Marxism (with Dr. Richard Wolff) 

True. He doesn't go beyond theory, the only way Marxism makes sense.

Yes!! This is one of the best explanations of Marxism I’ve seen

I also find vivek chibber to be incredibly insightful on the topic, but I do agree

@@mindlander He went beyond theory when he mentioned workers cooperatives and other similar things

@@mindlander he's not into revolutionary politics. His works aren't analysing american material conditions to do a revolution like lenin or mao. That's why your smug comment is stupid. Cause he'll teach others who will be able to analyse america and do revolution after achieving critical conditions

Opposite of based

@@dirtydeeds4free553 L

@@dirtydeeds4free553 awww you wanna defend the headless monsters of capitalism after we bring the guillotine 🔪

@@dirtydeeds4free553 ya muva

@@dirtydeeds4free553 ratio

I like how he said the US is fighting a war in Ukraine

Well it was a podcast so...

Yeah, as someone who likes Wolff and credits him as my intro to Marxism back in 2016, I was sort of hoping this wouldn't be as polemical as his own show. I think Sisyphus55 can ask really good questions and would've loved to hear more dialogue between the two of them.

hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaa

​@@deenzmartin6695That's it? Nothing else to add? 'K, thanks for participating.

There's really good short materials. If you need help. Manifesto is very easy and tells you the basic terms and such. Reform or revolution is good too. Then there's family private property and the working class if u wanna learn about how property rights and patriarchy was created.

I would also like to recommend "Why Socialism?" by Einstein, "the Principles of Communism" by Engels, and "Blackshirts and Reds" by Parenti. The former two are short and easy reads and great introductions, the latter is a longer work that goes into dispelling some of the historical myths about the former Socialist experiments.

Some more good listens w/ Richard Wolff as a guest (note: this first Chapo episode listed is a great intro to Wolff as a whole): - Chapo Trap House #186 2/18/18 - The End of the Myth #16 2/20/22 - Homebrewed Christianity “Why Marx? Why now?” 2022 - Chapo Trap House #713 3/9/23

A philosophy of any description doesn’t “work”. Philosophy doesn’t answer any questions, it just makes sure you’re asking the right questions

@@buddhull I would say his interview with Lex Fridman is the best: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o0Bi-q89j5Y.html&

Would you recommend his written works, or some videos on RU-vid specifically?

@@ThePathOfEudaimonia Personally I never gave his "Democracy at Work" a shot cause lack of time and motivation, but i got interested especially in his videos - debates and lectures. For start i would recommend his lecture at ACLU of Southern California. Lex Fridman invited him on his podcast too and i liked it very much.

@@martinez8826 Thanks! I'll check it out. I also watched his conversation with Lex, and liked it a lot.

That’s what I’m saying 😍

I’m not sure you got the main point then: contradictions always happen, no matter whether you define your starting part as ‘good’, and your desired change as ‘bad’. Hopefully, those contradictions become the choice of ice cream, and not whether you live or die.

but it is a contradiction, for in trying to commercialize it and profit off of it, it is spreading the very ideas amongst the populace that undermine it. It chips away at it's own foundation in it's relentless pursuit of profit.

I have at this point listened to 3 talks of proffesor Wolff and I struggle to understand what does he propose for the ideal transition from capitalism to socialism without the intervention of institutional power, which I belive he doesn't advocate for, and neither am I as, in my opinion, involment of goverment leads to stalinism, maoism ect.

@@psychoboo955 It will require institutional power, or at least that institutions do not intervene in the transition. The causes for intense authoritarianism is complex and multi-faceted, and one aspect that cannot be overlooked is societal history, which applies for both russia and china. No country is innately resistant to authoritarianism but the exact shape of that beast will differ in accordance with a whole host a variables. A strong government that is not authoritarian in the manner of stalin/mao is absolutely possible as a base attribute is about the extreme consolidation of power into a single office, it is only this that causes President to equal King, where pre-existing laws do not matter, only the will of the king does.

But they are just contradictions that will go away according to the Marxist theory. Capitalist realism is fundamentally opposed to human nature, because as humans we are always changing and reorganizing ourselves to best suit our needs and interests. Commercialization of anti-capitalist thinking works the same way, ultimately the producers and consumers of this market rely on the same system of commerce that they are purporting to criticize. These contradictions will eventually go away when the workers become conscious of them, causing the workers to organize to overthrow the old system and replace it with one that doesn’t allow for them to happen in the first place.

Parenti in particular was important to me. His 1986 lecture on imperialism could change a liberal to a revolutionary in an hour.

@@alpacario336 going to listen to that rn. Thank you for putting me on.

Noam Chomsky is iffy and oversteps his expertise, but he's still got some good points.

Chomsky says the NATO bombing in Yugoslavia “for 76 days and nights” was justified. He is wrong on many topics and I wouldn’t lump him together with Parenti. The rest of this I agree with 🙏

⁠@@davidmichels5295I’m sure they have issues with things that both Chomsky and Parenti have said but they’re talking purely about criticising the US, something that both Chomsky and Parenti (according to the original commenter) both have very good takes (and some not so good ones) on. Of course both thinkers have their benefits and their flaws outside of criticising the US but I wouldn’t really object to grouping them together in this specific context.

Yeah, the people that come up with intellectual justifications for imperialism are *super trustworthy* ✅

@@shelbyspeaks3287 That's Liberalism and Social Democrats

@@shelbyspeaks3287these belief systems are antithetical to achieving imperialistic goals. did you even listen?

why do you not agree with him on those subjects in specific?

​@@keenban Can't speak for the commentator obviously, but the idea of a unipolar world with a hegemonic empire is historically simplistic at best and not convincing with specific regard to China's RL development and global strategy. And with regard to Ukraine, Wolff simplifies the war in a way that fits in the declining empire narrative, besides not crediting the fact that it is also part of another (USSR/Russia) declining empire's narrative, it is obviously a corollary of other contingent developments, which aren't intentionally lead by US politics and its hegemonic ambitions. The fact that the Ukraine case is now exploited to some extent to weaken a geo-strategic enemy doesn't mean it's causally a necessary result of that interest, which is however what Wolff and other big talkers of geopolitics claim.

@@domsjuk The USSR doesn t exist brother, and Ukraine was an SSR. The war in Ukraine is a product of capitalism fighting, it always ends this way. Putin wants the gas in Ukraine and to ensure that only Russia can supply Europe with gas, USA wants to kick Russia and take over the market. This is the truth. Always follow the money.

This is just an AI generated avatar. Don't be fooled!

Lol. No. You just turn the masses into slaves so they "work for each other".

It’s a good reflexion to see that the change dynamic comes from the inside of the system ( it’s pretty logical), but from what you said in your comment, it seems to me that « the people being fed up » and « a revolutionary system » are not mutually exclusive: it’s because the people are fed up that they give birth to a new system with time trough out a/multiples revolutions. :)

@@ymoonysun9130 Yeah, not mutually exclusive, but two factors being combined leading to the systemic change.

So people with wealth, traders, wanted more wealth and thus, became capitalists.

​@@ymoonysun9130 i never ever saw the people actually performing a successful revolution, rather the people are used by said emerging new system to topple down the old one

Ah yes, Richard "Stuff" Wolff

he was making fun of those who think like that, ofc that's not his point of view

it was a joke 😐

@Temple Hey I hope those that liked Alek's comment remembered it was a joke. It is a political philosophy meme at this point.

ROCK ROBOT ROCK

i thought the same honestly. my presumption was he wanted to be respectful & allow him to finish his points, but wolff’s other doctorate is in Yappinese 😂

Contradictions are inherent to Hegelian and Marxist dialectical theories.

true i was a bit nervous, his debate with destiny was embarrassing but this was pretty good

Strange imo that you say he is a "hit or miss," because I don't recall a single time he did not express his point eloquently and with clarity. His analysis does often stay on a 101 level for ease of understanding though, so actually reading Marx is recommended instead of just listening to him.

@@ski6035yeah because destiny made an infantile fool out of himself

@@user-ko5nt4ym2l he does loves to ramble a bit and previously in his dabate with destiny he was giving different definitions of what it is being a marxist - conveniently changing it a bit every time to suit his arguments. it was also frustrating to listen to him giving a unrelated prologue before answering any questions destiny was asking him. also, he was unable to give any convincing explanations about how marxist economic policies are actually going to function in real life. I haven't seen this podcast yet though, so I'm going into this with an open mind, but I don't have much expectations.

@@ski6035 fr that one PS5 question at the end 😭

Thank you for this

Communism gonna make u not have to work?

I would recommend that you read further into Marx's theory of worker alienation if you have not already, it provides insight into why we hate working and how we can change this.

I dont pretend to be philosophical. It's interesting to me, because it's always felt wrong. Abuse by boss, constant anxiety over your own mood. There is a better way.

Just give me all your money, guns, property, and autonomy and I promise to create a society that looks fair... To me!

@@jacobjohnson2714 "disarming the working class must be rejected by any means necessary" Karl Marx. I bet you didn t expect that did you?

Austrian Economics is batshit insane but I agree, read about it

Bruh it's LIBERALISM that's failing not capitalism, wtf are you gonna do without capitalism???

​@@shelbyspeaks3287Legislate workplace democracy.

have fun starving under your dictatorship!!!

*Sniiiifff

And so on and so on...😅

Small portion of people are very motivated. An even smaller part of them are smart enough and in the right position to create something substantial. No matter the system, it will just pick winners and losers.

that is another contradiction that is grounded on the basis that money is absolutely central towards economic systems

No. You come in and demand for the same work that budget is paid to you.

Hakim is a fucking dibshit, yugopnik is the only based one and that's because he's balkan and not some leftiod austrian with colored hair.

Nuclear physicist here, it was me

he was actually only talking about europe with that line of history, he’s more-so eurocentric in that he didn’t extend his analysis beyond europe very often

Marx is 100% eurocentric because of his assumption that the revolution starts from the industrially developed, which was wrong.

And of course there's never any mentions of stuff like the Mit'a system or Kula ring which exist outside of this eurocentric dichotomy of master/slave

​@@blake1935Isn't the end of history also a very Hegelian idea that Marx pulls into the dialectic? Wasn't the Hegelian idea that geist would be realized without contradiction, much like communism is supposed to be cohesive and make economic antagonisms irrelevant (except people start to jump on status and other forms of hierarchical tension)?

His work has flaws that can be difficult to point out to those who have idolized him or his theories. Disclaimer so people don't come for my throat: not saying he's all wrong, just that he didn't achieve complete perfection

read wage labour and capital please, it s very short and very eye opening.

More broadly, it is a lens of viewing social hierarchy.

He does not ever claim it is an ideology throughout the talk

@@vin2620 its a general statement that I just like saying because literally everybody has that misconception, including some commenters here

@@keenban "social hierarchy" is a very broad term, so broad that yeah I guess I agree? You could reduce all of marx's analysis to that, but it is such an uninformatice statement there is no reason to even mention it

lmao wut