Global Capitalism Monthly Economic Update: August 2016 is finally here

This Update would have been a great opportunity for Wolff to analyze the Green New Deal. Kind of disappointed that he doesn't considering all the criticism for the issues the corporate tool candidates aren't talking about.

I don't think he really takes the green party seriously, and for good reason. If they start polling better he'll probably talk about them.

His editor for the book Democracy at Work is the one that drafted the anti-capitalist plank and Wolff himself approved of it. The Green New Deal advocates precisely for many of the things he talks about in this Update.

i know, but he probably knows that shilling for them probably isn't going to do him much good

He was on a roll with that economic democracy bit in this one, I'll have to make a clip out of that later.

He said that he wanted too, but didn''t have any time. He says in his talk that he'll try to address that at a different date.

He already endorsed Jill Stein months ago.

...

I have a question.

I'll clarify first: I hated youtubers with a rage of thousand suns. After having to listen to this Wolff guy talk for an hour (1:09:37 / 1:47:17 - didn't even finish yet), I hate youtubers with a rage of ten thousand suns.

Can someone explain what's so good about this guy?

Kudos for realizing that both parties are literally the same, but something weird happens when it's time to present solutions.

That's not how Socialism works.

That's 10 dollars per person. Can he do basic math?

Is he even Left?

Oh, god. Fascist. I should've guessed.

0/10

He's organizing and being productive as opposed to just complaining that other people aren't doing enough.

...

Go fuck yourself.

That was very helpful.

Yeah, yeah. You can report me now. If you want to discuss it - I have a whole thread on /marx/ for this. Should finish writing boring long-ass posts this week.

When you hear an individual being credited and you can only imagine leftypol being credited…

You do realize he wasn't saying literally just give the 40 billion to those people, think about what kind of investment 40 billion dollars would be to a sub saharan african country. That's nearly equivalent to the entire gdp of Ethiopia

Ignore him. He's a fucking nutjob that thinks environmentalism is fascism.

Are you going to say that your "autism level can go over 9000" again?

He is, but the same cannot be said about you.

He has a tripcode. Filter him.

1:08:00 - he literally says that. "40 billion made available to other 3.5 billion people. What could be done."

He also implied that simple wealth redistribution could solve problems. Which is dumb.

It is Fascist ideology, not Fascism itself. Get your facts straight.

Arguments?

I mean, you literally said that. Shame that you deleted your own posts in that thread tho, just goes to show how dishonest you really are in the end :^)

Aren't you supposed to post that image you made saying how "Socialism = When the State owns things" to prove your "leftism"?

You mean like what you implied with Papa Wolff?

You fuckers got so butthurt that you demanded from the mod to ban me and delete my posts, and now you claim that I deleted them?

Fuck you.

That's not what "ad hominem" means, user.

Fascism is an ideology. Stop wasting trips.

All you do is shitpost in every single thread

Sage for offtopic. And will try to make some new .webms of this new Wolff update later.

...

He is speaking to normies. He's highlighting wealth inequality around the globe. He doesn't "imply" wealth distribution will solve everything. You're implying that he's implying that. Watch the rest of vid before you start shitting up threads.

As in "Mussolini's ideology"? Because that's splitting hairs.

I asked one simple question. I've heard about him several times before, but never took the time to actually check him. Now I tried listening to him and wasn't impressed.

Only now (1:32:53 / 1:47:17) he got to co-ops.

So, Napoleon was a fascist? Leopold 2nd? Pisistratus?

Do you know what you're watching? It's not some revolutionary Marxist theory podcast. It's a monthly update on Capitalism by a Marxist economist to a bunch of slightly class-conscious proles. He has more theory stuff in other lectures of his.

I would die to see this man do the Costanza face with a baseball bat and everything.

How did you even arrive at this conclusion?

The first link I saw when I had the time to check him.

I dunno.. Didn't they have.. FASCIST IDEOLOGIES?

I can barely wait to see /r/socialism's faces.

You know what? Go to /marx/ and present your argument about "no true Fascism" there, ok? Not in "incoherent rambling across several posts" form here.

Final notes: a bit annoying that he doesn't explain why the wages stopped rising in 1970s.

"You know, I don't like this Marx guy. I just read On the Jewish Question and he had nothing to say about the instability of Capitalism."

That gif is great

Saved.

it would be truly glorious, probably like gif related

LOL THIS GUY SUXX HE CALLS HIMSELF AN ECONOMIST???

meant for

Wasted some trips. Sorry comrades.

youtu.be/T9Whccunka4?t=52m40s

Thanks. Did he discuss it all in written form somewhere?

I've got his Democracy at Work and Occupy the Economy (also Class Theory - about USSR; he apparently discovers that there were not Communism in USSR).

>the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics had a classless, stateless and moneyless society

...

SO GOOD. Love the elephant/nail file analogy. I always get so many ideas for comics from these videos.

They're so on point, some of the stuff he says would blow most peoples' minds but the length of these videos probably deters norms from watching them. Would be worthwhile to make his thoughts more accessible.

That book review he covered at the begging. That's the kind of thing that would trigger pol HARD.

I just realized something
DEmocracy at work has the same initials as DICK WOLF

im sorry comrade but that is fucking retarded

Yeah. Kinda weird for a Marxist to compare Capitalism and Communism in USSR. But that's what the book says. Which is why I wanted to clarify things here, but got hysterics instead.

Apparently, he has his own definition of "communism".
> Hence societies with communist class structures may exhibit varying political forms ranging from those that are fully democratic in nature to those that are clearly despotic. They may display property ownerships that range from the fully collective to the very private.

Mind you, he does elaborate things, but this still smells revisionist for me.

What is? Ad hominem is using personal attacks against somebody to justify your arguments. My arguments were against the contents of his speech: he presents redistribution of wealth as a solution.

… except the post got deleted already and I can't even quote it. Perfect.

Dick @lpha Wolff

...

I was hoping someone would post this

This a test

Breddy guuud : D.

Acshully, he's endorsed her
youtube.com/watch?v=JklfxbNCxxw

thanks famrade

Good shit comrade

Nice find, I had no idea.

The rant at the end really hit the nail on the head.

Well, tough luck, I guess.

A question: how many people here actually read his books? I.e. not only listened to him.

I hadn't read that book. Seems interesting, though.

Tankies are truly retarded.

I've actually been reading that one now. First chapter is pretty dense but it's easier to get into after that.

I am extremely annoyed that Wolff uses his own definitions for Socialism, Communism and classes.

If you really want to use your own, newly-invented, definitions of things, why should you use already existing names for them? And then people go and call him Marxist. This is not Marxism. It is Wolffism-Resnickism with Marxist terminology glued on top.

After listening to his lectures, I'm not surprised we have special snowflake Leninists now with completely inane arguments about state capitalism.

You should write a proper analysis and submit it to bunkermag

How do you mean?

What are his newly-invented definitions of socialism, communism and classes?

I'll finish reading first.

Mind you, I haven't finished reading, but so far:

tl;dr: you can't have bureaucrats. If you do - that's capitalism.

Introduction:
> The key distinction between our kind of class analysis and theirs lies in the different concepts/definitions of class itself. Official Soviet—and most other—conceptions of class define it chiefly in terms of property and/or power. In the property definition, populations are divided into classes according to how much and what kind of property they do or do not own: the rich versus the poor and so on. In the power definition, populations divide into those who give versus those who take orders: the rulers versus the ruled. In short, these class analyses focus on the social distributions of property and/or power. In the classic economic formulation: capitalism represents private property and private market transactions, while socialism and communism represent state property and state-planned distributions.
This is place he should get hit with a brick in the face, by the way. State control without democracy is Fascism. Apparently, Resnick/Wolff couldn't be bothered to differentiate.
Another brick, btw.

> In contrast, we define class differently. For us, class refers to how society organizes the production, appropriation, and distribution of surplus. Stated simply, this definition of class presumes that in all societies, one part of the population interacts with nature to produce a quantity of output. The total quantity of output always exceeds the portion that is returned to this part of the population (the workers) for its consumption and reproduction. This excess is the “surplus.” A second part of the population immediately receives this surplus from the producers. Finally, a third part of the population obtains distributions of portions of the surplus from the second part. Any society’s class structure refers to how it organizes its population in relation to the surplus as (1) surplus producers, (2) surplus appropriators (and hence distributors), and/or (3) recipients of distributed shares of the surplus. [3]
> [3] - Marx describes these three parts for capitalism as follows: “[W]e regard the capitalist: 1. as the person who immediately appropriates the whole surplus-value created; 2. as the distributor of that surplus-value created between himself, the moneyed capitalist, and the proprietor of the soil” (1969, 108).

> As part 1 shows in considerable detail, a communist class structure is then one in which the producers and appropriators are the same people, whereas the class difference of capitalism is precisely that the appropriators are different people from the producers. The appropriators of the surplus exploit its producers—appropriate the latters’ surplus product—insofar as and precisely because they are not also producers themselves. Part 2 then shows how a capitalist class structure can take either of two forms. In private capitalism, one or more persons with no official position in the state apparatus function as surplus appropriator/exploiter, whereas in state capitalism, the surplus appropriator/exploiter consists of one or more state officials.