Wednesday, September 2, 2020

Capitalists freak out when one of their own dares to host Economics Professor Richard Wolff,

 Richard Wolff (Better Understanding Of Marxism And The SMALL GOVERNMENT Socialist Movement)

Hard to believe this guy's parents fled socialist tyranny in Germany to the US, which embraced them & allowed them to raise their family in safety such that he could have a better life. He gets sent to the most prestigious schools (how does that happen? often it takes greased palms...or being a marxist whilst they are seeking to fill the system with marxists - look at his dad's friends...) & has become one of the most affluent in the world, due to the country in which he was born, which allowed his fleeing parents safe haven. How does he repay the constitutional republic which gave him all that he has outside of the gifts from God? He takes up the political ideology of our subversive enemy. He should go teach in Venezuela Edit: Also, his life is a complete waste of effort. All he has done is sit around & pontificate on marx - reminds me of bernie getting kicked out of the hippie commune for not pulling his weight & sitting around talking about socialism... More power to you for being able to interview this guy. Stiff. Drink. Time.
I stayed at a family in Venezuela where the father had gone to Columbia University in NYC and then he returned to lead Venezuela's OPEC board - Senor Lopez. Venezuela historically has been dominated and controlled by the US. Just check out the most venerated Marine US soldier - Smedley Butler - he said he was actually a Mercenary for Big Business Elites enforcing US profits made in Venezuela and countries around the world. Have you been to Venezuela?
@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang I have not. They were doing quite well, up until socialist dictators took power. Currently, it is not somewhere anyone would like to be, as is the case for every one of these experiments given enough time. This next one that they are pushing for now, is the western world. Regarding the other point that you brought up. I agree, there has been a great deal of perverse behavior undertaken by the kleptocracy that took root in the US, which had been present for quite some time in europe & other regions. Do you really think that the crooks that you speak of differ from those whom facilitated the east india tea company or other corrupt big money interests? We have a common enemy with this group.
@Mitch Kuchenburg I moved into a house with fellow University students and I became friends with a student from Venezuela. She took me there in 1998. I met bare-footed peasants living in a hut in the Andes. They had never voted in their life but they told me they were going to vote for Hugo Chavez. So I don't agree that "They were doing quite well, up until socialist dictators took power." The US tried to stage a military coup in Venezuela just as the US has done all around the world. https://williamblum.org/chapters/.../us-coup-against-hugo-chavez-of-venezuela-2002
@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang You completely ignore my agreement with you on corrupt interests, why was this? Are you a socialist?
@Mitch Kuchenburg So you refuse to acknowledge that I disagree with your first claim? I just provided evidence that disproved your first claim. I'll keep waiting for your response. You made a claim with no evidence. I provided evidence that disproved your claim. Until you respond to that then it's case closed.
@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang So, you completely change the topic & then make some demands gtfoh You are a socialist, hence why you didnt answer & also why you changed the topic + ignored my agreement that some bad stuff has happened that has to change. You brought that crap up & obfuscated - typical 'debate' tactic of the left Edit: & to answer your question, i was looking up actual evidence, not 'i met a dude once with no shoes'. Look at small truck sales - this is private enterprise growing. Ask those peasants how are they doing now, oh wait, they're likely dead from violence or starvation. Thanks socialism. I bet they are happy they made that genius decision.
@Voidisyinyang Voidisyinyang "By 1982, Venezuela was still the richest major economy in Latin America. The country used its vast oil wealth to pay for social programs, including health care, education, transport, and food subsidies. Workers in Venezuela were among the highest paid in the region." https://www.businessinsider.com/charts-venezuelas-economic-tragedy-2017-9 Quick source for a youtube reply - you have Google So, mismanagement by government by expanding social programs leading into an oil price drop... Lookie there Even before Chavez, the gov was redistributing wealth & causing havoc Did the person in the hut with no shoes bring this up while you were discussing politics with your college buddies on that trip that one time?
@Mitch Kuchenburg "The truth of the matter was well articulated by a US banker in Venezuela under the murderous Pérez Jiménez dictatorship: "You have the freedom here to do what you want to do with your money, and to me, that is worth all the political freedom in the world." That about sums it up. Venezuelan oil under the Gómez dictatorship,..American-style capitalism" urges upon countries it deems "worth exploitation." ...
 
Perhaps it would be better to try Venezuela, even more favorable terrain with its extraordinary resources, including the richest petroleum reserves outside the Middle East. We might, then, have a look at that success story. In a major scholarly study of US-Venezuelan relations, Stephen Rabe writes that after World War II, the US "actively supported the vicious and venal regime of Juan Vicente Gómez," who opened the country wide to foreign exploitation. The State Department shelved the "Open Door" policy in the usual way, recognizing the possibility of "U.S. economic hegemony in Venezuela," hence pressuring its government to bar British concessions (while continuing to demand -- and secure -- US oil rights in the Middle East, where the British and French were in the lead). "By 1928, Venezuela had become the world's leading oil exporter, with US companies in charge. During World War II, the US agreed to a Venezuelan demand for 50-50 profit-sharing. The effect, as predicted, was a vast expansion of oil production and "substantial profits for the [US] oil industry," which took control over the country's economy and "major economic decisions" in all areas. 
 
  "During the 1949-1958 dictatorship of the murderous thug Pérez Jiménez, "U.S. relations with Venezuela were harmonious and economically beneficial to U.S. businessmen"; torture, terror, and general repression passed without notice on the usual Cold War pretexts. In 1954, the dictator was awarded the Legion of Merit by President Eisenhower. The citation noted that "his wholesome policy in economic and financial matters has facilitated the expansion of foreign investment, his Administration thus contributing to the greater well-being of the country and the rapid development of its immense natural resources" -- and, incidentally, huge profits for the US corporations that ran the country, including by then steel companies and others. About half of Standard Oil of New Jersey's profits came from its Venezuelan subsidiary, to cite just one example. . ..
 
".only 57 percent of Venezuelans could afford more than one meal a day in this country of enormous wealth. Other flaws in the miracle had been revealed in the report of an August 1991 Presidential Commission for the Rights of Children, not previously noticed, which found that "critical poverty, defined as the inability to meet at least one half of basic nutritional requirements," had tripled from 11 percent of the population in 1984 to 33 percent in 1991; and that real per capita income fell 55 percent from 1988 to 1991, falling at double the rate of 1980-1988.1
 
citing 

 
 

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Chavez, The 2002 Coup

 yes I've worked in cooperatives - actually I lived in a housing cooperative of 35 people that was part of a 10 house cooperative. So we did have some people choose to not attend the "management" meetings. But there were no "Managers" in a real cooperative. So that is his point. Each individual represents themselves as a self-employer. There's no hierarchy. So for example the facilitation of the meetings would rotate so there was never a "president" or even a "secretary." Each job role would rotate to balance out the learning and education. 

So I think even in a small business people are aware of undemocratic ownership - if a worker is making the product and doing most of the physical labor but then he or she does not get hardly any of the profit - then this is unfair especially if the worker also has no role in how the business is run. And then the worker does not usually have the choice to just quit their job and find something else - and so such a person is basically a "wage-slave" as the Republican Party used to term such conditions.  

So it's not just an individual choice when wages have gone down compared to inflation for 40% of workers in the U.S. due to globalization and automation, etc. That is just a basic fact - that most women now who are married also have to work a job even if they also are mothers to children, etc. So that's a structural change in the U.S. - not an individual decision. Kind of like Supply Side economics - you put in the InterState Highway system to make sure people can evacuate nuclear plant meltdowns, etc. You have monopolies that conduct criminal conspiracies to wipe out the street car systems in cities so that people are forced to buy individual cars, etc. - those are structural decisions, not the decisions of individuals. Most individuals are not even aware of what is going on at a structural level.  

So cooperatives don't have the same kind of fiscal support by the government as with private corporations - for example corporations are considered legal persons protected by the bill of rights - and so are protected by the World Trade Organization and usually get lots of market subsidies (tax incentives and even tax subsidies). So that is why the distribution of milk for example is controlled by Land 'O Lakes that calls itself a "cooperative" but in fact it no longer maintains democratic control of the workplace - Land O' Lakes is actually "Land 'O Fakes" - a fake cooperative. So just because a business calls itself a cooperative does not mean it's a real cooperative.

 you mean how the original Republican party was against "wage-slaves"? Yes during early capitalism people could be self-employed more easily as there was less mass labor industrialization. So businesses were more independent crafts. So the Republicans were against people having to rent out their own bodies as wage-slaves. Pretty cool ideal actually. Glad you follow it!

 That's hilarious. After Reagan then corporations get 100% tax deduction to control research at Universities. For example at University of Minnesota, when I checked, there were over 300 corporations controlling the research - getting tax subsidized free researchers, free research equipment and facilities, and patent control, etc. A good book on this is "Leasing the Ivory Tower" by Lawrence Soley. He got fired for having that book published.

 Not compared to the Capitalist Economics Professors ! They all sit on board of directors of Wall St. Firms and get paid "consulting" and "lecture" fees and board of director fees and get paid to write big lies promoting big bank lies. Wolff is poor compared to most of the Capitalist Economic Professor Brown-No$er sell outs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbWTl82ZL_k&ab_channel=ElevatumSequentia this doc gives the details on how Capitalist Economic Professors are way too rich for being Brown-No$er sell outs

 I'm not an adjective nor a noun. When I am in deep dreamless sleep then my "I" is gone and yet who am I then? Be honest now? Do you know who you are when you're in deep dreamless sleep? Or is your brain just a "biological machine" that turns on when you wake up? Let's not stoop to semantics to define ourselves. Why limit yourself?

 @Rich Colo people die in labor industrial "accidents" all the time or in the military. Are they assassinated? Well no but maybe murdered. It's a legalistic term. Yes I agree with you that to say someone "died" when they were assassinated is a sleight of hand. I'm just saying that the U.S revolution was to maintain a slave imperial system since the British were stopping their slave state. Similarly Rhodesians were against the black Africans having their revolution in Zimbabwe. 

So the issue here is are people in general being assassinated by Westernization of the planet Earth - be it Marxism or Platonic ideology, Capitalism, etc. http://arctic-news.blogspot.com the Arctic has not been ice-free in three million years but it's about to go ice-free and unleash a huge methane bomb of giga-tons, doubling abrupt global warming and making it too hot for life on Earth.  

Our problems are way worse than mass murderers. The Koch Brothers Dad got rich from Communism - it's Industrialization. Anthony Sutton documented that Wall St. supported and created the Soviet Union just as much as anyone else. Same with Nazism. It's all just Western industrialization - same in China and Japan as well. Now India. It's too late. Western science itself is a religion as Professor David F. Noble exposed in his many books.  

Yes Trotsky was assassinated just as JFK was assassinated but structurally that did not change the US imperial system. JFK was a "Cold warrior" - and so just having a workers revolution isn't going to change the problem of Western industrialization based on the philosophy of Plato. Marx is based on the wrong math from Plato - and it goes back to the "symbolic revolution" around 10,000 years ago as archaeologist Jacques Cauvin called it. Humans have been around for 100,000 years. 

Science is our current religion but science is not going to save us. Mother Nature is in charge. We all rely on science as our mythology - our religion that we can't escape. But biologically we existed for a long time without science. All human cultures use music as the Octave, Perfect Fifth and Perfect Fourth as 1:2:3:4. The truth is very simple yet very radical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ShI7kTnyFc&ab_channel=ArturRehi This Estonia youtube says he thinks Trotsky got his head smashed in by a hammer. He gives a good review on the Russian Revolution but at the same time he is too simplistic about thinking capitalism is much better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#cite_note-Jahanbegloo_Singh_motive_2014-76 

 Jahanbegloo 2014, pp. 120-121: "Singh makes a principled argument: that Marx saw the use of violence, even when it is avoidable, as required insofar as that it has a purging quality, believing that only by using violence can all elements of the previous regime be eradicated. Moreover, Singh (ibid., p. 14) considers Marx's references to the use of bourgeoisie democratic institutions to bring about social change only as 'hinting to the possibility of the working class coming into power, in England, through universal suffrage'. Furthermore, he quotes Engels in a letter addressed to the Communist Committee in Brussels in October 1846. In this letter, Engels states that there cannot be any means of carrying out the communist agenda 'other than a democratic revolution by force' (ibid. p. 10). Singh, however, does acknowledge the desire in Marx to avoid a bloody revolution. Singh (ibid. p. 11) notes that most Marxist writing that alluded to the possibility of this transition being carried out peacefully took place before the events of 1844-48, which 'showed that a peaceful change was not even remotely possible'. After 1848, Singh notes a return to advocating a violent revolution due to what Singh identifies as the 'practical considerations' of being unable to overcome the existing obstacles to a peaceful transition. Singh (ibid. p. 13) writes that, in 1848, Marx published an article titled The Victory of Counter-Revolution in Vienna, where he states 'there is only one means by which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated - and that is by revolutionary terror'."

 

No comments:

Post a Comment