Robert Pyotr Wolff


Robert Pyotr Wolff is the amalgamation of three thinkers and academics: Robert M. Sapolsky, Pyotr A. Kropotkin and Richard D. Wolff.

Robert Pyotr Wolff writes mostly under the fields of Political-Economic Culturalism as well as Cultural and Economic Philosophy. His driving motivation is to present ideas on how human beings can learn to celebrate and incorporate their individual differences into a cultural, political and economic framework. There are three important facets of this drive.

First is his conceptual understanding of human culture and identity as forming along lines analogous to the workings of neural networks, in that close-knit groups and communities share similar, established-type information very rapidly in order to both coordinate efficiently and maintain socioeconomic bonds, while each member of the community has the capability to reach out to members of other “networks” randomly, or come up with random connections within their own networks, which facilitates the formation of new ideas. Established-type information is information that fits in with what is already known or thought to be known, and which any individual in a group can access, making it the backbone of both cultural identity and scientific knowledge. This of course means that human beings are notoriously proficient at creating ingroups and outgroups, as they are terribly efficient at discerning between established categories, but not between unestablished categories. It is important, therefore, that humans are encouraged to reach out more and more, so as to dissolve categories that lead to, e.g., sexism, racism and xenophobia.

Second is his firm belief that human beings are more creative, productive and willing to contribute when they see that their work serves dual purposes: to help others out through mutual aid and to have a place in society. Both of these are both means and ends, and as such are better achieved when no single person or group of people are in charge of planning, and when there is no blueprint for how things get done. This doesn’t mean that a group of individuals cannot come together and create blueprints in literal or figurative terms, such as for buildings, machines or software, or, for that matter, production lines or editing boards, nor is any individual restricted from doing so alone. The core idea remains, however, that such blueprints must be understood within the whole of a blueprintless society, and that each blueprint can be called into question by other members. To these ends direct, deliberative democracy becomes necessary, but is sufficient only so long as it includes democratic mechanisms for producing and enacting moral economic rules and norms that guide people, so that efficient, blueprintless, human systems emerge.

The final facet is the simplest, and yet, for many, most difficult to follow: the Socratic “I know nothing”. A caveat of this idea is that a lot of what we think we know has to be unlearned. The atheist exemplifies this idea most readily: Most atheists unlearn that a god exists, as opposed to growing up atheist. This, again, is a very simple idea, and yet difficult to follow. In uncertainty most people will err towards that which as been established, and thus uncertainty, or, better said, evidence for both sides of a fact in question, brings us to the belief in god; the question of a god shows us how false this tendency is: In uncertainty it makes much more sense to disbelieve, for belief merely complicates matters. Like Occam’s razor, if ever something can neither be proven nor disproven, such as a god’s existence, then disbelief should follow. Once this is established it becomes clear that belief in god was only ever a false belief in the first place: Not that people didn’t believe, but because they weighed established evidence more heavily than, say, scientific evidence. You only need ask yourself why you belief in religion A and not religion B. Other things to unlearn are the necessity of a state and the inevitability of capitalism.