IT HAPPENED

Fuck yeah! best collab of the month, calling it.

...

This. Reformism is useful insofar as making demands of the state - and watching the state fail to meet those demands - is necessary to show people that the state can't be reformed into a good system.

Richard wolf = le co-ops equals socialism le the falling rate of profit isn't real xD
Jimmy = Slightly more radical bernie bro

Educate and agitate for what? For pulling an Occupy Wallstreet 2.0 and then get all the proles to vote democrat once it inevitably fails due to lack of theory? Count me out. Wolff clearly hasn't even bothered to read Marx, if he had he wouldn't be wasting his time on the show of a fellow red liberal like Jimmy Dore.

I dont know how many times it has to be said to you guys to get it through your heads, the proles will not revolt if they are pacified. You are literally endorsing your own pacification and perpetual enslavement by supporting idiots like these. If leftypol is seriously under the conclusion that raising the minimum wage is some big goal for the socialist movement, then perhaps me and anyone else remaining who's well read in theory should take their business to the right.

...

[citation needed], you know wolff is anti-market for a fact and never said this.
and?
kill yourself

Wolff shits on markets all the fucking time. He acknowledges the co-op movement as the proletariat trying to move away from capitalism, not as communism itself.
>>>/reddit/

Funny how he teaches Marxian economics at university, has a PhD, and you're just some guy on the internet.

You keep confusing minimal demands - you know, exactly the kind of this the communist manifesto laid out - with maximal demands. We're not going to radicalize the entire population just overnight. We need to demostrate to them the inherent injustices of the system. They can't pull off another Franklin D. Roosewelt, that sail's sailed a long time ago, and the Market can hardly outsource into asia as was necessary to keep up the rate of profit before.

Richard still unironically thinks that the cause of crisis is underconsumption. A fundementally un-marxist theory. He is not with Kliman on the transformation problem and doesn't beelive in the falling rate of profit. thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/richard-wolff-and-the-deepening-crisis/

ooo wewlad go jimmy.

Ummm…
FRP is perfectly compatible with crisis-of-underconsumption theory.

Wolff has talked about Occupy and put forth that their lack of theory was a problem, but that they were the early rumblings of something bigger.
Wolff doesn't advocate for voting in general and Dore has sworn off the Democrats. These days he does a lot of rhetorically asking why Bernie tries to salvage the Democratic party. You clearly don't have even a basic knowledge of these two.

Yeah because Marx never tried to actively spread his ideas

W E W
W E
E W
W E W W E W
W E
E W
W E W

Crisis-of-underconsumption does not fit within the marxist framework. The basic problem proposed by under consumption is that workers can only buy V not V+S. This fails to note (something Marx actually did note in volume 2 of capital) that S was reinvested. Under consumption DOES not cause crisis. The falling rate of profit does.

Ha ha ha, stupid anarkid, clearly this gift horse has bad teeth, fucking idiot who'd ever want a horse with bad teeth

redpepper.org.uk/david-harvey-interview-the-importance-of-postcapitalist-imagination/

David Harvey is also shit. Rejects the FRP and says stuff like this:

Cool.
Then clearly, as decades of later has shown of, Marx was, on this account, incorrect.

Even if his other statements are dumb as shit. Harvey's History of Neoliberalism and his Capital lectures are great.

He totally misunderstands chapter one and confuses exchange value with price.

No clearly the rational position is to think that if a person is wron about one thing they're wrong everything in every other field of study too

Marx later admitted the Communist Manifesto was shit. Perhaps you should actually read beyond a stupid pamphlet.

Are you seriously this retarded that you think a piece of paper from borgie institutions means anything?

Marx would be fine with people spreading his ideas, not watered down liberalism that only serves to keep people pacified. Look, all I'm saying is, when you find that every literate person here has abandoned your petty reformism for the right wing, dont act surprised. This is your fault.

Watch this video by kapitalism101 on why underconsumption is totally unmarxist and doesn't make sense:
youtube.com/watch?v=Y4r-LzOQEho
youtube.com/watch?v=S8vlus86NRE

What do you think of Wolff and underconsumption?

Personally I think power levels are being hid in order to bring in more moderates.
But that's me.

I don't care that it's unmarxist. Marx is not God. His word is not sacred. Just because Marx said it, doen't make it true. Likewise, just because he said it was false, doesn't make it so.

I know. That doesn't mean he stopped making minimal demands beyond his maximal demands. For example, he opposed polish independence from Germany - as a minimal demand - in order for the German empire to be able to centralize and industrialize and thus meeting his maximal demand - while mean while also supporting the establishment of mutual aid stations for the working classes to keep them healthy and organzied for the eventual revolution.

Wolff is undoubtedly a psuedo-marxist. His rejection of the rate of profit to fall, his obviously non-marxist underconsmption theory of crisis, accepting the Sraffian vulgarization of Marx…

Revolution will definitely happen when we assemble a team of the purest leftists there ever were, not like the revolutionary subject is the working class or anything.

Forgot to remove worst flag

Actually they don't even pretend to be anything but typical liberals who separate themselves from other liberals by criticizing the DNC.

Wolff doesn't reject the RTF though…
Why are you lying about this?

Yes and class Consciousness can't be "spread" It can only arise organically from capitalism. Thats the only way class Consciousness begins. If you want to go shill your theory to the proles who aren't really anti-capitalist on their own, have fun.

Show me a place where he mentions it instead of pushing his bullshit under consumption theory.

If the left is not organized and well-liked the anger from the inherent problems of capitalism is just as likely to surmount in right-wing populism as any kind of liberatory movement.

the video was good, why are you people sperging out about the falling rate of profit?

wolffe advocated direct action, forming unions, and making demands instead of voting. he references socialists and communists. this went about as well as possible.

How about start with any actual leftists instead of "leftists" whose entire philosophys is "socialism means the government becomes good and kind and does good stuff for people and everything's a big rainbow : )"

Would you deny the logic that the S in V+S doesn't actually need to be bought by workers and is instead bought by capitalists and reinvested?

Underconsumption theory is not incompatible with TRPF.
Demonstrate where he says it doesn't happen

What do you think the mechanism of organic rising is? People are dealing with problems and people like Dore and Wolff are tying those problems directly to the economic causes. By abstracting class consciousness away to being "organic" or "spontaneous" you're missing the trees for the forest. The individuals talking about this and drawing the connections for people is the organic formation of class consciousness.

Yes, and insofar as they're unable to do so, the rate of profits fall. Thus the rate of profits fall as a result of underconsumption.

The fact he never mentions it as a cause of crisis essentially means he either strongly downplays that importance of Marx's most important theory, or he doesn't beleive in it. Underconsumption is fundementally incompatible with Marx and the falling rate of profit.

The theory of the Falling rate of profit means that increased productivity means lower profits. Rejecting that means rejecting value theory. Substituting another theory instead of Marx's is incompatible with value theory.

Watch the video. It explains why underconsumption doesn't make sense better than I can.

I am pretty sure he used it, perhaps not by name, but in his lectures to explain the entire point of outsourcing. I mean those lectures do not make sense if TRPF is not an inherent assumption going in.

Are you sure you're being totally honest right now?

I bet it's the one that show's why it's "unmarxist".
That's different from being incorrect, though.

you people are fucking autistic

Read Marx and Engels.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/11/27.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1883/letters/83_04_18.htm

The rate of profit falling is not exclusively marxist. The rate of profit falling BECAUSE of increases in productivty is what sets Marx appart. Point me to where he talks about that?

it also demonstates whats wrong with it.

Here:

"The total value of all the commodities in the economy is equal to V+C+S where V is the money spent on variable capital (remember that is just a fancy name for wages paid to workers), C on constant capital (these are finished goods made by other workers like tools, electricity, machines, etc.) and S for the surplus value that human labor adds to the commodity. In other words, human labor creates all the value in the commodity. This value is divided into three pieces: the part going to workers as wages (V), the part going to other capitalists for producing machines (C), and the part going to the capitalist as profit (S). Since, at a macro-level, the value of C is also just V+S, since machines and tools are also products of human labor produced under conditions of exploitation, ultimately the value of all commodities is merely V+S (I hope I don’t get in trouble for making this simplification.)

Assuming workers spend all of their wages on commodities they will be able to buy back the total amount of value in the economy up to the level of total wages (V). But that is not enough to buy back all of the rest of the value in society because the total value of commodities is V+S.

The question for the underconsumptionist is where does the money come from to buy back all of the surplus value in commodities? There appears to be a “demand gap”. On top of this we must remember that capitalists endeavor to raise the amount of surplus they extract from workers while lowering wages. This means that there is a systematic tendency for S to rise relative to V. The demand gap increases.

…which leads us to the most important way of mopping up excess demand: reinvestment. Capitalists’ take their profits and they reinvest in machines and labor in order to expand production. So expanded production means an increased demand for machines, and more money toward wages, which in turn increases demand for consumer goods. This is the primary way in which capitalism fills the demand gap- through effective reinvestment strategies.

But, as you may have noticed, this leads to a circular logic: How can we say that the demand for S comes from the profits of selling S? How can we say that the profits from selling the surplus are used to purchase the surplus? This apparent absurdity is solved by introducing the element of time into the equation.

At the end of a production period the capitalist has products equal to C+V+S which he must sell. The end of one production period is the beginning of the next. So at the same time that capitalists send their products off to market to sell they are also making decisions about reinvestment to begin production anew. If the capitalist class as a whole expands their productive investments this will create enough current demand to fill in the demand gap. All of the surplus product is realized. The mystery of effective demand is resolved."

WE'RE COMING BUCKO

I'm convinced that most "leftcoms" here are really just tank.ies false flagging. The retarded "leftcom" in this thread hasn't said anything even close to leftcom tbh.

Where does Wolff disagree with your points? The closest I've heard him come to "underconsumption" is in talking about wage decrease/stagnation, which is not the same thing as the meme that crises happen because people don't buy shit.

Also read this:
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/richard-wolff-and-the-deepening-crisis/

In his book he says that underconsumption is the main cause of capitalist crisis. For Wolff, the “classic contradiction” of capitalism is that capitalists “paid insufficient wages to enable workers to purchase growing capitalist output” (p166).

Pretty sure wage struggles fall under the "constant activity within the ranks of the proletariat wherever it is driven by economic needs and pressure to struggle in defence of its interests" part that Bordiga thinks communists should involve themselves in.

Some are for sure.

You think the guy arguing about underconsumption or the leftcom flag is false flag?

Shit son Holla Forums is in full force in this thread. If raising class consciousness is a problem to you, then you are not a communist. GTFO. If pointing out the inconsistencies and contradictions of capitalism (something Wolff is very good at) you are not a communist. GTFO.

Wolff points out under consumption, a flawed theory that is fundementally against Marxism.

I haven't read his book nor do I have it on hand, but the way you split up the quote suggests you're taking pieces out of context.
>the a “classic contradiction” of capitalism is that capitalists “paid insufficient wages to enable workers to purchase growing capitalist output”
This is correct (capitalism has many contradictions), and the important "the" was your word per your quotation marks. Being a contradiction of capitalism is not the same as being the main cause of capitalist crises.

Of fucking course underconsumption would be the cause of the capitalist crisis, infinite growth isn't sustainable. and eventually you'll need to produce more than people are able to consume to remain profitable. This doesn't actually contradict the TRPF, since the TRPF is just a tendency. In theory a capitalist society could sustain itself indefinitely if they had a way to destroy enough value to maintain a form of "growth" that just reproduces the value that was destroyed.

The leftcom flag

Explain how underconsumption is fundamentally un-Marxist. Don't link to those videos again because they don't say what you think they say.

Read this:
"The total value of all the commodities in the economy is equal to V+C+S where V is the money spent on variable capital (remember that is just a fancy name for wages paid to workers), C on constant capital (these are finished goods made by other workers like tools, electricity, machines, etc.) and S for the surplus value that human labor adds to the commodity. In other words, human labor creates all the value in the commodity. This value is divided into three pieces: the part going to workers as wages (V), the part going to other capitalists for producing machines (C), and the part going to the capitalist as profit (S). Since, at a macro-level, the value of C is also just V+S, since machines and tools are also products of human labor produced under conditions of exploitation, ultimately the value of all commodities is merely V+S (I hope I don’t get in trouble for making this simplification.)

Assuming workers spend all of their wages on commodities they will be able to buy back the total amount of value in the economy up to the level of total wages (V). But that is not enough to buy back all of the rest of the value in society because the total value of commodities is V+S.

The question for the underconsumptionist is where does the money come from to buy back all of the surplus value in commodities? There appears to be a “demand gap”. On top of this we must remember that capitalists endeavor to raise the amount of surplus they extract from workers while lowering wages. This means that there is a systematic tendency for S to rise relative to V. The demand gap increases.

…which leads us to the most important way of mopping up excess demand: reinvestment. Capitalists’ take their profits and they reinvest in machines and labor in order to expand production. So expanded production means an increased demand for machines, and more money toward wages, which in turn increases demand for consumer goods. This is the primary way in which capitalism fills the demand gap- through effective reinvestment strategies.

But, as you may have noticed, this leads to a circular logic: How can we say that the demand for S comes from the profits of selling S? How can we say that the profits from selling the surplus are used to purchase the surplus? This apparent absurdity is solved by introducing the element of time into the equation.

At the end of a production period the capitalist has products equal to C+V+S which he must sell. The end of one production period is the beginning of the next. So at the same time that capitalists send their products off to market to sell they are also making decisions about reinvestment to begin production anew. If the capitalist class as a whole expands their productive investments this will create enough current demand to fill in the demand gap. All of the surplus product is realized. The mystery of effective demand is resolved."
and
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2016/06/02/richard-wolff-and-the-deepening-crisis/

Underconsumption only happens when capitalism runs into outside barriers to reinvestment. Marx though the FRP was the primary cause of capitalist collapse. Wolff and other vulgarizers of Marxism like Rosa Luxemburg thought under consumption was the main cause.

Marx thought that the falling rate of profit was the main cause of economic crisis and we can infer from his logic that under consumption would only be a problem if there was something stopping capitalists from reinvesting (this doesn't really happen) while the falling rate of profit is unavoidable in capitalism and is the direct natural result of competition.

Having watched the videos I don't think he has an argument and he's just posting shit that's too complex for him to understand and hoping that it's also too complex for other people to understand.

Can you define underconsumption please?

Believing the lack of effective demand due to the sum of wages not being enough to perchase all the goods in the economy. Basically if you lower wages workers can't buy your product and this causes crisis. Wolff supports this: “paid insufficient wages to enable workers to purchase growing capitalist output” (p166).

I understand what C, V, and S are. You don't need to explain them; the explanation doesn't really even help your point.
Why do you think bubbles form? What do you think credit is? Why do you think it is that this culture of consumption appeared around the same time as credit became so socially universal? Why do you think banks invest in the market? Why do you think people trade derivatives? It's all a way to defer the crisis to some future date. The TRPF is still the "cause" of an economic crisis, but underconsumption is what sets that crisis off in our economy.
Underconsumption isn't at odds with the TRPF fam, it compliments it very well in fact.

stfu leftcom, they're both crypto and hiding their power level

Nigga, that's a transcript of the videos he linked. He just keeps posting the same shit.

every fucking time

See and . Most of these obnoxious leftcoms are fakes.

I can't believe it. Are we actually introducing theory to a new generation?

This is a great step towards getting more soc dems to turn into socialists. It seems like Jimmy is becoming more radicalized by the day and I think Profressor Wolff will push him to become a full blown socialist.

Someone has been nagging Jimmy to read one of the basic texts (Wage Labour & Capital IIRC) and he's said he'll do it.

youtube.com/watch?v=D402PxiXUmc
New vid?

Under consumption states the cause of economic crisis is the fact that the sum of wages is not enough to buy the sum of the products. Basically the economy is C+V+S or the total dead labor as capital the total wages and the total profit. The problem for the under consumptionist is that V=/=V+S and that there is no demand for the S products or the surplus products. This argument however doesn't make sense when you consider that the capitalists will reinvest the surplus and the demand for it comes from the reinvestments.
Bubbles are only a problem when the total value can't fill them.
Lubrication so capitalists can buy capital and increase production without reinvesting.

underconsumption is at odds with Marx. It only occurs when capitalists are artifically stopped from reinvesting.

Even better man, he said he’s already reading it

Right, and the LTV provides a great example for why this is. Capitalists have a different theory of why this is that involves "consumer confidence" and other subjective judgements like that.
I didn't ask you if they were a problem, I asked why they formed.
That's just untrue. Credit isn't just limited to the capitalist classes. Consumer credit is a thing fam.
You keep asserting this, but you never explain how underconsumption is at odds with the LTV.
I disagree, what makes you think this?

I meant to say " the LTV provides a great explanation for why this is". Whoops.

You faggots need to read yakovenko.

physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/2017.Yakovenko.EPJST.225.3313.pdf

The source of capitalist monetary profit is the state.
whom would this commodity be sold? Assuming that it is a consumer product for the masses, like cars, it would be sold to the workers, who can pay for it only as much as they were paid by the capitalists. So, in aggregate, the net money balance M' of the capitalists after selling the cars cannot exceed their initial balance M. Individual capitalists may achieve profits by creating losses for less successful competitors, but the whole class of capitalists cannot have net profit.

how does GDP grow then

too much fictitious value by financial capitalists in a effort to offset the falling rate of profit.
I just explained this. What part of this explanation do you not understand?

Under consumption states the cause of economic crisis is the fact that the sum of wages is not enough to buy the sum of the products. Basically the economy is C+V+S or the total dead labor as capital the total wages and the total profit. The problem for the under consumptionist is that V=/=V+S and that there is no demand for the S products or the surplus products. This argument however doesn't make sense when you consider that the capitalists will reinvest the surplus and the demand for it comes from the reinvestments.

But the issue of underconsumption/overproduction is that a certain amount of the total economy has been put into commodities whose value has not been and will not be realized (i.e. the supply is greater than the effective demand). These finished goods are not going to be bought or reinvested in by the capitalists because they have no worth to them (since they can't be sold, which is why the problem exists in the first place). It's not that there's some V or S out there unaccounted for, it's that V and S has been dumped into production whose value can't be realized because of market conditions (mud pies basically). The problem here can be traced back to the falling rate of profit and the drive for capitalists to overproduce as a calculated risk so they might be the lucky ones and outsell their competition, but what sets it off the crisis itself (when this is the sort of crisis you have) is that suddenly a big chunk of value in the economy has "disappeared" because it was gambled on production whose value could not be realized and still can't be realized because nobody (worker due to lack of money/need nor capitalist due to lack of need) will buy it. This isn't a case of one cause resulting in a crisis, but multiple factors coming together Another related topic is information and calculation being poor enough that capitalists may not see the problem coming until it's too late to avert it.

That's great. And also the fact that it gets mentioned on the live shows is great.

Population growth and defeating capitalists of other nations.

So if I plant 100 seeds worth 1$ and end up woth 200 seeds worth 1$ each i have not produced surplus value.

Exactly! And it's precisely because of this fictitious value that underconsumption is even an issue! Capitalism requires people to consume goods to continue the process of creating fictitious value, and if it stops the bubble pops because the mechanisms that "create" this value are tied to the market/consumption. It's not wrong to say that underconsumption causes crisis, fam.
Your explanation was you copy/pasting a section from an article that you clearly didn't fucking understand (because if you did you would understand that it isn't a refutation of anything I've said).

You're down $100.

I might be misunderstanding your argument. Is your argument (like most people who call themselves under consumptionists , rosa and wolff) that workers cannot buy their own surplus and this is what causes crisis?

Don't confuse him further by using "surplus value" incorrectly it's clear from this post he doesn't know what it is. Your scenario is just reaping what you sowed. Surplus value would be that porky buys 100 seeds worth $1 each, pays you $20 total to plant them all, and ends up with 200 seeds worth $1 each, netting him $80 surplus value.

The problem of under consumption is in reality that capitalism will allocate resources to make things that people don't need and build people's livelihoods (the jobs making the mud pies, the finance sector speculating on mud pies, etc.) on the assumption that these things will continue to sell. I don't think anyone here is arguing or has argued the liberal meme "fucking poormies won't buy my shit reeeee"

...

I think you're misunderstanding Rosa and Wolff's arguments tbh. The argument isn't that workers not being able to buy their own surplus causes crisis, it's that the production of fictitious value (and consequently, the deferral of crisis) requires consumption to continue.

That is not the general way most economists use the word under consumption (or Wolff's theory), what your talking about could cause a crisis but keep in mind the bubbles of fictitious value are only a problem if they can't be filled by increasing profits and demand generally just serves to reallocate capital not cause any sort of Crisis.

The argument of under consumption, of Wolff and Rosa is that the proletariat are not able to buy the things they produce. This is disproved by reinvestment. The argument your making is basically 'people have to keep buying stuff or else profit falls' .

Capitalists get a net profit by paying workers less than the value created by their labor. The value of that labor is realized by selling the commodities produced to both workers and capitalists. Wages go from the realization of value to the capitalist to the worker back to the realization of value of other commodities when workers as consumers buy commodities. Profit goes from the realization of value of the commodity to the capitalist to their funds for reinvestment to additional capital (where M' becomes M), which is also the realization of value of commodities made to be sold to capitalists for this purpose.

Total money in an economy is constant except by injection from outside sources (central bank prints money, gold is found etc.) The whole of the capitalist class does not have net profit over any significant period of time.

You're so fucking dense. Stop copy/pasting shit you don't understand please. Fucking please. You're out of your depth here.

When Wolff talks about the purchasing power of the working class being exhausted leading to crisis he isn't making the claim that it directly leads to crisis. Credit allows production (and profitability) to move beyond demand, and as long as workers are able to consume at a sufficient level this model works. But beyond that capitalists resort to speculation (and other methods) to continue to create fictitious profits. Underconsumption implies overproduction and vise versa. Reinvestment doesn't disprove it in the slightest.

Neither FoRP, nor underconsumption adequately explains capitalist crisis. Go Yahoo! Sam Williams and the CoCT blog

WTF not shilling for duckduckgo?

kys

Money is just a way of measuring value (i.e. labor invested into commodities). This is why the "value" of money changes over time. Instead of looking at money you should be looking at what it represents: utility created by labor, which is constantly happening and increases the total value in the economy regardless of what's going on with the money supply, which is relevant but tangential to the issue of expropriation of value by the owners of private property from the people creating the value through labor.

use start page you fucking dong

DuckDuckGo spies on you too. Just use startpage

Are you telling me to compare use values? That's too difficult, I'm sticking with money.

pics?

It should be a bannable offense to post this without providing proof it's even the board owner.

Not them at all, but moon-money, meaning reinvestment simply buy going into debt, only shifts the problem away temporarily.
It would be the same as to say banks rather than labour creates all wealth.

oops

You can tell how much Dore likes Wolff cause he rarely interrupted him. He was totally engrossed in his words. This is pretty hype

If you're talking about me, I stopped replying because you're talking in circles and not even making a coherent claim. Me and the other guy interrogated your argument and found that it boils down to an oversimplification of Wolff's position (this was originally about Wolff being "anti-Marxist"). I stopped engaging you because even after we pointed out the problems with your shallow understanding you just went right back to saying the same shit over again.

Lamo no, I was the other guy. I deleted my post because it was dumb and unproductive. I was mostly just criticizing their copy/pasting from blogs and Wikipedia, which was annoying.

Ah. Cheers.

If this doesn't make you hard, I don't know what can.

it's great that jimmy can get the word out to so many people but let's be honest he is an absolute brainlet

he says it himself hes just a dumb comedian

So are the so many people he reaches. It's off-putting to have some nerd lecture you about things you're not familiar with. Jimmy understands enough to relate to but not so much that he runs into the Curse of Knowledge problem and comes off as a dick. Wolff is farther along that spectrum but he also knows how to communicate things effectively. If you showed Dore's audience content from people who are into theory (e.g. anarchopac, kapitalism101, finnbol, or even someone like muke or mexie) they are not going to know what the fuck they're talking about. Paradoxially the part of the left that cares about reading and theory tends to have a muh bootstraps approach to people who aren't familiar.

...

Yeah, this is another clip. I don't know why nobody has said anything about it.

youtube.com/watch?v=D402PxiXUmc

Because right now this thread's busy with a dick measuring contest

You guys, do you think us mailing the both of them had anything to do with this?

That seems to be both necessarily true but not the sole cause of crisis.

I think that we were part of a lot of people nagging them to meet, my guess would be a big part.

All the people talking shit in this thread are getting me so hard at the idea that feds are worried about this kind of shit.

Anyone else kind of disappointed that the Wolff didn't show up live? Dropping redpills is a lot easier with high fidelity audio.

It finally happened. We did it comrades. We did it. The revolution begins now.

How do you know?

You mongoloids talk about a revolution as if it would be good thing, despite the fact that we are essentially living in the best society that has ever existed.

All it means is that more people are competing for good jobs and more careers are becoming mere jobs.

I like how your first mug graph conveniently stops just before the life expectancy of the us levels off and goes down for the first time in forever

Even if we never get to communism, i would be satisfied to see everyone of you pieces of shit shot

Here you go niglet, it wasn't 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧convenient🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 it was just the graph I had off hand.

...

Remember when leftcoms were actually the best posters? Yeah, good times…

(citation needed)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_deaths_in_the_Soviet_Union_under_Joseph_Stalin

...

The tank.ies have been false flagging for a while, the drop in leftcom quality isn't just recent fam. It's getting hard to tell the fakes from the real ones tho.

Your own literacy muh graph supports his claim. Just look at the line for "eastern europe" it shot up nearly 60% points in only 30 years.

Leftcom armchair memes have been around since at least late 14 early 15.

Remember the Holocaust never happened.
But the 600 Soviet Gorillions definitely did because Solzhenitsyn said so in his book of second-hand anecdotes.

this

do you know what happened minus the falseflagging ☭TANKIE☭s? The leftcom reputation as they were associated with being well read, and indeed, though it doesn't mean they were correct, some of the best quality input would come from them.

now a bunch of fags just want to look good without taking any efforts so they just take the leftcom posture from the market

HAHAHHHHAGHAGHAGHAGHGAHGHAGHAGHAGGHAHGAHGAHGGHAGH

AND ANOTHER ONE
youtube.com/watch?v=i3_rPX97FiU

Society developed under kings and monarchs too. Just because things have and always will have the ability to improve our situation over time doesn't mean we can't be discontent with the current state of affairs

Is this supposed to be an argument? Are you insiuating that the number is exageratted? Please, pull a number out of your ass, tell me how many actually died. I guess their lives were for a greater good anyway right, they don't really count.

Oh yeah, and give me a number for how many people have been faced with a mass murder in the US.

Finally catching up with the rest of europe is not impressive, especially considering that it started before the soviet unions formation. As you can see they start to fix their shit around 1910, and the soviet union was formed in 1922.

I'm not from Holla Forums faggot, the holocaust did happen, and it was despicable. You've yet to actually make an argument towards why those lives don't count.

Absolutely, criticise to your hearts content. Critisism ≠ revolution

Then do you think the French revolution was "too far"?

Or even the American revolution, for that matter

I can't hear you over the sound of people dying because they couldn't raise enough money on gofundme to pay for insulin.

Angry conservatives detected in Jimmy Dore's latest Wolff video!

youtube.com/watch?v=i3_rPX97FiU

Why does Jimmy Dore have so many conservative / "constitutionalist" fans?

Because he shits on democrats a lot.

To be completely honest I don't know enough about the french revolution to speak about it. As for the American revolution yeah it probably was, but it isn't easy to speculate about where history would have gone had it not happened, and whether or not it would have been for the better.

I like Jimmy Dore in general, while I'm not a conservative this post is correct I think. I watch him because he has the rare ability that is being able to criticise his own "tribe".

its real fam
snopes.com/shane-patrick-boyle-died-after-starting-a-gofundme-campaign-for-insulin/

That insulin thing actually happened, believe it or not. Anyway, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree when it comes to revolution, although, I do have a question for you. What do you think socialism is, and why do you think revolting will necessarily only make things worse?

...

I don't think that the concept of socialism is inherently evil, but I think any practical method to instate it would be. For a socialist "revolution" to not be immoral, everyone would have to unanimously agree to give up any property/ monetary possessions, which frankly, will never happen.

Quick faggot. What is your definition of private property?

Interesting.

Its going to fucking happen.
Wolff is going to be chairman of the USSA

wasn't trying to argue against averages. just using that one example to illustrate that most claims about how great modern life is ignore the horrible shit that still goes on for people on the periphery.

Im a pacifist but you cunts deserve to be sent to an eternity in a gulag. Fuck you

This is one of the reasons that I don't like arguing with socialists/ communists. To the people that own businesses and factories, there is no distinction to be made between owning their house, and owning their place of work. You trying to catch some error in my usage of the term property (with your special made-up definition) isn't going to make my statement contradictory or incorrect.

Sure, the but the point is that the "horrible shit that still goes on" has become less and less common.

Great argument spastic.

So after that performance can we all agree that Wolff isn't more than a lukewarm SocDem?

Why don't you honestly, and in good faith, look up the number of deaths caused by Capitalism in the same period of time?

Except there is a distinction, you just used that distinction. It is pretty simple.

If you want to critique Marx's ideas, you need to understand what definitions he's using. If you're arguing against Marx's, Lenin's, or Engel's ideas and using improper definitions then you are doing little more than strawmanning their arguments, and so it would be entirely fair to say you are wrong.

Perhaps in a superficial, qualitative sense, but in reality these are entirely different.

...

All definitions are made up. This is not an argument.

You mongoloids seem to have purposefully ignored the first part of that sentence, I said "TO THE PEOPLE WHO-". As in I know what your definition of private property is. To take property (productive or otherwise) from people will require force. In context of my argument I was arguing that this would be immoral.

From now on the word puppy means faggot. Wait, you mean that that isn't the majority english interpretation of the word? Who gives a shit, all words are made up.

oops wrong image

leftcoms need to fuck off

...

It does not matter whether they or you think that it would be immoral, if it is backed by the majority there is no stopping it.

I'll play your game.

More immoral than having a select few elites continue to exploit the labour of their workers and possibly using their power/money to make life shittier for everyone except themselves?

Good thing capitalism never used and to this day does not use force, ever. Oh. Wait.

No matter, good thing capitalism is a perfectly moral system! Wait… Shit.

This still isn't an argument.

What a completely obvious, and pointless thing to say. Grass is green. The sky is sometimes blue.

Yes, moral judgements are clearly entirely subjective, but violently revolting against business owners and our government is less moral in my opinion then them hogging wealth. Alternatively we could just tax them at a greater rate but that's apparently too slow for you impatient 16 year olds.

No sane person on earth would ever claim that capitalism is a perfect system, only that it is a more perfect system than socialism (at least as they've been proven to this point).

Yes it is, the point was that the majority of a language's speakers decides the definitions of it's words. You, cannot arbitrarily decide that a word means something else because it better suits your narrative, and neither can I.

Just because the majority has a different definition of Theory and Law does not mean you get to use that definition in a scientific context.

Words have multiple definitions with use based on situation and context. To abstain what context dictates to use a general or non applicable is willful ignorance and purposeful misrepresentation of ideas.

1. Them hogging wealth isn't the only issue. Their wealth constitutes power, and having a disproportionate amount of power can and will lead to a misuse of that power to further consolidate more power.

2. It would be a great idea to increase taxes on the wealthiest people, but apparently that's Socialism and also the richest would just buy lobbyists to kill any bill that tries to increase tax rates.

1 Socialism is not necessary what the Eastern block did
2 Even if talking about that model, the assertion that capitalis is a more perfect model is discutable
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4331212/

Why should there be no moral difference between taking the two away, if you yourself acknowledge that they play a complete different function in society?

I'm not asking that it be perfect, in fact, I'll renounce my demands that it even be perfectly moral. The point is that capitalism was brought into the mainstream through force and violence, and also maintained by it, even going as far as to normalize some aspects of its violence. To condemn the history of socialism for it's violence and point to capitalism as a proper modus operandi does a disservice to the victims of capitalist violence.

A no point does a word gain an "official" definition. Dictionaries are tools used to alleviate our tendency to muddle terminology, but the meaning and pronunciation of words prior to the popularization of dictionaries changed significantly over time.

All this it to say, yes, it is a poor rhetorical choice to use words that defy traditional/dictionary use because confusion can likely ensue, but this has no real impact on the actual validity of the argument itself.

Take your extreme example for instance. Suppose I am trying to make claim X about faggots, and for the sake of argument suppose I am able to effectively justify that claim, however I say that I am using the term "puppy" to refer to a faggot. Your complaint that my arugment is now more confusing is entirely valid, but it is not valid to say that my justification for X is insufficient/X is untrue because of it.

If Marx was alive today, certainly it would be fair to criticize him for his word choice, but in context to his time period, "private property" is an entirely valid word choice.

We tried that for a while with it even topping out a 93% income tax but guess what happened? The same thing that happens to all reforms that people, mostly socialist and communists, died to gain, it was all eroded away by the capitalists and the very forces of capitalism that the reforms attempted to reign in.

Capitalism with a happy face is still capitalism. It doesn't matter how you paint it, it is still 10lbs of shit in a 5lb bag.

We've done that on multiple occasions, yet look where we are now. It is hard to pass, and even harder to maintain legislation taxing the wealthy elite at a higher rate when the bourgeoisie effectively control the legislation process. In addition, the issue is deeper than merely the accumulation of wealth.

Christing fuck slow down guys I can only respond so fast

The context of me using the word "property" is not from a marxist context or perspective, it was from the perspective of a property owner, who would be forced to give it up because of your ideology.

I agree but advocate for policies that fix those individual issues, because taking a reactionary shotgun blast approach inevitably leads to collateral damage. A revolution is a complete overreaction given the current state of the western world.

There is certainly a difference between taking productive property and private property from people, however, it would be met with the same response from their owners. You would necessarily have to use force to take it which in my opinion is immoral.

Point is, there has been a disproportionate amount of violence carried out by socialist governments when compared to capitalist governments throughout history.

I was not the one who questioned the word property's usage in the first place, this poster did. Not to mention, that in my original post I didn't even say "private".

I agree with you faggots, that tax reform is often ineffective, but rather that assaulting people we should decide why it was ineffective and try to resolve that issue. ie: "take money out of politics"

The problem here is that your first post by your own admission here starts with a misrepresentation of both socialist theory ie.
But you also misrepresented what kind of property by using the general use of the word when criticizing the marxist use of the word.

Dude, you're posting on an anonymous imageboard, the people you're talking to don't coordinate their replies.
The thread will last a few hours, chill ffs

Except we've been doing that since Marx's time and the workers have yet to realize that reform doen't work. And you as well.

I'm not sure how this is a misrepresentation of socialist theory, you would have to have unanimous agreement towards government ownership of their property because some people have more "private property"(socialist def.) than others. Is Bill Gates going keep his 45 cars and 6 mansions in the socialist utopia?

...

Explain why it's wrong then faggot

Not socialist
Still haven't proven that you actually know the marxist definition of private property
Nice misrepresentation.

Debatable. Also you need to understand that the big socialist states your thinking were generally born in times of immense conflict, which created the conditions for the violence you're referring to

God I despise this shit. I don't use the Marxist definition because it's not logical, you cannot have a society that is completely equitable while also claiming that Bill Gates gets to keep his lambos. Sure that shit doesn't technically count as private property under a strict interpretation of Marx's definition, but it still has value to the rest of the world, meaning that those in the upper echelons of society would still hold a disproportionate amount of power.

When socialists claim that "OH NO YOU WOULD TOTALLY GET TO KEEP YOUR HOUSE, CAR, HEIRLOOMS, ETC…" it's a dishonest tactic to make the ideology more appealing than it actually is.

You would though, just some of those things you wouldn't own if you became worm food.

We don't want that though

Some of us do

That's a real convincing argument, I'll think that one over edgelord

Then whats the fucking point

A world that is more equitable and more democratic that is free from commodity production and exploitation of capitalism

"It's for the greater good comrade"

Nod an arbument fam

Well, I was saying that you can't own things when you die, but if you want to take it that way then by all means go ahead.

They could keep their stupid shit if we just start out with a Maximum Wage law in the form of 100% income tax over a certain point and an aggressive inheritance tax. They'll get to live with their dumb fucking mansions as long as they aren't in debt, because their expendable income will be way lower right away.

Except all rich people are drowning in debt and will lose everything when they get put in a higher tax rate, but we can then just blame them for being irresponsible with their money like they've done to every poor person who has ever been foreclosed on.

Ye what a strange interpretation of calling someone worm food

The problem with both of these things is that they could be avoided fairly easily.

Not to mention that there is no fucking way in hell that I'm staying in the US if I'm making enough money to sit in the 100% tax bracket.

You act as if a successful transition to socialism would happen in only one place and not be a society that encompasses the whole world.

Someone's cranky

Rich people leaving is the ideal scenario, it's not like there's anything special about them and if a massive amount of USD leaves the country and is used elsewhere, it's still strengthening the dollar, so it won't collapse America. We can also broaden tax evasion laws to include stuff like that.

How'd you get that impression?

...

investopedia.com/terms/c/capitalflight.asp

So you're argument is that Jamie Dimon is going to move to Haiti and it'll become a world power because a few billion dollars moves there? Come on. If we really wanted, we could individually sanction these people and freeze their assets for, again, a broader tax evasion.

On the alpha2omega podcast, there have been several guests talking about the actual data we have on recessions, and each of them said the pattern is profit rates dropping first, then investment and hiring dropping, not demand falling leading to less investment.

Especially since all of this money are just stocks or digitized representations of cash. It's not like they're going to be able to take all their money out in cash from their local bank.

...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight

Go ahead take your money we don't need it just the private property you leave behind.

My family makes 24k a year, there won't be much to have.

Then we don't have much to lose when you flee to go be apart of some dwindling an-cap fiefdom do we bud.

Prolly won't be able to leave when the cancer comes anyway, all the white men will be rounded up and executed

Yeah, Jamal is literally going to do the executing himself by beating you with his foot long dong.

Oh I hope you are this poster
Because it would be a perfect explanation to that train of misrepresentation after misrepresentation

Can't wait to personally round up white people and kill them for no reason

I don't think LeftComs get to criticize people for LARPing as revolutionaries, considering all you do is sit around waiting for the Rapture spontaneous proletarian revolution.

Are these people going to be taking their solid capital with them? Why would we let them take it?

As for liquid capital:

That would literally be the best moment of my life to watch.

because on Holla Forums a thread has to be derailed as soon as possible
excellent work this time, it took literally one (1) post
now let me join in the derailing

In my opinion it is immoral to let people starve because of the logic of capital. Now we have established that there are at least 2 moral positions, great fucking discourse right here. Move on from morality.
why do you think other means of capitalist domination like private corporations, artificial scarcity and general deprivation should not count for capitalism's headcount?
We have already decided why it was ineffective - hence all the revolutionary talk. The bourgeois state serves bourgeois interests, it's internal logic is that of bourgeois interests, it is controlled by the bourgeois interest. You can never take money out of politics in a bourgeois society, at best you can reduce its direct impact.

Whoa, how radical. Did he go as far as saying strikes should be legal?

I am not making anargument about credit. Obviously big credit bubbels can be a problem for capitalism. The argument that Wolff is making is the argument that there is not a enough effective demand from the proletariat to buy back all the products. This is the argument of Wolff when he talks about the depression of wages causing crisis from lack of demand. What he fails to realize is that surplus does not need to be bought by the worker, so sure a lack in demand can cause bad stuff for the economy but as long as the capitalist class doesn't produce mudpies or something underconsumption will not be a problem. I am not saying that a lack of consumption won't cause problems but the capitalist class will never have to worry about not being able to sell their product because they lowered wages. They now have more future capital to reinvest.

Never has this book been more relevant.
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/

Im on the right but enjoyed capitalism hits the fan. He establishes capitalism isnt inherently bad and never failed, it was tranformed into crony capitalism that no longer produced wealth but rather credit and debt. The big banking machine and the fed are to blame. As well as big gov.

Glad to hear you ignored the content of his book and used cherrypicked facts from it to confirm your already existing ideology.

Capitalism is system built on contradictions that constantly undermines itself. If anything, it was banks and big gov that kept it going this long, without them, it would have collapsed decades ago.

once you realise that the transformation into 'crony capitalism' is an inherent quality of capitalism itself rather than an accident of history you get to join us on the barricades.

not everyone lives in Denmark you chucklefuck

No, it's just less efficient than socialism.
Nor did feudalism
Crony Capitalism is just capitalism when fully developed.
Capitalism needs the government to survive, which is why capitalism always tends toward a corporate nanny state.

Clearly Richard Wolff has failed you, as you seem to be under the impression that capitalism is when the private sector does stuff (you probably think socialism is when the state is doing stuff).

How about you learn what capitalism is first before you share your unqualified opinions, how fitting you began your post with "Im on the right".

Remember you're dealing with a right winger here, he probably believes that capitalism has been around since Pharonic Egypt, feudalism is interchangeable with medieval for this guy.

We're not talking about elections here fam.

BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE
youtu.be/i3_rPX97FiU
youtu.be/D402PxiXUmc

Was kind of hoping Wolff would do a little more than his boilerplate talking points, but I guess that's still pretty good for engaging Jimmy's audience.

I remember the topic came up in a lecture he gave on crises where someone asked about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall and he didn't really take a stance on one view or the other.

Marx reffered to it as the most important law of political economy. If you don't talk about it you are replacing Marx's crisis theory with your own.

He did it, he actually did it, the absolute madman!

I'd like to see Michael Hudson on next.

New half hour vid
youtube.com/watch?v=-45IV5QV_9Y

SHIT, IT JUST DAWNED ON JIMMY WHAT SOCIALISM IS!

Jimmy Dore's conservative/Trump-voting subscribers mass downvoting new Wolff anti-capitalist vid like crazy

youtube.com/watch?v=-45IV5QV_9Y

Also, have you guys noticed that Jimmy gets almost half the views TYT does now?

All ~40 of them? Doesn't seem like they're having much success.

826 likes vs 37 dislikes, let's not go overboard here

We need to get Noam Chomsky on TJDS. If Noam's willing to go on an obscure, schizophrenic technocrat's podcast, surely he could be persuaded to go on Jimmy's show

Noam Chomsky on the Singularity 1 on 1 podcast
youtube.com/watch?v=0kICLG4Zg8s
youtube.com/watch?v=Ck9zKihIYLE

Hell, Chomsky's been on the Alex Jones show before.

...

The only revolution that burger will have is socdem.
just nuke them

...

...

That's not all Lenin talked about.

The book is a critque of leftcom praxis aka not participating in ellections.

I have had too little opportunity to acquaint myself with “Left-wing” communism in Italy. Comrade Bordiga and his faction of Abstentionist Communists (Comunista astensionista) are certainly wrong in advocating non-participation in parliament. But on one point, it seems to me, Comrade Bordiga is right—as far as can be judged from two issues of his paper, Il Soviet (Nos. 3 and 4, January 18 and February 1, 1920), from four issues of Comrade Serrati’s excellent periodical, Comunismo (Nos. 1–4, October l–November 30, 1919), and from separate issues of Italian bourgeois papers which I have seen. Comrade Bordiga and his group are right in attacking Turati and his partisans, who remain in a party which has recognised Soviet power and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and yet continue their former pernicious and opportunist policy as members of parliament. Of course, in tolerating this, Comrade Serrati and the entire Italian Socialist Party [28] are making a mistake which threatens to do as much harm and give rise to the same dangers as it did in Hungary, where the Hungarian Turatis sabotaged both the party and the Soviet government [29] from within. Such a mistaken, inconsistent, or spineless attitude towards the opportunist parliamentarians gives rise to “Left-wing” communism, on the one hand, and to a certain extent justifies its existence, on the other. Comrade Serrati is obviously wrong when he accuses Deputy Turati of being “inconsistent” (Comunismo No. 3), for it is the Italian Socialist Party itself that is inconsistent in tolerating such opportunist parliamentarians as Turati and Co.

Chomsky will respond to literally anyone's email so long as they're constructive, but he'll take a while to get back to you.

chomsky[at]mit[dot]edu
valeria[dot]chomsky[at]gmail[dot]com

He's like richard stallman in that way.

literal goldmine

Wolff has been in talks with post-keynesians at least twice now and he still doesn't understand how taxes work with relation to the federal government

it's cuz he's a marxist economist
aka
I have 2 insights into the economy and am 4 decades beyond advances in economic thought

and still buys into under consumptionism.

Posting this image should be a bannable offense. Why would you basically post something saying "If I think you really wrong, you really really wrong and I am right". Everyone is talking like someone got BTFO and none of you have made any significant points other than "It gets renivested", "No it doesn't faggot", and so on… Posting that image is incredibly ironic given that this entire thread consists of a few Anons jerking themselves off to their almost entirely idealist discussion of Capitalism, I.E. without any proofs or even just coherent logic with some small evidence.

Seriously this.
LMAO that they even think that would work, or they the money would somehow magically keep the value it had.

How do they work?

MMT is a completely useless doctrine. They looked at the monetary system from a slightly different angle and act like its revolutionary, probably because it makes Keynesian welfare state bullshit look slightly more attractive.

And you need to tax in proportion in proportion to new spending if you don't want catastrophic inflation, meaning that, effectively, taxes pay for government spending.

The only thing I've seen that MMT seems to "contribute" to the economic conversation is by subtlety implying that you can just increase spending without raising taxes by printing more money like that won't have catastrophic economic repercussions.

Please choose a new flag

This is false and you don't get the simple point of MMT. If we lived in a static economy with full employment we would have the simple relation between taxes, spending, inflation that is somehow the "common sense" of almost everybody from the far right to the Marxists accepts. But we don't. In a situation of high unemployment and very under-utilized machinery, good projects by the government can increase real physical output with the help of just printing money. And idiotic government programs can literally reduce real physical output and so cause inflation, even if the government keeps a tight relationship between taxing and spending.

I'm aware. This is nothing new. You've reworded something we've known for decades. This isn't revolutionary.

The point stands that if you increase spending without increasing taxes by just flooding the market with new money, you'll devalue the currency leading to runaway inflation. If you don't want this happening, you need to pull as much money out of the economy as you put in, so effectively taxes pay for spending by preventing wild monetary inflation. Yes, inflation of prices will happen if physical production slows down. This is basic supply and demand that we've known about forever.

You've put the same metrics in a slightly different frame. Stop acting like this is revelutionary.

Who is we? The general population? Most Marxists? Because that's not true in either case.
Go suck Ron Paul's cock.

Explain to me why flooding the market with new money wouldn't cause massive inflation by devaluing the currency.

People and companies building up reserves. It's why quantitative easing did not lead to inflation. Alternatively, if there is a demand deficit, you'll just get the activation of unused machinery and people to meet the new demand without a rise in prices and wages, because of under-utilization. Inflation is not a simple function of the amount of money in the economy.
Only when too much money is being spent without a commensurate increase in production, will you get price inflation, and wage inflation will only happen if there is a labour shortage that puts the workers in the position do demand higher wages.

There's no inflation because of quantitative easing because the money hasn't actually been used to create growth and/or increase wages, so what you have is massive amounts of wealth pigeonholed at the top and not in general circulation.

...

Exactly. So there is your explanation of how flooding the market with money does not cause inflation.
MMT is not just about constantly printing more and more money. It is simply a more honest way of accounting, not a macro-economic prescription. You still have to engage in these trad-offs at a policy level: will we decide to reduce the amount of resources the government eats up or increase it, will we increase or decrease the wage of the basic job or the level of basic income so there is less or more presure on private sector wages, etc. - all these questions still have to be decided on politically, and can respond to economic conditions as needed.

Because he is an edgy liberal.

depends on the spending
like right now we don't even need an income tax because demand-pull inflation only happens when we are at full productive capacity

the problem with socialists not understanding new economic theory, is that you make stupid fucking decision, like pegging the bolivar to USD (Venezuela), or staying in the Eurozone during a crisis (Greece)

It has policy implications, it's not just "le print money"

the term "printing money" is a holdover from the gold standard days when new money would stretch the value of the dollar just because it was new money

that doesn't happen anymore. NEW MONEY DOES NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE INFLATION.

THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T GO BROKE, IT DOESN'T NEED TAXES TO SPEND

we've been off the gold standard since 1933, but I'm sure Wolff can't wrap his puny brain around post-keynesianism because he's been in talks with those economists quite a few times now and has shown 0 evidence of understanding it, preferring to say stuff that doesn't make sense

in nations with a sovereign fiat currency (aka not Venezuela or Greece), you spend before you tax. You don't tax before you spend.

These governments, including Canada, the UK, and the US, can't involuntarily default. All new money is out of thin air. No taxes are used or needed for US federal spending. Taxes just go in the literal shredder in the case of physical notes and in the proverbial shredder in the case of electronic payment.

Why? Because the US can't run out of dollars. It has a monopoly on them. USD isn't pegged to anything, so the US needs to collect dollars to spend (tax) just as much as a public park would need to collect tickets to hand out tickets to it's park (it doesn't need to).

So, since 1933, the US government doesn't ever, "run out of money", like Wolff suggested.

Inflation isn't the same as running out of money if your fiat currency isn't pegged to anything. Even with hyperinflation, you don't run out of money.

But inflation is a big boogeyman in the US, taxes can be used to combat inflation by sucking money out of the economy (because that's what taxes do), but we aren't even at full productive capacity yet, so taxes just control cost-push inflation

taxes create unemployment, and can be used as a deflationary force if used to reduce the velocity of money,

but they don't fund federal spending

just because the word has been distorted to include belongings in common use doesn't mean the academic and correct definitions no longer stand. this is actually that 'basic economics' you faggots always harp on about.

nice bate thread

But that is never the intention to do. Why must your biggest weapon of socialism be your wilful ignorance? You clearly show you understand but just chooses not to

youtube.com/watch?v=rXrtszrWqvE

This is actually a really good intro to the basics of socialism.

Our goal is to abolish currency anyway, so it doesn't really matter that much in the long term.

That said, since we're dealing with commodity fetishism in its purest form, any unit of currency could be viewed as abstract exchange value in physical form. And, as anything operating on exchange value, when supply goes up, exchange value goes down. Produce a bunch of magical exchange value tokens and, logically, the value of each token goes down. Gold operates on the same logic actually, being a next-to-useless metal valued for its social power rather than anything inherent to it (commodity fetishism), the difference between it and fiat currency is that gold is limited in supply, whereas fiat currency is not, but if I were to find some massive new supply of gold, the exchange value of gold would ultimately go down.

I appreciate the explanation, but my brainlet mind is going to filter all that as "currency is a spook and doesn't real".
Honestly, that seems really basic. I already knew that the government pulls money out of its metaphorical ass.

Your original argument was that underconsumption is an un-Marxist concept, and that's what I was arguing against. You have still failed to provide evidence that this is the case.
What you fail to realize is that an economy in which consumption of goods by workers represents a large portion of the economy (as it is in ours) underconsumption will absolutely be an issue. Sure it's not the only issue, but it is a large one. In the period leading up to a crisis production will be heavily influenced by speculation, which necessarily means that socially useless shit will be produced (sorta akin to mudpies).
Underconsumption can happen in two different situations, either wages fall too far to maintain the level of consumption to remain profitable or the level of goods that need to be produced/sold to remain profitable rises beyond what workers are able to purchase. Obviously crisis can't be deferred forever, but raising wages appropriately can put off crisis for a while.

...