Ok, I'm 3 minutes in, and I like your style. I don't know why your channel popped up on my UA-cam but maybe because I'm continually seeking out the truth. Keep it coming 👍
@@bobbiecat8000 It's not the pinnacle of human liberty but it is a feature of it. When we were poor but we had liberty we worked to be rich. What's the point of being rich if we can't buy anything? You think poverty is better? If you do, plenty of people will take whatever you want to give so whats the problem?
I'm sure you're perfectly aware of it, but for those who aren't, you might be interested to look into Thurgood Marshall's role in the history of Kenya (he basically wrote their neo-colonialist constitution) and his role as a water carrier for American fascists. He got his SCOTUS seat by fawning over J. Edgar Hoover and purging the left from the NAACP.
This is the stuff that former colonizer countries will not let people from former colony countries know. In terms of economy and mentality, yes, neo-colonialism is real.
Your comments on Kenyan economic colonial status is exactly what China is doing. "Britain built the harbor...etc." You describe what China is doing when you speak in glowing terms of China's phenomenal growth and the "help" China offers Africa. They take resources in return for the harbors and roads they build in Africa but it isn't done altruistically. Improvements in Africa are built for China's needs and desire to dominate international trade in exactly the same way that India's cotton trade worked. Cotton was grown cheaply in India, exported to English mills and resold as expensive goods back to India and the world. China extracts cheap labor and resources and builds the infrastructure they need to keep the extraction coming, including educating the workforce, etc. It's still economic colonialism. I would love to see more developed nations actually build Africa for Africans and trade on an equal footing instead of just using cheap labor and extracting natural resources. Keeping the big profit for China while little is done to bring African workers into a situation where they can develop and prosper without some foreigners skimming off the juicy bits first is still economic colonialism.
Its really sad that no one watch some of the most interesting informative videos. The internet age didn't help like many people think .it made things worse.
I watch Wolff videos only to see how socialist professors are being dishonest. But I don't watch them often because there are other good sources of honesty on UA-cam, where I would learn factual information instead of just propaganda and bad economics.
@@bbrahbboul2748 Wolff is dishonest when he equates Nazism and every form of fascism with capitalism, as if collectivist nationalism and individualistic liberty have the same meaning. Wolff is dishonest when he juxtaposes the workers rights movements in the US with socialism, as if a capitalist nation practicing capitalism didn't actually produce the best worker protections in world history.
@@gorkyd7912 well. He did not equate fascism and capitalism. Fascism is a capitalist system . It's the far right interpretation of capitalism. But eventually any capitalist system leads to fascism. Wich it happened before and it is about to happen again. And no capitalism didn't produce any protections for workers . Workers had to die in the streets and strike to get every single benefit we have today. And every union in united states at the beginning of the last century was either socialist or communist. So you are wrong on all your claims . Just fact check him with an open mind.
@@bbrahbboul2748 Capitalist systems do not lead to fascism, it's exactly the opposite; capitalist systems prevent fascism by dividing power between public and private. Fascism unites power under government, same as socialism or monarchy just with different core beliefs. Mussolini was a socialist, Lenin was a socialist, Hitler was a socialist; "fascism" was just a convenient name for Mussolini's party since he came to a compromise with the traditionalists when the more extreme Communists were not able to, but the actual economic system of fascism is identical to socialism; the state uses the "private market" for its own interests. Look at modern China, so-called socialism with Chinese characteristics, it's the same exact system. Workers in the US would not have had the option to strike for better conditions under a socialist or communist system. Whether the unions were socialist or communist makes no difference, there were also anarchists, racists, fascists, eugenicists, patriots, etc etc. But the US economic system is capitalism and that means the individual workers enjoys equal protection under the law as business owners and therefore they can march and strike all they wanted with legal protection. If the US was a socialist or communist state there would be no strikes, they would be crushed instantly like they are in China or every other socialist state. In socialism the interests of the business owner are actually the same as the interest of the state that enforces the laws so there are no equal protections; it's worker vs. state. Your boss can rape you in China and you won't be pressing charges because the state values your boss over you.
Puerto Rico is still to this day a colony of the United States, even after soldiers from Puerto Rico under the command of Bernardo de Galvez governor of Louisiana fought for the American Revolution for the independence of the 13 American colonies. Gratitude huh!
Well its you guys fault for having stuff we want offa ya! How else would we have gotten it? Pay for them at a fair price? Incubating a mutually beneficial trading partnership and being a good neighbor? Brothers and sisters recognizing each other's humanity and obvious commonality? Piss off! Anyhoo, Stick 'em up! Your money or your life!
The US took Puerto Rico from Spain and then granted Puerto Rico the ability to elect its own government and write its own Constitution while enjoying the benefits of US citizens. Now they say the US is evil colonialists. Gratitude huh.
@@gorkyd7912 The US took Puerto Rico from Spain *It wasn't the US's to take.* and then granted Puerto Rico the ability to elect its own government *What if they said "Go away!"? It wasn't those people back then's right...to grant them jack-sh¡t* and write its own Constitution *Did they get **_"Help"_** doing that? I wonder who **_helped?_* while enjoying the benefits of US citizens. *I hope their island is doing well. I heard they had a hurricane or something. I'm sure the people are enjoying them benefits...bigly.* Now they say the US is evil colonialists. *Well gosh! Where would they have gotten that idea!?* Gratitude huh. *Yeh. Those A-holes are just ungrateful for our help, in the present and in the past. What a bunch o' douches...ammirite, bro?!* *Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Grenada, Guam, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Laos, Leganon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Phillipines, Puerto Rico (BORIQUAAAAA!), Russia, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, UGanda, Uruguay, Good morning Vietnaaaaaaaaam, Yemeeeeeeen in da hizzee, cococCongoooo! Whattup Lamumba!* *....have entered the chat.*
@@gorkyd7912 "It wasn't the US's to take." What does 'take' mean to you? *Its basic English. Found in the written word. Like in books. Here's an example:* _"When the vehmacht _*_took_*_ (~the past tense of "take") _*_Paris,_*_ the citizens stood on the boulevard openly sobbing._ Spare me your raging ignorance. *Dude, you're in no position to be condescending. You are the ignorant one here. Its not me. Its you.* *The arrogance of the ignorant is a wonder to behold. Bye.*
The US dollar is also the world's reserve currency. Not bad for a former British colony of rabble-rousers and malcontents. England is now ranked 6th in the world's GDP ranking, over taken by India who now ranks 5th. Seems former British colonies are faring better than Britain in the modern era.
If there is a democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, and that people do not have economic and monetary power in their hands, it is not a true rule of the people. It is economic slavery.
🌍 AFRICA needs new IP expertise on drafting quality contracts designed as additional support contracts, and ready to negotiate innovatively with foreign investors. No more plates in the hands approach again when dealing with investors ✋️ Offering IP expertise to Yoruba Nation 🏁 Now carefully designed to compete innovatively with the top ten most advanced countries in the world.
Most people everywhere want comfort, entertainment, gadgets. Who better to look to than Europe/USA? As long that is the case there will be interdependence. A former colony or a dark world wants an escape. India, Asia and Africa has many people with money to buy apple iPhone but no significant producers to compete with Apple. Even by some luck you have a guy making phones as good as Apple he will not be well known. Apple sells worldwide and advertises worldwide. Take the case of a luxury car or a private jet, economy of scale helps an established legacy player, usually European and American. If an wealthy African nation wants to sell jets and luxury cars it could, it will have minor domestic consumer base and bad publicity abroad, they will not succeed much. The big capital and markets they established through scientific advancements and also the aggregated wealth they looted from colonies would mean the gap or lead is too wide to fill. We are the lesser world lured by the bigger world. Ex colonial powers are kind today, they do not want to be brutal but want a world where there is peaceful expansion, you remain buyer for all times and they remain manufacturer for ever. Peace without dignity, hope it works out well for all.
Is there such a thing as "neo-socialist"? Given the "no true socialist" fallacy, and that "socialism" is completely dependent on what "capitalism" means, which Marx understood but his followers don't...the constantly shifting sands of the meaning of " socialism" should have produced a "neo-socialist" designation a long time ago. Of course, given the many iterations and variants of the "no true socialist" fallacy...the term "neo-socialist" would have been rendered irrelevant immediately, which explains why it doesn't exist. One has to marvel at this process of creating new definitions in order to indicate opposing positions as in the following sequence: establishmentarianism...to disestablishmentarianism...to antidisestablishmentarianism...which completes the circle ending where it began. As marxist socialism is dependent on capitalism for its meaning, not actually defining it, has allowed the process to create the "democratic-socialist" variant also known as the co-op variant, which is "capitalism" in disguise. No capitalist would object to this, since it is merely an organizational variant...although conceptually its realization must overcome numerous barriers of its own making in getting started and quite a few more, after.
@Account NumberEight you are a continuous source of salt for him to mine as you cry about it, peddle lies, get proven wrong by him and yours truly, then cry more about it.
India did not get independence from Britain in 1947. It was transfer of power from the British to their chosen one British educated Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru. Mr. Nehru in his own words described described himself to be culturally a Muslim, by education British and only by accident of birth a Hindu. He was often send to jail by the British, but he was treated very well there. He even had time to write a book while in prison. Mr. Nehru took oath from Lord Mountbatten, the last Vice Roy of India. Did or could Lord Mountbatten ask Mr. Nehru to take oath for a sovereign India? He could not. Indian Government till 1970 used to send periodic reports to Whitehall about the condition of the country. What kind of an independence is that? Indian Government stopped sending such reports in mi seventies. Now India is independent because most of the leaders are not British trained to be sub-ordinate to them. Britain let the colonies go because it was most cost-effective for the British. Also, the number of ex-colonies in the UN increased the support for the UK in the General Assembly in the UN as a counterbalance against the USA.
@Account NumberEight come find out then I'm locked and loaded at all times. We can use hands too. Let me know I'm in South Florida West Palm Beach pull up.
Ok, I'm 3 minutes in, and I like your style. I don't know why your channel popped up on my UA-cam but maybe because I'm continually seeking out the truth. Keep it coming 👍
An aussie hum? You'll have loads of fun once you check his China 'analyses'...
So what used to be high risk ventures to satiate the monarchy is now a logistical global freeway to satiate the oligarchy.
The global economy satiates you, the consumer.
@@gorkyd7912 and how American it is of us to think consumerism is the pinnacle of human liberty.
@@bobbiecat8000 It's not the pinnacle of human liberty but it is a feature of it. When we were poor but we had liberty we worked to be rich. What's the point of being rich if we can't buy anything? You think poverty is better? If you do, plenty of people will take whatever you want to give so whats the problem?
Salud y larga vida para el Dr. Richard Wolf
I'm sure you're perfectly aware of it, but for those who aren't, you might be interested to look into Thurgood Marshall's role in the history of Kenya (he basically wrote their neo-colonialist constitution) and his role as a water carrier for American fascists. He got his SCOTUS seat by fawning over J. Edgar Hoover and purging the left from the NAACP.
This is the stuff that former colonizer countries will not let people from former colony countries know. In terms of economy and mentality, yes, neo-colonialism is real.
This is inspring for me.
Your comments on Kenyan economic colonial status is exactly what China is doing. "Britain built the harbor...etc." You describe what China is doing when you speak in glowing terms of China's phenomenal growth and the "help" China offers Africa. They take resources in return for the harbors and roads they build in Africa but it isn't done altruistically. Improvements in Africa are built for China's needs and desire to dominate international trade in exactly the same way that India's cotton trade worked. Cotton was grown cheaply in India, exported to English mills and resold as expensive goods back to India and the world. China extracts cheap labor and resources and builds the infrastructure they need to keep the extraction coming, including educating the workforce, etc. It's still economic colonialism.
I would love to see more developed nations actually build Africa for Africans and trade on an equal footing instead of just using cheap labor and extracting natural resources. Keeping the big profit for China while little is done to bring African workers into a situation where they can develop and prosper without some foreigners skimming off the juicy bits first is still economic colonialism.
Its really sad that no one watch some of the most interesting informative videos. The internet age didn't help like many people think .it made things worse.
I watch Wolff videos only to see how socialist professors are being dishonest. But I don't watch them often because there are other good sources of honesty on UA-cam, where I would learn factual information instead of just propaganda and bad economics.
@@gorkyd7912 ok , give me an example where doctor wolff being dishonest?
@@bbrahbboul2748 Wolff is dishonest when he equates Nazism and every form of fascism with capitalism, as if collectivist nationalism and individualistic liberty have the same meaning. Wolff is dishonest when he juxtaposes the workers rights movements in the US with socialism, as if a capitalist nation practicing capitalism didn't actually produce the best worker protections in world history.
@@gorkyd7912 well. He did not equate fascism and capitalism. Fascism is a capitalist system . It's the far right interpretation of capitalism. But eventually any capitalist system leads to fascism. Wich it happened before and it is about to happen again. And no capitalism didn't produce any protections for workers . Workers had to die in the streets and strike to get every single benefit we have today. And every union in united states at the beginning of the last century was either socialist or communist. So you are wrong on all your claims . Just fact check him with an open mind.
@@bbrahbboul2748 Capitalist systems do not lead to fascism, it's exactly the opposite; capitalist systems prevent fascism by dividing power between public and private. Fascism unites power under government, same as socialism or monarchy just with different core beliefs. Mussolini was a socialist, Lenin was a socialist, Hitler was a socialist; "fascism" was just a convenient name for Mussolini's party since he came to a compromise with the traditionalists when the more extreme Communists were not able to, but the actual economic system of fascism is identical to socialism; the state uses the "private market" for its own interests. Look at modern China, so-called socialism with Chinese characteristics, it's the same exact system.
Workers in the US would not have had the option to strike for better conditions under a socialist or communist system. Whether the unions were socialist or communist makes no difference, there were also anarchists, racists, fascists, eugenicists, patriots, etc etc. But the US economic system is capitalism and that means the individual workers enjoys equal protection under the law as business owners and therefore they can march and strike all they wanted with legal protection. If the US was a socialist or communist state there would be no strikes, they would be crushed instantly like they are in China or every other socialist state. In socialism the interests of the business owner are actually the same as the interest of the state that enforces the laws so there are no equal protections; it's worker vs. state. Your boss can rape you in China and you won't be pressing charges because the state values your boss over you.
Puerto Rico is still to this day a colony of the United States, even after soldiers from Puerto Rico under the command of Bernardo de Galvez governor of Louisiana fought for the American Revolution for the independence of the 13 American colonies. Gratitude huh!
Well its you guys fault for having stuff we want offa ya! How else would we have gotten it? Pay for them at a fair price? Incubating a mutually beneficial trading partnership and being a good neighbor? Brothers and sisters recognizing each other's humanity and obvious commonality? Piss off! Anyhoo, Stick 'em up! Your money or your life!
The US took Puerto Rico from Spain and then granted Puerto Rico the ability to elect its own government and write its own Constitution while enjoying the benefits of US citizens. Now they say the US is evil colonialists. Gratitude huh.
@@gorkyd7912 The US took Puerto Rico from Spain
*It wasn't the US's to take.*
and then granted Puerto Rico the ability to elect its own government
*What if they said "Go away!"? It wasn't those people back then's right...to grant them jack-sh¡t*
and write its own Constitution
*Did they get **_"Help"_** doing that? I wonder who **_helped?_*
while enjoying the benefits of US citizens.
*I hope their island is doing well. I heard they had a hurricane or something. I'm sure the people are enjoying them benefits...bigly.*
Now they say the US is evil colonialists.
*Well gosh! Where would they have gotten that idea!?*
Gratitude huh.
*Yeh. Those A-holes are just ungrateful for our help, in the present and in the past. What a bunch o' douches...ammirite, bro?!*
*Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Grenada, Guam, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Laos, Leganon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mexico, Micronesia, Morocco, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Phillipines, Puerto Rico (BORIQUAAAAA!), Russia, Samoa, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Turkey, UGanda, Uruguay, Good morning Vietnaaaaaaaaam, Yemeeeeeeen in da hizzee, cococCongoooo! Whattup Lamumba!*
*....have entered the chat.*
@@k3v1n47 "It wasn't the US's to take." What does 'take' mean to you?
Spare me your raging ignorance.
@@gorkyd7912
"It wasn't the US's to take." What does 'take' mean to you?
*Its basic English. Found in the written word. Like in books. Here's an example:*
_"When the vehmacht _*_took_*_ (~the past tense of "take") _*_Paris,_*_ the citizens stood on the boulevard openly sobbing._
Spare me your raging ignorance.
*Dude, you're in no position to be condescending. You are the ignorant one here. Its not me. Its you.*
*The arrogance of the ignorant is a wonder to behold. Bye.*
The US dollar is also the world's reserve currency. Not bad for a former British colony of rabble-rousers and malcontents. England is now ranked 6th in the world's GDP ranking, over taken by India who now ranks 5th. Seems former British colonies are faring better than Britain in the modern era.
@hik yuip The truth is that Britain doesn't need industry, they have the Bank of England.
except, life is not all about the 'economy', as parts of society have implied, sometimes to no end..
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Like a client state?
Comments for the Algorithm
It seems consumers have more power than any government or corporation.
I think they do. If they stood together that is.
Francafrique
Hey now, that got Gaddafi killed.
If there is a democracy, i.e. the rule of the people, and that people do not have economic and monetary power in their hands, it is not a true rule of the people. It is economic slavery.
🌍 AFRICA needs new IP expertise on drafting quality contracts designed as additional support contracts, and ready to negotiate innovatively with foreign investors. No more plates in the hands approach again when dealing with investors ✋️ Offering IP expertise to Yoruba Nation 🏁 Now carefully designed to compete innovatively with the top ten most advanced countries in the world.
When it comes to creating new substantial wealth worldwide worth trillions of pounds to build back better best political economy to transform lives, businesses and nations, no one does it better than me in the UK and beyond 🌍. ®️ New Markets-B2B2C-i ©️ New Markets Business To Business To Customer Innovation ®️ Revolutionary Design.
Leveraging on revolutionary wealth creators with the talents to innovate on the highest level based on new intellectual property designed rights is a credible solution likely to reassure the markets. ®️ new markets-B2B2C-i ©️ is probably the most valuable intellectual property anywhere in the world. 🌍 Yoruba Nation 🏁 Self-Determination ☮️ Freedom & Prosperity 🌍.
Most people everywhere want comfort, entertainment, gadgets. Who better to look to than Europe/USA? As long that is the case there will be interdependence. A former colony or a dark world wants an escape. India, Asia and Africa has many people with money to buy apple iPhone but no significant producers to compete with Apple. Even by some luck you have a guy making phones as good as Apple he will not be well known. Apple sells worldwide and advertises worldwide. Take the case of a luxury car or a private jet, economy of scale helps an established legacy player, usually European and American. If an wealthy African nation wants to sell jets and luxury cars it could, it will have minor domestic consumer base and bad publicity abroad, they will not succeed much. The big capital and markets they established through scientific advancements and also the aggregated wealth they looted from colonies would mean the gap or lead is too wide to fill. We are the lesser world lured by the bigger world.
Ex colonial powers are kind today, they do not want to be brutal but want a world where there is peaceful expansion, you remain buyer for all times and they remain manufacturer for ever. Peace without dignity, hope it works out well for all.
Is there such a thing as "neo-socialist"? Given the "no true socialist" fallacy,
and that "socialism" is completely dependent on what "capitalism" means,
which Marx understood but his followers don't...the constantly shifting sands
of the meaning of " socialism" should have produced a "neo-socialist" designation
a long time ago. Of course, given the many iterations and variants of the
"no true socialist" fallacy...the term "neo-socialist" would have been rendered irrelevant
immediately, which explains why it doesn't exist.
One has to marvel at this process of creating new definitions in order to indicate
opposing positions as in the following sequence: establishmentarianism...to
disestablishmentarianism...to antidisestablishmentarianism...which completes the circle
ending where it began.
As marxist socialism is dependent on capitalism for its meaning, not actually defining
it, has allowed the process to create the "democratic-socialist" variant also known as the
co-op variant, which is "capitalism" in disguise. No capitalist would object to
this, since it is merely an organizational variant...although conceptually its realization
must overcome numerous barriers of its own making in getting started and quite
a few more, after.
@Account NumberEight you are a continuous source of salt for him to mine as you cry about it, peddle lies, get proven wrong by him and yours truly, then cry more about it.
India did not get independence from Britain in 1947. It was transfer of power from the British to their chosen one British educated Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru. Mr. Nehru in his own words described described himself to be culturally a Muslim, by education British and only by accident of birth a Hindu. He was often send to jail by the British, but he was treated very well there. He even had time to write a book while in prison. Mr. Nehru took oath from Lord Mountbatten, the last Vice Roy of India. Did or could Lord Mountbatten ask Mr. Nehru to take oath for a sovereign India? He could not. Indian Government till 1970 used to send periodic reports to Whitehall about the condition of the country. What kind of an independence is that? Indian Government stopped sending such reports in mi seventies. Now India is independent because most of the leaders are not British trained to be sub-ordinate to them. Britain let the colonies go because it was most cost-effective for the British. Also, the number of ex-colonies in the UN increased the support for the UK in the General Assembly in the UN as a counterbalance against the USA.
What a tanky.
@Account NumberEight yeah you're one of them.
@Account NumberEight come find out then I'm locked and loaded at all times. We can use hands too. Let me know I'm in South Florida West Palm Beach pull up.
@@beastmode8203 you are right. He is the troll. He got caught lying multiple times and cannot handle facts.