@@GermanLeftist This is a very off-base. Sanders has spoken positively about worker co-ops, but he has no current policies to implement this. ;ore extremely, he is very clear that he has no issue with private ownership. Meanwhile Corbyn's Labour has actively come out in favor of workers owning their own company's, they have policies workers having the right to buy their companies, and for general incentives for co-ops, more moderately they are starting the fire for worker ownership and control with dilution of shares (10%) and codetermination. They do indeed have very different usages of "Democratic Socialism". Sanders is using the more modern version "Democratic control of the economy" (i.e. when capital is responsible to democracy, not when capital is necessarily abolished), while Corbyn is using "Democratic Socialism" as a transition towards Socialism, and Socialism with increased democracy in all aspects of life. Another key fact: Corbyn is pushing for control of collectively owned utilities to be moved to the workers and consumers - which is a major step away from state control.
@@Kraisedion Actually (unlike last time), Bernie has proposed policies to support worker ownership and cooperatives, mostly in his "Corporate Accountability and Democracy" plan. He has proposed: - an Employee Ownership Bank - to "provide low-interest loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses through the establishment of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or Eligible Worker-Owned Cooperatives" - worker ownership centers - to be "established in every state and regional center in the country. These centers will educate retiring business owners and workers about the benefits of employee ownership" - the right of first refusal - "workers will be given the right to buy a company when it goes up for sale, is closing, or if a factory is moving overseas and will receive financial assistance from the U.S. Employee Ownership Bank to make that possible" - Coodetermination and his own version of Labour's "Inclusive Ownership Funds": "Democratic Employee Ownership Funds" for " corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies" (which, obviously, is considerably less far-reaching than Labour's proposal, though it goes to 20% ownership, compared to the latter's 10%); specifically: - "45 percent of the board of directors in any large corporation with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be directly elected by the firm’s workers" - "Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of Democratic Employee Ownership Funds. These funds will be under the control of a Board of Trustees directly elected by the workforce. Employees will be guaranteed payments from the funds equivalent to their shares of ownership as equal partners in the funds. Workers will be guaranteed the right to vote the shares given to them through this plan. The funds will enjoy the same voting rights as any other institutional shareholder and their shares will not be permitted to be transferred or sold. Instead, they will be held permanently in trust for the workforce. Dividend payments will be made from the Funds directly to employees." - And finally on this plan, it includes this curious point (which sadly isn't elaborated on or explained): "End the monopoly of shareholders on voting rights in the American economy. Every employee should be guaranteed the right to vote at work, and have a voice in setting their pay, regardless of the kind or size of company or firm they work for. " berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/ ---------- Besides these specific proposals, other plans in Bernie's platform include giving preferential treatment and incentives to cooperatives, such as: - His marijuana plan, which would "Incentivize marijuana businesses to be structured like nonprofits: We will provide resources for people to start cooperatives and collective nonprofits as marijuana businesses that will create jobs and economic growth in local communities." and includes this proposal "These employee ownership centers will work in coordination with the Minority Business Development Agency grant program to provide the training and technical support needed to formerly incarcerated individuals and people in areas disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs to start worker owned businesses and cooperatives." - His rural America plan, which includes this point: "Incentivize rural cooperative business models and utilities, such as rural electric cooperatives, food co-ops, and credit unions. In 2009, of the 2.2 million total farms in this country, 2,389 were farm co-operatives. What we know is that when employees have an ownership stake in their company they will be more productive and they will earn a better living." - And, finally, his Green New Deal includes these points: - "The renewable energy generated by the Green New Deal will be publicly owned, managed by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority and sold to distribution utilities with a preference for public power districts, municipally- and cooperatively-owned utilities with democratic, public ownership, and other existing utilities that demonstrate a commitment to the public interest" - "Federal procurement will prioritize minority- and women-owned businesses, cooperatives and employee-owned firms, and community-owned and municipal enterprises." - "Invest $14.7 billion in cooperatively owned grocery stores. Local groceries and co-ops are more likely to buy local products, which will help grow markets for farmers to sell their goods. We will also use these funds to bring grocery stores to food deserts ensuring all people have access to healthy, local food." - "provide $150 billion in infrastructure grants and technical assistance for municipalities and states to build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks." - " Incentivize community ownership of farmland. One of the barriers to being able to choose a career in ecologically regenerative farming is the cost of acquiring farmland. We want communities to be able to join together to own farmland to help people grow our local, ecologically regeneratively produced food and help solve the climate crisis and will provide government assistance to do so." So, while I'd say Corbyn goes considerably further and (along with McDonnell) is far more vocal about it (which is understandable, considering the UK is considerably to the left of the politically right-wing USA, perhaps best illustrated by Corbyn's Labour casually talking about nationalizations, while in the US that word is forbidden), Bernie is still promoting worker ownership through his policies, and would perhaps go considerably further in a second term (remember, even in his more radical years, Bernie was open about the fact that his priority is to establish a social democracy-like robust welfare state, since that by itself would be an incredible achievement, one which, in his view, must go before any real move to socialism; my understanding is that, for Bernie, only after guaranteeing the basics (healthcare, complete education, housing, job, living wage, etc.) would socialism be possible).
@@edwinsoto6932 Ur right but Corbyn is literally the son of Anarchists that fought for republican Spain in the 30s. So yeah he is and has advocated for market socialism but just nationalising industries that are inefficient under markets (eg the railways)
There cannot be reform.There must be a revolution. Reforms will be un-done. I like this saying that I just read:"The way to defeat crooks is not to join them but to fight them relentlessly,to fight them without mercy."
Reform serves for people to become more class conscious until they are ready to strike, but it was subverted by capitalists cutting it short. Social democrats depriving reform of its original intent, to generate a class conscious and ready to die for the cause proletariat.
This is what I’ve always critiqued with reformist. Are you going far enough? Are you actively trying to take the tools of those in power and transferring it to the people? Are you making reform durable (as Richard Wolfe said) Social democracy or Keynesian economics should not stay in that moot box but a more fluid form of power trajectory. A democratic socialist model that is actively trying to take power from the rich until they have no power no more. I’m an anarcho communist but I realize that not everyone has the same idea of socialism. So what are you doing to perfect and make a more concrete form of power for the common man in your framework has always been the question.
anarcho communism seems like the idealistic proper ultimate theory that isn't fucking Star Trek or whatever, but it hinges too much on people being incredibly smart and good and that's just not reality.
I mean, I don’t need to read Lenin, I’m already well aware of arguments against reformism which I have agreed with for the most part. This comment is just merely a sort of compromise and reworking of what reformist are trying to do. Because again, it’s naive to think that all socialism will be what you envision or what is your ideal. There will be different attempts of socialism so we have to be mindful of that
We have to institute the dictatorship of the proletariat, smash the mechanisms of the current state and use state power to destroy the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... globally.
Important note on reform vs. revolution (the general debate/usages). Revolution is, in this debate, typically used to describe fundamental changes. "Reform" is used to refer to reforms on capitalism, i.e. non-fundamental changes, tweak, or as many have called it "revisionism", the belief that capitalism can be reformed. This is why Wolff and Brooks can talk of revolution through reforms.
As deep blue collar working class I can say that the vast majority of the working class dont know enough about the new deal and its subsequent dismantling by the capital class to be dissuaded from reform/revolution by a understanding of history..
I stayed at a Hotel/Hostel in Berlin, Germany this week, and they had a little sign saying "Lula Livre" on a clock behind the front desk. I got there just a couple days after he was freed.
oh shit I didn't realise how old this video is until reading your comment, labour lost because of their pandering to Remain regardless of the manifesto.
So i will make a critique of what Professor Wolff just said. Lenin died before the NEP (What lenin was referring to state capitalism as) was abolished. There was still private property with some state control of heavy industry, but this was all oversaw but the proletarian state (Bolsheviks). So Lenin was correct, but during the 1930's (Stalin era) is when they nationalized all industries and everything came to state control. I Know he disagrees that this constitutes socialism, but it should be at least given as context.
For it to be socialism, all citizens of USSR would have democratic control over the industry by voting for a "board of directors". Was the government (board of directors) elected by the people, or by Stalin? Did the people owned the "shares" of USSR "company", or did Stalin owned them? The answer to that tells us if it was State Capitalism or Communism.
@@evandrolima1724 The Government was elected by the people. People did have elections in the soviet union. The People elected representatives to the Soviets who then were the ones who created the economic plans, with collaboration with other parts of the society. So the people did have control over the means of production, but it was indirectly. I agree whole heartily that we need to democratize the work place and that it should be part of our goals, however i do disagree with the the characterization that the Soviet Union was State Capitalist simply because they didn't democratize the work place. However It is also true that the communist party held tremendous power and sway. It can be argued and it is, That they represented a ruling class. I however don't think that is correct and stems from anti soviet propaganda against the country. The soviet union had problems and we should learn from them, but call it state capitalist to distant yourself from it I think is the incorrect move
Stalin brought about all of the great achievements of the Soviet Union and hoisted them into the 20th Century. He had the foresight to realize that Trotsky's agenda was not workable in Post-Czarist Russia ... the People of Russia did not want to live in a state more concerned with the impetus of "permanent revolution." The Soviet State had to make concessions to the working class and build a more stable society; they couldn't concern themselves with constant agitation and helping to foment proletarian revolutions around the world. If one reads Marx correctly, Socialism can not be forced but has to occur through the process of historical development, and Stalin correctly used the power given to him to create a far better and more developed standard of living for the citizens of Soviet Russia.
@@itzenormous Comrade I don't think it's a good idea to Valorize Stalin like that. Yes good things did happen under his time as General Secretary. The Soviet Union had a lot of Great Advancements, but he did alot of really terrible things too. Things that I see alot of ML's look over and pretend as if they didn't happen
Hail to Brooks for having this immense intellect and forceful personality on. He has a a fire I never saw in Chomsky. Wolff is a leader through and through. WORKERS UNITE GODDAMNIT!!!
This is strictly true, but the internal arrangements of the UK are notoriously complex and quite likely to change in the near future, so I'll let him off.
@@johntate6537 I don't know why Americans think it's complicated. It isn't. Think of it like this: North America contains Canada, the United States and Alaska. Britain contains England, Scotland and Wales.
01:42 Day-laborers made up the ground troops of the US American Revolution and the Protestant Revolution (it wasn't originally a reformation and Jan Hus, not Luther, was its founder) and probably many other revolutions. 02:12 Beware! The term 'globalism' can mean two diametrically opposed things: (1) for proletarians and liberals, "collusion of transnational business interests" and (2) for fascists and reactionaries, "socialist internationalism". 06:44 The organized proletarians (class-conscious workers) in their role as tribune of the people (tribunus populi) are the only ones who can be trusted to carry reforms through (Marx).
Idk. I don't comment on a lot of videos. I'm usually listening on TH-cam while working overnights. Sometimes if something really strikes me, I'll comment. P.s. I'm on break😃
it was not a party of the working class. it was a party of revolutionaries who claimed to be the champions of the working class, a different thing entirely. they tried to buy the support of the working class by offering benefits, and it worked. the party became master of the nation, the workers got a better deal, but it was not democracy, it was just another elite rule, and stalin killed millions to make sure he stayed on top. i'm inclined to forgive him for some of the deaths, the right wing elite of europe hated and feared communism, and they tried hard to stamp it out. churchill is particularly notable for the efforts he made, right up to starting a war, he was frothing mad about the idea of communism. later on, when it turned out hitler was the real threat, churchill found it expedient to be polite. stalin must have enjoyed that. but some of those millions were just preserving his own position, and stalin is rightly censured. reform does not work. fdr demonstrated that. because he did not transfer power to the electorate, reform was impeded, and, in the 1970's, undone. revolution is necessary. the electorate must be masters of state activity. they will direct the nation by regular referendum, with initiative in reserve to keep the administration honest. politicians will be extinct. no loss, they are just the inheritors of the warlords of 1066, incompetent, short-sighted and selfish. many utterly corrupt. truly, no loss.
Are you advocating for direct democracy in a socialist system? Most of the time when people talk about a revolution, they just mention transitioning from a capitalist economy to a socialist one. Or transitioning from a republic to a direct democracy. I'm starting to see more and more modern day socialists say that both are necessary, and one will fail without the other
Yes, the warring moralities of social groups do not define the electorate and can only co-opt it, only when the power is distributed to all citizens through direct democracy can the universal needs of the individual be satisfied and the desire for power consequently mitigated....
Social democracy means reform and it is the right path. There's never going to be a change that solves all problems and whoever thinks that is a naive utopian. Social democracy lost its momentum 4 decades ago and the task is to reform the system, build and maintain a grassroots movement to oppose an oligarchic reactionary movement.
@tiglath pileser No, it shows that when you achieve reform you need to be vigilant, organize and not allow rightwingers to roll back reforms. I grew up in the 1990s. The left just stopped fighting. That's the problem. But if you want to impose social reform in an authoritarian way, that's just wrong and it must be condemned and opposed.
@tiglath pileser Social democracy is the true left, you Marxist fanatics are just a bunch of autocratic thuggish ideologues, no better than Nazis and Islamists
@tiglath pileser Blah blah... The social democrats are the true left, Marxist fanatics are extremist thugs like the nazis and islamists. You are the kind of people Wolff is encouraging with his nonsense.
I hope President Sanders has monthly meetings with Lula, Corbyn and AMLO; maybe along with Federal Reserve chairman Richard Wolff...
AMLO is not left wing, not even centre left. He is the continuation of neoliberalism in Mexico but with a more "human" face
@@GermanLeftist This is a very off-base.
Sanders has spoken positively about worker co-ops, but he has no current policies to implement this. ;ore extremely, he is very clear that he has no issue with private ownership.
Meanwhile Corbyn's Labour has actively come out in favor of workers owning their own company's, they have policies workers having the right to buy their companies, and for general incentives for co-ops, more moderately they are starting the fire for worker ownership and control with dilution of shares (10%) and codetermination.
They do indeed have very different usages of "Democratic Socialism". Sanders is using the more modern version "Democratic control of the economy" (i.e. when capital is responsible to democracy, not when capital is necessarily abolished), while Corbyn is using "Democratic Socialism" as a transition towards Socialism, and Socialism with increased democracy in all aspects of life.
Another key fact: Corbyn is pushing for control of collectively owned utilities to be moved to the workers and consumers - which is a major step away from state control.
@@Kraisedion Actually (unlike last time), Bernie has proposed policies to support worker ownership and cooperatives, mostly in his "Corporate Accountability and Democracy" plan. He has proposed:
- an Employee Ownership Bank - to "provide low-interest loans, loan guarantees, and technical assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses through the establishment of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) or Eligible Worker-Owned Cooperatives"
- worker ownership centers - to be "established in every state and regional center in the country. These centers will educate retiring business owners and workers about the benefits of employee ownership"
- the right of first refusal - "workers will be given the right to buy a company when it goes up for sale, is closing, or if a factory is moving overseas and will receive financial assistance from the U.S. Employee Ownership Bank to make that possible"
- Coodetermination and his own version of Labour's "Inclusive Ownership Funds": "Democratic Employee Ownership Funds" for " corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies" (which, obviously, is considerably less far-reaching than Labour's proposal, though it goes to 20% ownership, compared to the latter's 10%); specifically:
- "45 percent of the board of directors in any large corporation with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be directly elected by the firm’s workers"
- "Under this plan, corporations with at least $100 million in annual revenue, corporations with at least $100 million in balance sheet total, and all publicly traded companies will be required to provide at least 2 percent of stock to their workers every year until the company is at least 20 percent owned by employees. This will be done through the issuing of new shares and the establishment of Democratic Employee Ownership Funds.
These funds will be under the control of a Board of Trustees directly elected by the workforce. Employees will be guaranteed payments from the funds equivalent to their shares of ownership as equal partners in the funds.
Workers will be guaranteed the right to vote the shares given to them through this plan. The funds will enjoy the same voting rights as any other institutional shareholder and their shares will not be permitted to be transferred or sold. Instead, they will be held permanently in trust for the workforce. Dividend payments will be made from the Funds directly to employees."
- And finally on this plan, it includes this curious point (which sadly isn't elaborated on or explained): "End the monopoly of shareholders on voting rights in the American economy. Every employee should be guaranteed the right to vote at work, and have a voice in setting their pay, regardless of the kind or size of company or firm they work for.
"
berniesanders.com/issues/corporate-accountability-and-democracy/
----------
Besides these specific proposals, other plans in Bernie's platform include giving preferential treatment and incentives to cooperatives, such as:
- His marijuana plan, which would "Incentivize marijuana businesses to be structured like nonprofits: We will provide resources for people to start cooperatives and collective nonprofits as marijuana businesses that will create jobs and economic growth in local communities." and includes this proposal "These employee ownership centers will work in coordination with the Minority Business Development Agency grant program to provide the training and technical support needed to formerly incarcerated individuals and people in areas disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs to start worker owned businesses and cooperatives."
- His rural America plan, which includes this point: "Incentivize rural cooperative business models and utilities, such as rural electric cooperatives, food co-ops, and credit unions. In 2009, of the 2.2 million total farms in this country, 2,389 were farm co-operatives. What we know is that when employees have an ownership stake in their company they will be more productive and they will earn a better living."
- And, finally, his Green New Deal includes these points:
- "The renewable energy generated by the Green New Deal will be publicly owned, managed by the Federal Power Marketing Administrations, the Bureau of Reclamation and the Tennessee Valley Authority and sold to distribution utilities with a preference for public power districts, municipally- and cooperatively-owned utilities with democratic, public ownership, and other existing utilities that demonstrate a commitment to the public interest"
- "Federal procurement will prioritize minority- and women-owned businesses, cooperatives and employee-owned firms, and community-owned and municipal enterprises."
- "Invest $14.7 billion in cooperatively owned grocery stores. Local groceries and co-ops are more likely to buy local products, which will help grow markets for farmers to sell their goods. We will also use these funds to bring grocery stores to food deserts ensuring all people have access to healthy, local food."
- "provide $150 billion in infrastructure grants and technical assistance for municipalities and states to build publicly owned and democratically controlled, co-operative, or open access broadband networks."
- "
Incentivize community ownership of farmland. One of the barriers to being able to choose a career in ecologically regenerative farming is the cost of acquiring farmland. We want communities to be able to join together to own farmland to help people grow our local, ecologically regeneratively produced food and help solve the climate crisis and will provide government assistance to do so."
So, while I'd say Corbyn goes considerably further and (along with McDonnell) is far more vocal about it (which is understandable, considering the UK is considerably to the left of the politically right-wing USA, perhaps best illustrated by Corbyn's Labour casually talking about nationalizations, while in the US that word is forbidden), Bernie is still promoting worker ownership through his policies, and would perhaps go considerably further in a second term (remember, even in his more radical years, Bernie was open about the fact that his priority is to establish a social democracy-like robust welfare state, since that by itself would be an incredible achievement, one which, in his view, must go before any real move to socialism; my understanding is that, for Bernie, only after guaranteeing the basics (healthcare, complete education, housing, job, living wage, etc.) would socialism be possible).
@@edwinsoto6932 That is absolutely fantastic, and so unexpected. Can't believe I missed this.
@@edwinsoto6932 Ur right but Corbyn is literally the son of Anarchists that fought for republican Spain in the 30s. So yeah he is and has advocated for market socialism but just nationalising industries that are inefficient under markets (eg the railways)
Michael just hangs on Richard Wolff's words, which is good because Wolff brings his A-game when he's asked interesting questions.
There cannot be reform.There must be a revolution.
Reforms will be un-done.
I like this saying that I just read:"The way to defeat crooks is not to join them
but to fight them relentlessly,to fight them without mercy."
Reform serves for people to become more class conscious until they are ready to strike, but it was subverted by capitalists cutting it short. Social democrats depriving reform of its original intent, to generate a class conscious and ready to die for the cause proletariat.
I respect Richard Wolff a lot so I'm very interested to hear what he has to say about this topic
Holy shit his take was so much better than I was expecting
he literally quoted Lenin!
@your wrong
Shut the hell up liberal
Tant mieux pour toi.
@You're Wrong You're wrong.
This is what I’ve always critiqued with reformist. Are you going far enough? Are you actively trying to take the tools of those in power and transferring it to the people? Are you making reform durable (as Richard Wolfe said)
Social democracy or Keynesian economics should not stay in that moot box but a more fluid form of power trajectory. A democratic socialist model that is actively trying to take power from the rich until they have no power no more. I’m an anarcho communist but I realize that not everyone has the same idea of socialism. So what are you doing to perfect and make a more concrete form of power for the common man in your framework has always been the question.
This is also why Elizabeth warren is boo boo and kaka and Bernie is the best answer. #Bernie2020
😂😂 suit yourself with your sturdy Marxist Leninism
anarcho communism seems like the idealistic proper ultimate theory that isn't fucking Star Trek or whatever, but it hinges too much on people being incredibly smart and good and that's just not reality.
Read Lenin, he'll clear up any doubts you might have about Social Democrats and reformism.
I mean, I don’t need to read Lenin, I’m already well aware of arguments against reformism which I have agreed with for the most part. This comment is just merely a sort of compromise and reworking of what reformist are trying to do. Because again, it’s naive to think that all socialism will be what you envision or what is your ideal. There will be different attempts of socialism so we have to be mindful of that
increadible statement by Professor Wolff, Reform didn't work the last time, we have to go beyond Capitalism!
We have to institute the dictatorship of the proletariat, smash the mechanisms of the current state and use state power to destroy the resistance of the bourgeoisie ... globally.
Important note on reform vs. revolution (the general debate/usages).
Revolution is, in this debate, typically used to describe fundamental changes.
"Reform" is used to refer to reforms on capitalism, i.e. non-fundamental changes, tweak, or as many have called it "revisionism", the belief that capitalism can be reformed.
This is why Wolff and Brooks can talk of revolution through reforms.
Revolution is one class ovethrowing another by force...
@@SkepticalMantisCHANNEL10 Different usages, as explained above.
As deep blue collar working class I can say that the vast majority of the working class dont know enough about the new deal and its subsequent dismantling by the capital class to be dissuaded from reform/revolution by a understanding of history..
I stayed at a Hotel/Hostel in Berlin, Germany this week, and they had a little sign saying "Lula Livre" on a clock behind the front desk. I got there just a couple days after he was freed.
2019 Labour Manifesto due out monday, 18th Nov!! It's going to be AMAZING
Nice maybe with his manifesto you only loose by 10 points... jfc get corbyn out and get somebody who can win In
oh shit I didn't realise how old this video is until reading your comment, labour lost because of their pandering to Remain regardless of the manifesto.
Fantastic
"Revolution is the only way reform is durable"
So i will make a critique of what Professor Wolff just said. Lenin died before the NEP (What lenin was referring to state capitalism as) was abolished. There was still private property with some state control of heavy industry, but this was all oversaw but the proletarian state (Bolsheviks). So Lenin was correct, but during the 1930's (Stalin era) is when they nationalized all industries and everything came to state control. I Know he disagrees that this constitutes socialism, but it should be at least given as context.
For it to be socialism, all citizens of USSR would have democratic control over the industry by voting for a "board of directors". Was the government (board of directors) elected by the people, or by Stalin? Did the people owned the "shares" of USSR "company", or did Stalin owned them? The answer to that tells us if it was State Capitalism or Communism.
@@evandrolima1724 The Government was elected by the people. People did have elections in the soviet union. The People elected representatives to the Soviets who then were the ones who created the economic plans, with collaboration with other parts of the society. So the people did have control over the means of production, but it was indirectly.
I agree whole heartily that we need to democratize the work place and that it should be part of our goals, however i do disagree with the the characterization that the Soviet Union was State Capitalist simply because they didn't democratize the work place.
However It is also true that the communist party held tremendous power and sway. It can be argued and it is, That they represented a ruling class. I however don't think that is correct and stems from anti soviet propaganda against the country. The soviet union had problems and we should learn from them, but call it state capitalist to distant yourself from it I think is the incorrect move
@@evandrolima1724 th-cam.com/video/kQoEqBx70ts/w-d-xo.html
Stalin brought about all of the great achievements of the Soviet Union and hoisted them into the 20th Century. He had the foresight to realize that Trotsky's agenda was not workable in Post-Czarist Russia ... the People of Russia did not want to live in a state more concerned with the impetus of "permanent revolution." The Soviet State had to make concessions to the working class and build a more stable society; they couldn't concern themselves with constant agitation and helping to foment proletarian revolutions around the world. If one reads Marx correctly, Socialism can not be forced but has to occur through the process of historical development, and Stalin correctly used the power given to him to create a far better and more developed standard of living for the citizens of Soviet Russia.
@@itzenormous Comrade I don't think it's a good idea to Valorize Stalin like that. Yes good things did happen under his time as General Secretary. The Soviet Union had a lot of Great Advancements, but he did alot of really terrible things too. Things that I see alot of ML's look over and pretend as if they didn't happen
God I love this show
That's a fit gentleman 😂
Is this pre or post iq squared debate? I just started watching, I want them to talk about it
Richard Wolff has the answers
Register to vote by 26.11.19
Aaron Bastani is joining us for the start of the Labour Party campaign in Bristol.
Malcolm X Centre 18.00
Hail to Brooks for having this immense intellect and forceful personality on. He has a a fire I never saw in Chomsky. Wolff is a leader through and through. WORKERS UNITE GODDAMNIT!!!
Takeaway: Michael wishes Richard Wolff was his grandpa.
I'm subbed to both of these men but together they push the other into a little higher place. I really enjoyed this discussion.
Lula still Runnin', just like he will during the next election! Nice subtext on his part-
I loved the Lula video too. I was losing my shit when I saw it.
I’m happy I’ve seen my political compass (although a very flawed test) shift way left since I was 14. I’ve had to change my pfp a few times now
Wolff keeps calling Britain "England". That's a mistake.
This is strictly true, but the internal arrangements of the UK are notoriously complex and quite likely to change in the near future, so I'll let him off.
@@johntate6537 I don't know why Americans think it's complicated. It isn't. Think of it like this: North America contains Canada, the United States and Alaska. Britain contains England, Scotland and Wales.
I would be very surprised if Corbyn wins
Reforms often times leads to revolution. Look at Martin Luther
01:42 Day-laborers made up the ground troops of the US American Revolution and the Protestant Revolution (it wasn't originally a reformation and Jan Hus, not Luther, was its founder) and probably many other revolutions.
02:12 Beware! The term 'globalism' can mean two diametrically opposed things: (1) for proletarians and liberals, "collusion of transnational business interests" and (2) for fascists and reactionaries, "socialist internationalism".
06:44 The organized proletarians (class-conscious workers) in their role as tribune of the people (tribunus populi) are the only ones who can be trusted to carry reforms through (Marx).
for the record ..Lula did not govern for the Working Class in Brazil ...We brazilians need more than food .on the table
One comment per 1000 views? Hmmm. 🤔
Idk. I don't comment on a lot of videos. I'm usually listening on TH-cam while working overnights. Sometimes if something really strikes me, I'll comment. P.s. I'm on break😃
Turns out I'm actually supposed to "like" the videos too. Derp.
Realize that fitness REALLY advances your cognitive abilities
I'd much rather watch Lula workout than Paul Ryan any day
it was not a party of the working class. it was a party of revolutionaries who claimed to be the champions of the working class, a different thing entirely. they tried to buy the support of the working class by offering benefits, and it worked. the party became master of the nation, the workers got a better deal,
but it was not democracy, it was just another elite rule, and stalin killed millions to make sure he stayed on top. i'm inclined to forgive him for some of the deaths, the right wing elite of europe hated and feared communism, and they tried hard to stamp it out. churchill is particularly notable for the efforts he made, right up to starting a war, he was frothing mad about the idea of communism. later on, when it turned out hitler was the real threat, churchill found it expedient to be polite. stalin must have enjoyed that. but some of those millions were just preserving his own position, and stalin is rightly censured.
reform does not work. fdr demonstrated that. because he did not transfer power to the electorate, reform was impeded, and, in the 1970's, undone.
revolution is necessary. the electorate must be masters of state activity. they will direct the nation by regular referendum, with initiative in reserve to keep the administration honest. politicians will be extinct. no loss, they are just the inheritors of the warlords of 1066, incompetent, short-sighted and selfish. many utterly corrupt. truly, no loss.
Are you advocating for direct democracy in a socialist system? Most of the time when people talk about a revolution, they just mention transitioning from a capitalist economy to a socialist one. Or transitioning from a republic to a direct democracy. I'm starting to see more and more modern day socialists say that both are necessary, and one will fail without the other
@@narutojph latter just by learning about history
Yes, the warring moralities of social groups do not define the electorate and can only co-opt it, only when the power is distributed to all citizens through direct democracy can the universal needs of the individual be satisfied and the desire for power consequently mitigated....
Mikhail Bakounine was right.
No tulsi was much better
Social democracy means reform and it is the right path. There's never going to be a change that solves all problems and whoever thinks that is a naive utopian. Social democracy lost its momentum 4 decades ago and the task is to reform the system, build and maintain a grassroots movement to oppose an oligarchic reactionary movement.
@tiglath pileser No, it shows that when you achieve reform you need to be vigilant, organize and not allow rightwingers to roll back reforms. I grew up in the 1990s. The left just stopped fighting. That's the problem. But if you want to impose social reform in an authoritarian way, that's just wrong and it must be condemned and opposed.
@tiglath pileser Social democracy is the true left, you Marxist fanatics are just a bunch of autocratic thuggish ideologues, no better than Nazis and Islamists
@tiglath pileser Blah blah... The social democrats are the true left, Marxist fanatics are extremist thugs like the nazis and islamists. You are the kind of people Wolff is encouraging with his nonsense.