I'd like to open my concerns and critique (but mostly concerns) with a look at one of Wolff's recent showings.
The article in question will be this one: truth-out.org
The main featured gems I want to look at are, in order:
>When workers collectively and democratically produce, receive and distribute the profits their labor generates, the enterprise becomes socialist
>[T]hese new cooperative enterprises would seek to solve problems such as how to organize their interdependencies with one another and with the public, how to relate to private and public property
>Different forms of societal socialisms will emerge: some with markets, private property and large corporations
Now, let us first discard the internal debate of which notions of socialism we adhere to (although, to clarify for your knowledge, it's apparent I follow the Marxist/materialist one, which posits that we can only call socialism that which abolishes all private property-systemic mechanisms entirely) and observe the multi-definitional contradictions in his commentary, and why this is probIematic to anyone's cause, whether you're a Marxcom, anarcho- or marksoc (or any ugh combination).
A simple starting point could begin at Wolff's already contradictory use of a combination of terms we all (I am fairly sure, or at least hope so; I'm trying to level with you here) reject, such as "private" and "collective" in the same breat, or "large corporations" alongside any mention of "socialism", truly. This indicates not just Wolff's laziness(?) or babying of his audience(really, which of the two is it? I respect Wolff a whole lot but is he here purposely confusing us out of laziness or does he take the idea of simple pedagogy to ridiculous degrees, but also that the mentality of Wolff and those like him (advocates pushing for some kind of idea of change with anti-capitalist language) inherently bring forth: that of at once very explicit about both critiquing and especially offering an alternative, but seemingly at the cost of any kind of consistency or affiliation.
Where the dangers, at least for me? Perhaps most importantly in the continuity of any of his motivations and their consistency. Do we want to rebreed "socialism" as a vague term meaning "any instance in which explicit notions of economic fairness, democracy, participation, etc. are central" (like socdems do and have actively shaped most of the world's understanding of it to)? Do we want to, more than anything, incite a vague movement for fairness primarily but at the cost of any consistency? Do we categorically reject a few base points in general just for the sake of mass appeal and do we, consequently, wish for a kind of organic new movement to come into existence and will we, once again consequently, accept the way it came to this simply because it was born of some kind of genuine interest in alternative politics?
Are the Marxists among us prepared to let Wolff, self-described Marxian economist, espouse ideas under the brand of Marx or Marxism even when they blatantly "revise" (I hate this shitty Stalinist term, but fuck is it accurate here) the Marxist legacy's fundamental conclusions, let alone the entire materialist philosophy's fundamentals themselves?
What about the anarchists; would they abandon their consistent theoretical opposition to structures of power just to see something happen?
What of even the marksocs, who see Wolff at once push for primarily cooperatives but at the same time breaking their notion of cooperatives as public/collective/personal property while seeing Wolff raise the possibility and pacifist attitude towards alongside-existing literal private corporations?
I want to end my post by explicitly (re)iterating that I do not in any way oppose Wolff's efforts in form, nor have any disrespect for him intellectually, and that this thread is mostly to be taken as a big "what is to be done (with)?" in regards to the building neo-egalitarian/vaguely anticapitalist (entryist, some) movements.