Current Events > Richard Wolff (socialist) loses capitalism vs socialism debate

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJQSuUZdcV4

Its long, but a good watch. Richard Wolff lost the debate very badly per the pre and post debate votes (viewable at the end of the video). About 20% of the undecideds voted against Richard after the debate, and Richard lost a couple of the votes he started with.

The TLDW is that Gene actually read Richards book and explored how tedious worker led industry would be to maintain. He also explained that if socialists wanted worker led companies they can start their own rather than rely on the state to seize the assets for them, but actual workers just arent socialists at the end of the day.

Richards strategy was to use story telling rather than arguments. That probably goes over well when preaching to the choir, but it fell flat when he had an actual opponent. The fact that Gene is a former socialist probably helped him.

Anyway, the Soho Forum has interesting long form debates that are entertaining when you have a long drive or something.

---

Godnorgosh posted...

"This libertarian rag says Richard Wolff lost a debate to a libertarian"

Thats not what happened. Reason just posted the video. Actual votes were taken before and after the debate, and by that measure Wolff lost by a landslide. You can see for yourself at the very end.

---

Why is this a topic? Common sense and an understanding of history shows capitalism will always be better than socialism. Theres literally no successful implementation of socialism. Successful in terms of the claimed benefits. Its been very successful in its actual purpose; making the people slaves to the state.
---

Socialism is just good for safety nets under a Capitalist society.

Abiz_ posted...

Socialism is just good for safety nets under a Capitalist society.

I think that's all most people are asking for tbh, the current safety net has far too many huge holes in it.

DrascalKiller posted...

I think that's all most people are asking for tbh, the current safety net has far too many huge holes in it.

I believe so also. I think most people are trying to scare monger that fixing the socialism safety nets will make us a socialist society.

tennisdude818 posted...

He also explained that if socialists wanted worker led companies they can start their own

I just wanted to say that this is a thing that actually happens the companies are just not as successful.

---

I might actually watch this later.

DrascalKiller posted...

I think that's all most people are asking for tbh, the current safety net has far too many huge holes in it.

One of Warren's biggest policy proposals is to make it mandatory that 40% of all corporate boards are elected by workers from the company.

---

Wrap it up boys, socialism is CANCELLED
---

Pure capitalism dosen't work.
Pure socialism doesn't work.

Any conversation that contends otherwise is had only by idiots.

---

Libertarians are GOP that want to smoke pot and repeal child labor laws, why the fuck would I care what they think.
---

s0nicfan posted...

One of Warren's biggest policy proposals is to make it mandatory that 40% of all corporate boards are elected by workers from the company.

That would keep short sellers busy.


---

Tyranthraxus posted...

I just wanted to say that this is a thing that actually happens the companies are just not as successful.

Yeah Gene made that point.

---

water is wet

---

Debating isn't about who's right, it's about who can get the crowd on their side. Short and catchy bullshit wins a debate.
---

CircleOfManias posted...

Debating isn't about who's right, it's about who can get the crowd on their side. Short and catchy bullshit wins a debate.

Debate has been the formal means of equitably comparing opposing ideas for literally thousands of years. This weird meme of claiming that debate is just a popularity contest as a way to dismantle successful arguments against one perspective is just strange.

Also, keep in mind that the political debates that take place during elections aren't actual debates.

---

CircleOfManias posted...

Debating isn't about who's right, it's about who can get the crowd on their side. Short and catchy bullshit wins a debate.

This was a formal Oxford style debate where both participants had ample time to make their point with no interruptions. On paper youd think Richard should be good at this with all of his academic credentials.

---

What people voted doesn't really mean too much. People vote against their own interests all the time.
---

Funkydog posted...

What people voted doesn't really mean too much. People vote against their own interests all the time.

Considering how Wolff wants the workplace to be a democracy, this isn't much of a consolation for his camp.

---

The fetishization of formalized debate is a very weird thing to see in year three of Donald Trump's presidency. Could anything matter less in the world than Oxford style debate in 2019?
---

Crono99 posted...

A lot of people forget the context of the communist manifesto. Karl Marx wrote in the mid 19th century during the social upheavals caused by the aftermath of the industrial revolution. It was a different time.

When Karl Marx said that, for the workers, "all you have to lose are your chains" he meant it quite literally. The working class in those days were slaves in all but name. There is absolutely no comparison at all to the quality of life of the average worker today.

You could argue that Unions basically are just an alternative way of "seizing the means of production"

---

Crono99 posted...

Not really. Unions are about negotiating together instead of negotiating alone. Negotiation implies that you recognize that you don't own the business.

Negotiation also implies you have power. Slaves couldn't negotiate with plantation owners. If you look at the old Flint strike, you can see the Union was very much in control of things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flint_sit-down_strike


---

Crono99 posted...

Well, sure. It's been a long battle for unions to even be legal. The concept of organized labor may have roots in marxism just as italian has roots in latin, but it's still completely different.

I don't think Unions have "roots in Marxism" just that Unions are an alternative way for the proletariat to achieve the authority / power that Marx wanted them to have.

---

Crono99 posted...

One could argue that the proletariat as described by marx doesnt exist at all anymore. Like I said, it's a completely different historical context. A factory worker today doesn't have anywhere near the same needs as one in the 1850s.

Ironically it does exist in places that are communist.

---

Antifar posted...

The fetishization of formalized debate is a very weird thing to see in year three of Donald Trump's presidency. Could anything matter less in the world than Oxford style debate in 2019?

I dont see the fetishization youre seeing. A formal and fair debate is a nice change of pace.


---

Crono99 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]



Ironically it does exist in places that are communist.

Which kind of brings to the inherent contradiction within communism.

Marx talks about a "dictatorship of the proletariat." A dictatorship implies unchallenged decision making. How can such a large portion of the population hold that kind of power?

Through a "vanguard." It's not really the workers who hold the dictatorial power, but a small group of people led by one person who acts as some kind of "representative" of the workers. This leads to the result of the workers themselves having no real power at all, and instead being under the dictatorship of someone who acts in their name.

Very well said

Not to defend Communism, but my understanding of the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is that it has nothing to do with dictatorship. It's a term of art. It essentially means majority rule through, or rule of the people as opposed to a rule of the other classes through wealth or nobility (oligarchy, feudalism, monarchy). It's basically a term with bad PR.
---

tennisdude818 posted...

He also explained that if socialists wanted worker led companies they can start their own rather than rely on the state to seize the assets for them, but actual workers just arent socialists at the end of the day.

well, you know...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hy-Vee