Richard Wolff goes on Fox Business to get berated by TV anchors

It's the American way!

Perhaps in content, but in presentation the ignorant viewers are just going to focus on the constant shock when he said that in order to make great change you need to break a few eggs.

for example, the lady didn't add anything to the conversation other than saying, "Oh my gosh you can't be serious! OH my gosh, are you being serious right now?!" while conveniently forgetting to provide an argument

Totally original joke, thought of it myself. You can use it some time if you like.

YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
YOU'RE KIDDING
THAT'S JUSTIFIED?
LIKE BREAKING EGGS
IS IT JUSTIFIED?
JUST LIKE YOUR PARADISE
YOU'RE KIDDING
YOU'RE KIDDING
INCOME TAX

Porky is triggered.

I know its hard on fox, but would have been nice if he hinted at America intentionally trying to fuck them up. It wouldn't be the first time the CIA did something like that, now would it?

I always have mixed feelings about these kind of appearances.

On the one hand, it's always great for a smart guy to get our message out there. On the other hand, it just further indicates that the bourgeoisie isn't taking us even remotely seriously to openly invite an an avowed Marxist economist for an interview.

literally the first question:

do these people even know what journalism is

Yeah this was a silly decision by Wolff. There is no gain for him going on Fox. He needs to restrict himself to TYT, RT, Telesur, etc. Actually I'm not sure he's been on TYT yet, because he should. He might convince a few people on there to go a little beyond social democracy and support worker co-ops and stuff. He definitely won't convince anyone of anything on Fox because of the framing and interruptions.

Who knows, maybe Wolff's appearance convinced a couple people to read more into socialism.
If you watch this clip and think socialism go BTFO, you're probably a lost cause anyway.

got, not go..

...

I notice any time you try to explain various socioeconomic factors why a "socialist" country might be struggling conservatives go "Oh, COME ON", or "Oh, please, you can't be serious…"

It's like these people are literally allergic to materialism. Or nuance. Or basic common sense.

Honestly the whole thing was a mistake.
As if anything meaningful would come out of a dialog about a complex issue in three minutes. At the very least it makes an analysis quick, which I guess would allow me to vent about the whole thing and bring some nice discussion into the thread for anyone who is interested. (Or didn't bother watching the video. Which is fine, it's garbage anyway)

Professor Wolff basically is explaining that the economic crisis is primarily caused by the significant drop in oil prices. I would have added a couple of things, like how Venezuela's industry is still predominantly privately owned, and that similar but more diversified economies such as Bolivia are doing just fine. He could also have pointed out how operations to sabotage Venezuela have been underway, and that the opposition is being funded by Venezuela's enemies, but still, his defense is alright.

The FOX crew respond by shrugging off his claims about the petroleum dependent economy by stating that petroleum alone shouldn't be enough to explain it, and that therefore it must to be due to the socialist dictatorship in Venezuela. It's worth pointing out that first they don't even explain why petroleum alone is insufficient, rather they simply act incredulous the whole time. Secondly, they point to a monolithic and vaguely defined "socialist dictatorship", completely devoid of any materialist perspective. (I'm not going to explain why a materialist perspective on this particular issue is best, since I imagine we're already on the same page with the matter) They could have perhaps helped their case by providing a reasonably specific explanation of what they thought a socialist economy is, and how Venezuela is being totalitarian, but that didn't. They chose to fall back onto buzzwords, not even able to meet the most basic requirements for a sound and valid argument.

Wolff responds by pointing out how other similar regions are struggling as well, places like Saudi Arabia. Wolff admits, Chavez has made mistakes, but stipulates that to make a genuinely drastic change to a country, as a socialist must, conflict is inevitable. His phrasing is poorly chosen, however, since he says, "You have to break a few eggs." which is immediately reacted with shock and even more incredulity.

Fox berates him on how violence is never justified, but this is in incredibly weak and ironic argument coming from right wing Americans.

Wolff points out that they would defend this point the same if it was something America was doing, in the Iraq War, for example. saying along the lines of, "Is it okay? No! But we go with in anyway because we need to"

Fox tries to rehash their previous "argument" telling him it isn't justified anyway, until his point finally seems to sink in and they stop and instead try to jump the gun on Wolff by changing the subject, asking him, "If you could change income tax right now. what would you change it to?"
The question is loaded, and poorly loaded at that. It can reasonably be assumed that FOX thinks socialism is just high taxes, given that the whole conversation is about socialism, anything they might ask then should have to do with socialism, right? Well, if that's the case then FOX already is demonstrating they don't even know what socialism is, for reason I'm sure all of us can obviously see. But even then, if they are referring to social democrat policies, they present the question as a set income tax, so that, no matter what he says, it would seem as if he advocates for raising taxes on the working class even if they're already in a precarious financial situation.

Cleverly, Wolff retorts be saying he'd prefer it if taxes were like they were in the 1960 and 50s with 90%, which is the time period most conservatives lust for as the "good times".

FOX asks him if he really believes that would be possible, for some reason that I couldn't really hear because of all the bullshit.

Wolff says it can, and then the interview ends. (Sorry for reddit spacing, it did it for readability).

(cont.)

Anyway, so the OP is right in my opinion, that Wolff destroyed them, but only in content of argument. If you look at the actual interview you can clearly see that FOX is relying on shitty rhetoric to win the three minute "debate." If you can wipe away all the interruption and non-arguments (such as all the shit "where's ur socialist paradise lol xdd") you can clearly see that FOX really has nothing. The problem is that Americans don't give a fuck about content. They only care about presentation, which is why they're so easy to manipulate. Just throw around some flags, pictures of WW2 soldiers and the statue of liberty, and start playing the anthem fancily and they'll start bawling like an moron and become useful idiots for porky in an instant.
I agree with , he needs to stick to platforms that will give him a chance. This achieves nothing.

The Wolff could redpill my grandma.

it's not? public industry makes ~3/4 of Venezuela's GDP.
what evidence is there of CIA fuckery in Venezuela?
I'm not on FOX's side or anything, but these don't seem like very good convincing arguments

The Democracy at Work Youtube channel just uploaded some more footage of Wolff being on Fox News if anyone wants to watch:
youtube.com/watch?v=SB2-4F758Yo

...

I think you have to backwards, 1/3 is public and 2/3 is private.

Yes they do, all journalist have an agenda and facts are only told after being filtered by that agenda. You can't expect a journalist to ever tell the truth about anything.

you should be. it's not necessary for your post to take up this much space on my browser

I'd rather you have to scroll for a few more seconds than have any potential readers dig through a giant block of text. Tip: if you don't want to deal with a post that's too big or obnoxious, just click on the blue arrow on the top left of the post and click, "hide post"

He's probably only busting your balls because you said it. It's people who reddit space several hundred characters that need to be put in a gulag.

It's really crazy that there are still democratic socialists when Chavez's movement is living proof that it doesn't work.

No one can question that Chavez was genuinely committed to building socialism in Venezuela; but he tried to do it through a bourgeois state apparatus, which is fundamentally impossible. The choice was revolution or stagnation and he chose stagnation.

Holy shit, literally Carl The Cuck: Horshoe Theory edition.

Even fox news claims 2/3rds are privately owned.
foxnews.com/world/2010/07/18/socialism-private-sector-dominates-venezuelan-economy-despite-chavez-crusade.html

As for US intervention, here:
telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Tracking-US-Intervention-in-Venezuela-Since-2002-20151117-0045.html

Also, I don't know if you realize but you're basically saying that even though most of the economy is privately owned, most of Venezuela's income comes from the public sector– you're basically pointing out how inefficient Venesuela's private sector is.

youtube.com/watch?v=SB2-4F758Yo

kek'd

...

How much longer comrades?

:P AMERICA, FUCK YEAH

They're coming buckos

He made two big mistakes: one was not immediately refuting the Venezuela is Socialist or remotely Socialist, and how it's just a Social Democracy just like Sweden. Two was using the fucking omelet metaphor, it's literally a cliche for being callous about being vicious or violent; if he wanted to support what Chavez did (which is probably not a good idea coming from a Marxist since it makes it appear like social democracy is socialism), he should've said innocents unfortunately usually are harmed during the effort to create good radical changes, and he could've scored some sick points by using the American Revolution as an example.

I see American anchors do this so much, like Bill O Riley. They let the guest speak for a little while, then just before he finishes they start laughing and condescendingly telling him "oh you can't be serious, let me tell you how it really is you naive idiot". No journalistic integrity whatsoever.

PAPAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!

Fucking idiot showed weakness when he backpedalled on his "breaking eggs" comment. Venezuela's actions are absolutely justified if it brings the country out of poverty.

That host is always so terrible. Wow, that "definition" of socialism… Scary how many Americans actually believe that hogwash.

Don't worry about "reddit spacing". That's really just a meme. Making your post presentable should be priority, and you're right, it's more readable that way.

...

The patience of a fucking saint.

From Venezuelan leftists, it sounds even more nuanced than just "oil prices". They say everyone knew oil reliance was a problem years ago, including Chavez. It's likely this is incompetence both by chavez and maduro, and that is its own issue. If the party is going to make bad choices, and they're effectively making decisions because workers aren't actually in control of industry or the state, then this is on them for being bad at governing. That should be admitted instead of saying "this could be a good socialist government, it's just oil prices and capitalist sabotage"

...

This, but I think he shouldn't just say "Venezuela isn't socialist" because that is a meme. He needs to attack Chavez and Maduro for their bad choices directly. He needs to say, "the problem with Venezuela is there is a government that is in power which had a mandate for years, and it took that power and mishandled it in X and X ways. For instance, Venezuela's economy was reliant on petroleum and the government didn't address that, it instituted ill conceived price controls as a means to deliver food etc." after that he can give a kind of solution by saying what needs to be done, is either a new government needs to come in with the people's interest in mind that is more capable than maduro's, or power needs to be shifted to the workers.

All of this to surprise the viewer and hosts in the sense that Wolff is apparently giving reasonable explanations for how they fucked up the economy, and then he can basically describe what WOULD BE socialism (ie, power to the workers). He would demonstrate the point rather than just saying it so instead of attacking the "oh you always say this" they'd have to address the content of the point. Either they can disagree that worker control is any solution, or they'd have to somehow demonstrate that workers are in control, which clearly isn't the case.

But this is a 3 minute long segment so I honestly don't know if he'd even have time to say that much. But he was unlikely to win anyone over either way.

I honestly don't know how some people can tolerate the level of unbelievably insulting condescension and "discourse" on American news stations.

Yeah, he's an economist, not a historian or political science. Not sure if he was even the most appropriate person to interview about Venezuela.
At least he tried (and failed) to keep the subject on the economy.

In fact Wolff does have a degree in history.

Two, actually. BA and MA.

Brainwashing. I'm pretty sure some people regardless of intelligence (although it plays a role) are more open to it than others. Probably something to do with brain formation.

The guy on the left needs to swing from a lamp post.

Part of me feels like people simply shouldn't go on these shows that have no aspirations whatsoever to be attempting real journalism. Wolff's presence on Fox Business legitimizes them as more than the propaganda they should be seen as.

Was this before the segment? He behaves completely differently, almost makes you think that he was told to act harsher towards the Marxist.

He took a note from Trump and ran for leader of Conservative Party of Canada a few months ago. Read up on educational computer games in the '90s to find out how much of a scumbag he is.

It's tricky to say, a lot of the viewers are dug in, but a lot of people can start becoming savvy to politics when they realize the guy on TV is getting browbeaten and can't get a word in. The conversion rate for the true believers stays the same, but it inserts some doubt into the minds of others.
Got fuck all to back this up, but people warmed to Corbyn when they noticed this happening. He also greatly benefited from the media being under regulation during election time though, forcing them to drop their bullshit massively and making a lot of people think "Wait this guy isn't actually Statler".

I hate how capitalists talks about socialism. They act like if it was a game mode that magically killed peoples. is right, we we should talk about specific actions and their consequences.

This is why I hate mainstream media. Why tf would you invite someone to be interviewed if you're just going to berate them with your opinion without allowing them to explain their own? The same shit happens n MSNBC daily. News is no longer about news. It's about emotion.

kill me

it was planned that way. Every big news source is on the payroll of someone with a political agenda. They do this to make the other side look stupid.

...

Isn't he the guy that walked around wallstreet telling protesters that socialism is what's killing economy after equating it to nazism?

He's there to play the role of the "marxist professor who is brainwashing your grandchildren."

And then his attitude is complete different in this other debate. There's definitely some premeditation going on here

...

I don't get it.

youtube.com/watch?v=AuqemytQ5QA

[Host's jaw literally drops]

Fucking pure ideology from that porky apologist piece of shit host

Holy shit it IS that fucking guy! He goes up against the wall, for sure.

These people get paid millions for this. Let that sink in.

That's Canadian news!! And yes, O'leary is garbage.

I didn't know they had Hedges on before.

goddamn, Hedges crushed it. Why doesn't leftypol talk about him more? He is awesome

He said mean things about the Black Bloc Society.

He's pretty cool and a good entry point for libs, but he's really not that left-wing. Just listen to what he say at 4:10.

I dunno, I think he really didn't want to associate himself with the liberal establishment, but the guy is obviously left-wing. I'm currently reading death of the liberal class and I think its good.

Also, pretty sure he's advocated for worker co-ops and stuff. At any rate he is anti-corporate and anti-war.

I grow more and more Tankie every day

Fucker destroyed The Learning Company and Mattel/Hasbro.
The operators of TLC were literally schoolteachers that started it in their basement, and tried to make things for kids that weren't all runny-jumpy-shooty games which turned kids into gibbering retarded vidya junkies like flappy bird almost did. They made quality and intelligent shit like Oregon Trail and Math Rabbit and even Think Quick. I grew up laying those games and always wondered what happened to them.
O'Leary got rich by buying up troubled educational software companies, laying off the R&D staff, and underselling other companies. Quality software that would have its own box would get bundled into cereal boxes like Chinese plastic crap. His company got so big buying up all the others, when it was sold to Mattel, it was at least a couple billion, and when it imploded, it was so bad that the valuation dropped at least 20-fold. He had to pay shittons in settlements. Fucker should get called out on it publicly if possible.

>Has a prepared answer even for such a stupid question, and it BTFOs the status quo by pointing out that it used to be as high as 90%

I don't know whether I'm more pleased with Wolff's performance or the hosts' fumbling.