Since Proudhon, Marx, and Bakunin solved politics and economics 150+ years ago...

Proudhon and Bakunin wouldn't be able to solve a crossword for kids, let alone politics.

Incorrect. They all either came true or are in the process of coming through.

>Watch Richard Wolff videos on Democracy at Work and learn something
Gullible retard.

based tankie retard

marx is shit
don't compare to proudhon

I'm not a tankie you dumb cuck.

what's wrong with Richard Wolff?

He's an opportunist who spreads falsehoods about socialism under the false pretense of explaining Marx. The crowd that gets political "education" from youtube and that sponsors creators of such content on patreon (graphtreon.com/creator/economicupdate) is a bunch of petty bourgeois university kids. But actual Marx doesn't sell to this crowd, therefore he first needs to be falsified.

A lot of his content (and I've sampled from his youtube videos and the latest reddit AMA) is so patently wrong that it should be obvious to anyone who's read Marx. But fortunately for him, his audience hasn't done that. At most they read his pamphlet-sized "Understanding Marxism", ridiculously overpriced for how little content it has.

Name a single thing he has said that is wrong that you can provide evidence for.

Actually I'm going to bed so I won't be able to respond but maybe next time. I know your gonna post some drivel about how Wolff thinks cooperatives are Marxism.

Much of Marx's career was taking dumps on Bakunin and Proudhon.

The what are you?

Baseless accusation. He’s just a Marxin economist, and at least introducing people to Marxism. You have the same smug superior attitude tankies get. Go on now, out with it.

On all socialists actually. He was clearly wrong to do so in regards to Bakunin. His pigheadedness set the movement back a hundred years

He said that there could be a post-capitalist mode of production that's still based on exchange value:
>Markets, suitably shaped and constrained (as they always have been) to reinforce non-capitalist production relationships (e.g. worker coop-based enterprises) could certainly comprise parts of a post-capitalist economy.
Proof is in his latest AMA on Reddit which I'm not going to link.

Yes, he says that if only we change ownership structure of capitalist enterprises into co-operative one, then we'll no longer be in capitalism. This was explicitly denied by Marx in Theories of Surplus Value, and made fun of by him in Critique of the Gotha Program.
Now, either Wolff is so ignorant of Marx's work as is only possible for someone who didn't read anything past the Manifesto, or he's knowingly deceiving his audience about being a Marxist (which probably makes student cucks like yourself more likely to throw money at him because it makes you feel like you found a shortcut to learning about Marxism that doesn't involve reading--unfortunately, you got swindled).

>The what are you?
A communist.
>Baseless accusation.
It's far from baseless, but to recognize that you first need to be familiar with not only Wolff but also Marx.
>He’s just a Marxin economist
Yes, one of the chief trades of hacks who decide to jumpstart their careers in bourgeois institutions by taking a fat shit on Marx's legacy.
>You have the same smug superior attitude tankies get.
What the fuck does that even mean? Stupid fucking retard.

I don't see any reason to be so hard on Wolff. it is kind of ironic that his "solution" for capitalism is basically Proudhonist, but his analysis is deeply influenced by Marx (not suprisingly, since Marx's most important contribution to socialism was his economic work.)

pic related is based.

Attached: 41lOkUHHLGL._SX336_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (338x499, 18K)

>if Proudhon, Marx, and Bakunin solved politics and economics 150+ years ago, why are we still having political and economic debates?

FTFY

Attached: BD3B6A3A-766B-49B6-A188-F3B1283797CE.jpg (1200x885, 80K)

0/10 I know what I wrote mf

>he says that if only we change ownership structure of capitalist enterprises into co-operative one, then we'll no longer be in capitalism
No, we’ll clearly have competing models. Capitalism with a challenger mixing it up. It’s an uphill struggle he proposes
>A communist
Why would you have a problem with workers seizing the means of their own production? Mr. I’m not a tankie but I distrust workers and hate socialism that comes before an authoritarian state.

They solved politics of their own times, not ours, retard.

Why do the workers have to seize anything? Why can't they simply own a distributive share of capital they contribute as Adler and Kelso propose? >:3

this, also acc solved our time politics

>distributive share
Funny words. That is worker owned and operated.
As long as there’s no leech retiree getting a giant cut because his name is on the building

But I’m for non accumulative currency

>a bunch of petty bourgeois university kids
That was Marx's audience to begin with.

Companies are worker owned and operated.

Believe it or not, many company executives actually work their way up. If your company isn't like that, then you have a corrupt company.

What we want is a society where it is both easy to get and lose a lot of money. Fluid capital. Something else Kelso and Adler mention.

But hey, I made you a vocaroo

vocaroo.com/i/s0bNnEq7QQw5

The owner of REI may have worked there at some point, but now he just collects checks

Now imagine all workplaces as WSDEs

>The owner of REI may have worked there at some point, but now he just collects checks
I fail to see the problem here. I REALLY REALLY FAIL TO SEE A PROBLEM.

Is there something I'm missing? I've got to be missing something here. What is the issue? He worked for that money correct?

If the issue is the insane amounts of money being made just speculating on non-tangible assets, then I'm with you. I think there should be limitations on trading securities and that land should even be public and not bought and sold, but some of the stuff you are talking about is ridiculous.

I'm for a redistribution of wealth, but only so people can, by their ingenuity and technical understanding, create prosperity again. I feel like that is a possibility.

Also that it's possible to enjoy working in today's age, and that in reality working even today is more of a spiritual thing, that you get what you put into it. :3

>I REALLY REALLY FAIL

Attached: 4BFE8FC4-317F-441E-80E4-4029B30F0555.jpg (1536x864, 200K)

>no replies

Cowards.

Read ecclesiastes kid

Attached: 1280px-Bacchus-2.jpg (1280x1707, 391K)

>his "solution" for capitalism is basically Proudhonist, but his analysis is deeply influenced by Marx
These two are contradictory. And his leddit ama showed that he doesn't even understand the absolute, spelled-out-in-Capital-Vol.-I-Tier basics of how capitalist competition works according to Marx.

>No, we’ll clearly have competing models.
No, we don't. There's zero difference in the mode of production. It's still capitalist. There's still exploitation, profit, surplus value, competition, crises, etc., etc., etc. The only difference is a different personification of capital--the situation equivalent to that of the false Soviet socialism.
The proletariat can't build its power through gradual competition with the "old model" like the bourgeoisie did, because the proletariat is by definition that class which in bourgeois society has nothing and is nothing. The people who have something and are something are the middle class, i.e. Wolff's audience. "Competing models" is not a socialist program, but the program of the dwindling middle class in the fight for their interests against the bigger bourgeoisie. It attracts over-qualified cucked graduates who feel it below their dignity to work under a boss in a restaurant. Answer? Let's make everyone a boss! That's about as far as this "socialism" goes.

>Why would you have a problem with workers seizing the means of their own production?
Buying them is not "seizing" them, especially not when paid by a loan from the bourgeois state, like the UK Labour Party proposes to Wolff's delight. "Seizing" means of production is for the proletariat to organize itself in a class party, seize political power, and transform the means of production into state property. Engels:
>The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinction and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State.

>but I distrust workers
I distrust (politically) people who don't understand scientific socialism, no matter their particular economic situation.

well it's a true point; they are barbarians who live lives of sexual perversion and drunkenness and are highly mad because they must repress it to wander around at their dayjob.

this is because Christianity has no way to actually overcome or deal with these human elements; "the unruly passions" (in stoic terminology), so they don't ever overcome them.

>There's zero difference in the mode of production
Bullshit
> It attracts over-qualified cucked graduates
Oh noes. No one will work at McDonalds and the people that work in fast food will be middle class? How aw— exactly what people are looking for.
>That's about as far as this "socialism" goes.
No. It leads to something else
>Buying them is not "seizing" them
What buying? Hey, what do you think of Cockshott?

>retarded chart with no info about how it's being quantified

Marx predicted a decline in profit, if anything you would want to look at the rate of return on fixed-capital invested in Western Europe over that time

>What buying?
How else does your cucked embourgeoisified proletariat seize the means of production? It's cucked, so it can't seize them by force. The only other option is buying them.
>what do you think of Cockshott?
Possibly more retarded than Wolff, because Wolff at least earns decent money from his grift and enjoys some small level of fame.
As for Cockshott, someone who tries to "prove" the "labour theory of value" by mathematical correlation on the level of appearance has zero understanding of Marx. He's the same to vulgar Stalinist parodies of Marxism as Wolff is to petty-bourgeois ones.