I already knew Richard Wolff was /ourguy/ but why didn't anybody tell me he was actually this based on class analysis

I already knew Richard Wolff was /ourguy/ but why didn't anybody tell me he was actually this based on class analysis.
Also /Wolff/ general I guess. We've had plenty of discussion on his lectures and videos but not much talk about his books around here.

Other urls found in this thread:

kokkinogati.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/philosophy-of-the-encounter.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Nice

...

Bernie proved you can be competitive without corporate donors and Trump proved that campaign budgets no longer predict election results. Assuming shit hasn't collapsed by then, we could be memeing Dore-Wolff 2020.

...

So why do we want this?

Jimmy's hiding his power level but the mask is slipping. He skirted around calling for violent revolution recently.

Wolff is anti-market. He criticizes markets almost as much as he criticizes hierarchical production.

the Dore/Wolff interview needs to happen now more then ever if only to expose Wolff to a bigger audience.

TL;DR: Wolff read Althusser.

Anything worth reading by him other than the article on ideological apparatuses?

Its the only form of socialism that works.

Liberals please go away.

kokkinogati.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/philosophy-of-the-encounter.pdf
philosophy of the encounter, tis all his writing from 1978 on

...

Is this market for trading private property for currency or other goods? Because if you've got private property, you've got capitalism. If not, then what do you need a market for?

"Workers owning the means of prodution is socialism" is a shitty meme and needs to die ASAP.

OP here and just like to point out that the book i was quoting from makes that exact argument-that communism is not a question of how property is distributed but about how surplus value is distributed.

Doesnt that mean that social democrats could be considered communists? The question of communism ought to be the mode of production, not the mode of distribution. Though those are tied of course

Communism with surplus?

Anyways, communism is about how there is no property; how everybody has no ownership over any means of production at all, because effectively everyone owns it.

what he meant was that distribution of resources according to need should be considered the main characteristic of communism, so revolutions that just redistribute property without altering the mode of production and distribution are not communist.

Except it's just socialized capitalism.


Distribution through a market by principle entails production for exchange, which leads to the whole system taking on the fundamental trappings of capitalism. (Alienation of workers from the products of their labor, private ownership of the MoP, capital accumulation, exploitation, etc.)


If they are forced to exploit themselves to earn their subsistence, compete with fellow workers, and produce for exchange value? Then yes, that's capitalism.

True for every point. Wolff is a Lassallean hack and learning anything from him only makes people dumber.