/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Proletariat without Borders

Mode: Reply
Name
Subject
Message

Max message length: 4096

Files

Max file size: limitless

Max files: 3

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


/leftypol/ is a non-sectarian board for leftist discussion.

IRC: Rizon.net #bunkerchan
https://qchat.rizon.net/?channels=bunkerchan

(152.30 KB 1280x720 wolff.jpg)
Wolff vs Libertarian: Capitalism vs Socialism Anonymous 11/16/2019 (Sat) 13:48:34 No. 128690
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJQSuUZdcV4

"Socialism is preferable to capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity."

That proposition was the subject of a November 5, 2019, debate hosted by the Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Arguing in favor of the resolution was Richard D. Wolff, an economist at the University of Massachusetts and the author, most recently, of Understanding Marxism. Taking the other side was former Barron's economics editor Gene Epstein, who is also the Soho Forum's co-founder and director. Reason's Nick Gillespie served as moderator.

It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event; the side that gains the most ground is victorious. It was a packed house, with about 450 people in attendance. The pre-debate vote found that 25 percent of the audience agreed that socialism was preferable to capitalism, 49.5 percent picked capitalism as the better system, and 25.5 percent were undecided. Despite a technical problem at the event itself, the Soho Forum was able to recover the final vote totals, which saw support for socialism drop by half a percentage point and support for capitalism increase to 71 percent.
>>128690
>>128690
>New York university
>loves capitalism
Imagine my shock.
>>128690
I'm not gonna watch the entire vid rn. Couple of points though.

Wolff probably argued for his coop bullshit. As i have said before, co-ops and the "democracy at work" ideology has nothing to do with socialism and is in fact a petit-bourgeois re-affirmation of Capitalism. Properly arguing against Capitalism means arguing against markets, and for central planning as well as emphasizing the socially useless role of the owner. Wolff doesn't do this, its no wonder he loses the debate because he affirms the fundamental principles of his opponent. So much for the actual debate.

Finally this way of deciding the winner of debates is incredibly stupid. Its Actually a perfect example of Libertarian braindeadism. They introduce this meritocratic"rational" system to evaluate something that is fraught with conflict and subjectivity, such as the winner of a debate, and think they've solved the problem and made it objective when really its trivially easy to game this shit. Let me tell you what happened here, there was a big chunk of libertarians who were probably more familiar with the format than the socialists in attendance and voted strategically "undecided" at first to then afterwards make it appear that Capitalism had gained much more ground.
>>128709
>Properly arguing against Capitalism means arguing against markets, and for central planning
Wrong. Capitalism is characterized by two things:

1. Unlimited accumulation of wealth
2. Workers don't own the means of production/earn profit off of their labor.

Socialism and markets are not incompatible and in fact have been tried e.g. by Tito. Even current Socialist Republics like Vietnam have a modicum of free market at the retail level. There are merits to a market economy vs. central planning but to say socialism is incompatible with markets is wrong both conceptually and historically.
Wolff can't argue his way out of a paper bag against this very soft lolbert target who brings in all the cliche arguments. Sad! For all those people claiming that Wolff actually has substance behind his dumbed-down co-op stuff that is allegedly only being pushed because he tried to reach an ignorant audience, here it's on display that Wolff is a bit of a fraud.
>>128718
Lol what? "Unlimited accumulation of wealth" that's not a characteristic of capitalism, where the he'll do you get your definitions from, Utopian Socialists?

In a market you have exchange-value regulating production, so you have the same anarchy of production, Yugoslavian co-ops tried to accumulate as much capital as possible just like a capitalist firm.
>>128730
This is America; where his audience is literally braindead lolberts. If it was anywhere else, I’d agree with your contention.
>>128718
How are you going to abolish money/exchange value with a market lmao. You will never be able to reach full communism
>>128737
Communism through post-scarcity, or some form of FALC
>>128718
To be fair here every socialist aims to abolish markets, because markets mean commodified labour, even if they don't do it right away.

Money markets schemes will if they can run long enough reproduce capitalism, because monetary-logic tends to reproduce all the trappings of capitalism, because on a fundamental level it needs those for the internal functioning.

Arguably you can read Karl Marx as writing one really long essay where he argues that socialists have to abolish money. And historically speaking socialist that do have reintroduced markets have quite often reverted back to capitalism.

My point here is that it's unreasonable to condemn socialist movements for not immediately abolishing markets, but markets are at best a temporary compromise, and are not part of the end goal.
>>128734
You can rein this in with laws against accumulation. Anyway the point is that free market will always exist, even illegally, at the base level (look at USSR) and it's debatable that centrally planning the economy up to the very local scale is the best strategy. Again, look at real life examples.
>>128739
Fair enough. Also you have to take into account this >>128736

If you start saying scary words like 'centrally planned economy' to a lolbertarian his (yeah his, they're always men) eyes are going to glaze over and they're going to rant about the holodomor and bread lines and crap. Arguing with coops is weak but it's still stronger than capitalism
>>128743
When communist talk of markets, they usually mean capitalist markets, it's not "people want something and other people have it". That's a transhistorical conditions because you will always have production and supply. By market we mean the M-CM' cycle which is capitalism. You could also think of barter economies like in the middle ages but they're not really an alternative either in modern production.
>>128745
I disagree. Lolbert will accuse you of wanting a second Holodmor even if you stay fluffy and talk about coops. It's better to confront things head on. You might come over as dishonest or deceitful - which is what Wolff did.
>>128750
It's not deceitful since market socialism IS a thing and does exist (or has existed) in multiple countries.
>>128730
>For all those people claiming that Wolff actually has substance behind his dumbed-down co-op stuff that is allegedly only being pushed because he tried to reach an ignorant audience, here it's on display that Wolff is a bit of a fraud.
>>128750
>Lolbert will accuse you of wanting a second Holodmor even if you stay fluffy and talk about coops. It's better to confront things head on. You might come over as dishonest or deceitful - which is what Wolff did.
This is both true. Like i said above, arguing for "democracy at work" and calling it socialism, which it has almost nothing to do with, is a futile and eternally losing battle. You end up reaffirming the libertarian paradigm that markets are better than planning, the only thing you argue for is voting for what happens at your workplace, which honestly nobody cares about.Also having market pressures and democracy in the workplace are contradictory goals because people will be pressured to vote for the same exploitation that happens now if they don't want to lose their jobs.

similarly, trying to blunt the edge of defending 20th century socialism is also a futile and eternally losing battle, because our opponents will viciously attack us on this front no matter what we do. Even just arguing for nationalized healthcare gets you accused of being a stalinist. It's much better to take this charge head on and eventually try to defuse its potency.
Fwiw Marx literally said socialism to be co-ops coordinated by a national plan in Civil War in France.
>>128765
it doesn't matter if marx said something specific, we know better about a lot of things.
(97.35 KB 961x974 socialism for dumbos.png)
>>128759
>arguing for "democracy at work" and calling it socialism, which it has almost nothing to do with
Can you please shut the fuck up and read some goddamn Marx.
>>128730
>For all those people claiming that Wolff actually has substance behind his dumbed-down co-op stuff that is allegedly only being pushed because he tried to reach an ignorant audience, here it's on display that Wolff is a bit of a fraud.
Wolff is very knowledgeable about criticisms for markets, it's clear he hides his power level all the time to be more engaging for people who don't know anything at all. Here's a more nuanced talk for example, directed at a group that's already socialist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJa8y7MX9i4
>>128769
>wikipedia
>that braindead pic with the guys and the shovels and the guns
>defines socialism as ownership of the means of production
>doesn't go any further into what ownership means, making the entire argument pointless since it could mean a million things and is completely up for interpretation
>argument from marx

Here's a little thought experiment for you. Say you have a hundred people working at a capitalist firm, one person owns 100%. Lets say that person, at the end of the year, gives out 10% shares to the 9 most productive workers, making them 10 owners with equal shares who work together with 90 who are just wage laborers. Does that make the firm "more socialist" and "less capitalist"? How about if he gave equal shares to half his employees? what about if 90 of the employees of the firm have equal shares and just 10 don't ?
What about if one person has 10% , 9 others have 50 % put together and the other 90 own 40% collectively?

Shared ownership of capital has nothing to do with socialism.
>>128765
This is an outright lie. Marx here doesn't mean market coops in the modern sense here and it is perfectly perceptible from the context:
>Yes, gentlemen, the Commune intended to abolish that class property which makes the labor of the many the wealth of the few. It aimed at the expropriation of the expropriators. It wanted to make individual property a truth by transforming the means of production, land, and capital, now chiefly the means of enslaving and exploiting labor, into mere instruments of free and associated labor. But this is communism, “impossible” communism! Why, those members of the ruling classes who are intelligent enough to perceive the impossibility of continuing the present system – and they are many – have become the obtrusive and full-mouthed apostles of co-operative production. If co-operative production is not to remain a sham and a snare; if it is to supersede the capitalist system; if united co-operative societies are to regulate national production upon common plan, thus taking it under their own control, and putting an end to the constant anarchy and periodical convulsions which are the fatality of capitalist production – what else, gentlemen, would it be but communism, “possible” communism?
>>128769
>read Marx!
>posts wiki and idiotic infographs
you better be trolling
>>128777
>market coops in the modern sense here
Wolff doesn't advocate merely for market socialism and every time people frame it as such they're being extremely disingenuous.
>>128790
I'm not arguing here against Wolff. I'm arguing against what that poster said, which is demonstrably false.
What did that heckler at 14:14 shout?
>>128743
>Anyway the point is that free market will always exist, even illegally, at the base level (look at USSR)
The reason why a black market existed in the USSR was because they did not abolish money. When you don't abolish money, capitalist pressures still exist because you still have exchange (currency circulates). Cockshott talks about this in his series on labor vouchers.

>and it's debatable that centrally planning the economy up to the very local scale is the best strategy
I somewhat agree, but a socialist state doesn't have to *centrally* plan everything. Planning can (and does, under capitalism even) happen at various levels, from the municipal to corporate levels.
Let's be honest: Wolff lost this debate.
>>128817
i didn't watch the vid, what did he say?
>>128821
rdw argues for coops against a libertarian who points out that you can have all the coops you want under capitalism and he is right. Also it didn't help that the moderator was a libertarian as well.
>>128827
Honestly I wish RDW read Cockshott, would be way better.
>>128768
like that socialism with western characteristics would need to properly integrate ideas such as democracy to succeed, I hope...
>>128831
>socialism with western characteristics
Not a thing. Wherever socialism arises it will arise in the midst of given conditions. To label is "Western" or "Eastern" is just a weak effort to distance yourself from our common communist history.
>>128690
Haven't watched it yet, but if you're arguing against a libertarian, the easiest thing I've found, is arguing against the proposition of "Libertarian Free Will". You don't even have to go to economics/markets/w/e. If they can't defend their absolutely bankrupt idea of free will their entire philosophy falls apart.
@ 01:05:20, on not having an American Mondragon: "I encourage Richard to go for it. Build it! Capitalism will love it."

@ 01:05:55 "Richard wrote a whole book in which he condemned the Soviet Union as state capitalist, so he doesn't want to defend old line socialisms."
(36.87 KB 314x361 r6ftg1.gif)
>>128745
>If you start saying scary words like 'centrally planned economy'

Well if you don't like these words you can also say that it's a planning-aggregator.
01:17:00 RDW: Feudalism had markets, slavery had markets, the market isn't what's unique about us, it's capitalism, which has to do with the organization of production which is why that's what we go after and that's what socialism is about.

Das Capital BTFO
>>128861
>central planning
It's a friendly coming together of people to figure out problems helped by big computers and science.

>gulag
It's a vacation facility for the lottery winners after the revolution.
>>128863
holy shit, wolff was starting to grow on me quite a bit but this is too much. thx timestamp anon
(79.99 KB 1090x523 3.png)
(25.75 KB 684x187 2.png)
(26.84 KB 835x223 1.png)
(61.41 KB 1018x451 3.png)
(24.79 KB 545x172 2.png)
(39.20 KB 1068x211 1.png)
I'm posting these comments because I think it shows what RDW actually achieves with his 'tactic' (I'm being generous here) and what he misses out.

- people don't see the difference between co-ops and capitalism AND THEY ARE RIGHT.
- since RDW completely ignores or shittalks the USSR people rightfully ask: can you actually show an alternative? And then RDW usually refers back to mondragon, thus the previous problem.
- he did, however make the case that you are exploited, hence triggering these faggots to argue that exploitation and inequality is "natural"
- he makes a case for work place democracy triggering the petit-bourgeois commenters to shittalk democracy itself
>>128863
Das Capital is literally all about production.
>>128879
>>128888
>capitalism is natural and an expression of nature
okay then what about literally 95% of human history? Like seriously these people are so fucking delusional it hurts
also lmao at the obvious white trust-fund college kid avatrs on like 3 of those comments
(129.93 KB 340x750 d0.jpg)
I just finished listening to the end. RDW allowed the libertarian to brand himself as "a radical just like his socialist opponent," he let the "not true capitalism" slip by unchallenged, and left the moderator's comment about how "there's no libertarian party in the US" unchallenged. All of these could be debunked in under 2 minutes.

Have you niggers noticed how repetitive RDW's material is in general? The same speech blocs inserted into every talk he gives, the same shit about "interviewing the two siblings in the family, one who thinks its the best, and one who is critical" and so on and so on? He gave me the impression in this debate that he got so rusty that he can't get out of his repeated to death framework. You need to be able to improvise in a debate and all he was doing is trying to load in these very same speech blocs as counter arguments and at points he even messed them up because they either didn't fit the context or question or he merged two together nonsensically. RDW had several responses under the Q&A where the beginning of his answer meandered into a completely direction where the second half wanted to arrive at.

Thank fucking God that Zizek debated Peterson and not him.
>>128896
>95% of human history
Homo sapiens is 300k years old, class societies started emerging what... at around 3.000-4.000 BC? It's closer to 99%.
>>128899
Wolff would have steamrolled Peterson definitively, he has all the facts at his disposal at any given time. Zizek was a clown who made some modest philosophical arguments while refusing to address the factual inaccuracies of most of Peterson's arguments, ultimately allowing Peterson to escape with some credibility left intact.
>>128888
>people don't see the difference between co-ops and capitalism AND THEY ARE RIGHT.
correct
>since RDW completely ignores or shittalks the USSR people rightfully ask: can you actually show an alternative?
yep.

Again, you need to take this charge head on. you need to argue for socialism with central planning and not this dumb co-op shit because literally nobody cares about "democracy at work". Socialists will always lose in these debates as long as they reaffirm the libertarians basic framework which wolff of course does.
>>128905
>he has all the facts at his disposal at any given time.
Where were his facts in this debate, anon? You are talking about his pre-prepared shows. Also: I'm not saying that the Zizek debate went well, but the dude could actually deliver his usual lines AT THE RIGHT PLACES and answer questions. RDW fucked this up bad.

If I were given the opportunity to chose whoms't Peterson debates, I'd pick Parenti to tear Peterson a new one.
>>128906
>you need to argue for socialism with central planning
Yes. Which means you need to prepare by actually reading about the successes of central planning (of which there are many, basically economic miracles, ffs) and shamelessly call out cold war era propaganda for what it is.

Also: openly advocate for a revolution. Otherwise that slimey libertarian can claim that he's just a radical like you. FOR FUCK'S SAKE HUMANITY IS ABOUT TO GO EXTINCT IN THIS CENTURY AND WE ARE SERIOUSLY TRYING TO PRETEND THAT WE WILL PEACEFULLY SOLVE THIS SHIT?!

>because literally nobody cares about "democracy at work".
This, 100%. The libertarian COMPLETELY washed the floor in his second address (iirc) when he argued the very same thing and very effectively.
>>128908
Just as one example, Peterson repeatedly claimed shit about capitalism "uplifting" the poor of the world in his debate, while Wolff mentions probably once a month on his shows that the PRC and USSR have the fastest rates of development in history. Zizek's handling of China, which should have been a slam dunk, was quite poor. Parenti is honestly far too old now and too much of a dogmatic tankie to garner sympathy from Peterson's side, someone like David Harvey or Michael Hudson would have torn him a new asshole.
>>128914
>David Harvey
Have you read his books? He's basically a Marxian (i.e. not a Marxist) of another type and his political proposals are lukewarm socdem shit. Have you watched his seminars? The guy talks on and on in circular fashion, he can hardly organize his thoughts and make a point.

I'm not familiar with Michael Hudson.
>>128917
I'm familiar with criticisms for Harvey. Harvey does, however, have considerable expertise with Chinese political economy, and it's the fine facts and details that can win debates when these charlatans make claims about global poverty reduction or betray their complete incompetence over the world economy.

>I'm not familiar with Michael Hudson.
And you consider yourself a leftist? His latest book is quite literally one of the most important publications in the last 30 years.
>>128913
>shill central planning by pointing out successes of CCCP, PRC, cuba, DPRK
beside going through mental gymnastics when explaining dengism of PRC or effects of sanction in Cuba and DPRK, how do you deal with smug south Koreans, Japanese or even Germans who went through various degree of bureaucracy and special aid of murica? How do you convince them their success depended on American intervention while former CCCP and its friends succeeded (to a degree) despite american sabotage?
>>128776
>Shared ownership of capital has nothing to do with socialism.
For real, Engels even talks about it in Origins... when he talks about joint stock companies. Co-ops just turn the worker into a shareholder
>>128769
There are two ways of reading that retarded "I googled it in 5 minutes lmao" flowchart:

1) Feudalism was actually socialism because peasants and artisans had excluve control of their individual means of production
2) Distinguishes peasants from workers but still upholds class society.
(47.70 KB 467x700 madmarx.jpg)
RDW lost this debate but not because his ideas are bad.

Epstein won this debate (and last year's debate with Sunkara) because no one is able to respond to his question: Why can't workers simply form cooperatives in a capitalist market? Why not work within the framework of a market economy? The answer is simple: No capital.

Let's say you and your coworkers want to start a cooperative. Like anyone, you need to funding to set up the business. Can you look for investors? No. Because no one is going to invest if they can't make a return on that investment, i.e. obtain profit. Which means you're stuck with two options: begging for donations from wealthy people or self-financing by having each worker invest their own personal savings. Both of these strategies can work on a (very) limited basis. But, as a rule, neither of those sources of funding would be sufficient for the entire working class to escape wage slavery. The only realistic option is to CONVERT private property into cooperative property. But that requires a legal and political struggle. It's tricky for someone like RDW to go down this path of argument because 1) it exposes a limitation in what he advocates and 2) it makes it easy for people to accuse socialists of supporting government coercion and the use of force to "steal" wealth. This is why historically Marxists have always emphasized, first and foremost, the necessity of political struggle in abolishing capitalism. Trying to compete against capitalists in a capitalist-owned market economy would be like trying to "out-compete" a casino by playing their own rigged games. "The house always wins."

This leads into a real criticism of Epstein's logic which no one has pointed out. Epstein likes to pretend that there's "capitalism" and "crony capitalism." In practice all capitalism is crony capitalism. There has never been a capitalist society in which the ruling class didn't protect its own accumulated wealth by means of force or market manipulation. Again, the owners of the casino always stack the odds in their favor. If you want to abolish crony capitalism you have to abolish capitalism period. There has never been a capitalist society that did not have a state or use it to protect the interests of the capitalist class as a whole.

>>128906
>Again, you need to take this charge head on. you need to argue for socialism with central planning and not this dumb co-op shit because literally nobody cares about "democracy at work".
Workplace democracy is a pretty revolutionary demand. And it resonates with a lot of working adults since they recognize that the ability to vote "no" to having their jobs offshored to China would be incredibly useful. There are many, many workers at General Motors who wish they could have voted "no" to having their factories closed down this year.
>>129064
Wolff actually did address your point during the debate when he brought up UK Labour's plan for providing the workers with means to buy up their own workplaces. He also probably would have brought up the Marcora Law in Italy had the moderator given him more time.
>>129042
>1) Feudalism was actually socialism because peasants and artisans had excluve control of their individual means of production
Pretty sure some thug in a suit of metal would come and beat them over the head if they tried to assert democratic control over either the lord's fields or their peasant communal lands.
>>129096
>Pretty sure some thug in a suit of metal would come and beat them over the head if they tried to assert democratic control over either the lord's fields
Yes.
>or their peasant communal lands.
No. The surplus was extracted by having the peasants work the lord's land one day of the week. The produce on their own land was theirs to keep.
>>128830
RDW's line works against liberals and conservatives, but he doesn't really have an argument against lolberts. Talking to ReasonTV at all is a mistake tbh.
>>128888
The simple argument...
>many workers may not even want to own stock in their company
... is actually correct. In capitalism, your reproduction as a proletarian is actually already so time-consuming and alienating that you do not want to engage in actually running even more stuff in your firm than you actually do. Does RDW really think voting on who is gonna clean the toilet tomorrow will alleviate alienation? If RDW advocates for a more advanced co-ops system, similarly to what Marx had in mind in Capital III and such, he needs to fucking point it out because Mondragon is just another capitalist firm with equally distributed stock ownership amongst employees. He seems to never abandon capitalist logic but seems to want to operate within it, which is why the argument...
>if you want co-ops, go start one
... actually stings. Of course he could counter that argument by pointing out how capital accumulation always favours the firms that push down on variable capital (labour-power) which run counterintuitive to a co-op mode, but he doesn't even do that. Does Wolff even understand Marxism beyond a surface level?

>>128899
RDW makes shittons of money on Patreon.
https://www.patreon.com/economicupdate
He isn't incentivised to change any of his rhetoric because he isn't invested in it. I saw him recently on Michael Brooks and Jesus Christ this guy is fucking done. He didn't even engage with anything Brooks said. As long as he makes $120.000 a year off Patreon alone he doesn't care, I think.

Conclusion: Don't let RDW near anyone intelligent, at best you can send him into Fox News programs where he presents his ridiculously dumbed-down version of "Marxism" to counter the "when the gubberment does stuff" narrative. Anything beyond that should be off limits for this ridiculously crusty motherfucker.
>>128908
Well Zizek was also just doing his "Zizek's greatest hits" bullshit instead of responding to Peterson's points but Zizek seems to be less crusty than Wolff when it comes at reciprocating what your interviewer/opponent says. Zizek destroyed Peterson maybe unwillingly by exposing his absolute lack of philosophical knowledge and he totally caught him on the "Marxist academia" bullshit.

On the other hand Zizek and Wolff are very similar in a bad way. Both are obscurantists, both just repeat their greatest hits like a robot, both have legitimately bad opinions, both raise questions about their academic integrity (Zizek particularly raises eyebrows about his sourcing, I have never read Wolff because from what I got from his videos I'd rather shot myself than reading some of his stuff).

Wolff recently published "Understanding Marxism" which is supposed to be an introductory book. Someone should read it and point out the bad shit about it.
>>128914
>Harvey
No please.

I think Cockshott would be good. I don't know how sharp he is in debates but he seems to cover a lot from philosophy to nitty-gritty economics. Another person would be Michael Roberts but his expertise is purely economical that might be too dry for these type of events.

I mean, at this point a YouTuber like Hakim would probably fare better than any of these fuckers. I literally could have performed better than Richard D. Wolff in this debate and I'm not even an economist and I don't make 120k on Patreon.
>>129184
Cockshott is a terrible public speaker, I'm not sure he could even handle a debate.
>>129158
Looks like the peasants clearly didn't have democratic control of the means of production then.
>>129203
I've never seen him giving a speech or a debate, so that's speculation. When he was on FinnBols Discord he seemed to be at least reciprocating the actual questions which is what Wolff couldn't even do in this debate.
(199.93 KB 893x1055 wolff_r_socialism.png)
(221.55 KB 512x690 wolffman.png)
Reminder RDW is a Marxist and wants to see a total transformation of society. He promotes cooperatives because it's rhetorically effective when speaking to a largely American audience whose idea of socialism is "the government does stuff."
>>129225
Shame this needs to be posted nearly every fucking time we have a Wolff thread lately. How many oldfags are even left on /leftypol/ anymore?
>>129225
>>129229
Even if wolff wasnt a marxist, he's still revolutionary in the usa and he's really good at sparking revolutionary sentiment too.
>>129225
>He promotes cooperatives because it's rhetorically effective
except as we can see its not
>>129238
We see eye to eye on a lot of things.
>>129225
>>129229
I can take issue with some of the things he says there, but the point is that his strategy isn't working at all. He's like putting Marx on his head in his Q&A, advocating for changes on the micro level instead of societal productive relations (e.g. a dictatorship of the proletariat) as which he's righteously called out by the user as an utopian. In this book you quoted he seems to obscure what surplus labour is? Surplus labour in capitalism is integrated into the LP-M-C(MS) cycle which takes on the social form of surplus-value, Wolff again seems to think that it's a lack of "democracy" that is the problem here and not capitalist reproduction. His critique of the USSR is therefore similarly obtuse.

>muh oldfags
I'm an oldfag and I didn't like most of them, and they are now all pedophilic trannies on Twitter, fuck them.
>>128690
>Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Arguing in favor of the resolution was Richard D. Wolff, an economist at the University of Massachusetts and the author, most recently, of Understanding Marxism. Taking the other side was former Barron's economics editor Gene Epstein, who is also the Soho Forum's co-founder and director. Reason's Nick Gillespie served as moderator.
I won't bother watching that. A moderator is supposed to be neutral. All these guys are right-wingers who know each other. That means the structure of the debate is almost entirely engineered by one side. About Reason: https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/
>>129625
Most people having a debate aren't there to be convinced. You cannot be rhetorically efficient with the class enemy.
>>129625
>except as we can see its not
Democracy at Work is a non-profit 501(c)3 that produces media and live events.
Patreon: 2,144 patrons $9,227 per month

>>129747
>He's like putting Marx on his head in his Q&A, advocating for changes on the micro level instead of societal productive relations (e.g. a dictatorship of the proletariat)
Right, but he advocates that because legal property rights are only part of the superstructure. A real transformation of society has to begin by changing the relations of production at the level of production itself. Which is why workplace democracy is a revolutionary demand. It also gives people something realistic to fight for until some kind of far-reaching political revolution happens.

>Most people having a debate aren't there to be convinced. You cannot be rhetorically efficient with the class enemy.
RDW is going to reach more people than just the person being debating or even in the audience. That debate has been viewed by 55k people in the past 3 days on youtube.
>>129793
>RDW is going to reach more people than just the person being debating or even in the audience. That debate has been viewed by 55k people in the past 3 days on youtube.
That's not a good thing because 80% will think he lost.
>>129840
Yeah, and will people who randomly stumble over that video know how the debate was rigged? People have a democratic bias of sorts. That is, when undecided, they automatically have a bias to go with what the bigger group is saying. So if the "neutral" host agrees with one side, those watching without strong opinion will take that as evidence of what the right opinion is.
>>129793
>Patreon: 2,144 patrons $9,227 per month
There's dudes drawing furries butfugging each other who make mroe than that on there.
>>131061

I skimmed it, wolff seemed to perform very well. Then I heard his opponent make the “ But the nazis were socialist! “ argument and I just sorta walked away in frustration and went to bed.
>>128718
Wrong faggot.
Capitalism is primarily characterized by production for exchange. From this state all other forms follow.
>>131061
Just a few minutes in, this Whool Foods motherfucker is already insanely dishonest by saying that Venezuela, Congo or Eritrea are socialism while Norway is not, despite Norwary having a bigger public sector than Venezuela.
>>131061
>>131100
Just saw Wolff's part. He seems to be more aggressive here, although I would have wished he would have shortened the co-op shit and focus more on capitalism's inherent contradictions, such as a the falling rate of profit, mentioned how Marx predicted that capitalism has developed productive forces immensely, so it isn't at odds with Marxism.

His weakest point again is that he won't touch socialist experiments, which makes him look weak, because you can criticise capitalism all you want if you don't point to an alternative you'd always have all the burden of proof on you. This is of course not the correct environment to defend the USSR or something, but the answer would have been that all the countries that had socialist revolutions were poor as fuck before, while the first world capitalist countries were already rich as fuck too. So you neee to compare socialist countries like Cuba with other countries on the same economic development and then maybe talk about their growth rates, turns out all things considered they were no South Korea but they did perform above average here too. No need to defend Stalin, Mao, etc. - just put it into historical perspective and the first guy's argument is much weaker.

Also, the first guy said: "Poverty has no causes, only prosperity has" - this is such an outright ridiculous statement that should have been easy to debunk, I hope Wolff does that later.

I'll have to do something now, maybe I watch the rest in a little bit
>>131061
>>131100
>>131112
Wolff starts off his rebuttal pretty weak. Again, he overpersonalises capitalism with "the dictator on top" which isn't wrong but it's not Marxist: There is both personal and impersonal domination of capital. Therefore he opens the door wide for the other side to come at him with "just start a co-op" which they already did. And then he continue with a super radlib response to say "it's not all about consuming goods!" Richard, consuming is not the problem. The problem when capitalists defend themselves by claiming to meet market demands, they obscure the duality of exchange-value and use-value. There are more empty apartments than homeless people, clearly there is a demand not being met. That would have been the better response.

He's about to spoil the sympathy of the crowd he gained during his first speech. Let's hope he gets better.
>>131157
(cont.) Okay his point about Happy Hours was surpsingly dialectical. Wolff said the satisfaction you gain out of a Happy Hour in a bar can only be understood in its relation to all the other hours.

And let me say, the Jacobin editor is either confused or completely retarded. He unnecessarily attacked Wolff who is on his team and then ranted on about completely incoherent stuff. I don't think anybody understood him.

The Whole Foods CEO is a complete douchebag. He just started with "129 Billion dead by communism" (lol, oddly specific number, wonder where he got that from) and told Wolff he has never ran a business. Ben Shaprio tier. Looking forward to Wolff's rebuttal on that one.
>>131160
Wolff's answer was completely unsatisfying. He literally told him he's run a business instead of pointing out that it doesn't matter if you run a business if you criticise a social system. Hayek and Friedman didn't run businesses either.

But for the most part, it was horrible how he responded to the accusation of no working alternative with fucking Mondragon'. The opposing side said correctly "that's not a country". Wolff says "I'll give you the region of a country" - he's gonna say Catalonia or the Paris Commune, isn't he?

Then, his opponents reverted back to his other point about consumption, well, I know he wanted to make it about alienation but he made it soooo badly that his opponent now - again, correctly - points out how "Prof Wolff wants to give us a choice between Doritos and love".
>>131165
(cont.)

Jacobin guy just mentioned Sweden and Norway as examples of socialism. Jesus Christ, Jakkkobin is a joke.

Wolff now again, for the tenth time, makes a point about co-ops. This is getting tedious.

FINALLY THE WOLFF IS OFF THE CHAINS. China is the fastest growing economy in the world, Soviet Union was the second fastest growing economy in the 20th century. You can see the CEO douche is visibly shaken, finally he is coming at him from the angle we all want to see. And right after, he says "if you want to count bodies, let's do it properly" and mentions the deaths of WWI and WWII. This is generally good, but I would have gone down more the road of counting deaths based on starvation, lack of water and vaccines, because those are the same systemic causes they usually attribute to socialism. CEO douche responds with "the Nazis were socialist", which of course is ridiculous, but I wouldn't even have given him the opportunity to make that point. Still a massive improvement compared to before.
>>131169
(Cont.)

The rest is pretty uninteresting, due to dumb questions. Wolff in the end historicises capitalism which I guess is okay.

The end result seems to be pretty 50:50, which is okay I guess. Wolff started out okay, then tanked in the middle and then in the end surged a little bit when he took his gloves off.

Still, I maintain my point: Wolff co-op stuff just doesn't click. It's too easy to debunk, much less appealing then he thinks it is.
>>131175
Seems like Wolff came up with his whole co-op routine as a way to argue for some kind of socialism without having to ever defend spooky actually existing socialism. As you pointed out, the co-op thing is too easy to debunk, but beyond that, I think all lines of argument which accept liberal/anti-communist framing of AES (planned economy bad, authoritarianism, 100 gorillion, etc.) but attempt to handwave that away by explaining how it wasn't the "true" kind of socialism that Marx really would've wanted, are inherently weak. Even if you argue the point convincingly, most people will, at best, conclude that socialism is good in theory but turns into evil Stalinism in practice. Doesn't mean you have to rant about how the kulaks deserved it in every debate, but you can't just accept almost every liberal argument against the countries where socialism has been implemented in practice, and then expect people to find it a worthwhile ideology despite supposedly being a huge failure whenever it's been implemented.
>>131201
Wolff rebuttals became immediately sharper once he abandoned the co-op shit and pointed out that the USSR and China achieved great things and then said that if you wanna compare death tolls what about the death toll of capitalism.

Especially when you're up against opponents like that, who likely know fuck all about the USSR or history in general, whereas they can just refute the co-op stuff by "listen up, I'm a CEO and I can tell most workers are glad they don't have to bear the responsibility I carry"
>>131239
>Wolff rebuttals became immediately sharper once he abandoned the co-op shit and pointed out that the USSR and China
True there. Even on 4cucks if you tell rightoids achievements of USSR and the whole metamorphosis Russia went through under Stalin; they’re dumbfounded and have no rebuttals. If this line of attack can work on literal ancaps, lolberts and fascists, it’s ready for prime time.
>>131061
My god Bhaskar Sunkara is a horrible advocate. That book he published last year was shitty too, I have a left-leaning friend who read it and it totally failed to turn him into a socialist.
>>131239
I don't think one should go Grover Furr tier but a low key defense of these states should be delivered. As pointed out before, you can't convince somebody that a model who apparently has never worked as an alternative.

>>131275
He seems weirdly try to combine Kautskyism with modern SocDem stuff. It's a mess.
>>131275
He gives me the impression that he's among those leftists who will immediately betray any revolution for it not being democratic and because of the terror.
>>131275
>muh nordic model
He's a socdem.
>>131072
The point was that Wolff's D@W nonprofit organization has over 2,000 patrons and growing. Most of them are small donors and probably working-class people. He's actually reaching people and that's what counts.
>>131112
>His weakest point again is that he won't touch socialist experiments, which makes him look weak, because you can criticise capitalism all you want if you don't point to an alternative
Bringing up 20th century "socialist" countries is self-defeating since 1) neither Wolff nor Sunkara want to implement those kinds of systems, 2) people will sidetrack the debate by bringing up muh gorillions and 3) 20th century socialism ultimately failed.
>So you neee to compare socialist countries like Cuba with other countries on the same economic development and then maybe talk about their growth rates, turns out all things considered they were no South Korea but they did perform above average here too.
I agree with this part.
>>131157
>Wolff starts off his rebuttal pretty weak. Again, he overpersonalises capitalism with "the dictator on top" which isn't wrong but it's not Marxist: There is both personal and impersonal domination of capital.
Marx uses the same style of argument in Capital. It's easier for people to understand if we talk about "the capitalist" and "the worker."
>>131160
>And let me say, the Jacobin editor is either confused or completely retarded. He unnecessarily attacked Wolff who is on his team and then ranted on about completely incoherent stuff.
Sunkara is not a good public speaker. He's intelligent and has book-smarts but can't condense this into simple arguments like RDW. I just watched the entire debate and can't recall where Sunkara "attacked" RDW.
>>131165
>Wolff's answer was completely unsatisfying.
Mackey said Wolff has never run a business and Wolff corrected him. That's about as good as it gets.
>But for the most part, it was horrible how he responded to the accusation of no working alternative with fucking Mondragon'.
Mackey asserted that worker-managed enterprises are noncompetitive and perform poorly. Wolff was responding to that. Mackey later moved the goalposts and asked for a country instead.
>his opponent now - again, correctly - points out how "Prof Wolff wants to give us a choice between Doritos and love".
There was nothing correct about that strawman argument.
>>131169
>Jesus Christ, Jakkkobin is a joke.
Is that you, ex-BO?
>Wolff now again, for the tenth time, makes a point about co-ops. This is getting tedious.
Yeah, tedious that a socialist would advocate for workers controlling production! Imagine that...
>FINALLY THE WOLFF IS OFF THE CHAINS.
<talks about inequality and lack of freedom
<I sleep.
<talks about USSR
<REAL SHIT
You know, one would expect that a left-wing community would be cheering for RDW and Sunkara in these debates. But on leftypol the opposite happens. A majority of comments in this thread are aimed at criticizing RDW and complaining about how "horrible" his arguments are. One would expect to find people debunking the obvious strawman arguments made by the pro-capitalist side. Instead, this thread is full of bad-faith criticisms of the SOCIALISTS.

Most of the criticisms in this thread aren't even on-point. Like I had to bring up earlier, people who criticize RDW's promotion of worker cooperatives fail to mention that RDW doesn't support "capitalism plus coops." He wants to transform the whole system. He wants to create a genuinely socialist society. But, because of the massive amounts of disinformation and propaganda in countries like the US, Wolff has to make his arguments in a very specific way to avoid getting caught in the trap of defending muh gorillions and muh government doing stuff.

When Wolff talks about workplace democracy and coops this is another way of saying: WORKER CONTROL OF PRODUCTION.

If you don't believe in that - if you think workers are too dumb or too lazy to actually participate in the decision-making process at work - then you're not a socialist and you've missed the entire point of socialism.
>>131545
>one would expect that a left-wing community would be cheering for RDW and Sunkara in these debates. But on leftypol the opposite happens
I have no problem with Wolff but don't expect me to defend the guy who thinks that left wing of imperialism is socialism
(380.86 KB 639x1200 an interesting group of people.png)
>>131545
This definitely isn't the /leftypol/ I used to know. We used to have comfy Wolff threads every time a global capitalism recording was released, but now this place seems to be inundated with edgy dogmatic tankies intent on proving how smart they are every time his name comes up.
>wolff thinks co-ops = socialism
Well he just dropped this video, where he lays out a plan for using co-ops as the foundation for a labor party. When will you niggas learn that his advocacy for co-ops is instrumental rather than the end goal?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb11SWhwe2I
>>131572
Define edgy dogmatic tankies
(16.57 KB 778x126 comment.PNG)
Well, I checked it out and it wasn't that bad. You guys are overdramatizing it.
And also check the comments section, there is a lot of people agreeing with Wolff. Despite the fact Wolff formally lost the debate comments aren't full of "If you are a commie why do you own things? CHECKMATE" retards, which is kinda success, I would say.
Because what is the purpose of this kind of debates than to agitate people?
>>131581
>not realizing that even having a platform is already a victory
A shitload of people, especially burgers, have never once heard actual socialist arguments before in their entire lives. Just presenting that to them is likely to blow their minds whether they like how it sounds or not. And while this is the state of things, huge swaths of "the left" are adamant that we shouldn't talk to anybody who's not pure enough.
>>131545
>You know, one would expect that a left-wing community would be cheering for RDW and Sunkara in these debates. But on leftypol the opposite happens.
Yeah I agree it's definitely NOT OK to criticize anyone on the red team.

>A majority of comments in this thread are aimed at criticizing RDW and complaining about how "horrible" his arguments are.
If someone believes he's making bad arguments then criticizing him for it is good. What's the fucking point of sitting around in our little echo chamber, sucking each other off and talking about how great we all are?

>muh bad faith
gay

>people who criticize RDW's promotion of worker cooperatives fail to mention that RDW doesn't support "capitalism plus coops." He wants to transform the whole system. He wants to create a genuinely socialist society.
People are criticizing his debate performance and the arguments he usually makes when advocating for socialism. What he said he believes in a reddit AMA a couple years ago isn't relevant.

>But, because of the massive amounts of disinformation and propaganda in countries like the US, Wolff has to make his arguments in a very specific way to avoid getting caught in the trap of defending muh gorillions and muh government doing stuff.
This is literally what people in this thread take issue with. We understand why he has chosen this line of argument about co-op's, democracy in the workplace, etc. but it's not always effective and usually ends up conceding way too much to anti-communists. You're not gonna convince people that an actual socialist society is a good idea if you more or less concede that it's always been a monstrous failure in practice, doesn't matter how nice you make worker co-ops sound.

>if you think workers are too dumb or too lazy to actually participate in the decision-making process at work
Nobody is arguing this.

Btw, I like Wolff. I believe he has done tons of good work and he has undeniably played an important role in popularizing socialism post-2008, but you're being a whiny bitch. Criticism is good.
>>131572
I used to be one of those starting and participating in "comfy Wolff" threads. What happened? I read Marx. If you don't get how this >>128863 is fucking pathetic from a Marxist POV you need to read more too. One of things about the Old BO hysterics and paranoia is that it completely disregards the fact that besides how Google Bookchin fags were in fact banned (Rest in Piss) people moved beyond their old positions as well.
>>131588
>it's definitely NOT OK to criticize anyone on the red team
Yeah, we should aim at creating a right wing hivemind instead!
>>131611
>Yeah, we should aim at creating a right wing hivemind instead!
Yea the people criticizing Wolff in this thread are definitely secret right-wingers. Stop being a retard please.
>>129625
Gee, I wonder why Porky Inc. and Porky Inc.'s fanbase didn't like the idea of the poors taking over their businesses?
>new york
>epstein
nonce
(75.12 KB 345x322 Not nice.png)
>>131613
>>131611
It's possible to criticize someone's ideology without disavowing them completely. Wolff has flaws in his theory but he does a shitload to get normies interested in the subject. In the last bimonthly update, he talked about how people heard from him and went on to read Marx and pals. Unless someone poses some kind of serious threat to the socialist movement, how about we stick with constructive criticism instead of trying to cancel people like the twitterati?
>>131545
There is no social capital to be gained from providing you're more versed in theory than a proponent of capitalism, so these types of people constantly criticize other leftists for any percieved slip or misstep. They aren't wokeskolds, but they're just as bad.
>>131675
>There is no social capital to be gained from providing you're more versed in theory
This is the part that needs to come true.
>>131675
There's also the vague hope he lurks here and will take on board the crits, I think it's mostly coming from 'losing' the debate although as mentioned earlier the youtoob engagement matters more
ps. Notonecrime
>>131694
>There's also the vague hope he lurks here and will take on board the crits,
Or people might hear the crits and repeat them to other people until the crits reach him.
>>131519
You seem to be under the false impression that if you talk enough about fluffy co-ops, your opponent wouldn't bring up 100 gorillions or something. As it is evident, that's wrong. Mackey brought it up right in his opening speech.
<talks about inequality and lack of freedom
<I sleep.
<talks about USSR
<REAL SHIT
This isn't about the USSR. It's that you are a defeatist if you just accept the framework of "everywhere socialism has tried it failed and killed gazillions of people". You really want to have a debate while accepting literal PragerU shit as a framework? Are you so fucking spineless that you get off by constantly in the defense and refuse to tell literal Cold War propagandists to fuck off? You don't have to be ML to accept that this part brought Wolff back while his repeated co-op shit didn't.
>Is that you, ex-BO?
Jacobin and the DSA ran an event with literal state department regime change intelligentsia, I am not BO for disliking Jacobin. In fact I've given the guy a fair chance and he was a mess. You excuse it with being "a bad public speaker" but I think he's just not as educated as you think he is.
>>131545
Since you already believe the laws of capitalism to be some personal shit, worker control might indeed just mean co-ops for you. You do realise Marx and Engels have said that most of the time they had to fight off other socialists?

I don't hate Wolff. In fact I admitted at many points in the debate that he did well. This doesn't mean I can't criticise him for stuff he did wrong, especially when it comes to give people a false impression about socialism. If you think socialism is just whatever is acceptable for a burger audience, just vote for Bernie Sanders and that's it.

Neither does it mean that I'd attack him during an event like that if I was in the Q&A crowd. In fact I've criticised Sunkara for doing that. In the first part, he equated Richard Wolff's co-op suggestion to another form of capitalist production. But the problem was that Sunkara was equally all over the place and not representing the Marxist position
>>131572
I'm an oldfag and I can tell you these "comfy Wolff threads" where pretty much without substance. Not because our community sucked, but because the segments themselves had very little substance.
>>131578
I don't really care, the problem his clearly his outreach here where he shill these things ad nauseam. Plus I don't even think it's a sound strategy.
>>131586
>burgers never heard socialist arguments in their lives
>so you should mispresent them
>>131675
Again, this is wrong.

I argue that you can present correct Marxist arguments without it being to complicated. Marx himself believed in that. Historical Materialism, commodity fetishism, capital cycle - these are all fancy words but it's easily possible to break them down. As far as I can see, Wolff won't do it. He makes the democracy at work argument which Marx barely used, in fact never except for one part in Capital III. I can criticise that. Y'all act as if you need to be a philosophy professor to understand Wage Labour and Capital or whatever.
Looks like you guys kinda forgot about this :DD
https://youtu.be/rJvAxRCxxCg
>>131729
>look them up
Yes look them up on a board that back in the day you wouldn't even find on Google because it's on a Nazi terrorist website.
(404.89 KB 1080x1080 reallyexcitesthesenses.png)
>>131739
And still managed to have a larger community than here.
I'm going to debunk some of the arguments made by Epstein in the first debate.

>Workers don't want to participate in directing enterprises.
The existence of cooperatives has nothing to do with what workers want. Businesses require investment to get started. Which means they need investors. A regular capitalist would never invest in a cooperative because the profits would be divided up equally (or nearly equally) between employees. This means that investment depends on those employees and people willing to donate disposable income. But, since working class people have always lived largely paycheck to paycheck, it would only be possible to fund cooperatives in exceptional circumstances. The vast majority of workers could never start a cooperative even if they wanted to. This is why freedom, equality, and prosperity are not even obtainable to most people under capitalism.

>There isn't enough time to participate in meetings.
This is a non-argument. The time could be taken out of the normal working day. Most decision-making would be fairly routine and not require any extraordinary effort or thinking. Even if one hour a day were set aside for employee self-planning, it would replace the 9 or 10 or 11 hours a day spent by an individual manager.

>It's not feasible to democratically decide whether we should produce every single commodity.
This is a strawman argument since most socialists don't want committees to decide how many socks or what flavor of ice cream. Those kind of decisions can be made based upon simple measurements of consumer demand much like in a capitalist market.

>It's not possible to monitor all economic activity.
Relevant information can be shared via public database insofar as each enterprise monitors its own activity. This would allow everyone to see how much each good costs to produce, the productivity of labor, and what resources are available. It would help solve the "knowledge problem" faced by markets. Modern computing makes this possible.

>People aren't going to want to give up their jobs when they become obsolete.
This is a fair point. There would have to be a social means of eliminating redundant production which means shifting workers from one enterprise to another as needed. There are probably a range of ways this could be accomplished but the easiest would be to simply refuse funding for enterprises that can't locate demand for what they produce.

>Capitalism lets people choose their professions, where they work, and how they live their lives.
The freedom of choice under capitalism is an illusion. People with money can choose what they want and how they want it. Poor people have very little choice. If everyone under capitalism were guaranteed an equal starting-point it would be different but that's not how the system works. The idea that working-class people could simply join cooperatives "if they wanted to" is based on the same illusion of free choice.

>I support capitalism - not crony capitalism.
In the real world capitalism has always been a system dominated by elites and cronyism. Capitalism has always relied on governments and the use of force to defend and uphold the wealth of the elites. The state largely works to protect the property of the capitalists as a whole and to protect the class system on which everything else is based. It's a pipe-dream to imagine that we could have a capitalist system without the capitalist class manipulating society and politics for their own benefit.
(100.03 KB 1466x518 epsteinargumentsdebunked.png)
>>131755
Effortposts should be preserved!
>>128896
Are you shocked that the idiot masses, especially libertarians, don't even know the definition of the system they live under?
>>128690
So what I'm reading is the debate took place where there was already a bias toward capitalism and was set up to favor the capitalist.

Also, the Oxford-style is the worst debate format, since it democratizes knowledge and is antithetical to what debate is actually for.
"Formal" debates and whattheshit are always cancer, I can't sit through them. Despite how you feel about him ( I have my own issues with him too ) the Joe Rogan format is definitely the best way to go about it. Just have a fucking discussion like normal human beings.
"Formal" debates and whattheshit are always cancer, I can't sit through them. Despite how you feel about him ( I have my own issues with him too ) the Joe Rogan format is definitely the best way to go about it. Just have a fucking discussion like normal human beings.
What's up with this doubleposting bug? I've seen it a few times recently and it just happened to me for no apparent reason.
>>131890
It was hosted by Reason TV, a lolbert think tank.

>>131898
>>131897
>Despite how you feel about him ( I have my own issues with him too ) the Joe Rogan format is definitely the best way to go about it
The format isn't tied to Joe Rogan. We could really use a commie version of his show tbh.
>>131755
>disposable income
*discretionary income. I'm being pedantic but this is one common mistake that bugs me for some reason like using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question."
New: RDW's "Political Strategy for Transition" from capitalism towards socialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb11SWhwe2I
(204.33 KB 1920x1080 National blade.jpg)
>>132808
Already posted >>131578 upthread but anyway
>the best insight for transition to socialism is looking at the centuries-long bumpy road from feudalism
This is also my own #1 defense of red fash regimes like USSR or PRC while simultaneously upholding socdem reforms. If a lib raises a Holodomor argument, ask them their opinion on all the catastrophically failed revolutions against feudalism, like the French Republic, English Dominion, etc., which tended to immediately produce worse conditions, but in a back-and-forth manner ultimately won reforms and concessions that accumulated to our current far better conditions under republican democratic capitalism.

This puts libs into a hard bind, either forced to admit the failure of today's socialist revolutions is an inevitable and necessary part of any sweeping change to civilization, or and I admit this is the most common result with /pol/yps to go full reactionary and reject modernity in toto.
>>132832
>red fash regimes

Delete
Report/Ban

Captcha (required for reports and bans by board staff)


no cookies?