three in the workplace. There has always been disagreement as to how best transition from Capitalism to Socialism. There are many different interpretations of socialism. One big example of socialism was the Paris Commune of 1871 which lasted only a few weeks.
Part of the Cold War rarely discussed was that pushing “Americans as consumers first” campaign was partly to make Russian workers and peasants jealous more dis-satisfied with their system. Watching Americans laughingly consume the world’s resources w/o a care on ads and TV was a state propaganda move. When Russia fell apart, it returned to private capitalism. The end of the USSR was merely the end of one version of what some called socialism. In the 20th century, the USSR had the fastest growing economy, in the 21st century, the fastest growing economy became China. The two biggest socialist purges in history were done first by the fascists, and second by the US Cold warriors. Fascism and socialism both seek to strengthen the state, but fascism does so for capitalism, while socialism does so for the people. Anti-communism became the “battering ram” of choice to break up the New Deal coalition. US economics from the 1930s to the 1970s was Keynesian dominant, and since then all Presidents and their obsequious courtiers have been revoltingly neoliberal.
A strange fact: one would think communists would reject private property yet in 1917, one of the first acts of the Soviet government was giving landless peasants some property. Really good book. Watch Richard talk on YouTube or on “On Contact with Chris Hedges” as well; Richard is a great speaker.
The US response to something potentially kinder than capitalism was to cripple all socialist economies (like Cuba) so that you could identify their lack of success with socialism and with not incessant US meddling. Many unread Americans still conflate political dictatorships with socialism and communism rather than conflate them with Russian state capitalism under Stalin; such Americans ignore US supported capitalist dictatorships throughout history and that there has also been socialism without dictatorships. What China has now is a “hybrid state capitalism that included communist and social-democratic streams” which grew “faster over the years than any capitalist economy had ever done.” The Cold War stopped instruction in US colleges about socialism. The great fear of the US elites is a state powerful enough to do wealth redistribution through universal suffrage.
The goal of the people is liberty, equality and democracy. When Capitalism came along, the theory was that it would bring liberty, equality and democracy. But Capitalism banned all three in the workplace. There has always been disagreement as to how best transition from Capitalism to Socialism. There are many different interpretations of socialism. One big example of socialism was the Paris Commune of 1871 which lasted only a few weeks.
Part of the Cold War rarely discussed was that pushing “Americans as consumers first” campaign was partly to make Russian workers and peasants jealous more dis-satisfied with their system. Watching Americans laughingly consume the world’s resources w/o a care on ads and TV was a state propaganda move. When Russia fell apart, it returned to private capitalism. The end of the USSR was merely the end of one version of what some called socialism. In the 20th century, the USSR had the fastest growing economy, in the 21st century, the fastest growing economy became China. The two biggest socialist purges in history were done first by the fascists, and second by the US Cold warriors. Fascism and socialism both seek to strengthen the state, but fascism does so for capitalism, while socialism does so for the people. Anti-communism became the “battering ram” of choice to break up the New Deal coalition. US economics from the 1930s to the 1970s was Keynesian dominant, and since then all Presidents and their obsequious courtiers have been revoltingly neoliberal.
A strange fact: one would think communists would reject private property yet in 1917, one of the first acts of the Soviet government was giving landless peasants some property. Really good book. Watch Richard talk on YouTube or on “On Contact with Chris Hedges” as well; Richard is a great speaker.
February 24, 2020
This book Understanding Socialism reveals an encapsulated history of Socialism in an easy to understand short book (129 pages).
We see why the binary economic structures of the past have produced an angst among the populations of the world for something better. First there was the master/slave binary. Next there grew the lord/peasant binary. When the peasantry grew anxious for something new, the outgrowth was capitalism. The binary changed to employer/employee. Early socialism effectively kept the binary of employer/employee but changed the ownership of production from private to government owned. The problems of each are illustrated within.
The evolution of socialism is primarily discussed from the perspective that none of these previous economic structures succeeded at institutionalizing democracy into those structures, leaving in place a centralized hierarchy of leaders which eventually evolve into various forms of autocracy. Within the idea of democratizing the workplace, that institutionalization is able to occur and take the hierarchical power from the autocracy. I would add that the democratization of community groups would also help to strengthen the institutionalization of democracy within our everyday lives.
We see why the binary economic structures of the past have produced an angst among the populations of the world for something better. First there was the master/slave binary. Next there grew the lord/peasant binary. When the peasantry grew anxious for something new, the outgrowth was capitalism. The binary changed to employer/employee. Early socialism effectively kept the binary of employer/employee but changed the ownership of production from private to government owned. The problems of each are illustrated within.
The evolution of socialism is primarily discussed from the perspective that none of these previous economic structures succeeded at institutionalizing democracy into those structures, leaving in place a centralized hierarchy of leaders which eventually evolve into various forms of autocracy. Within the idea of democratizing the workplace, that institutionalization is able to occur and take the hierarchical power from the autocracy. I would add that the democratization of community groups would also help to strengthen the institutionalization of democracy within our everyday lives.
September 13, 2023
Author Richard D. Wolff is an economist and advocate for workers' self-management.
Understanding Socialism provides an overview of socialist history, ideas, and relevance to contemporary society.
Wolff asserts that socialism is essentially born out of the longing for “something better than capitalism”.
SURPLUS AND EXPLOITATION
Wolff observes that Marx tracked capitalism back to its most primitive from, whereby some people work, and produce more than enough (termed surplus), while others either cannot work and are as such, dependent (e.g., babies, the elderly and infirm), or exploit the work of others (e.g., slave masters, landed gentry, employers etc.).
Marx viewed (1) master/slave, (2) lord/serf and (3) employer/employee relationships as clearly improvements on the other, but fundamentally analogous in that surplus/explanation defined each relationship. Given that, Marx coined the term “wage slavery” in order to bring attention to the exploitation of workers in capitalism.
Marx asserted that workers could do better if they got together and organized/cooperated. They could collectively bargain for living wages, humane working conditions and stuff like medical benefits, affordable housing, education (and all that commie stuff).
Marx envisioned socialism as this more equitable alternative to capitalism. And here we are today.
Wolff asserts that neoliberalism and advanced capitalism create the inequity and financial bubbles that so many of us suffer from lately (some more than others). More recent advances in socialist thinking incorporate social justice for BIPOC and LGBTQ as well as sustainable ecology.
Wolff cites Occupy, #MeToo, BLM and Queer Liberation and Ecological activism as socialist in essence.
Wolff asserts that these (and similar) recent socialist movements emerged from the failures of advanced capitalism to ensure equity and upward mobility, as well as mounting concerns regarding ecological degradation.
Wolff is reserved (however obvious in his support) but observes that current U.S. anti-capitalism movements are primitive in their understanding of contemporary socialist theory.
Wolff accounts for the current parochial and outdated understanding of advanced socialism in the U.S. as due to the overt suppression of socialism, anarchism and communism during the Cold War to the present.
Wolff also cites the atrocities and failures of Stalinist and Maoist governments, as well as 1990’s hyperbole equating the collapse of the Soviet Union with “death of communism” as contributing to a disavowal of socialism by the American left in the preceding decades.
Wolff discusses the historical failures of socialist experiments in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Wolff argues that socialism has learned from these failures and advanced significantly.
Wolff cites “micro-socialist” movements such as democratized workplaces and workers co-operatives as good examples of recent very successful socialist actions.
Much more goodness herein.
Definitely worth while read.
Understanding Socialism provides an overview of socialist history, ideas, and relevance to contemporary society.
Wolff asserts that socialism is essentially born out of the longing for “something better than capitalism”.
SURPLUS AND EXPLOITATION
Wolff observes that Marx tracked capitalism back to its most primitive from, whereby some people work, and produce more than enough (termed surplus), while others either cannot work and are as such, dependent (e.g., babies, the elderly and infirm), or exploit the work of others (e.g., slave masters, landed gentry, employers etc.).
Marx viewed (1) master/slave, (2) lord/serf and (3) employer/employee relationships as clearly improvements on the other, but fundamentally analogous in that surplus/explanation defined each relationship. Given that, Marx coined the term “wage slavery” in order to bring attention to the exploitation of workers in capitalism.
Marx asserted that workers could do better if they got together and organized/cooperated. They could collectively bargain for living wages, humane working conditions and stuff like medical benefits, affordable housing, education (and all that commie stuff).
Marx envisioned socialism as this more equitable alternative to capitalism. And here we are today.
Wolff asserts that neoliberalism and advanced capitalism create the inequity and financial bubbles that so many of us suffer from lately (some more than others). More recent advances in socialist thinking incorporate social justice for BIPOC and LGBTQ as well as sustainable ecology.
Wolff cites Occupy, #MeToo, BLM and Queer Liberation and Ecological activism as socialist in essence.
Wolff asserts that these (and similar) recent socialist movements emerged from the failures of advanced capitalism to ensure equity and upward mobility, as well as mounting concerns regarding ecological degradation.
Wolff is reserved (however obvious in his support) but observes that current U.S. anti-capitalism movements are primitive in their understanding of contemporary socialist theory.
Wolff accounts for the current parochial and outdated understanding of advanced socialism in the U.S. as due to the overt suppression of socialism, anarchism and communism during the Cold War to the present.
Wolff also cites the atrocities and failures of Stalinist and Maoist governments, as well as 1990’s hyperbole equating the collapse of the Soviet Union with “death of communism” as contributing to a disavowal of socialism by the American left in the preceding decades.
Wolff discusses the historical failures of socialist experiments in Europe, Asia and Latin America. Wolff argues that socialism has learned from these failures and advanced significantly.
Wolff cites “micro-socialist” movements such as democratized workplaces and workers co-operatives as good examples of recent very successful socialist actions.
Much more goodness herein.
Definitely worth while read.
September 6, 2020
This is a nice introduction to socialism, delving into the roots of socialism and its historical development up to the current day. You can learn a lot about socialism from this book, including the different types of socialism. It is also useful to learn that Communist regimes have not been trully socialist, but rather practiced state capitalism. What this means is that instead of working for a private boss, employees worked for a government boss. By contrast, socialism is better defined as democracy in the workplace.
While Richard D. Wolff's bona fides are impressive, it would have been nice if the text contained references and citations. The bibliography, while useful, does not help find the source of a particular statement. I can say that Wolff's history of anarchism, socialism, communism, and labor unions in the United States matches that found in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." I found the history of communism in Russia and China a bit lacking in detail. For example, Wolff doesn't mention China's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four, nor does he mention Stalin's intentional starvation of tens of millions of peasants. I suppose there wasn't room for that level of detail, but it is a curious lack. I recommend this book as an introduction to socialism, but if you are still interested, I'd dig into other books, too.
While Richard D. Wolff's bona fides are impressive, it would have been nice if the text contained references and citations. The bibliography, while useful, does not help find the source of a particular statement. I can say that Wolff's history of anarchism, socialism, communism, and labor unions in the United States matches that found in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States." I found the history of communism in Russia and China a bit lacking in detail. For example, Wolff doesn't mention China's Cultural Revolution and the Gang of Four, nor does he mention Stalin's intentional starvation of tens of millions of peasants. I suppose there wasn't room for that level of detail, but it is a curious lack. I recommend this book as an introduction to socialism, but if you are still interested, I'd dig into other books, too.
April 24, 2023
این کتاب به بررسی و تفاوت کمونیسم و سوسیالیسم میپردازد، نقد های خود به سرمایه داری و سپس مطرح کردن سرمایه داری دولتی میپردازد،و نیم نگاهی تاریخی به چین و شوروی دارد و درس هایی از پیروزی ها و شکست های آن را یاد آور میشود، ریچارد د. ولف سوسیالیسم را نوعی آرزومندی برای یک زندگی بهتر از آن چیزی که سرمایه داری میسر می سازد میداند. او انواع سوسیالیسم ها را بر اساس تاریخ توضیح میدهد و در کل کتاب برای شروع اندیشیدن در دنیایی که همه سرمایه داری را پیروز میخوانند و محتوم ترین چیز خواندنی است...
July 19, 2020
The esteemed Richard Wolff basically picks up with this book where he left off with his previous work, Understanding Marxism. He fits his twenty-first century view of socialism—democracy in the workplace that breaks down the employer/employee dichotomy—into the history of socialism from its nineteenth century inception through its struggles in Russia and China up to its absence in the United States in the late twentieth century. And he fixes the one problem I had with his previous work, which was that it was too short even for a primer, by packing this text with even more crisp and thorough information.
Considering this is a primer, Wolff does a great job boiling the intricacies of the socialist movement down to its core components. Since there is no complete agreement on many of the terms involved, he explains the main differences between capitalism and socialism along an economic spectrum. On the far right, with capitalism, there is a private enterprise system and free markets. The modern day libertarians reside here. Moving further left adds more government involvement in the form of taxation, spending, regulation, and distribution of income and wealth. This comes closer to what most people would now call social democracy or democratic socialism. Moving further left still exchanges private corporations and free markets for state control and central planning, which was originally socialism, but after the 1917 Russian Revolution became communism, an internal conflict that has also fueled much thought about the benefits of political reform versus revolution. And, of course, Wolff explains how most of the socialist regimes of the past maintained the capitalist structure, making them more state capitalism than what many would call true socialism.
The history of twentieth century socialism included here is fantastic as well. It doesn't shy away from the mistakes—and outright atrocities—of the USSR or of China. However, it is sure to cite their achievements—of rapid industrialization, of economic growth and military power—and clarify certain misconceptions—like how the Soviets did, at least under Lenin, allow private property and how much China has been willing to engage with private companies and free markets.
One of the most important takeaways, however, is that socialism is necessary as a criticism of capitalism. As Wolff states in purposely open-ended terms, "Socialism is a yearning by people living in a capitalist economic system . . . to do better than what that capitalism permits and enables." There are many Marxist critiques and socialist ideas—economic, political, and cultural—but without knowing of an alternative, we assume the system we have is the only one, and lose out on a possible path forward.
Considering this is a primer, Wolff does a great job boiling the intricacies of the socialist movement down to its core components. Since there is no complete agreement on many of the terms involved, he explains the main differences between capitalism and socialism along an economic spectrum. On the far right, with capitalism, there is a private enterprise system and free markets. The modern day libertarians reside here. Moving further left adds more government involvement in the form of taxation, spending, regulation, and distribution of income and wealth. This comes closer to what most people would now call social democracy or democratic socialism. Moving further left still exchanges private corporations and free markets for state control and central planning, which was originally socialism, but after the 1917 Russian Revolution became communism, an internal conflict that has also fueled much thought about the benefits of political reform versus revolution. And, of course, Wolff explains how most of the socialist regimes of the past maintained the capitalist structure, making them more state capitalism than what many would call true socialism.
The history of twentieth century socialism included here is fantastic as well. It doesn't shy away from the mistakes—and outright atrocities—of the USSR or of China. However, it is sure to cite their achievements—of rapid industrialization, of economic growth and military power—and clarify certain misconceptions—like how the Soviets did, at least under Lenin, allow private property and how much China has been willing to engage with private companies and free markets.
One of the most important takeaways, however, is that socialism is necessary as a criticism of capitalism. As Wolff states in purposely open-ended terms, "Socialism is a yearning by people living in a capitalist economic system . . . to do better than what that capitalism permits and enables." There are many Marxist critiques and socialist ideas—economic, political, and cultural—but without knowing of an alternative, we assume the system we have is the only one, and lose out on a possible path forward.
May 20, 2024
70%
This book should definitely be named 'Introduction to Socialism', given it's length and depth.
Wolff gave a clear and concise history of socialism(s), not very detailed though as mentioned previously. He does however identify the core tenants, antagonists and objectives of the ideology.
The author ends by explaining his vision for the 'new' socialism, which I found interesting and would've liked him to delve deeper into.
This book should definitely be named 'Introduction to Socialism', given it's length and depth.
Wolff gave a clear and concise history of socialism(s), not very detailed though as mentioned previously. He does however identify the core tenants, antagonists and objectives of the ideology.
The author ends by explaining his vision for the 'new' socialism, which I found interesting and would've liked him to delve deeper into.
March 7, 2024
This is one of the best foundation you could ever find.
February 3, 2020
Socialism is perfect. Yet the other brands of Socialism were sinful because the leaders were following fake prophets. Here's another prophet coming after 40 years in the academic desert with the blessed prophecies from the one true god.
June 13, 2020
The best overall breakdown of Socialism I've ever encountered, covering its origins, goals, evolution, and its future in a way that's engaging and intuitive. Only a master can take a complex topic and explain it in its most basic, essential form. Professor Wolff is exactly that.
July 3, 2022
Socialism through rose tinted glasses, and focusing on what it aspires to be but nevermind the trail of dead bodies previous attempts leave in their wake. The simple way the author defines socialism as, "a system better than capitalism" is childish and manipulative.
June 2, 2020
Great introduction to socialism. Can be a great starting book for people who want to delve deeper. Highly recommend.
April 29, 2023
This book serves as an excellent introduction to the concepts of socialism.
Wolff does a good job of explaining the key ideas and principles of socialism, in a clear and accessible way, using examples and dates to illustrate his points. Additionally, he provides a nuanced and balanced discussion of the criticisms of socialism, acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of socialist systems.
That being said, I would caution that the book remains pretty high level throughout. While it's a great starting point for those who want to learn about socialism, anyone already familiar with the topic may find it a bit too basic. Overall, though, I think it's a great and quick read to help make sense of what one of the better options for a political, economic, and social systems might look like.
Wolff does a good job of explaining the key ideas and principles of socialism, in a clear and accessible way, using examples and dates to illustrate his points. Additionally, he provides a nuanced and balanced discussion of the criticisms of socialism, acknowledging both the strengths and weaknesses of socialist systems.
That being said, I would caution that the book remains pretty high level throughout. While it's a great starting point for those who want to learn about socialism, anyone already familiar with the topic may find it a bit too basic. Overall, though, I think it's a great and quick read to help make sense of what one of the better options for a political, economic, and social systems might look like.
Read
May 15, 2021Helpful for defining a term that gets thrown around.
July 23, 2022
Essential reading
Read
February 12, 2020Great refresher. Enough depth with no preconceived notions, that is left to the future.
September 24, 2021
Well, it accomplishes it’s stated goal, even if it is rather dry.
February 27, 2023
Communist Russia wasn’t actually communist or socialist. It was, wait for it… a state capitalism! Wow.
According to professor Wolff, as long as there is a dichotomy of power relations, no economic system can be called socialist (or communist). In slave society there was a dichotomy of master and slave. In feudal system there was a dichotomy of lord and serf. In capitalist society there is a dichotomy of employer and employee. In socialism there wouldn’t be presumably any dichotomy.
The author defines capitalism as not a free market, but a system in which government is corrupt and uses its power to influence big corporations, which in turn exploit their economic power to bend the government to its will. This then obviously causes many problems for the economy. The hallmark of capitalism is exploitation of employees by employers which take the surplus value out of the product value of what employees produce.
In communism, “the state withers away”, as Marx said. Socialism is a violent stage between capitalism and communism, yet Wolff declines to accept that that’s what Soviet Russia actually was - a violent, bloody socialistic stage. The only difference between real world and Marx’s absurd theory is that the state won’t ever give up the tremendous power accumulated in this stage in order to achieve communism. This is just a wishful thinking, and no, Soviet Russia wasn’t a state capitalism.
And who’s to say that in communism (or socialism) there wouldn’t be a dichotomy of employer-employee relations? Work is an indispensable part of life and even in communism there would still be work (although according to Marx it would be more pleasurable). Economic system without employers is called syndicalism. Syndicalism presupposes stationary economy without any change. There would quickly be some workers who I would rise on top and start to accumulate capital and to “employ” other workers. Syndicalism is even more abused system and according to Mises, “one need waste few words on it.”
Wolff is one of many who use an unconstrained vision of the world. He thinks that by destroying current institutions (of free market, free prices, money, employer-employee relations) we can completely solve current socioeconomic problems and “abolish” cycles of booms and busts which cause poverty and are an “inherent aspects of free markets”. This utopian vision always tends to lead to tyranny and violent oppression.
It’s futile to argue with people like Wolff.
According to professor Wolff, as long as there is a dichotomy of power relations, no economic system can be called socialist (or communist). In slave society there was a dichotomy of master and slave. In feudal system there was a dichotomy of lord and serf. In capitalist society there is a dichotomy of employer and employee. In socialism there wouldn’t be presumably any dichotomy.
The author defines capitalism as not a free market, but a system in which government is corrupt and uses its power to influence big corporations, which in turn exploit their economic power to bend the government to its will. This then obviously causes many problems for the economy. The hallmark of capitalism is exploitation of employees by employers which take the surplus value out of the product value of what employees produce.
In communism, “the state withers away”, as Marx said. Socialism is a violent stage between capitalism and communism, yet Wolff declines to accept that that’s what Soviet Russia actually was - a violent, bloody socialistic stage. The only difference between real world and Marx’s absurd theory is that the state won’t ever give up the tremendous power accumulated in this stage in order to achieve communism. This is just a wishful thinking, and no, Soviet Russia wasn’t a state capitalism.
And who’s to say that in communism (or socialism) there wouldn’t be a dichotomy of employer-employee relations? Work is an indispensable part of life and even in communism there would still be work (although according to Marx it would be more pleasurable). Economic system without employers is called syndicalism. Syndicalism presupposes stationary economy without any change. There would quickly be some workers who I would rise on top and start to accumulate capital and to “employ” other workers. Syndicalism is even more abused system and according to Mises, “one need waste few words on it.”
Wolff is one of many who use an unconstrained vision of the world. He thinks that by destroying current institutions (of free market, free prices, money, employer-employee relations) we can completely solve current socioeconomic problems and “abolish” cycles of booms and busts which cause poverty and are an “inherent aspects of free markets”. This utopian vision always tends to lead to tyranny and violent oppression.
It’s futile to argue with people like Wolff.
August 26, 2021
The book does an OK job at succinctly explaining what socialism was, is and might become, or maybe I should say "socialisms" since one of the core themes of this book is socialism's multi-faceted nature. Speaking from an American perspective, one element that Wolff highlights throughout the book is the fact that many Americans have lost touch with socialist ideas due to decades of Cold War propaganda giving the word "socialist" the worst possible connotation. I think he's right about that. As a result many Americans only know about traditional, failed socialist experiments of the past while they do not engage with new socialist ideas. One core aspect of socialism's evolution that Wolff thinks is worth engaging with is its shift from a macro-economic focus on state ownership of the means of production to a micro-economic focus on workplace democratisation. Wolff presents worker co-ops as one of best ways this objective can be achieved.
Unfortunately, I found this book too simple and repetitive for something longer than 30 pages. As a basic introduction to socialism, it's great, but it could have been half the size or less and just as informative. The last chapter, for example, hardly adds anything that wasn't already expressed in the previous chapters in one way or another. Less repetition and more depth would have been good. For example, Wolff hardly says anything about feminism and other movements whose history is intimately linked to socialism. Likewise, he only superficially mentions the tensions arising from trying to reconciliate socialist ideals with a fairly free market. And while he addresses criticisms of failed traditional socialist experiments, he doesn't address any of the common rebuttals to his conception of workplace democratisation. He also keeps mentioning what he calls "the 2008 crash of capitalism" without ever explaining why calling the subprime mortgage crisis a "crash of capitalism" is warranted, when so many economists ascribed causes to this crisis that had nothing to do with the free market itself. I won't go on.
I would recommend this book to people who really haven't got a clue what socialism is, but if you're looking for something more thorough, it's probably not the right book. Too much low-hanging-fruit-picking. Not enough development.
Unfortunately, I found this book too simple and repetitive for something longer than 30 pages. As a basic introduction to socialism, it's great, but it could have been half the size or less and just as informative. The last chapter, for example, hardly adds anything that wasn't already expressed in the previous chapters in one way or another. Less repetition and more depth would have been good. For example, Wolff hardly says anything about feminism and other movements whose history is intimately linked to socialism. Likewise, he only superficially mentions the tensions arising from trying to reconciliate socialist ideals with a fairly free market. And while he addresses criticisms of failed traditional socialist experiments, he doesn't address any of the common rebuttals to his conception of workplace democratisation. He also keeps mentioning what he calls "the 2008 crash of capitalism" without ever explaining why calling the subprime mortgage crisis a "crash of capitalism" is warranted, when so many economists ascribed causes to this crisis that had nothing to do with the free market itself. I won't go on.
I would recommend this book to people who really haven't got a clue what socialism is, but if you're looking for something more thorough, it's probably not the right book. Too much low-hanging-fruit-picking. Not enough development.
December 14, 2023
Richard Wolff has become a voice for a new brand of socialism in the post-Cold War era. His focus is to transcend the old rhetoric that has characterized American culture for the last few generations and teach readers about the history of socialism as well as its future. This short book is both pithy and approachable, making it a perfect read for the novice at home or an undergraduate classroom. Published in 2019, he aims to define and demystify socialism as more Americans are beginning to look for a viable alternative to capitalism after the 2008 market crash and a rising concern of global fascism.
His first three chapters familiarize the reader to the basic definitions of socialism and its orientation to capitalism – as a “shadow” or a response. Capitalism, as he understands it, is the economic system characterized by its employer/employee relationship. That is, it's the latest evolution from slavery and feudalism, where production and distribution of labor and goods was characterized by the imbalanced power relationship between master/slave and lord/serf, respectively. Unlike what we’ve been culturally taught, he defines socialism as capitalism’s corrective, an economic system whereby we are able to democratically participate in the production and distribution of material goods, erasing the power imbalance of the employer/employee relationship. It’s in these early chapters that he also prepares the reader for the hard work of his later chapters: seeing socialism not simply as a monolith, but as a tradition of thought with variances that has real world applications.
Chapter Four is where he does the hard work of dealing with the difficult history of the USSR and Communist China, a sore spot for any American who’s taken a world history course. As we’ve been taught, the USSR was one of the greatest threats to the freedom and wellbeing of humankind in the modern era and the US’s foreign policy during that era was one to protect the freedom and liberties afforded by democracy and capitalism throughout the world. Wolff succinctly offers some historical background to this from the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s economic programs through to Stalin. In this, he spends considerable time discussing the state capitalism that Lenin instituted and its relation to industrialization, agriculture, and militarization. Stalin, however, announced that socialism had “arrived,” empowering critics to associate the problems of his regime with socialism instead of his autocracy and the state capitalism he inherited. Similarly, but with less detail, Wolff describes the state capitalism of China, making sure to detail the differences between them all. In this, he draws from his former definitions and outlines how these socialist countries created forms of capitalism (that retained the employer/employee relationship), albeit with different goals and outcomes.
Chapter Five continues this historical journey, focusing on the two “purges” of socialism – 20th century fascism and US anti-communism. Not only does he provide historical context for the focus on militarization by the USSR, but he also helps the reader, especially younger generations, understand the cultural messaging surrounding socialism in the US, or the West more generally. Additionally, he continues to draw out the private capitalisms throughout the US and Europe, the social democracies in Europe, and the private capitalisms of the USSR and China.
Chapter Six, his final chapter, is his attempt to convince the reader that modern socialism ought to be centered around democratic workplaces, not state planning and controlled distribution. In this, he returns to the original definitions he provided, lionizing socialism as the democratic cure to the employer/employee power imbalance and the corporatist oligarchies that have infiltrated Western democracies. This modern socialism that he desires is best characterized by worker cooperatives, Mondragon being a premier example for his vision. This all continues to rest on his primary argument that socialism is a tradition of thought that has variances and can look different in different contexts.
Despite the surprising reach of his work, there are several questions I am left with by the end. Firstly, is his definition of capitalism (employer/employee relationship) something widely accepted by socialist intellectuals? And if it isn’t, does it substantively change the rest of his assertions – those of the state capitalisms of USSR and China, as well as the curative aspects of workplace democratizations (modern socialism)? Secondly, despite his best attempts, I am still left with some confusion about how to think about state capitalisms run by socialist regimes. On page 93, he asserts that different state capitalisms have “profoundly different goals and purposes” from both fascist state capitalisms and the private capitalisms of the US and Europe. So how am I to think of the history of the USSR and China with the goals of socialism and the outcomes of its economic systems? I’m not sure this book is the place to adequately explain these, but I’m left confused and in need of more information to be able to make – what I feel would be – educated claims about the relationship between state capitalisms in socialist regimes. Lastly, thinking pragmatically, I want to know how an individual might open a business, let’s say a restaurant, with five employees in a new socialist economy? How does the norm of workplace cooperatives influence the ability of private individuals with extra capital to open businesses? Again, this might need to be a discussion for another book, but I am left wondering how we transition to this norm, especially considering the relationship it might have to labor unions and private small-business ventures.
This small book, at only 129 pages, packs a powerful punch. In it, he is able to outline basic definitions from which we can build, explain the history of major socialist models and their cultural and historical opposition, and promote a vision of socialism that he hopes might help remake our economy and country. This book will surely help open up learners to further research on the subject (he provides a list at the end), hopefully leading to a cultural conversation that is more nuanced and educated, leaving behind the legacy of the Cold War and McCarthyism which we still see today.
His first three chapters familiarize the reader to the basic definitions of socialism and its orientation to capitalism – as a “shadow” or a response. Capitalism, as he understands it, is the economic system characterized by its employer/employee relationship. That is, it's the latest evolution from slavery and feudalism, where production and distribution of labor and goods was characterized by the imbalanced power relationship between master/slave and lord/serf, respectively. Unlike what we’ve been culturally taught, he defines socialism as capitalism’s corrective, an economic system whereby we are able to democratically participate in the production and distribution of material goods, erasing the power imbalance of the employer/employee relationship. It’s in these early chapters that he also prepares the reader for the hard work of his later chapters: seeing socialism not simply as a monolith, but as a tradition of thought with variances that has real world applications.
Chapter Four is where he does the hard work of dealing with the difficult history of the USSR and Communist China, a sore spot for any American who’s taken a world history course. As we’ve been taught, the USSR was one of the greatest threats to the freedom and wellbeing of humankind in the modern era and the US’s foreign policy during that era was one to protect the freedom and liberties afforded by democracy and capitalism throughout the world. Wolff succinctly offers some historical background to this from the Russian Revolution and Lenin’s economic programs through to Stalin. In this, he spends considerable time discussing the state capitalism that Lenin instituted and its relation to industrialization, agriculture, and militarization. Stalin, however, announced that socialism had “arrived,” empowering critics to associate the problems of his regime with socialism instead of his autocracy and the state capitalism he inherited. Similarly, but with less detail, Wolff describes the state capitalism of China, making sure to detail the differences between them all. In this, he draws from his former definitions and outlines how these socialist countries created forms of capitalism (that retained the employer/employee relationship), albeit with different goals and outcomes.
Chapter Five continues this historical journey, focusing on the two “purges” of socialism – 20th century fascism and US anti-communism. Not only does he provide historical context for the focus on militarization by the USSR, but he also helps the reader, especially younger generations, understand the cultural messaging surrounding socialism in the US, or the West more generally. Additionally, he continues to draw out the private capitalisms throughout the US and Europe, the social democracies in Europe, and the private capitalisms of the USSR and China.
Chapter Six, his final chapter, is his attempt to convince the reader that modern socialism ought to be centered around democratic workplaces, not state planning and controlled distribution. In this, he returns to the original definitions he provided, lionizing socialism as the democratic cure to the employer/employee power imbalance and the corporatist oligarchies that have infiltrated Western democracies. This modern socialism that he desires is best characterized by worker cooperatives, Mondragon being a premier example for his vision. This all continues to rest on his primary argument that socialism is a tradition of thought that has variances and can look different in different contexts.
Despite the surprising reach of his work, there are several questions I am left with by the end. Firstly, is his definition of capitalism (employer/employee relationship) something widely accepted by socialist intellectuals? And if it isn’t, does it substantively change the rest of his assertions – those of the state capitalisms of USSR and China, as well as the curative aspects of workplace democratizations (modern socialism)? Secondly, despite his best attempts, I am still left with some confusion about how to think about state capitalisms run by socialist regimes. On page 93, he asserts that different state capitalisms have “profoundly different goals and purposes” from both fascist state capitalisms and the private capitalisms of the US and Europe. So how am I to think of the history of the USSR and China with the goals of socialism and the outcomes of its economic systems? I’m not sure this book is the place to adequately explain these, but I’m left confused and in need of more information to be able to make – what I feel would be – educated claims about the relationship between state capitalisms in socialist regimes. Lastly, thinking pragmatically, I want to know how an individual might open a business, let’s say a restaurant, with five employees in a new socialist economy? How does the norm of workplace cooperatives influence the ability of private individuals with extra capital to open businesses? Again, this might need to be a discussion for another book, but I am left wondering how we transition to this norm, especially considering the relationship it might have to labor unions and private small-business ventures.
This small book, at only 129 pages, packs a powerful punch. In it, he is able to outline basic definitions from which we can build, explain the history of major socialist models and their cultural and historical opposition, and promote a vision of socialism that he hopes might help remake our economy and country. This book will surely help open up learners to further research on the subject (he provides a list at the end), hopefully leading to a cultural conversation that is more nuanced and educated, leaving behind the legacy of the Cold War and McCarthyism which we still see today.
July 25, 2023
Interesting overview of what Socialism is and isn't and where it comes from. It really help me understand the basics of how complicated the ideology is and how it encompasses a variety of different types of political philosophies.
It dispells a lot of very ingrained boogie men that running rampant. Ask the majority critics, "What is Socialism?" and you'll get a insane mixture of woke this and that without them even being able to explain what it is and why they don't like it. It's bad because it is.
So to the critics out there who want to be able to argue better at Thanksgiving. Pick this badboy up and learn what it is you really hate. That will really stick it to em.
It dispells a lot of very ingrained boogie men that running rampant. Ask the majority critics, "What is Socialism?" and you'll get a insane mixture of woke this and that without them even being able to explain what it is and why they don't like it. It's bad because it is.
So to the critics out there who want to be able to argue better at Thanksgiving. Pick this badboy up and learn what it is you really hate. That will really stick it to em.
March 27, 2022
"There is no way to understand socialism without understanding the yearnings for something better than capitalism. Capitalism ceaselessly reproduce those yearnings throughout its history. Socialism is capitalism's shadow, capitalism's persistent critic. Intertwined, capitalism and socialism change each other until their clashes finally result in something new and different-a new system with its new self-critical shadow."
Richard D. Wolff
Richard D. Wolff
December 11, 2024
I understand less now.
February 23, 2023
بی تردید یکی از بهترین کتابهایی بود که در این سالها خواندم. بسیار روشنگر بود و به خیلی از پرسشها پاسخ داد
March 13, 2024
I found this to be somewhat repetitive and not as interesting as I was hoping. It felt like I was listening to someone read a high school textbook.
May 23, 2024
More of a "Socialism for Dummies" book than anything else. Not terribly interesting or useful. Maybe okay for DSA types, but no one else.
November 7, 2025
Introduction
Although this book is not a scientific work, and it does not aim to introduce or promote revolutionary ideas, it accomplishes something that, in today’s world, might be even more important: it provides a concise and comprehensive overview of socialism with all its struggles, development, immaturity, and maturity in a way that is easy for anyone to understand. Both books are short and highly accessible, which makes them especially valuable. Their brevity is not a weakness but one of their greatest strengths.
Relevance and Context
That clarity and simplicity are crucial today. We live in uncertain times, full of social and economic shifts, and the majority of people need an entry point into these ideas. The book fulfills that role beautifully. Coming from an environment that was deeply capitalistic, nationalistic, and socially conditioned, my upbringing shaped me in very specific ways. Over the past six or seven years, I have been on a long journey of learning, unlearning, and confronting the ideologies I was raised with. Looking back, if I had encountered this book earlier, I believe it could have cut that journey in half.
Communication and Accessibility
While it did not necessarily introduce new information to me, it gave me something even more valuable. It showed me how to communicate these ideas effectively, how to make them useful for everyone, and how to present them carefully amid the immense weight of propaganda, social conditioning, and the pressure of the status quo that has persisted for over a century.
Richard Wolff’s Approach
Richard Wolff is remarkable at this, not only in these books but throughout his broader work. As an academic who lived through periods of censorship and ideological hostility, he developed a rare ability to explain complex ideas clearly. He is deeply informed but always approachable, transforming theory into language that feels human and relevant.
The Value of Clear Communication
As someone who works in academia and naturally leans toward the scientific process, I have come to realize how important communication is. The ability to express ideas is just as vital as the ideas themselves. Wolff demonstrates this balance. He also succeeds in clarifying and distinguishing concepts that are often confused with one another. He draws clear lines between socialism, communism, state capitalism, social democracy, and Marxism, explaining their origins and historical evolution.
The Companion Book and Core Ideas
When read together, Understanding Marxism deepens this picture. It explores Marx’s analysis of capitalism, the origins of socialism, and the philosophical foundation that motivates it. Wolff does not try to overwhelm the reader with technical economics. Instead, he focuses on the essence of these ideas, their core and their meaning, making them approachable.
Reflection and Takeaway
One of the most powerful insights in the book is the intertwined relationship between socialism, Marxism, and capitalism. They are not absolute opposites. Each feeds on the lessons and failures of the other, evolving together toward an unknown future. This pragmatic and evolving view is often missing in modern discussions, yet Wolff presents it with honesty and depth.
“The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal that can individuate itself only in the midst of society.” - Karl Marx
Although this book is not a scientific work, and it does not aim to introduce or promote revolutionary ideas, it accomplishes something that, in today’s world, might be even more important: it provides a concise and comprehensive overview of socialism with all its struggles, development, immaturity, and maturity in a way that is easy for anyone to understand. Both books are short and highly accessible, which makes them especially valuable. Their brevity is not a weakness but one of their greatest strengths.
Relevance and Context
That clarity and simplicity are crucial today. We live in uncertain times, full of social and economic shifts, and the majority of people need an entry point into these ideas. The book fulfills that role beautifully. Coming from an environment that was deeply capitalistic, nationalistic, and socially conditioned, my upbringing shaped me in very specific ways. Over the past six or seven years, I have been on a long journey of learning, unlearning, and confronting the ideologies I was raised with. Looking back, if I had encountered this book earlier, I believe it could have cut that journey in half.
Communication and Accessibility
While it did not necessarily introduce new information to me, it gave me something even more valuable. It showed me how to communicate these ideas effectively, how to make them useful for everyone, and how to present them carefully amid the immense weight of propaganda, social conditioning, and the pressure of the status quo that has persisted for over a century.
Richard Wolff’s Approach
Richard Wolff is remarkable at this, not only in these books but throughout his broader work. As an academic who lived through periods of censorship and ideological hostility, he developed a rare ability to explain complex ideas clearly. He is deeply informed but always approachable, transforming theory into language that feels human and relevant.
The Value of Clear Communication
As someone who works in academia and naturally leans toward the scientific process, I have come to realize how important communication is. The ability to express ideas is just as vital as the ideas themselves. Wolff demonstrates this balance. He also succeeds in clarifying and distinguishing concepts that are often confused with one another. He draws clear lines between socialism, communism, state capitalism, social democracy, and Marxism, explaining their origins and historical evolution.
The Companion Book and Core Ideas
When read together, Understanding Marxism deepens this picture. It explores Marx’s analysis of capitalism, the origins of socialism, and the philosophical foundation that motivates it. Wolff does not try to overwhelm the reader with technical economics. Instead, he focuses on the essence of these ideas, their core and their meaning, making them approachable.
Reflection and Takeaway
One of the most powerful insights in the book is the intertwined relationship between socialism, Marxism, and capitalism. They are not absolute opposites. Each feeds on the lessons and failures of the other, evolving together toward an unknown future. This pragmatic and evolving view is often missing in modern discussions, yet Wolff presents it with honesty and depth.
“The human being is in the most literal sense a political animal, not merely a gregarious animal, but an animal that can individuate itself only in the midst of society.” - Karl Marx
April 26, 2024
I'm usually skeptical about reading about socialism or capitalism due to people having biases, especially on the political front. Nevertheless, as the book is relatively short - why not try it? And I'm happy with my choice.
The book's essence is that the way we understand socialism and capitalism is by our experiences, but not what they are. The people who lived in the USSR and PRC can only describe socialism by what they experienced. The same applies to people who are from countries with more economic liberty, less centralization, competition, private property, and so on.
In terms of socialism, we tend to see it as totalitarian, state-controlled countries that have little political, and civil freedoms and liberties for citizens. Another point of looking at socialism is through the lens of a more democratic economy. The workers decide the fate of a specific company or an organization they work in. How to produce? What to produce? Who manages or if anyone manage us? For how long do we work? What are our wages? All of these questions are answered by the employees. This concept or version of socialism is understandable and isn't utopic or unrealistic. In a sense, this modern type of socialism eradicated working for someone else, only in a specific organization or for yourself if the individual business wouldn't be contradictory for this type of socialism.
What interested me the most is how Wolff describes both Soviet-type socialism and capitalism, as if they are almost the same. Whether the employer or the worker is exploited by the state institutions, which are managed by the Politburos, or the private individuals whom managers manage. In both cases, the workers have no real choice (freedom) about their work and are subjects of their employees.
Wolff also mentions a few horseshoe theory moments that are worth reading, personally hard to believe; Stalin's distribution of land for people as private property. Overall, a good book.
The book's essence is that the way we understand socialism and capitalism is by our experiences, but not what they are. The people who lived in the USSR and PRC can only describe socialism by what they experienced. The same applies to people who are from countries with more economic liberty, less centralization, competition, private property, and so on.
In terms of socialism, we tend to see it as totalitarian, state-controlled countries that have little political, and civil freedoms and liberties for citizens. Another point of looking at socialism is through the lens of a more democratic economy. The workers decide the fate of a specific company or an organization they work in. How to produce? What to produce? Who manages or if anyone manage us? For how long do we work? What are our wages? All of these questions are answered by the employees. This concept or version of socialism is understandable and isn't utopic or unrealistic. In a sense, this modern type of socialism eradicated working for someone else, only in a specific organization or for yourself if the individual business wouldn't be contradictory for this type of socialism.
What interested me the most is how Wolff describes both Soviet-type socialism and capitalism, as if they are almost the same. Whether the employer or the worker is exploited by the state institutions, which are managed by the Politburos, or the private individuals whom managers manage. In both cases, the workers have no real choice (freedom) about their work and are subjects of their employees.
Wolff also mentions a few horseshoe theory moments that are worth reading, personally hard to believe; Stalin's distribution of land for people as private property. Overall, a good book.
June 15, 2023
This book lives up to its title. Wolff isn't really trying to make a case for Socialism; he's simply explaining how it is supposed to work, the origins, and examples of how it is has been attempted, especially in the modern era. Like most economic and political systems, the author helps readers realize that Socialism is more of an idea or concept that hasn't truly been implemented in its purest form, just like Democracy or even Communism for that matter.
One of the most interesting points Wolff makes is that Socialism is actually born out of a reaction to Capitalism, like a populist movement. He draws the distinctions between Socialism and Communism, which are often lumped together by Americans as a result of the threats (real and perceived) of the USSR, Cuba, China, and parts of Southeast Asia. He explains how Socialism has had a much greater impact on western Europe than it has on the U.S., but resistance is weakening in the 21st century.
He discusses at length the misperceptions of many Americans who linked the Fascist regimes of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, and Stalin with Socialism simply because these dictators falsely adopted the term to describe their authoritarian states, when in fact, they were extremely intolerant of socialists and had them put to death.
Most Americans probably still identify themselves as Capitalists from an economic standpoint, with the understanding that Capitalism is an economic model that operates within a Republic. They also don't consider the public welfare programs they participate in and benefit from to be elements of Socialism. Wolff hints that Americans are more comfortable with a hybrid system that incorporates multiple socio-political and economic models, which is probably appropriate for this Melting Pot.
One of the most interesting points Wolff makes is that Socialism is actually born out of a reaction to Capitalism, like a populist movement. He draws the distinctions between Socialism and Communism, which are often lumped together by Americans as a result of the threats (real and perceived) of the USSR, Cuba, China, and parts of Southeast Asia. He explains how Socialism has had a much greater impact on western Europe than it has on the U.S., but resistance is weakening in the 21st century.
He discusses at length the misperceptions of many Americans who linked the Fascist regimes of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, and Stalin with Socialism simply because these dictators falsely adopted the term to describe their authoritarian states, when in fact, they were extremely intolerant of socialists and had them put to death.
Most Americans probably still identify themselves as Capitalists from an economic standpoint, with the understanding that Capitalism is an economic model that operates within a Republic. They also don't consider the public welfare programs they participate in and benefit from to be elements of Socialism. Wolff hints that Americans are more comfortable with a hybrid system that incorporates multiple socio-political and economic models, which is probably appropriate for this Melting Pot.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews