EVERYBODY GET IN HERE
Do you think that Jordan Peterson would be enough of a sucker to allow Wolf to intellectually beat him down in a debate like the palooka he is after what Zizek did to him?
Wolff is unknown outside of niche leftist circles. His yt channel doesn't even have 100k subs after god knows how many years since its foundation. Peterson probably considers himself "too important" to give the time of the day to an unknown Marxist professor.
If he was too much of a chickenshit to debate Wolff before, he's even more of one after that savage beating Zizek gave him. It's too bad, unlike Zizek, Wolff actually has a degree in history and would be more than happy to directly debunk Peterson's misinformed idiocy.
Peterson already proved he's a brainlet when it comes to actual political economy, we don't need to rub it in further.
I would rather see a series of debates on the left between people like Wolff, Michael Roberts, etc. discussing contemporary theory and strategy for achiveing socialism (co-ops vs. unions, planning vs. markets, abolishing wage labor and abstract value, and so on). Too many people don't get exposed to this shit and the only people discussing it are obscure podcasters and Youtube lecturers.
Wolff challenged him and people tweeted Peterson about it. He's had the opportunity and he didn't respond.
If Peterson got defeated by Zizek just memeing around; I doubt he will be up for debating Wolff.
Peterson's fans did not see it as a defeat, for them it was just a verification of their delusions about Peterson's status as an intellectual. "See, he had such a friendly chat with an actual philosopher, now you have to take him seriously" was the dominant take of his fans.
I agree. These so-called debates between people who have diametrically opposed worldviews are a waste of time.
They are entertainment, which is all that youtube is good for.
Please do something with this.
Ah yes, this crusty faggot. I'm not interested, his strategy sucks. Join your local Marxist-Leninist party instead of listening to patreon beggars.
Wolff distorts Marxism. You don't have to talk the working class as if they are drunk regards. The while shtick "CO-OPS MAN" is regarded because it obscures the actual character of capitalism and replaces it with a model where you vote on who has to clean the pipes tomorrow. Golly gee, that will surely abolish alienation, will it?
It's perfectly reasonable. You need money if you want to agitate. I'm personally pissed at some comrades of mine who think it is okay that we declare ourselves as the vanguard when they donate 5€ a month
If you can't make a sacrifice, don't try to change the world
Now this is how you win over the working class, amirite?
Explain to me how to build dual power and gain political power when you are poor as fuck
I would but those have been taken by literal CIA and unironic mentally ill coloured haired freaks.
nigga those pics are demanding a regressive donation rate. What the fuck are they even doing with that money? You're better off asking for time and labor because if you build dual power based on labor (rather than a portion of your wage) you can do equivalent exchange instead of gimping yourself to whatever degree the porkies are exploiting your members.
This is basic fucking math.
I'm sorry you live in America.
on which levels of idealism are you on? This isn't 40s China, you need to have cash to achieve something. My national Maoist party punches above their weight (low numbers, cult) because they receive huge donations.
In case you don't know, labour time is literally a commodity in late capitalism. So the whole argument of "give labour but no money" is completely retarded
I'll spell it out:
>to produce X dollars of dollars, the members do that much labor plus whatever porky takes as surplus before paying that much in dollars
You're fucking retarded if this looks like a winning strategy, especially since doing labor doesn't directly require engagement with the capitalist economy while using dollars does. Instead of demanding your members to pay through the nose you should be looking for skilled workers to recruit by offering them labor they value in exchange for labor they can do for the party.
Holy shit man. You use money to buy property, to hire people to post your posters, to publish your works or just generally organise. Do you think we are living in the 1840s frontier era? With the massive division of labour in capitalism, it's not only resource-friendly but also more effective if you hire people to do these tasks for you. It increases your influence, your reach, you get a blue check on Twitter. Money is power, this isn't controversial. Again, don't project the conditions of 1940s China onto the United States.
If you are a hippie and don't want to engage with capitalism because it hurts your feefees go get your cabin in the woods
Not if you're not financially comfortable.
Is this a low key "antifa is fumded by Soros"?
If that's why you're pissed then you've got some more issues bucko.
A week's pay to support various elections, podcasts, and sending Brian Becker's kids to college isn't changing the world, it's getting scammed.
Of course, if anything interests the working class it's a socdem platform that has no chance of being implemented or Abby Martin's bf getting a show on Sputnik. That'll bring in the working class in droves, and if it doesn't they're petit-bourg lumpen imperialists and probably CIA.
Tankie strategy sucks. Join your local Maoist Third Worldist party instead of listening to ML beggars.
I don't get what the fuck paying money to a political party is in the first place, unless that money is used to buy guns for next Tuesdays White House invasion then there's no reason everyone has to chip in money for something that's mostly independently organized.
Don't forget to give your first newborn to Bob Avakian!
GANG GANG GANG
Having a party that acts bourgeois is your solution to everything.
After re-reading the PSL requirements I do agree it's too much. But I'm not a shill for the PSL, they seem to be just another Marcyite party which split from the WWP with a lot of woke Twitter types in it. But that doesn't change the fact that you need money, and if you have a full-time job in a Western country 5€ per month is a fucking joke. And I can get pissed about it especially when said persons constantly hold speeches about a great revolution when they can't even abstain from two McDonald's menus for 15 bucks and to give it to the party. Stalin literally robbed banks and trains to get funds.
You know, that's called embezzlement and if that were true he could be sued.
That's probably because you are mentally deficient.
You can raise money where necessary but you shoot yourself in the foot if you build a party based on fundraising instead of volunteer work. It's just math.
People that work for the party can receive all those donations in wages. So it really depends on the work they're doing
So how many blue checkmarks on twitter do we need before we achieve full communism comrade?
Retarded people should help intellectuals instead because the latter are more delusional. Despite leftpols claims, people with lower Autism Level tend to be less inclined towards homosexuality and behavior that's intrusive to their culture. This goes all the way from hillbillies to middle East Muslims to subsaharan African tribes.
Now my reply makes no sense. But you get the gist.
It's because most "intellectuals" are nothing more than sophists.
I think his wife might be a crypto reactionary. In this video about Catholic sex abuse, she leads with the "gays = pedos" and "gays = misogynists" arguments to explain pedophile priests, and leaves cyclical abuse as a later argument that she gives less weight. She points out that it's only boys getting abused because there's no altar girls or equivalent, which addresses her initial points, but she still leads with the explanation that it's patriarchal homos.
Does she not know the history of conflating gays with child rapists or is she complicit in propagating this idpol bigotry?
I don't know, after about a year of her rehashing the same arguments every few months I just stopped listening eventually. She made some decent points about capitalism blowing up the traditional family and such (which Wolff himself has always made, perhaps due to her influence), but it seems like she ran out of insights.
Marxist feminism's insights are dubious at best (let's graft a critique of feudalism onto the nuclear family), so the less content that needs to be debunked as horseshit the better. I was just kind of taken aback to hear some old school anti-gay talking points coming from a "marxist feminist" in such an opportunistic way.
People tend to forget that capitalism is a progressive force. Getting rid of the "nuclear" family is a good thing, just like getting rid of aristocracy and the divine right of the kings was.
Reminder that "nuclear family" isn't "traditional family" but an atomized version.
they are both shit tho
OK but you should probably try to be accurate and precise when doing social criticism.
Things not being correct, doesn't mean they aren't true. There's a long history of associating gays with venal diseases, that doesn't mean aids is made up by bigots.
Know the difference, it might save your life.
Quit making the board's users look like a right-wing stereotype of us.
You're inability to differentiate between correctness and truth makes you do exactly that.
Oh god, it's sex vs. gender all over again.
i wish he was my uncle. could you imagine giving a big hug to rich on thanksgiving and then getting trashed and shooting the shit with him?
Google bacha bazi
Gays make up a disproportionate amount of pedophiles and there's a strong correlation between being diddled as a kid and growing up gay. Not to mention NAMBLA was a crucial player in the early gay right movement until they got kicked to the curb for optics
Only because it's not considered pedophilia when a woman does it.
No there isn't.
Yeah, optics are the reason not to associate with child molesters.
That's not how big co-ops work. There's a billion dollar retail co-op in my area and the members just vote for the board of directors and that's it. The directors then delegate the management of the company. It is basically run like any other business except equity of the company is held in a trust managed by the directors.
Having spoke to these same employees about 5 or 6 out of the 10 working in my local branch, none of them had a clue as to what kind of business that they were working for and didn't even vote. It was basically no different to working for any other private business ie they were low paid drones working under the ire of their manager, getting a "dividend" and voting for their board of directors literally seemed pointless to them.
As someone who wants to promote co-ops and get rid of shareholder parasitism within capitalism, I could tell they didn't share my zeal, ultimately they work for a living and working for a co-operative didn't confer them any discernable substantive benefit than they would have got from working for some other low paying retail store.
I felt more embarrassed when said co-operative sold off one of their retail stores less than a mile away without consulting the employees there, which further diminished the idea that said workers were autonomous and worked for themselves.
I want to invoke Bordiga when he said something like "socialism isn't a change of management" or something to that effect.
Well, obviously co-ops in socialism would function differently, or even in Yugoslavia there wasn't that much apathy, but this is how co-op function in capitalism and I have heard nothing of Wolff that would move beyond that level. I think his shtick is not only revisionist, it's also really easy to counter. "How do you know workers are even interested in running the businesses or want to share the risk? Why dont they buy shares then" is usually brought up from the conservative side, and I found nothing in Wolff's ideology that found pose a response that.
His economic updates are also not that insightful, I don't know if he's a good economist, his explanation of the LTV on Google Talks was quite lacking as well. Honestly not a fan
His target audience is normie NPCs. He pointedly keeps it very simple. If you're not interested in that, fine. Personally I watch his stuff to get ideas how to talk to people who are unfamiliar with these topics more than anything.
The key is worker co-operatives.
Looks like papa Wolff had a big debate on Fox Business recently and user forgot to tell me:
Can people who unironically say yikes get shot?
Yikes, that's a bit harsh, don't you think?
what a retard
I never said you were, retard
An hour of the laziest most tired fallacies and straw men the right has been throwing at the left since the first Red Scare. Can these retards really not come up with better arguments? Their audience was practically laughing in their faces at every retarded response. I'm surprised Fox doesn't seem to have packed the audience with shills.
They don't have too. Those tired fallacies still work pretty well to this day.
Also the audience wasn't firmly tending to any side, they clapped and agreed with the old fart porky sitting there plenty of times, you just saw what you wanted to see.
bruh they interrupted the socialist side so much even the ad breaks were placed to cut them off
In spite of all the obstructionism, a pretty decent performance. About the worst thing they didn't directly dispute was the "muh buttstraps" argument, which uses the hard work of many capitalists to justify their success, while ignoring that equally hardworking and deserving competitors failed, simply because the zero sum structure of capitalism itself restricts the number of slots available for the fulfillment of human potential, leaving the final gate of success for capitalists up to sheer dumb luck.
by greater society, this is true. most people are self-centered by nature and you expect people to work democratically? you're outta your mind. society, not just men, place greater expectations on other men to be just, women just "are"
Is it a meme if it is true tho?
Go to any "leftist" association in america and that's exactly what you will see.
well in murica there definitely are many freaks, but right political movememts are also full of people like this
Basically any activist movement that isn't directly tied to a concrete immediate program, such as a labor or renter's union, tends to end up dominated by LARPers.
ML's ruined socialism, now it's become just a name for welfare capitalism
JULY UPDATE NOW
What are some examples that Wolff is referencing when he talks about past societies regularly rotating land control to prevent dominant oligarchs from emerging?
There aren't any examples of that. The old man is just bullshitting.