Interesting point around 1h48m or something: suppose the Usans put tariffs on BYD electric trucks, and other countries don't. Then because trucking expenses are part of almost every product, everything made in the USA will be more expensive than competitors.
The thing with protectionism, is that it works best in the context of trying to subsidize an industry in which you can't really dominate the competition or at least compete. It's what first Japan and then South Korea did with their silicon and technology manufacturing (prop it up at losses until it matured and can be competitive in the world market). If the whole policy dumbs down to "no we're not gonna buy it cheap because China bad", then the policy is not very likely to be successful.
Western countries peddled the lies of neoliberalism so much that they started to believe them, and they're starting to realize way too late that it was always a myth to keep the poor impoverished and they're slowly going to be left behind.
the US is trying to subsidize an industry in which it can't really dominate the competition or at least compete, though. I'm just a simple country lawyer but it seems like the difference is that US subsidies have lost all effectiveness due to intermediation by layers of profit-seeking grifters— they throw tens of billions at Intel and instead of new fabs getting built, Intel trims up its bottom line and fires a bunch of people.
AFAIK, the US isn't doing much in the way of EV production, it subsidized Tesla for a while and probably keeps doing it, but there's no comprehensive plan behind it to stop the reliance on batteries on China for example, at least in the short to mid term. Again, that's all as far as I know.
It's interesting that Wolff says "in western europe socialists do not demand the nationalisation and socialisation of enterprises", claiming only communists want that. This is not my experience in the UK. The people that know what socialism is, want it.
Really feels like he's confusing social democrats and socialists. Or he's confusing the fact that socialists within electoralism are generally only advocating as far as social democracy because it's the furthest left position they can advocate for in the conditions they have. What they actually want is much more than what they're advocating for.
tbf it gets a bit muddied here in Europe because the revolutionary parties join coalitions with socdems and demsocs and end up some kind of mish mash of less-radical DSA types while still calling themselves marxists. The "new labour" wave coincided with the fall of the USSR, the tactical retreat into capitalism of Deng/Jiang era China and reflected a spent and hopeless western left, no longer even able to maintain control of their own parties and losing them to neolib third way diet fascists.
Really feels like he's confusing social democrats and socialists.
He probably doesn't see it as confusion he's said this type of stuff several times, he's referred to the socialist party in portugal, which is the local center-left social-democratic social-liberal governing party, as "socialists" when discussing "european socialism" and electoral politics plenty of times. And to a degree it's true that some people INSIDE these parties do believe they are socialists and that they're doing socialism but I don't think any of these parties actual leaderships have cared about transitioning for decades
Either way he's right that these parties don't really demand nationalization on principle like parties to their left do.
Wanting and even advocating are not demanding. But I can't speak for the conditions in the UK.
The socialists I know though are a lot more into electorial progressivism than global revolution.
It's interesting that Wolff says "in western europe socialists do not demand the nationalisation and socialisation of enterprises", claiming only communists want that. This is not my experience in the UK. The people that know what socialism is, want it.
Eh, u missed context here. He is saying they want to nationalise railways etc but not abolish private property.
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
bring back the Chapo bit of confusing Dick Wolff the socialist econ professor with Dick Wolf the producer of Law & Order
Very awesome. On point and nice description of the difference between socialism and communism which needs to be understood
Principles of Communism - Engels
https://www.mlreadinghub.org/principles
Point 24
I think it's around the hour mark, there is a very concice and therefore long explanation. Recommend you listen to the professor on this one, it's quite interesting
My notes:
First 25-ish minutes are on Wolff's family history (of how his parents escaped from Nazi Germany and how his various relatives suffered and died) and how that informed his decision to head into economics and philosophy and psychology; his observation that economics was missing from historical discussions and that absence drew his attention (that absence, his professors later admitted, was because they shied away from being denounced as Marxists).
He then talks about how his trauma can be related to wider American society - he claims that the American Empire is already over, but few in declining empires can truly admit this to themselves, and even those in empires that have been dead and buried for decades, such as in the UK, sometimes refuse to internalize it. Everybody in America is dealing with this collective trauma in different ways and the MAGA movement and many others can be explained as a series of troubled, painful, grumbling reactions - and even denial - about this fall in their material conditions. He talks about Ukraine vs Russia, and how Ukraine's latest offensive in Kursk is obviously pointless and achieves absolutely nothing, but American media (not so much European media) tries to comfort itself with it, about how it's HUMILIATING Putin, etc. He then talks about China, and how it's growing much faster than the US, BRICS is bigger than the US, and how China is the "new empire", though he seems to think China is serious with wanting a multipolar world, though it may or may not actually occur. Developing countries now have an alternative place to go other than the West for development projects, and even countries that are ideologically aligned with the West (such as France) are in a difficult place because they don't want to be left out of the bonanza, and are making strange and contradictory moves.
The West believed that Russia would collapse if they sanctioned Russia, if Germany refused to buy Russian gas, etc. That Russia didn't do so seems to have flabbergasted various Western officials because they did not realize that the changing world economy had given Russia a way out (via China and the rest of Asia). Wolff makes an analogy with Britain losing their American colony; they fought a war to try and keep America as a colony, then shockingly lost, then tried again in 1812, and lost again, and finally accepted that they had to live with an independent America. He says that the same difficult process will occur, but with accepting that China will not be kept. Wolff talks about how the US repeatedly losing wars is an example of imperial overextension, but Americans are unwilling to really talk about it and accept it, because it's too painful. And Wolff regards Trump as somebody who is able to communicate - extremely crudely - about American failures (hence Make America Great Again), but Trump's reaching the end of his tether because he's evidently unable to fix anything. And he thinks that the Democrat project will also reach the end of its tether, and that in the medium-term, America will either have to redistribute wealth in order to try and keep the country together in the wake of increasing imperial failures, or a full descent into fascism (as the frontier returns).
Wolff then talks about Israel, and how Israel's problems are a projection of America's. America is the model of how a genocide of the Natives inside their land can be successful, but that Israel cannot seem to do the same thing - and now, Israel is the model for America of trying to desperately hold on to power against outside powers, even if it means unspeakable atrocities. Wolff is prompted to talk about the whole "Jewish people are actually the indigneous people there so it's not settler-colonialism" by calling it both harmful and arbitrary; humans move around all the time and you have to draw arbitrary lines about ethnicity and what a "people" are and so on. Wolff talks about how Israel's approach to their neighbours over the last century, by starting wars and killing many, many people in order to try and dissuade them, is obviously a very bad and ineffective plan given that October 7th and its aftermath happened to Israel. Wolff draws a comparison between Trump supporters and Zionists, and how they're both not idiots who need education despite the fact that they make weird and ahistorical arguments; they are resisting conclusions that they can see are probably inevitable.
Wolff talks about the difference between political and economic independence, and how many countries do not have economic independence. Wolff talks about how BRICS may become a source of economic independence for Middle Eastern countries among others (most notably Iran, who is now a BRICS member after all) and that this is a huge problem for Israel. And also how Saudi Arabia and Iran coming together, facilitated by China, is also a problem for the West. Egypt also seems to know where the winds are blowing, as they also joined BRICS. Giving surrounding countries more options is an escalating problem for Israel, as Israel was previously the only country there with a powerful patron with nearly unlimited support, which thus gave them a significant degree of economic freedom, unlike the rest of the Middle East.
Wolff then gives his understanding of the Ukraine-Russia-West situation over the last few decades (no point rehearsing it here) and then namedrops Mercouris and how he watches him almost every day to understand the war in the broad strokes (though says that his understanding of American politics is very bad).
He then goes back to talking about China, and how they are now the world's factory and they produce things better and cheaper than in the West, meaning that Chinese allies now have options away from the West (e.g. Chinese electric vehicles can be exported to countries that might have issues producing them themselves, or with getting cheap fuel such as Cuba). He then talks about how the US has dramatically raised tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles, though Chinese EVs have gotten into Europe in massive numbers. American industries are getting outcompeted in many areas and American geopolitical policy is only accelerating the process by forcing countries (like Russia and China) together and developing their economies.
Then he talks about the difference between socialism and communism, and how socialist and communist parties in many countries have differing views; again, all this stuff is generally understood by those here so I won't be going into detail. He talks about German socialist history and how it aligned and differed from Lenin and the history of the Russian Revolution, then eventually circles back around to China vs the US and says that he thinks that a deal will eventually be made - potentially at Europe's expense - that the US and China will agree to not fight and let each other be, again drawing that British Empire/American colony comparison.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
