Capitalism isn't working anymore

[RGacky3]

VZSD89KUCbo

Its so clear and simple, Capitalism has'nt been wroking for a while now, and the chickens are comming home to roost.

[Revolution Commence]

Capitalism is working, and it's working the way it is supposed to: in a chaotic fashion. Exploitation of the worker is continuing, capital is being accumulated, and life goes on.

Richard Wolff, although a "Marxian economist", seems more and more like a social democrat and populist than a Marxist.

[Brosip Tito]

It sounds like he's talking about how capitalism works the way it's supposed to, as opposed to it no longer working. Capitalism is supposed to collapse in the end.

[NorwegianCommunist]

Good video, but he should explained the proplem in USA more, I think that's interessting =)

[Anon4chan1235]

well no fucking shit it isn't working anymore, What's next? gunna tell me the sky is blue, and 2+2=4?

[Omsk]

and 2+2=4?


..snicker..

"How can you be so sure that 2+2 is four?

[Franz Fanonipants]

lol capitalism is working fine. it functions the way it systemically is intended to.

anyone who says otherwise is a reformist and should be promptly ignored

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Yeah, there is nothing in capitalism that says that it has to be fair, spreading the wealth, or even to be stabel. So its working in the way its supposed to, thats what we are against.

[GPDP]

I said this in another thread, but I want to reiterate that I dislike the "capitalism isn't working" narrative, especially when it's followed by an "anymore," because such arguments are thoroughly idealist and blur the lines of the class struggle, since they suggest either capitalism was once a good system that has just gone awry, or that it's supposed to work for anyone other than the capitalist class. Furthermore, even if such arguments were true, wherein do we go about fixing the problem? The narrative basically leads us on to reformist conclusions, as is befitting of idealist constructs.

Better to acknowledge, in my opinion, that capitalism by design has never worked, and never will work in the interests of anyone but the ruling class. As such, the "it doesn't work" or "it has failed" narrative is silly, because it wasn't meant to work in the way the narrative suggests it should. It most definitely is working as intended, and when it doesn't, the fault largely lies on capitalism's own contradictions.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is working, and it's working the way it is supposed to: in a chaotic fashion. Exploitation of the worker is continuing, capital is being accumulated, and life goes on.

Richard Wolff, although a "Marxian economist", seems more and more like a social democrat and populist than a Marxist.


OK let me rephrase (I'm sick of semantics and definition arguments), Capitalism is not working in the way capitalist apologists claim it should work. (enough of the semantics).

Where is he supporting social-democracy??? Populism is not an ideology.



Good video, but he should explained the proplem in USA more, I think that's interessting =)


He has plenty of videos on the USA, check them out.



well no fucking shit it isn't working anymore, What's next? gunna tell me the sky is blue, and 2+2=4?


This IS the OI, and RIchard wolff explains WHY it is'nt working.


lol capitalism is working fine. it functions the way it systemically is intended to.

anyone who says otherwise is a reformist and should be promptly ignored

Again, thats true if your talking to Marxists or socialists, but My thread was not addressed to marxists or socialists ....


I said this in another thread, but I want to reiterate that I dislike the "capitalism isn't working" narrative, especially when it's followed by an "anymore," because such arguments are thoroughly idealist and blur the lines of the class struggle, since they suggest either capitalism was once a good system that has just gone awry, or that it's supposed to work for anyone other than the capitalist class. Furthermore, even if such arguments were true, wherein do we go about fixing the problem? The narrative basically leads us on to reformist conclusions, as is befitting of idealist constructs.

Better to acknowledge, in my opinion, that capitalism by design has never worked, and never will work in the interests of anyone but the ruling class. As such, the "it doesn't work" or "it has failed" narrative is silly, because it wasn't meant to work in the way the narrative suggests it should. It most definitely is working as intended, and when it doesn't, the fault largely lies on capitalism's own contradictions.

I disagree, it worked for many years in the sense that it did what capitalist apologists said what it would do, and continued to grow. (btw, I'm in line with Marx when I say this) Capitalism functioned in history until it outgrew itself, and functioned in the sense that it can continue, i.e.can reproduce the social relations, it cannot anymore.

[Franz Fanonipants]

OK let me rephrase (I'm sick of semantics and definition arguments), Capitalism is not working in the way capitalist apologists claim it should work. (enough of the semantics).

why do you spend so much time worrying about capitalist apologists?

most modern people KNOW shit is going wrong. you don't need to engage with reformist crazies other than to dismiss them.

[RGacky3]

Because capitalist apologists are the ones all over the media saying that capitalism is the only game in town.

Most modern people KNOW shit is going wrong, but many of them don't see an alternative, to show them one you have to show them that cpaitalism IS the problem (not government intervention, not immigrants, not whatever else), and you have to counter the capitalists apologists that they are being bombarded with all the time.

I don't think radical anti-capitalists are really in the position to dismiss reformists or capitalist apologists since they are the ones with the power now.

[RGacky3]

Also your in the OI, its kind of the point.

[Night Ripper]

the fault largely lies on capitalism's own contradictions.

What contradictions?

[Revolution starts with U]

Wage servantry, and the rate of profit to fall without some formal union busting, usually on behalf of the state

[Night Ripper]

Wage servantry, and the rate of profit to fall without some formal union busting, usually on behalf of the state

Please speak in complete sentences. How exactly is a list of things a "contradiction"? Do you know what a contradiction is?

[Revolution starts with U]

Complete sentences are for grammar nerds

Wage servantty cannot possibly fulfilled the needs of that labor because as wages rise profits fall, thereby creating systemic mass discontent, is class struggle, dooming it to recurring collapse. Why do you think fiat money and monetary expansion have become a universal feature of capitalist economies. And don't give me "gubmint did it" because that explains nothing.

[Night Ripper]

Wage servantty cannot possibly fulfilled the needs of that labor because as wages rise profits fall, thereby creating systemic mass discontent, is class struggle, dooming it to recurring collapse.

You aren't very good at explaining your ideology. Maybe you can point me to someone that has written about this that explains it better?

[Revolution starts with U]

You could try Marx, but I don't want you having nightmares... so, how about Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, chapter 8

[Night Ripper]

You could try Marx, but I don't want you having nightmares... so, how about Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, chapter 8

Which book? You know there are several chapter 8's right?

[Revolution starts with U]

Book 1. Sorry, I Thoth if one didn't say otherwise, the first is implied.

[Night Ripper]

Book 1. Sorry, I Thoth if one didn't say otherwise, the first is implied.

First of all, as Smith himself points out, wage levels even in his day were well above what was required to survive. He also only argued that wages would reach that level if wealth stagnates over several centuries. That's hardly anything close to what you were claiming.

[Revolution starts with U]

He explicitly notes that both wages and profits cannot rise in tandem, or not for very long. That capitalism, private property society, like feudalism before it, creates its own discontent.

[Ocean Seal]

I said this in another thread, but I want to reiterate that I dislike the "capitalism isn't working" narrative, especially when it's followed by an "anymore," because such arguments are thoroughly idealist and blur the lines of the class struggle, since they suggest either capitalism was once a good system that has just gone awry, or that it's supposed to work for anyone other than the capitalist class. Furthermore, even if such arguments were true, wherein do we go about fixing the problem? The narrative basically leads us on to reformist conclusions, as is befitting of idealist constructs.

Better to acknowledge, in my opinion, that capitalism by design has never worked, and never will work in the interests of anyone but the ruling class. As such, the "it doesn't work" or "it has failed" narrative is silly, because it wasn't meant to work in the way the narrative suggests it should. It most definitely is working as intended, and when it doesn't, the fault largely lies on capitalism's own contradictions.

I'm going to be a hipster and say that I don't dislike the narrative on principle. The reason being is that capitalism was never intended to work, yes, but now that it is failing (and by failing, I mean not being as successful for the bourgeoisie as it once was) I think that it should be acknowledged. I remember the Zizek said something that when "communism" was "failing," the people said that it wasn't communism (which is true), and now the people are saying this isn't "capitalism" (which is false) but it is this kind of rhetoric which shows that capitalism is running out of time.

[Deicide]

Capitalism is working: The ''masters of the universe'' are getting richer.

[CommunityBeliever]

How can you be so sure that 2+2 is four?

The set ℕ is an abstract interface which contains elements which implement the functions inc and dec. Based upon this we can define a binary operator + to add elements in ℕ:



+ : ℕ × ℕ → ℕ
(+ n 0) = n
(+ n m) = (inc (+ n (dec m))Now by this definition (+ 2 2) = (inc (+ 2 (dec 2)) = (inc (inc (+ 2 (dec (dec 2)))). By the definition of incrementation and decrementation (dec (dec 2)) is equal to 0, and by the definition of + we gave above, (+ 2 0) = 2. Now by substituting our new value for (+ 2 (dec (dec 2))) into the equation we get (inc (inc 2)). Finally by the definition of incrementation (inc (inc 2)) = (inc 3) = 4. QED.

[Caj]

The set ℕ is an abstract interface which contains elements which implement the functions inc and dec. Based upon this we can define a binary operator + to add elements in ℕ:



+ : ℕ × ℕ → ℕ
(+ n 0) = n
(+ n m) = (inc (+ n (dec m))Now by this definition (+ 2 2) = (inc (+ 2 (dec 2)) = (inc (inc (+ 2 (dec (dec 2)))). By the definition of incrementation and decrementation (dec (dec 2)) is equal to 0, and by the definition of + we gave above, (+ 2 0) = 2. Now by substituting our new value for (+ 2 (dec (dec 2))) into the equation we get (inc (inc 2)). Finally by the definition of incrementation (inc (inc 2)) = (inc 3) = 4. QED.

Now prove it without resorting to tautology. :p

[Brosip Tito]

Which book? You know there are several chapter 8's right?
Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg references these contradictions at various points. It's available here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

[Ocean Seal]

The set ℕ is an abstract interface which contains elements which implement the functions inc and dec. Based upon this we can define a binary operator + to add elements in ℕ:



+ : ℕ × ℕ → ℕ
(+ n 0) = n
(+ n m) = (inc (+ n (dec m))Now by this definition (+ 2 2) = (inc (+ 2 (dec 2)) = (inc (inc (+ 2 (dec (dec 2)))). By the definition of incrementation and decrementation (dec (dec 2)) is equal to 0, and by the definition of + we gave above, (+ 2 0) = 2. Now by substituting our new value for (+ 2 (dec (dec 2))) into the equation we get (inc (inc 2)). Finally by the definition of incrementation (inc (inc 2)) = (inc 3) = 4. QED.
Mathematics cannot be proven within its own formalism.

[RGacky3]

Capitalism is working: The ''masters of the universe'' are getting richer.

Sure but more and more its on finance and government life support.