He goes past muh co-ops. Way past it.

Other urls found in this thread:

man i love his voice

ugh. I'm about to go to sleep. jus tell me what he says that's 'full left'

Is there any examples of Wolff actually stating and defending that co-op = socialism?
Because from what I can tell he just uses it as something to appeal to normies and hopes that co-ops could help strengthen a socialist movement

well cooperative enterprises are the end goal for the management of labor anyways.

Marx wasn't against them, stop this meme.

does he go as left as say david harvey or fredric jameson?

He goes into a pretty long tirade about central planning and how it doesn't have the instability of capitalism. And he goes on to talk a lot about how capitalist politicians will never fix the problem of instability, because the only way to fix the problem of instability is to abolish capitalism.


central planning will be good once there is Full Automation and a post-scarcity

Punished Wolff

The world's population is 7.5 billion. We make enough food to feed 12 billion people, but almost half of it is wasted.
Also, there are 6 empty houses for each homeless person in the US. And 5 of them are owned by banks.

In capitalism, the only thing post-scarcity is ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY. Which is where we are now.

okay good. now we just need full automation and communism will be good to go.

Also, we can feed everyone, but I'd rather not eat rice for every meal or have my standard of living go into the toilet just to survive.

It will be good now, yesterday, 1971. technology/resources are in no sense an obstacle today

You will clean the streets, it's good exercise.

can farm equipment collect all food automatically, and then drones drop baskets at the door to each of our house today? I guess that is probably possible without porky. Also in the baskets

okay, but what if say a new innovation or invention was introduced. say an inventor builds the first PC in a communist society, how would he be able to peddle it without using wage-labor to support his high-demand low-supply product?
okay then, what if they say "no"?

i already clean for a living and eat steak and sushi and chikenwings etc etc every day.

Also, the baskets should include any books, fine art supplies, poetry, and cameras etc that weorder each day when we want to develop our unique and varied abilities like Marx wanted us to.


Central planning is a terrible idea even if you can get it to distribute resources more efficiently. Decentralized planning, independent self management, or markets are the only proper systems for resource distribution.

The Statue of Liberty will cry in the corner of the panel

It should be a combination of the two. Central planning gives us our food and houses and basic supplies, everything we need to llve a normal life.

this insures stability and safety and makes sure porky can't get in.

then outside distribution and decentralization exist as well for variety and specialty

Notice my flag. I'm a market socialist. I want self-directed worker cooperatives to be the dominant form of production. Even the Soviet Union didn't have a 100% planned economy, they had a worker coop sector where entrepreneurial Soviets could take a chance on making some niche good. And if it was successful, then the central planning authority would incorporate it into the plan.
Somebody with more USSR knowledge come in and correct me if I'm wrong on how that worked. It's not my area of expertise.

That's true, technological progress would be directed to very different ends. There's no reason it had to be iPhones instead of automated farming equipment, even Moore's Law has broken down after holding for ~40 years because there just wasn't the demand for more processing power per core.

whats your opinion on shares?

everything should be free and delivered by robots and central planners hsould coordinate it

Shares as in… shares in a company?

Hadn't the Wolff been tamed?

Not him, but the market socialist position is that they shouldn't exist, and only employees of a business have access to the profits of a business.

Can't fuckin' tame the Woffman.

well im thinking about the issues that might arise when tryring to take important decisions for the organization of really really big cooperatives

the Wolff is out

im talking about employee-only shares

Each worker has one share that cannot be sold, and is null when that person's term of work is done with the coop (by retirement, resignation, or ejection).

The workers have elections to pick a council of workers, who will preside over the enterprise just like a modern Board of Directors does.

The workers council makes decisions regarding the executive staff, just like a modern Board of Directors does - picking a CEO/CFO/CTO etc.

The structure isn't very different from what you're used to, but the incentive structure is radically different. A current corporation's incentive is to cut costs at the expense of the workers because the Board of Directors is elected by shareholders that don't work there and just want money.

A Worker's Council has incentive to make quality of life as high as possible for the workers because the workers have the power to fucking fire them.

a centrally planned, fully automated production of basic necessities is still needed here. Decisions like 3 day weeks, and deciding to start work at noon, and produce 10% of what porky forced will be inevitable if the workers want to maximize leisure time + don't commit to hard labor to get something boring done (like steel manufacturing or logging, which no one will want to work hard at)

full automation is a meme. we need to go further. what we need is a society thats no longer based around commodity production. a society were people are able to create their own conditions and no longer have to suffer from alienation. read the situationists, charles fourier and walter benjamin for glimpses of a post capitalist society, we have to go beyond production and consumption and realise the potential of our species being. I feel automation memers underestimate humanity.

I feel like you're being a humanist right now, and mirroring capital in that we need to realize(aka Work) to reach a potential of species being that includes creating conditions of our existence (the first premise of all history from the German Ideology). You're only shifting the work to be controlled by the people, like some kind of hunting gathering society with machines.

sounds boring! and I don't want to garden!

I like News From Nowhere as a model

What will actually happen is that the shit jobs nobody wants will become more valuable per hour, and so the workers will do fewer hours of them each. So instead of garbage men working 5 days a week and barely getting by, there will be 5 times as many garbage men who only work 1 day per week and live comfortably.

Let's go even further than you want, let's go all the way past production.

For Baudrillard, Marx did not transcend political economy but merely saw its reverse or its “mirror” side. Marxism merely strengthens political economy’s basic propositions, in particular the idea that self-creation is performed through productive, non-alienated labor. In Baudrillard’s words, “[Marxism] convinces men that they are alienated by the sale of their labor power, thus censoring the much more radical hypothesis that they might be alienated as labor power.” Baudrillard proposes to liberate workers from their "labor value" and think in terms other than production.

No, since it means that higher paid emplyees will be able to buy more shares in the company and eventually become its legal owners.

Under market socialism pay essentially amounts to "equal dividends, (probably) unequal wages". Whether the latter is the case depends on what the workers as a whole decide.

What we need to do is convert literally every inch of mankind's infrastructure, from the buildings, to the streets, to the farms, to the devices in out hands into a singular, self-operating, self-maintaining system, and self-growing system that renders humanity itself obsolete and proceeds to consume the universe.

So what are the details of this proposal?

What the fuck, user


no, no, i mean one share per employee

Isn't that like syndicates work?

What i find troubling is that:

1- You always end up having to mirror hierarchical structures, hierarchical structures concentrate power, power corrupts, corrupted people exploit.

2- When you mystify and create idealistic narratives around your hierarchic-mirror you automatically creates incentive for alienating practices against dissenters of the upper levels of the hierarchy

This is a pretty old video, where ya been OP?


the details are FALC. the problem is not "The Boss" the problem is The Firm

I'm not an idiot, I understand that any new system will have its faults. But it's damn near impossible to build a new system with faults greater than those of our current system, so fuck it. Might as well.

And yeah, it's a lot like syndicalism, except syndicalism includes the abolition of the commodity form of production.

that's your choice man, what if someone else wants to garden? technology can also be a tool of totalitarian control, this is what i've always disliked about althusserfags and their impulse to stamp out humanism as if it was evil or something. The history of the human subject is way more complicated than you think. Marx remained a humanism towards the end of his life, read his letters on the Russian Mir for example. Antihumanism has obvious authoritarian tendency, there's a reason why the managers of our society are so fond of the death of the human subject. Althusser was an apologist for the post-tankie/eurocommunist party and his history of ideas and reading of Marx reflects that fact.

muh humanism is the althusserian's version of muh spooks.

The recording happened last year, the video you linked it a cut and re-upload by someone else.

Here's the original:


Well damn, I stand corrected.

Shit's popping off, mane.

humanism is used just as often to keep people working b/c that is what humans are meant to be doing, and it fetishizes work, obscuring our true potentials, it's pretty succdem, but i agree moving past humanism get's pretty nuts and ultraleft

no i think he had just literally given up on agency in favour of structuralism, probably more than anyone else along the poles of that old and unfinished debate. Of course, the neoliberals and right-libertarians are on the exact opposite pole to be sure.


Everyone should have their own reality TV show, thus allowing them to manipulate the hyper-real.

It's either autists or COINTEL trying to get people to not like him. If it's the former they fundamentally don't understand what he's doing (talking to normies and doing an intro to a lefty view of capitalism).


in fact, the ultraleft tends to be 'humanist' more often than so, see Dunayevskaya for example. I see no reason for outright rejecting 'humanism', a concept with a long and complicated history that has also been used for emancipatory and leftist purposes.


During May 68 Althusser condemned the protests and the occupation of the universities. He was after a man who believed in the value of academia and the professional philosopher: the students and workers should get off the barricades, attend his lectures and learn to love the orthodox ML party in parliament.

maybe the debate between individualism and collectivism can only be solved through revolutionary praxis. It cannot be solved theoretically, not even by a Hayek or an Althusser.

Ultra left is more "humanist"

I'm pretty sure he's always been a fullblown Communist. I mean, the books he wrote with Stephen Resnick seem like Althusserian/ML type stuff. Maybe I'm wrong, but he seems like he's always been pretty far to the Left, I think the co-op thing is just a way to talk to normies, or a form of entryism.

He's been hiding his power level for years, for sure.

He sounds like he's sick of this shit, that's why his power level is showing

is this a god damn?


Should really watch the original here, Wolff gives some insightful answers to audience questions.

Trips and dubs for truth!

Never thought it would be the Mutualists to out-crazy the NazBol's.

This is literally his goal, anyone who hates on Wolff for pushing the "co-op=socialism" thing have never listened to him


bump to beat slide threads

It doesn't. Trade unionism just turns workplaces fully managed by the workers through unions. They don't transcend commodity production at all.

Ive been telling you this for over 2 years now.

He remains a red liberal

What said
The streets of the cities are lined with sushi, see 1 min mark
Also from that video

Also 1:24, the presenter is /ourguy/


I was just reading about URRS today, it seems there was 30.000 private business but they were co-ops

Cuba is also going for it now

Maybe he's onto something

Full automation is from 125 to never years to happen. If you want to wait for that, go to sleep now

wew these comments

sorry to break the circlejerk but i don't think he went beyond co-ops at all, in the sense that he suggests things that co-ops are just as much made of.

at about 23 minutes in he starts to talk about the underconsumption argument, which is very weak. he then says that the way "socialism" can solve the "anarchy of production" is by central planning. he also insinuates that cuba, the USSR, etc were all positive examples of this central planning. this is probIematic, if he considers himself a marxist, because the problem with capitalism isn't the management of the system. it is how production is organised; not because of the "anarchy of the market" (although that can play a part, it is not essential and you may have capitalism centrally managed). a state cannot fix the internal crises of capital either, especially if it takes on a "positive role" as espoused by wolff (20th century communism be our witness). and honestly what is the difference between what wolff is proposing here and keynesianism? it just seems like socdem proposal of state intervention in the market.

he presents capitalism as being at odds with the bosses, like i alluded to before. his "solution" does not differ from social democracy - something that should be obvious when he believes that the new deal was repealed because of the "strong capitalists". Hhe proposes that the only solution is to bring back social-democracy lol. how can a guy who is supposed to know this stuff his whole life not look beyond chapter 3 of the communist manifesto and realise the garbage he is sprouting? the answer that he provides does not "get rid of capitalism". capitalism is not a sliding scale, it's binary. if he was truly representing the arguments that he claims to, he wouldn't bother a lot with underconsumptionist arguments or endorsing social-democracy.

what wolff is well worth is his economic update weekly/monthly vids which are excellent and shine a light on some awful things relating to capital neatly into a digestible format, but he is otherwise worthless in the alternatives he suggests, let alone truly understanding where they originate and what they essentially consist of, much less for the idealist notion of "spreading socialist ideals". the only solution I can think of is that he is someone who is falsifying or trying to "modernize" marx for his own gain.

Can you describe how he went way past co-ops and revealed his power level? It's late and I don't wanna listen to another Wolff lecture.

My money's on cointelpro

Read Marx faggot, the method of production under capitalism is already socialized on the small scale, and socializing on the large scale. Management, ownership and the anarchy of production are indeed the largest obstacles we need to overcome at the moment, the method of production is already where we need it to be.

The constant ultraleft accusation of social democracy got boring a long time ago. He doesn't advocate social democracy, he advocated the coopertizaiton of the economy.

Marx and Engels literally said the exact opposite.

wow so literally just autism

Central planning is not stable. See every centrally planned society ever. Capitalism is unstable because life/nature/reality is unstable. Things are changing constantly and failure to adapt leads to failure and death. Central planning only considers the present but doesn't think about the future. This is why Venezuela is in a state of collapse when they redistributed their oil wealth when the price was high instead of investing for a time in the future when oil prices would not be high. If they weren't centrally planned then the problems would be localized to the oil sector instead of spread out into a total system collapse. You are stupid, Leftism is stupid, Central Planning is stupid. Capitalism works because it is based in the constant changing reality that we all live in. Collapses are localized, their effects minimized.

What happens when you give free food to people is they continue to make more people. 3 billion people 100 years ago. 6 billion 10 years ago. 7.5 billion today. 12.5 billion by 2030. Then what? Finite resources are not unlimited. And the more people you feed, the less resources we all have. You want us all to be equally poor? Why? Make less poor dependent suffering people. Stop feeding the animals.

except it wouldn't.
ironic. you know nothing about how the economy actually works
yes, I remember when all those communist societies suffered from overpopulation, one of the greatest problems in the USSR.
(hint: Socialism isn't welfare, what Socialists want is more income for the people who actually contribute to society).

Yes it would.
leftists always project
I should hope so because many people starved to death from food shortages. What do you know, the same problems are happening in Venezuela too. Sort of an artificial centrally planned over-population since they are responsible. Central planners are good at one thing and that is creating shortages of what people need and want.

oh yeah that's why the soviets had no recessions in 60 years.

current statistics show that we have the capacity right now to feed everyone on earth plus an extra couple billion people. Overpopulation won't become a problem until much later and by then we will hopefully be able to use technological solutions like evolved plants to increase food production.

There entire system was a recession.

You can predict the future? Funny, when I use facts reason and evidence to point out how every Leftist system will inevitably fail you people mock me for predicting the future. But sure OK let's cast all our hopes on this fantasy hope of a future utopian heaven on Earth. Idiot.

there were no food shortages after 1947, and imperialist russia had famines too anyway.
so how come in Margaret Thatcher's neoliberal Britain double poverty and unemployment during an oil boom? How is this not an economic failure?
shouldn't the invisible hand of the free market have fixed everything?

so just because the economy isn't unstable as fuck and looping in and out of recessions constantly it's just one long recession? this doesn't make any sense considering the USSR's rising GDP before the collapse either.

Because by then everyone had starved or been thrown into the butchery of WW2? Yes, when enough people die that will end the food shortages. Moron.
People who worked in the oil industry weren't unemployed or in poverty, that's for sure. Thatcher stopped subsidizing failing businesses and industries letting nature take its course. She didn't go far enough, obviously, since Britain is still an economic black hole of government spending.


It's happening in places in Africa where you have foreign aid pouring in to areas that are not developed creating a dependent population that relies entirely on our charity. They will demand more and more and more as they keep creating dependent people. At some point it has to stop. Better it happens sooner than later. Only a fool would think this is sustainable or sane or even humane.

not relevant. see pic related.
yes, people who are employed aren't unemployed?
funny how the only two countries who adopted Austrian economics turned out to be "hellholes", as you describe them, or do you think that America isn't?

overpopulation issues today are entirely artificial and only exist because of manmade scarcity of resources.
It will stop once you stop relying on capitalism to distribute resources.

All that shows is they were pumping out enough babies to replace those millions who were being murdered by their own governments.

You're insane.

yes, which wouldn't affect the starvation at all you retard. wrong argument, I'm not denying people starved.

Good. So why would you want to advocate for a system that you admit ends in starvation? Are you insane?

there was no starvation after 1947. "ends" is an exaggeration.
not to mention you advocate for a system that causes starvation.


Governments cause starvation when they steal food. How does it cause starvation when someone who produces food chooses to sell some of their food to people in a mutual exchange? Hunger exists and always will, and there will always be some people who go hungry. That's the nature of living in a world where every living creature is competing for finite resources.

The thing you're missing is the effects of giving free food to people, which is they create more people, which then demands more resources, until there's nothing left to give, and then we all starve. I've said this 3 or 4 times now. What don't you understand about it? It's very simple.

what you don't understand is that there are more than enough resources available now that you can still feed all those extra people and not have to worry about running out.

I think that for every cause there are unforeseeable effects. I don't think it's wise to subsidize people's bad choices, such as ensuring they continue to produce children they can't support because that cost will always be passed on to the rest of us, and I especially think it's a bad idea to get the government to force people to subsidize other peoples bad choices. It takes a big heart to be charitable, but sometimes it takes a bigger heart to be cruel.

tfw you're born in a poor as shit community in the third world because capitalists jacked all your natural resources and destroyed your native culture and replaced it with a colonialist system that only existed to extract profits from the colony and therefore cannot provide adequate social welfare for the people living there so you have no formal sex education and you can't use condoms because the pope said you'd go to hell or some shit so you have lots of children because having kids to work on your farm for free is the only way you can survive but this is all your fault somehow.

Marxism is a historical conspiracy theory.
You weren't using those resources anyway, therefore you were poor and undeveloped anyway. Your peoples culture was likely integrated into the modern colonial development.
Colonists would live independently from the natives. It was when the natives wanted some of the comforts and conveniences of civilization that they started being integrated and given jobs. Eventually, though, they would outbreed the civilization without understanding how it worked. The natives were basically living off of socialist programs. Of course then history repeats itself and the system collapses. Now you have anuddah shoah as the natives want the government to steal their farms. This of course will lead to starvation.
The Pope is an idiot and also a socialist.
If you have a farm and can support such a large family then things can't be that bad.
It's nobody's fault. The world has finite resources and we are all competing for them. Some methods work better than others, and Capitalism, that is basically don't steal my stuff and honor your contracts, has lead to human prosperity and liberty and freedom and happiness while socialism, which is basically government using theft and deceit, has since its earliest experiments in the 18th century lead to destruction death poverty and misery all over the world for decades and decades.


that's not how development works, you can have tons of resources but lack the capacity to use them.
North Korea for example has lots of rare minerals but lacks the technology to refine them, largely due to the embargo placed on them.
There's also Nigeria, which has a shitton of Oil, but American oil companies legally own most of their oil resources, I wonder why.
Nigger have you ever read a single book on colonialism ever. Native cultures were only integrated insofar as they could be coopted by the colonialists.
I was talking about the colonial system itself
, i.e. the government created by the colonists and propped up by local bourgeoisie who collaborate with the colonists.
If by integrated and given jobs you mean "were forced to produce goods in sweatshops by foreign countries under threat of murder" the yes they were given jobs.
Those government programs were invented so that the native workers could survive in order to reproduce their labor in the factory the next day. They are vital to capitalism, not socialism.
"socialism is when the government does stuff" is the dumbest fucking meme liberals ever came up with.
I changed my mind. "socialism is when you help poor people" is actually the dumbest fucking meme liberals ever came up with.
If The world has finite resources (which nobody disputes btw) maybe an economic system where your forced to compete for them is a bad idea, ya think?
freedom for the capitalists, death for the billions of others who don't own the means of production.
>while socialism, which is basically government using theft and deceit,
You just described capitalism fam. The government uses theft and deceit to maintain private property every day.
Even if you accept every single alleged death caused by socialism as true capitalism still has the higher bodycount.

You apologizing for North Korea is where I stopped reading.(USER WAS BANNED FOR SOPHISTRY.)

I fucking hate North Korea, I was just using them as an example of how more resources does not equal more wealth.


This is like layers upon layers of stupid. I don't even know where to begin.

oh shit mods are doing their job