Does he have the will of the D. to topple the world elite?
Richard D. Wolff
ahh… this crusty old faggot
out of all the youtuber people, this was has GOT to be the most boring, the most annoying, the slowest, and the most empty guy on the planet
i see the views, i see he has like millions or whatever, i click on his hour long videos, and i learn NOTHING i didnt already know from reading 2 pages of an intro chapter
makes me think if this guy isnt just a plant to make the whole thing look bad, pretty sure if we had it the central committee would give him 40 years in the uranium mines for talking for hours without actually saying anything, if that isnt an act of sabotage i dont know what is
He covers current events. His show is about the news not about teaching theory. His goal is to provide the perspective theory gives you as a hook for people to get into socialism, using relatable and current topics to show people the contrast between bourgeois ideology and how you see things if you're a socialist. Again, not trying to teach socialism. He's trying to sell people on the merits of socialism by demonstrating how it gives you a better understanding/explanation of events than if you just by into mainstream politics/economics.
He sells the lie that capitalism can still be reformed through worker-coops, even though with a political revolutoin worker coops are useless as laws of competition would drive down wages even in a cooperative (evidenced by degredation of Mondragon). Wolff also aligns himself with David Harvey, who is a proven fraud that denies the fundamental tenet of Marxism of the working class being a vehicle of political revolution.
At the end of the day, Wolff will be unable to explain to the working class why they should align themselves with the bourgeois political parties or demonstrate in protests organized by unions proven to backstab workers, however as of now he serves as a gatekeeper for capitalism and it is the job of socialists to expose these frauds for what they are.
I've got my problems with Wolff, but I've never seen him say coops will reform or destroy or nullify capitalism.
This old canard? Wolff criticizes markets all the time (incompatible with co-ops as a solution) and talks more and more these days about violent revolutions happening if people can't get socialism through reform. You're talking out your ass.
Co-ops are far from the be-all end-all, but they're a very useful method of A) reducing the rate of profit by allocating more value to workers (hastening the falling rate of profit, i.e. accelerationism) and B) showing workers that running/owning the workplace is doable, particularly eroding some of the alienation problems that characterize capitalism.
Here he is talking about the market. Most precisely, he seems to think that a co-op economy would encourage a transition to socialism because the market really is planned by corporations, but if the workers are in control they'd be more likely to cooperate.
He's trying to provide a voice to as many perspectives in a discipline fraught with suppression in America. Michael Hudson has his own program on Democracy at Work that he sporadically updates as well, is he a proven fraud too?
In what way? What's Hudson wrong about exactly?
Oh Lawd! Someone call an ambulance! Richard "Co-opman" Wolff savagely tears new assholes in the smug, bratty, constantly-interrupting far-right libertarian (Bold TV) and neo-conservative (The Daily Caller) internet show hosts live on Bold TV's New York studio
>Bold TV: Is Socialism Inherently Bad?
Funny how the very people who castigate capitalism for reducing human judgement to measurement of rates of profit and growth go even further in this reduction when there's red flags present.
Wait, Wolff is a Dengist?
If you're going to talk to people you have to at least partially grant their premises. You're right, and in fact growth is a feature of capitalism (growth is good in contexts where development is needed but it's not a good in itself) while in socialism growth is lower and that's generally good. State capitalism can combine the growth of capitalism with the efficiency of planning the economy. I don't think he believes China is "real socialism" but is (in a Hegelian way) showing how the ideology is internally contradictory.
He very much does not. In fact he wrote a book about state capitalism in the USSR.
autistic leftcom anti-wolff gang btfo
Not a Leftcom as you can see but no, not really, considering the reason he considers the USSR to be state-capitalist is because it had no real worker control and no workplace democracy, not that commodity production still persisted. It's the leftoid take of hurr not real socialsim.
What do you mean by growth? Total nominal GDP? Or production output/innovation?
So feudalism was socialist?
No because the land was privately owned in exchange for servitude. Even in fucking modern China private ownership of land is illegal.
I call bullshit on that. I don't believe the USSR had no worker's control but it didn't have the type of control Wolff types fetishise, e.g. when you have to cast a ballot on who is going to clean the shitstains in the toilet.
Both the USSR and PRC ruthlessly crushed all labor unions almost immediately, with the PRC remaining infamous for its brutal stance toward organized labor, and turned the councils into powerless rubberstamp catspaws of the party.
if you actually read wolff's critique he emphasizes that the issue with workers control in the USSR had less to do with the lack of a formal voting process and instead the problem was that workers had no real control or influence over how labor and production was organized, which you can do without ballots. that's also why he talks about household dynamics and domestic labor in the USSR in his book
Capitalism will resort to inflating its numbers (GDP) but I'm talking about actual production here. The point is that once you are producing enough to meet people's needs you don't need to keep growing (in the general sense of things). In communism, you'd still see some growth because people would come up with new stuff to make, but you'd also see contraction as people figured out how to use things more efficiently and produce less (and in terms of numbers, more efficiency producing the same stuff equates to lower value-as-labor, and thus lower GDP). In capitalism you can't contract; you always have to grow. That's why you get an emphasis on disposability/replaceability. Once needs are met and growth isn't helpful for people, capitalism still needs growth so it'll hop on that planned obsolescence shit.
The whole idea of labour unions within a enterprise that you're supposed to own is redundant anyway, you should just be able to organise it like it were a capitalist co-operative.
On a side note there is a trade union in the UK that represents co-operative workers, though I think they're needed because a lot of co-ops in the UK are consumer co-operatives where the customers/members voting bloc is equal to that of the workers voting bloc.
This has always struck me as a bit of a sticking point. Think of it this way: Inside democratic governments, we have disagreements, based around sets of opinions that tend to be shared by groups of people, thus political parties arise. Inside democratic businesses (or, even moreso, under socialism where business and government are basically the same thing), the function of a labor union might best be fulfilled by something that also resembles political parties.
Essentially, there has to be some mechanism short of armed revolt or backroom dicksucking for new ideas to form, old ideas to be evaluated, and widespread policy grievances to be addressed. That's unions under capitalism, and probably something like multiparty democracy under socialism.