[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chori / choroy / dempart / freeb / jenny / mde / tingles / vichan ]

/marxism/ - Marxism

let the ruling classes tremble
Winner of the 82rd Attention-Hungry Games
/tikilounge/ - Relax, take it easy

June 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 3 per post.

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


Yesterday Richard Wolff gave a talk that covers his new book plus a lot of history about Marxism. I don't agree 100% with Richard Wolff but his talks are always excellent to introduce Marxist ideas to people, especially in countries like the U.S. which have very little education about Marxism.


Pretty good explanation of his views. Should be mandatory for people who criticize him under false pretenses.


near the middle of the talk he actually discusses the question of reform vs. revolution. he implies that reforms are only useful in building momentum towards some kind of revolution change.



I thought it was more than mere implication. He gave the example of the New Deal getting rolled back to explain that reforms will get chipped away until their gone. He said that the reforms might make stuff a little less bad right now, but that's about it, and the failure of reforms is effective at galvanizing people to make more fundamental changes.

I think he shies away from revolutionary speech partially because he wants to focus on "microeconomics" but also because he doesn't want the CIA to shoot him with the heart attack gun.



do you think that FAILURE to achieve reforms will radicalize people or just demoralize them?



He's right, capitalism playing nice is still capitalism and will stop being nice after your guard lowers. Reforms like free healthcare, rent control, and a thousand bucks may be beneficial to us but we shouldn't fetishize them as good in themselves or steps toward socislism.


It depends on the circumstances too much to say definitely.


File: f44f5d750b29c03⋯.png (74.6 KB, 160x160, 1:1, 1449965338906.png)

>but his talks are always excellent to introduce Marxist ideas to people


I like Wolff. I actually think co-operatives are a good start / way to go towards some kind of socialism, cause let's face it, we're not getting an anarchist/communist utopia any time soon. Encouraging co-ops with tax breaks and lowered startup costs, passing laws that allow employees to purchase companies, etc. would improve the lives of many people and get people on board with 'socialist thinking'.

Personally, I'd much rather work as a cook or a manual labourer in a co-op for $10/hr. than be a bank manager for $250k/yr.



Then I doubt you've ever worked for 10 an hour.



<saging a stickied thread


how would YOU introduce people to marx's ideas?



Luckily I live in a place where the minimum is 18€ for manual labour, but you get my point.



I live in a place where minimum is $7.25 and you can't afford to live on your own off 10 an hour fam, it fucking sucks. Co-ops are better than most employers sure, but worker owned poverty is still poverty. Moreover we run into the issue of labor movements, of we're all in co-ops are we going to strike against ourselves? The majority of the proletariat will be employed by the bourgeoisie (or state) and an escape into co-ops isn't really a solution.

That said, I think co-ops have uses in employing unemployable comrades, providing services we can't get from capitalist firms such as publishing, or even money laundering. But I don't think we should see them as good anymore than we should see comfy reforms good because neither existentially threaten capitalism.




I don't know why everyone assumes that working in a co-op = low pay.

Imagine that you work for a company that doesn't have to pay hundreds of a thousands of dollars to a CEO and members of upper management. Imagine how much extra cash would be available to pay higher wages. Plus, imagine that your co-op is has paid back whatever debt it undertook to finance capital investment. All the profits are now being divided up among the workers in the co-op without a need to pay shareholder dividends or engage in stock buybacks to boost the salaries of executives. Why wouldn't this result in higher wages?

Even if you take into account that deductions are being made for investment in new machinery, advertising, employee pensions, and health benefits - you are still saving a huge amount of cash by abolishing exploitation at the company-level.



They are. I would never gave Marx a read, and in turn other socialist thinkers from Luxemburg to Mao, if not for Richard "big dick" Wolff.





File: 90e23e80f44e6c4⋯.png (368.39 KB, 800x800, 1:1, Frogged.png)


>I don't know why everyone assumes that working in a co-op = low pay.

I was going with his example of $10 an hour, which is low pay.

>Why wouldn't this result in higher wages?

Competition with traditional firms. We probably would see higher wages relative to other firms, but I doubt it would be very extreme differences.



>I was going with his example of $10 an hour, which is low pay.

I was trying to illustrate that within a capitalist economy, once you're able to make enough to survive, it is more important to me to work in a democratic workplace rather than a totalitarian one.



>how would YOU introduce people to marx's ideas?

The first step is same as usual: organization of workers into classist organizations such as unions, propaganda work in the workplaces and struggle for dominance between more militant workers and the conciliatory currents.


<Wolff made me read Mao

A damning critique of Mr. Richard



By skipping the dry theory and going straight to the end results;

mass starvation, poverty the repression and murder of dissidents, and the.emergence of an "aristocracy of the party".

By the by, you are all idiots, but it saddens me that in order to save western civilization, you will all have to be rounded up and beaten to death with shovels.

Future generations will see it as a cautionary tale.

(2 day ban - keep it in the containment thread.)


File: 5c5f61edcad4555⋯.jpg (89.32 KB, 960x660, 16:11, East_German_patricians_ref….jpg)


>By the by, you are all idiots, but it saddens me that in order to save western civilization

I love how /pol/yps say this while degenerate socialist states came closer to preserving their culture than anything in the west did.



Yeah, but to survive we could be talking up to $40 an hour here in burgerland, with $15 an hour being sort of a minimum for most places. For the majority of proles the co-op is only a slightly more realistic dream than muh small business because even co-ops require capital and other shit to function as a business. I see the (re)emerging labor movement as a better method than co-ops for the majority of folks working a job.



>I see the (re)emerging labor movement

Sorry to break it to you, but no such thing is happening, at least not in "the West".



In the U.S. there were 485,000 workers who went on strike last year. What do you call this?



You just threw a figure at me and you expect me to do the work of interpreting it for you? I don't know if that's all the same sector, same time, did the order come from a union, was it in response to something and so on.

I don't call it anything because I don't know what to call it because I don't have a context.


Wolff makes me believe that Marxism could be popular in america again. The hell with third worldist.

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / chori / choroy / dempart / freeb / jenny / mde / tingles / vichan ]