True , I have a better understanding of socialism which is the means of production by the creaters of the product unlike Capitalism where CEO's have the power and the worker's have little power unless they have a Union and strike.
@@skepticalmom2948 , and the bootlicker award of the week goes to you! Congratulations karma for being a Mindless tool! images.app.goo.gl/u2ACUVBfz4XVVwUCA
@@halos04245 A Socialistic society is by the common definition a society where the workers have determination over their place of work. Is that the case in the US?
Floro place of work? No, socialism is about the community as a whole owning the means of production and regulating the distribution of resources - which is ridiculous and should never happen. Such practices brought great miseries to China that you don't even know (check out the Great Leap Forward) I'm glad the US is against socialism cuz it's just evil in nature
@@halos04245 That is something entirely different, has got nothing to do with the classical definition how various nations act and call it Socialism or whatever. China was indeed a strange place in my youth, remembering "Mao think" and the little red book, and having Christmas frozen in in the Yellow Sea.
I just did a video on Bernie and all the forms of socialism (thank you Dr Wolff, I cited you!). I invite people who are interested in progressive news to take a look.
Co-Ops are fine. But the idea that they would work on mass is nonsense. Anyone who believes they would has never worked with the masses. Most people do not function that way. I like Richard Wolfe but with this he is dead wrong because he likes the perspective necessary to see the flaws in his argument.
@@ryanriley7005 I mean, Mondragon is massive and also active in multiple divisions - finance, industry, retail... you name it. What would go wrong, if every company was a Co-Op? Why not on the large scale?
Michael Herscheid to put it simply some people need to be supervised. How are people held accountable? The reason co-ops work is because the type of people that join are the type of people willing to take on the responsibility. Just like how not everyone has the drive to be self employed. Not everyone has the drive to work cooperatively. Some people are lazy and selfish. A co-op made up with lazy selfish people would fail overnight. It’s failure would put all its employees out of work. This would cripple any economy as every business with enough lazy people fails causing mass unemployment.
Michael Herscheid all that being said I am all for Co-ops becoming more prevalent because I believe they are a great place to work for those who choose to take on the responsibility and would like to see that option more available to people. It’s just doesn’t work for everyone.
@@ryanriley7005 We'll never know how much of that laziness & selfishness is the result of an oppressive & dehumanizing economic system until we try another one, though will we?
The time of the uber rich is over ! "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy "The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who preserved their neutrality in a moral crisis." --John F.Kennedy “The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.” - John F. Kennedy “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred.” ― Franklin D. Roosevelt "Never be deceived that the wealthy will allow you to vote away their wealth." - Lucy Parsons
Thank you for what you do. This kind of information is so desperately needed. You will never hear this content on cable news. A million 💕💗💛💚❤ and thanks to you.
Lol😁 No one watches there crap anyway. It's just that when you buy cable TV they force channels on people. Glad to e the younger ones not watching TV like the old days.
Vivalaleta Godfrey: I’ve also heard too many apologists declare themselves “good capitalists,” as opposed to the bad ones. Libertarians like to push the view that; “it’s not capitalism that’s the problem but crony capitalism,” to suggest other capitalists are somehow committed to the greater good. In the cultural aspect, I think, people like Elizabeth Warren have no capacity to think beyond capitalism than did certain serfs in the dark ages to think of a land without a king.
@@storyspice974 I disagree. There is obviously the company that bribes politicains (called campaign contributions) to give their company preferential treatment by the government. Whether this is through government contracts, specific legistation that profits their company more than others, etc. I find that much more repulsive than just regular capitalism. But also dislike allowing companies to grow so large that they can buy out, undersell (sometimes even at a lose), or tie up competitors in legal suits. There are remedies for both of the above, but it does require our officials to have the honesty and courage to force laws that are already on the book. But I like the idea of coops. Or of the rank and file of a company having a good deal of the seats on the board of directors. Bernie's plan calls for 40% of the seats on the board.
@@skynet4496 There's always been an anarchist anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement, that's the whole reason the first international collapsed back in 1872. Unfortunatly the ideas of anarchism hasn't been tried out for any extended periods of time since anarchists have generally had to fight both capitalist and authoritarian socialist for control.
@@skynet4496 it is exactly anarchism. it is what Lenin belittles as "our leftist friends" in his writings. Coop is what Marx rejects in the third volume of Capital. These ideas were around since 1800s. Even John Stewart Mill 1848 had supported them. Socialists always disregarded them, now they are distorting the history
Thank you for explaining this subject. I know I was personally interested in co ops and have been pondering how capitalism owns the means of production. Your videos explain the economics of socialism brilliantly.
Your audience is alot less always online. I think we rotate in and out of the updates. This is a good thing in my opinion. Lots of D@W viewers are normal proles with jobs and families, like me!
Do you so consistently avoid referencing anarcho-syndicalism, from which you seem to take many ideas, simply due to the negative connotations that come with anarchism? Not a criticism, I like how you display and discuss your ideas, but this does interest me.
Richard Wolff doesn't like anarchism (used to confuse me because there is a well-known anarchist named "Robert Wolff"), but he does take from anarchist ideas. Which is a huge improvement, but still...
The exact reason I quit my job of 28 years. The hospital I worked for was a great place to work, good benefits,fair and morale was high. The last 2 years the hospital lost millions of dollars. So the board and administration started to lay off many staff and fired staff. My hours were cut drastically. I didn’t know if I was working from one day to the next. Also I had no say and the administration had no concern for my time or financial stress. I really hated working there. So I quit and retired early. I was lucky to get out of the hell I had to work in for last 2 years. I have never been happier and don’t regret it for 1 second
13:50 - I love this bit! But I'm a little confused. I thought this was basically what classical socialism was, and that the USSR was better described as a command economy, or like a state corporation with bureaucrats being the new upper class; in a way, a betrayal of the left. I am not likely nearly as schooled as you on the matter, but thought pre-soviet was about the overthrow of the authorities in both private and government levels of society to make way for a phase of domination by the working class in the workplace. Society would then evolve toward post-scarcity and equality with nation-states evaporating into insignificance or non-existence. This was about circa 1990s early 2000s when I began learning about socialism.
The reality of climate disintegration & ecological collapse is that there will be no such thing as a "post-scarcity" society anywhere. Not if global population grows at even the current rate of 1.07%... a world of 12-16 billion by 2100. The kkkleptocracy is well aware of this. Hence, the rise of Neo-Fascism. Socialism must address this existential threat to have any possibility of success or to claim a moral mandate.
@@julieannmyers8714 But that's a separate issue beyond the scope of the theory. For instance, we don't require population growth. It's equal to what society has permitted. Additionally, our agricultural lands are currently over-extended by a vast amount due to the livestock industry - we have it in our capability to recover up to 38.5 million square kilometers of land for natural growth: 5 Contiguous United States or 7 Amazon Rainforests worth of land. But the expansion of population is a different situation (one in the mainstream since Thomas Malthus over 200 years ago). We should recover some of this land and lessen animal products in the market. While we currently have 7 billion people in this world, we are doing the damage of 30 billion solely based on our animal product consumption. Realistically speaking, we should have ended that trend in society sometime around the 3 billion mark. Post-scarcity on the Marxist historical track emerges from the technology of automation, and the socialist revolution he predicted would occur due to the leftward march of social progress. That's mostly what Marx and Engels wrote of in Das Kapital (which I admit, I have only studied excerpts of for school around 20 years ago), the move from right to left, or hierarchy to equality - using a materialist view of history to demonstrate.
No doubt, the system that arose in the Soviet Union was one based on coercive (and very brutal) power. The lesson for us is clear: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What history also tells us is that when people establish large nation-states the ability to prevent the concentrations of political and economic power is very difficult. Recognition of this historic problem was one reason the "founding fathers" of the United States opted for as much decentralization of political power as was thought possible while still creating a "union" to function against external aggression. This structure created its own set of problems, and it is arguably the case that the people of the United States have succumbed to the intrigues of nationalists who sought to add more and more territory, territory over which monopolistic economic interests would dominate.
Dear Prof! I always enjoy watching your videos. They are very interesting, clear, logical and straight to the point. While watching this video I realized that you were talking about “soviets” (советах, councils) and just wanted to make this note. Exactly this scheme of worker co-ops, or soviets, were the fundamental basis of USSR (that’s why it was called Soviet Union). Workers themselves, on the workplace, were given the right to make decisions about what they will do, how they will redistribute income between themselves and who of them (if any) will be the in charge of controlling all those processes and communicating with other worker groups. Well, at least it was planned to be like that; in practice, there were so many problems that in the end everything still collapsed to a centralized control scheme (and then USSR collapsed itself). But the remainings of this idea is still (still!) alive in some places even in modern Russia, e.g. in higher education institutions and universities. You can’t even become an employee unless you are promoted so by the ballot of other employees; people at the positions such as head of faculties and university rector are also chosen by vote, and workload (and payment too) are distributed between workers on the meetings (they are also called “soviets” BTW). Of course the institution itself is controlled from the above by the state, but that’s better than direct control over everything and everyone. So the concept you were talking about isn’t that much new; it’s at least one hundred years old, but still waiting to be implemented somewhere.
It's about time we shift paradigm and stop using the word "socialism" as an economic system and replace it with "HUMANITARIANISM" which doesn't carry the negative connotation of the past.
I wish I could like Professor Wolff's videos as many times as I find myself nodding; clapping; and/or saying, "Wow! Well said!" He is one of my inspirations. He is one of the reasons I self-describe as an "alt-Marxist" cooperativist. He is one of the reasons my comrades and I are developing our own network of cooperative enterprises. Workers of the world, unite!
How to recognize the validity and worth of someone's work and pay them accordingly is a better problem to have than capitilism's fundamental flaw of, "how do I extract as much work as possible while paying as little as possible." Something which inevitably leads to collapses as workers can no longer afford the goods they produce. It makes for more motivated people at work. It's a good trade.
Government-run enterprise isn't more burdensome on workers, as there is no competition for profit margins. However, it still places a profit-seeking burden on workers as well as limiting consumers to barely sufficient - albeit readily available - products. And then, to quell dissent, marketing campaigns run rampant, from instilling a sense of duty to creating passion projects to show off to the world like putting a person into space or building an idealistic green city.
Best not to make the government the only corporation that exists. That's a ridiculous solution to class conflict. It just gives one class of people absolute power to exploit, instead of... absolute... power... to exploit... Hm... It's state capitalism.
Prof. Wolff, How does a a democratized workplace deal with minority rights? In other words, in a region where there might be an embrace of the idea of worker control, but endemic racism or other forms of bigotry still exist, how do those workplace bodies become truly equal & just? Do those rights still have to be guaranteed & backed up by law & force (ultimately) from the State, or are there internal mechanisms that would mitigate the "tyranny of the majority"?
@ Julie. No reason why ethnic groups or minority groups couldn't do their own worker corporate. Honestly tho by the time society reach that point racism will be on the back burner. People will organize based on classes. The common connection will be working class as compared to race. This might actually solve the race problem because race was more of a divide and conquer tool.
The first part of the video should be called "How anarcho-communists predicted the failures of Communist states". Everything you said (the things socialists "realized" was wrong about the USSR) was predicted over a century ago by another socialist philosphy: anarchism ;) Nevertheless, great video! Super informative!
@@EdwardMDL I was actually planning on making a video on that topic! (I make videos on anarchist theory) I did a series on Ericco Malatesta's pamphlet Anarchy, written in 1891, where I summarize the book chapter by chapter. In chapter 5 of that book (which you can find the summary on my channel), Malatesta writes (speaking of communist governments): “And then the old story of the privileged class which arises through the complicity of the government starts all over again and, in this instance, if it did not seize the land would certainly capture key posts, specially created, and would oppress and exploit no less than the capitalist class.” “And thus government would be passed to and fro in the same hands, and democracy, which is the alleged government of all, would end up, as usual, in an oligarchy, which is the government of a few, the government of a class. And what an all-powerful, oppressive, all-absorbing oligarchy must be one which has at its service, that is at its disposal, all social wealth, all public services, from food to the manufacture of matches, from the universities to the music-halls!”
@@EdwardMDL Also, Mikhail Bakunin did great at predicting authoritarian communism. (He was still a socialist. He fought his whole life for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. He just thought that a communist State would be oppressive since it's a hierarchical form organization). I recommend his 1873 Statism and Anarchy.
It was socialist though. I think wolff as well as anyone else who defends Marx knows defending Stalin, Mao and others shoots them in the foot so they try to brush it aside.
"the failures of communist states" as opposed to your very successful anarchist communes who were clearly the only pure socialist societies and proved to be able to defend the revolution from imperialism
Professor Wolff is encouraged to do a program that includes individuals who have successfully challenged existing laws and regulations that stand in the way of people organizing cooperative enterprises.
Everything Richard Wolff said was perfect until 7:51. Soviet state officials tasked with managing factories were not capitalists... These state officials were paid in salaries from the state for the labor they did in managing the factory - they did not live off of the surplus from the workers in the factory like a capitalist.
Prof Wolff is brilliant and explains a complex confusing system misunderstood by many in a very clear way and offers excellent 👍 👍 solutions ...fresh new effective ideas that benefit all ...
Work place Co-ops would never work for most people in most jobs. They only work on a limited bases because it requires the workers to be dedicated to making it work and most people don’t have that level of dedication to their job.
Jack Jacobs yes I want things to go in the direction of worker coops outside of federal government. But realistically in order for that to happen a good business or institutional plan for various services needs to be devised. I can certainly imagine the possibility of a cooperative bank as a service people might prefer because they might actually gain the immediate benefit of higher savings interest as they did in the past. As well as fair credit loans and financial consultation. I can easily imagine worker cooperatives replacing the fast food franchise system. Because it would be a small number of local workers who would earn more and there would be a great insensitive for group success. It would mean that workers take greater responsibility for better outcomes. The question is how do we get from here to there where people are motivated to implement it themselves.
I'm not sure where you live but government planning happens all the time even in our capitalist economies. Infrastructure, roads, education, healthcare, etc... Modern government institutions (which are hundreds of years old) are not meant to facilitate mass democratic decision making, thus it is no mystery government planning does not genuinely reflect the will of the people. The goal is to, through a social movement, create new inclusive institutions that allow for authentic democracy (which includes economic democracy) that can justly and efficiently organize society in a way that is able overcome the failings of modern industrial capitalist society. Democratic planning. What scares the hell out of me is the destruction of the global ecosystem because the major polluting industries have been able to operate unregulated in the "free market". Planning is everywhere in our society. Logical planning is considered a strong value. Democracy is proclaimed everywhere in our society. It is considered a strong value. It's time to drop the market fundamentalist religion, take responsibility, and extend these cultural virtues to the realm of economics before our lack of planning dooms us all. We are not above nature. There are boundaries and limites we must adhere to and doing so is impossible without some degree democratic planning of the economy.
Reality4Peace I understand that vision. And definitely there needs to be controls on the worst forms of capitalism. BUT I think what you are describing requires a great psychological revolution. On the one hand there needs to be a shift in our understandings of what Chomsky called legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. And a resistance against illegitimate authority. But then there is a secondary problem for those who idealize democracy, what do we do when we get a democracy of the stupid, the ignorant, the irrational, the resentful, the emotionally immature, the unwise, the hateful, the deceitful etc. Another problem, the left has been pretty bad at critiquing bureaucracies. The right does have a critique, but not a very good one.
@@matthewkopp2391 You raise legitimate concerns. A great revolution in consciousness is what is needed, though it is far from inevitable to occur. But what what is inevitable to occur is the collapse of modern industrial capitalism and Western colonial domination. It was never sustainable and now time is almost up in face of climate change, rise of China and inter-imperial rivalry, rising population, grotesque inequality, etc... So for me, the emphasis is on educating and standing is solidarity with others for what we believe is both a) right, and b) necessary. We cannot force a consciousness shift but we will do our best and when the time comes where our system is frail, our institutions of authority being questioned and defied, people are in the streets, we will have a fleeting chance at establishing a new paradigm, hopefully better than the last. For the question of democracy: yes, democracy has its flaws. Though there are different forms of democracy and if we stay in the realm of Chomsky, we can advocate types of democracy including citizen's assembly, workers' councils, with re callable representatives. There are also times where minorities need to protected from a potentially bigoted majority. This is where the idea of "those who are most affected by a decision ought to be the one's with the most say" comes into play. We can also consider a sort of "New Constitution" that protects certain rights for everybody. Democracy is not perfect, but many of us believe it is the most ideal system we can strive for in these circumstances. Again the onus is on teaching, listening, and leading by example for activists who wish to manifest this change. Critiquing bureaucracies is a very legitimate thing to ask from those on the Left. Just quickly comment, Dr. Wolff at least does a good job in critiquing corporate bureaucracy in noting it's similarity to government bureaucracy.
These types of ideas need to be discussed more in the mainstream. Socially Democratic ideas have started to infiltrate but co-ops are still a relative unknown to most here. As usual, Lobo breaking it down proper.
I live on Vancouver Island which as far a 'model' for being a modern version of socialism is probably as good as it gets in North America. Credit Unions dominate banking, gas stations are mostly Co-op and there are worker owned large enterprises. And the distinction is 'worker owned' ie worker owned capitalist enterprise. The workers own the company shares and ARE the board of directors. The weak point in this idea is that there has to a seed planted... somebody has to have the original idea that led to a profitable enterprise. That is the strength of the original capitalist model innovation leading to hard work that leads to wealth. That seed enterprise is crucial and frankly I can't see this being done by a committee. Yes once the worker enterprise is up and running it can produce innovation on a large scale, but the worker owned businesses I see here, usually start with a failing plan. We had a pulp/paper mill here that was going to close. Some of the workers and one key private investor bought it and have for decade now run it as workers being prime shareholders. The worker/owners now run the plant with about half the original workforce and with the wages and benefits that the profitability of the business can afford to pay. With self interest in the equation the place runs very efficiently. It didn't before. The critical take away is that they took over a failing enterprise,... they didn't create it. You have to have a level of self interest to be successful and... it will work best on taking over old failing business, not starting from scratch.
Professor Wolf, would be interested in a video who your new socialism differs from anarchism. Also, with markets in place and people being free to associate, e.g. create coops with only people with skills in high demand, are you sure there would be no need for redistribution?
Even worker coops will need to make sure that they can produce their stuff at a reasonable price. If you give people more money based in need and not based on contribution, that will lead to problems. A better idea would be to have strong public programs for that purpose so everybody has to contribute (and not only the unlucky coops with many people who need extra money). I agree, however, that different skills shouldn't lead to different pay - only if you are better at what *you* are doing than your colleages are at what *they* are doing, differences might be justified.
There is great merit in worker-directed enterprise (worker co-ops) in controlling the means of production for many types of businesses. One question that arises is, would worker co-ops compete against profit-seeking private enterprise or would the latter not be allowed at all (or special favors would be granted to worker co-ops to be competitive in the market)?
It must be made financially worthwhile for people/us to start sharing the jobs WE democratically decide WE need/want to have done and work LESS. The whole problem is that the people with or in control of the money get to decide what jobs/work WE do and what we get paid to do and not us... WE sure wouldn't democratically decide WE need to do the jobs/work of building Mansions, palaces, pyramids, castles, yachts, supercars, etc. etc..you get the picture
Hi Richard. Please review the new legislation put out by the Sander's campaign to democratise the workplace. It would also be nice to have it compared to the Warren legislation.
Feudalism was destroyed mainly by modernization by the era of Francis I and Charles V, around 400 years before the world wars. The death knell being struck with the French Revolution.
@@lindenstromberg6859 Of course. Rome did not in whole fall to the Vandals, they were both chipped away at by multiple parties over centuries. But then why did so many feudal empires fall after WW 1 & 2? (Example: Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires) I'm saying it was WW 1 & 2 that was the final proof the feudal model could no longer survive in the modern world. Only special outliers can exist, such as: North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
@@JudePoe Neither the Austro-Hungarian Empire nor the Ottoman Empire practiced feudalism. The Ottoman Empire practiced a system similar to Feudalism originating from Asiatic origins: primarily Turkik and Timurid. This was synthesized with a Roman-style globalist structure (probably adopted directly from the Byzantine Anatolia). But, by the end of the 16th century, this system had been mainly replaced by mercantile globalist and guild-based economy. Long before WW1, the Ottomans were thoroughly Industrial capitalists, and Austria-Hungary had been such since before its inception.
Socialism can be what we make it. We have social events such as a dances, barbecues, concerts and the like. They are to bring people together. That is how we should think of it. It does not mean there is a dictator, which I used to associate it with. Probably because of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). We need to take care of each other and respect our differences. That is what our country was supposed to be about.
Living in a non monetary, non capitalistic, non scarcity, everything demonetized, automated, abundance based system where nobody doesn’t have to worry about money in order to economically survive is a destination we should get to. For the benefit of the planet, the environment, and humanity itself and every other living inhabitant/ species.
I can see that these ideas look as if they should fit into an existing workplace but how might it be made to work in a start up? If I am a plumber and I start to get more orders than I can cope with on my own I might decide to take someone on. Then I might grow to two and three employees and so on. At what point does the worker co-op kick in? It is, after all, my business built on my initial idea and skill.
I would add that one other aspect of D@W seems to be an increased level of transparency for how companies operate. This aspect should not be underrated.
The only problem is that the people in power won't give it up their power which means that will never be a transition to a worker's Co-op in the workplace.
Arthur Aleksandravicius Under the current system, no one is stopping anybody from forming co-ops, and if you’re suggesting that government power should be used to take away the private companies from the owners and give it to the employees, that would be theft!
Anyone aware of something similar to this but about Dutch economics and politics? I have been searching for a while, cannot find it. The country is radicalizing, mostly right wing, i needs something like that.
I've always been in favor of Worker's cooperatives. Early 20th Century American Socialists a la Jack London, Eugene Debbs, etcetera had the right idea. Likewise the idea of the Guild system as promulgated by the Strasser brothers, Gregor and Otto, in Germany.
There was a proposal for healthcare cosponsered by a Republican and a Democrat which was a health care cooperative outside of the federal government. When I explain the cooperative structure alternative to Republicans they often love the idea because it is separate from the federal government. It makes sense to them. But it also creates real competition with shareholder corporations. In my opinion the idea is what would unit the Republicans and Democrats. I think both would be for cooperative health insurance, cooperative banks, cooperative businesses like the auto industry etc. The thing to know is the corporate politicians are more threatened by this idea than by thing like Medicare4all. Because it puts cooperatives outside of their political control and becomes a model which they can’t compete with.
can you talk about rent control? The city where I live has a democratic socialist running for mayor with one of his main goals is to use rent control. I do not know much about this topic and thought it would be interesting to hear your take on this issue.
I would like to see a discussion how over time, worker co-ops would change or adapt to the automation problem. Aka automation takes one job at a time when it automates. It doesn’t affect all simultaneously. Wouldn’t the majority of people still vote out the minority being replaced? I would like to see it lead to the longer term shorter work week, just curious how you see this happening.
Though Communists were always vilified. The rest of what you're saying was some how instilled/learned by my peers during the 60s counter culture wars. Obviously a war lost to rampant greed & corruption. Thx You for the counter corruption.
Well explained prof Wolff. In my reading of Dr Steiner who definitely took Marx's ideas to task, explained the meaning of coops of which there'll be three kinds : i) the workers & producers ii) the retail & transport iii) consumer coops. These coops will act under democratic laws made by we the people = real democracy (not the ballot kind). In other words when a dispute must be settled, the only way would be through democratic legislature. That is, the legal domain which can only cast a fair ruling in the dispute, if it is untainted by both the economy(profit) and by culture(skin color). Now here's the vital part --- Labor by itself, is NOT an economic affair at all because it's NOT a commodity, but a legal matter, which separates it from the goods/services produced by the worker/artisan which ARE commodities, i.e. part of the economic circuit. So we have two arenas involved here : the economy that runs on skills & merit (where there is no equality), and the legal domain protecting the worker in which only equality can ensure its proper function --- see the difference ? I know it sounds like nit picking but it's a vital part for laying a proper foundation to build a social democracy on. So democracy's task is to ensure the worker is not paid an arbitrary/minimum wage, but a fair compensation directly related to the workers output. Now this has a very liberating effect on the worker : he becomes his own boss ! He gets paid exactly as much as he is prepared to work.... Nobody has to boss such a worker.
In SFR Yugoslavia workers did decided what to produce, and what to do with it. They did it through their delegates. Delegates could have been fired in any time and CEO's too. :)
Land and Agriculture reforms, Real estate Reforms, Human Resource & Employability Reforms (4 to 5 hours work rule and assured jobs as soon as they finish Vocational Training for large section of Youth population under small and large scale cooperative unit setup, are the key to achieve EQUALITY and JUSTICE for the whole of humanity, in this internet age.. Long Live #CooperativeSocialism
Can you do a series where how America rise as a country, to global power and what are, when did the factors which prevented more fair distribution of wealth and taken economy hostage?
One thing is certainly clear: there are problems inherent in every system tried thus far. No system has been able to consistently provide a benefit to all (or even most) over the long term. That means the best answers have yet to be discovered. So any system willing to critique its own flaws and cast about for tweaks and/or overhauls is most likely to find a superior answer. After all, you must first admit to having a problem in order to solve the problem. Keep an open mind when hearing the ideas of ALL your fellow humans - they just might have a piece of the puzzle. I’ve heard bits of wisdom from the highly educated AND the homeless, the spiritualist AND the violent criminal. From the Luddite AND the industrialist. In short, NO single person or group has the answer yet, a democracy of ideas will best produce the answer(s) we seek.
@@dragonore2009 , yeah, can you imagine a purely capitalist system? You'd be better off living in hell! It's not possible anyway. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites and a variation of slavery. Who in their right mind is going to advocate slavery is a form of social organization?
Ok, let’s try actual capitalism. But Rather than have governments (created by the rich for the rich) protecting the big corporate interests, let’s combine capitalism with a truly moral system - anarchy. No one actually has the right to rule anyone else anyway. Democracy is just a sanitized term for mob rule. Any government in a capitalist system will always end up answering to the most successful (i.e. powerful) capitalists and devolve into an plutocracy. The only way to avoid being ruled by the rich in such a system is to simply eliminate government entirely. Let’s see the United Fruit Company maintain its massive holdings without taxpayer-funded military support.
@@HillbillyHippyOG , that's a contradiction? So such thing is moral slavery. You want to attach slavery to morality? No one should be entitled to the wealth generated by someone else's labour. It's bad enough that we capitalize on cows and honey bees by stealing the product of their labour. Reducing human beings to livestock, yeah, not exactly the most moral system of organization.
@@HillbillyHippyOG , doesn't really matter, because you can't have capitalism without big government, anyway. There's no such thing as combining anarchism and capitalism. Can you imagine having a non-hierarchical monarchy? Capitalism is a hierarchical system. There's no such thing as non-hierarchical capitalism.
It sounds like a good idea in theory, and maybe companies set up as co-ops from the start can eork. But I have seen businesses that became employee-owned once the business starts struggling, and it seems to me to be a way to push all the costs and risk down to the employee level. People are afraid to waste a piece of paper or take a lunch break because they see that as coming out of their own pockets. They do not see it as "we are all in it together", but rather everyone is directly competing against the person sitting next to them. Regular workers can be just as greedy in their own way as CEOs, in my experience.
Individual co-ops/collectives existed in many socialist states and had a good chunk of their economy. You can't have an economy solely based on worker co-ops doing their own thing, there needs to be a state behind it to not only keep them one of the big functions of the economy but to have public state property to help along with it. What socialism is: -Elimination of wage labor to a merit type of system (where workers are paid based on how much they produce and work instead of a set rigged wage) -an economy focused on both the state public sector (controlled through our democracy like Soviet or Cuban democracy) and individual co-ops and other collective properties. -ran through mostly planned economy but can have some small (edit: local) markets along with it. -Elimination of private property (or at least be very, very, very small like a few ma and pa shops) and capital accumulation. Cuba and Cuban democracy is the only present example of socialism in today's world.
Why can't you have an economy solely based on worker co-ops doing their own thing? Why, exactly, is a central state with absolute authority over everything necessary to keep them in line? Everything needs to be a co-op, owned by the workers directly, so that the workers can decide for themselves what is best, and to ensure that the workers always remain free to do what they are good at and what they are passionate about. If you want to say that certain things need to be PAID for by the government, to make absolutely sure that everyone is taken care of, then that's fine. I can agree with that. But if the government is directly in charge, and they are the ones who get to control everything about the process, then it doesn't actually matter if it is technically a democracy or not. They will still manage to find a way to ruin it. It's unrealistic to think government officials actually care about anyone, just because their party politics says that they do. It's no different from having blind faith that "democrats" actually believe in democracy. It is all about power and authority. Unjust hierarchy needs to be obliterated everywhere it exists. The people themselves can choose whether or not they care enough to do a given job. Things are too important to entrust entirely to a handful of authorities. That is why socialism has failed so often. It will never work if you don't learn how to do it correctly.
@@shadow_of_thoth when it comes to regards to the state, first off, I didn't say they need absolute authority over the entire economy. Second of all, corruption can be held accountable through the democratic process to keep the administrators in check. It is vitally important to have centralism in any economy because not only is it very efficient, it makes sure that resources go where they are needed the most. Having things function purely on whatever the interest of co-ops has will inevitably have resources be divided very unequally and places that don't serve the interest of co-ops will suffer. Think like a co-op in Michigan is not going to care much about what resources a co-op in Florida needs because the co-op in Michigan has no personal profit interest in it. There's also the need to provide a material connection between the countryside and inner cities. You can't expect people to altruistically "give" things, you need a system that makes them do it. If you solely rely on these divided, horizontal, co-op democracies it will be so inefficient it will fall into stagnation. Edit: I'm saying that co-ops only care about their own communities, not others. Such a thing happened in Catalonia where the inner cities developed fast while the countryside had barely any change (remaining stagnant) and the economy crashed right after production doubled and had to rely on large support from the republic of Spain to support their shity economy. Compare that to the soviet economy which was very stable despite numerous embargos, sabotage, and invasion.
Clearly all the workers need a democratic vote in the workplace, and insofar as those workers are part of the larger community, the community is represented. Giving all the "stakeholders": customers (i.e. the market), workers, other community members may not be all that fair to the workers who have more of a stake in the business than others.
You did not stress enough that the workplace decisions should also take in consideration the impact that it has on the community, such as the pollution, noise, management of waste, etc. The community should have input on this. Otherwise great video .
I think a huge Problem in older socialist societys was that they didn't have a Democracy. So the average People didn't have any power over the Party. I believe in what i would call a 3 sector System. 1. Sector: things in the hand of the government. This would include everything that is a basic necessity for People: Healthcare Transportation (Trains) Housing etc. Everyone has a vote on the People that control this sector because it effects all People. 2. Sector: What we today would call the private market but with worker Co-ops that are allowed to compete with each other. In this sector i would have everything that we would call a Luxury. So Hotels, Cars Restaurants etc. So Things you don't need to have a happy and fulfuilled life but are nice to have. The Government should (appart from Basic regulations) stay out of that sector 3. Sector: A Mix of both. This would be Things where the Government have it's own horse in the race so to speak. Like the media for example. Only state media would have huge propblems but only private media is obviously also not perfekt. The Government should fund a media that is obviously Independent on some level but i think a "private" worker Co-op Media as a counter wight for that wouldn't hurt. The idea of private companys that employ other people should be outlawed though. Thats a given.
im not sure if I agree that if someone has a longer commute, they deserve higher pay and also if a worker has more kids that they deserve more pay. I think the worker's education and experience should effect pay. change my mind?
You said that you read every comment. I have been talking about Windyday Concept. We need to have Worker Coop factories in all cities on all continents for batteries, solar panels, wind & tide turbines, tiny homes, and local farms for our food supply. As well as food, we need to grow hemp, linseed and bamboo. This can help detoxify the soil, rebuild the fungal hyphae, capture 7X more CO2 than trees, and give us a material that helps replace plastic. We are heading into a winter that might not be a winter, so why not spread hemp seeds in all fields now and see what happens? I have written to your site and to Mondragon in Spain. No answer. No comments from anyone. FFS we have run out of time, the Methane Dragon has woken up and no one is moving.
Serious question: Say a person or a small group of individuals come up with and develop a new business of some kind. They take all the monetary risk and put in an extraordinary amount of work to get the business to be successful. At what point in that process do the socialists decide the business belong to the workers? And how are the founders compensated for their blood, sweat and tears?
Have you been watching too many anti-communist movies? :-) no one is going to come for your business or your toothbrush. When you have your own toothbrush, you don't need to steal or rent one. That's the point!
@@s-g-j , labour already produces all the capital. All wealth comes from mixing Labour with capital. We need to start redirecting the massive amount of money that's currently going to the military and subsidizing corporations. If we give workers access to Capital, they'll easily be able to compete capitalist Enterprises. Where I live, University students were able to come up with a combustion engine that was far superior to any existing commercial product now available. We can easily produce everything we need: TVs, cars, Condominiums, Etc. There's no need for middlemen and capitalist parasites. cut them out, and we could probably move to a 20 hour work week.
@@michaelmappin1830 Why not just take the money going to the military and corporate subsidies and use that to reduce the taxes of the workers so they can pool their resources and start co-ops because they have extra money. If this model is viable, that should work. People would quit capitalist companies and start co-ops and put capitalist companies out of business. Personally, I doubt it would take out capitalists because in my experience, most people are sheeple, not entrepreneurs. What kind of co-op would you start?
@@s-g-j , Because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. When you cut taxes, it ends up going to those at the top. Why do you think we still have the 40 hour work week?
Would USSR be able to defeat the Nazis if they had a Worker Cooperative system instead of State Capitalism? Would they be able to grow as they did, in that short amount of time under a Worker Cooperative sysytem?
There is on fundamental flaw in worker co-ops prof Wolff won't tell you about, or he just doesn't know. The flaw is human self interest (good in Capitalism) can work against a co-op. Suppose you have five grocery stores in a town, one of which is a democratically ran, worker own co-op. Well the co-op grocery store needs to stay competitive as does the other grocery stores, so they need to cut down on cost. It turns out this particular co-op's labor cost are a bit high. To remedy this, a suggestion is made for self checkout machines. Introducing self checkout machines will save on labor cost, and make the co-op competitive, but as I said, self interest will get in the way. In order to pass the measure, to have self checkout machines to save the business from failing, the workers have to vote on it. So, to the geniuses in the comment section, which workers will vote for the self checkout machines, which is a vote to be layed off? Hmmmm? Anyone? Do you see the problem? Workers in their own self-interest are not going to vote out there jobs, so instead of making the necessary sacrifice to get the self checkout machines, they will let the grocery store fail and everyone loses their job.
What a lot of people don't realize is that we can already produce much more than we're capable of consuming. Industry can't even come close to running at 100%. The only reason we're still working 40 hours a week is because all increases in productivity made possible by technology is siphoned off by the owners of capital. For example. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does that result in the cow having to work half as many hours? No. The milk belongs to the farmer. Under capitalism the incentive is to create more work. Under socialism the incentive is to reduce work as much as possible with labor-saving technology. If you can replace 500 workers with automation, that's wonderful! You now have 500 workers to share in the remaining workload. that's why socialism is sustainable and capitalism is not. just like when you eat a meal, when you're full, you stop eating! most species form a natural equilibrium within the biosphere because of natural limitations. Capitalism, however, is a kind of religion. It gives magical properties to money! with it you can own a person's labour and transfer the Labour energy of other people to yourself! and you can do that in perpetuity. you can't eat a million calories in an hour, but capitalism gives you the ability to make a million dollars in an hour. There are billionaires out there accumulating 2 million dollars per hour just from their Capital Holdings! all of that money is coming at the expense of people that actually work for a living. every time you have a dollar going to a non producer, somewhere else you have a producer who worked for a dollar that he didn't get! if the beekeeper takes 50% of the Bees Honey, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what was stolen. that's why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week and why most of our labour energy ends up going to the landfill.
Richard D Wolff explains it like no other he's the best teacher around
True , I have a better understanding of socialism which is the means of production by the creaters of the product unlike Capitalism where CEO's have the power and the worker's have little power unless they have a Union and strike.
Boringo PR Agree!
@@skepticalmom2948 , and the bootlicker award of the week goes to you! Congratulations karma for being a Mindless tool! images.app.goo.gl/u2ACUVBfz4XVVwUCA
@@boringopr4369 do you get what sarcasm is?
@@at1one well my apologies I supposed I'm a little rusty😬
US popular definition of socialism is different from the rest of the world.
We can make it however we want. It's a shame socialism has such a stigma to it.
Floro I came from China and I think the US popular definition of socialism is pretty accurate
@@halos04245 A Socialistic society is by the common definition a society where the workers have determination over their place of work. Is that the case in the US?
Floro place of work? No, socialism is about the community as a whole owning the means of production and regulating the distribution of resources - which is ridiculous and should never happen. Such practices brought great miseries to China that you don't even know (check out the Great Leap Forward)
I'm glad the US is against socialism cuz it's just evil in nature
@@halos04245 That is something entirely different, has got nothing to do with the classical definition how various nations act and call it Socialism or whatever. China was indeed a strange place in my youth, remembering "Mao think" and the little red book, and having Christmas frozen in in the Yellow Sea.
I just did a video on Bernie and all the forms of socialism (thank you Dr Wolff, I cited you!). I invite people who are interested in progressive news to take a look.
@@strawberrysoup1 he's a democratic socialist.
I have subscribed as a fellow leftist.
@@strawberrysoup1 fuck off. Gatekeeping achieves nothing
This should have a million views
Make it go viral.
To anyone who thinks, this only works in theory: There are numerous Co-Ops working. The most famous one, is Mondragon, in Spain.
Co-Ops are fine. But the idea that they would work on mass is nonsense. Anyone who believes they would has never worked with the masses. Most people do not function that way. I like Richard Wolfe but with this he is dead wrong because he likes the perspective necessary to see the flaws in his argument.
@@ryanriley7005 I mean, Mondragon is massive and also active in multiple divisions - finance, industry, retail... you name it. What would go wrong, if every company was a Co-Op? Why not on the large scale?
Michael Herscheid to put it simply some people need to be supervised. How are people held accountable? The reason co-ops work is because the type of people that join are the type of people willing to take on the responsibility. Just like how not everyone has the drive to be self employed. Not everyone has the drive to work cooperatively. Some people are lazy and selfish. A co-op made up with lazy selfish people would fail overnight. It’s failure would put all its employees out of work.
This would cripple any economy as every business with enough lazy people fails causing mass unemployment.
Michael Herscheid all that being said I am all for Co-ops becoming more prevalent because I believe they are a great place to work for those who choose to take on the responsibility and would like to see that option more available to people. It’s just doesn’t work for everyone.
@@ryanriley7005 We'll never know how much of that laziness & selfishness is the result of an oppressive & dehumanizing economic system until we try another one, though will we?
The time of the uber rich is over !
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who preserved their neutrality in a moral crisis."
--John F.Kennedy
“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the clichés of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
- John F. Kennedy
“Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me-and I welcome their hatred.”
― Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Never be deceived that the wealthy will allow you to vote away their wealth."
- Lucy Parsons
JFK
Ew
@Jay Blake
That's not what your mom told me last night 😏
@Jay Blake oh, well, in that case(which I am sure is a lie) let me be the first to say, "HAHA!"
Agree with the sentiment but why quote the rich and oppressive. Missed the mark there bruh
@Gamer Baby
The quotes capture a constant truth about the human condition which does not seem to change . That is why we still read Shakespeare.
Richard Wolff is always on point.
Thank you for what you do. This kind of information is so desperately needed. You will never hear this content on cable news. A million 💕💗💛💚❤ and thanks to you.
Lol😁 No one watches there crap anyway. It's just that when you buy cable TV they force channels on people.
Glad to e the younger ones not watching TV like the old days.
Thank you for another great program Dr. Wolff
Thank you Richard. From someone who's noticed that you've voluntarily taken on the job of educating the American people on this subject.
Excellent presentation. A little heady for most folks, but clear enough to expand a patient listener to the potential of a democratic workplace.
Warren has said she is "a Capitalist to my bones." and Bernie is making the most of it. What do you think?
Glad he's finally saying what we have all been screaming about since she said that.
Vivalaleta Godfrey: I’ve also heard too many apologists declare themselves “good capitalists,” as opposed to the bad ones. Libertarians like to push the view that; “it’s not capitalism that’s the problem but crony capitalism,” to suggest other capitalists are somehow committed to the greater good. In the cultural aspect, I think, people like Elizabeth Warren have no capacity to think beyond capitalism than did certain serfs in the dark ages to think of a land without a king.
Warren is EVIL.
@@LibraBlue1962 crony capitalism is make believe. It's just capitalism.
@@storyspice974 I disagree. There is obviously the company that bribes politicains (called campaign contributions) to give their company preferential treatment by the government. Whether this is through government contracts, specific legistation that profits their company more than others, etc.
I find that much more repulsive than just regular capitalism.
But also dislike allowing companies to grow so large that they can buy out, undersell (sometimes even at a lose), or tie up competitors in legal suits.
There are remedies for both of the above, but it does require our officials to have the honesty and courage to force laws that are already on the book.
But I like the idea of coops. Or of the rank and file of a company having a good deal of the seats on the board of directors. Bernie's plan calls for 40% of the seats on the board.
For the first 15 minutes, Prof. Wolff is describing, 'Anarchy' as the solution to capitalism. Which, of course, Anarchy said so 150 years ago.
Not surprising for a Manhattan "Marxist" making "Socialist" videos in a Google recording studio.
It's not anarchy its what socialism was originally supposed to run with co ownership
@@skynet4496 There's always been an anarchist anti-authoritarian wing of the socialist movement, that's the whole reason the first international collapsed back in 1872. Unfortunatly the ideas of anarchism hasn't been tried out for any extended periods of time since anarchists have generally had to fight both capitalist and authoritarian socialist for control.
@@skynet4496 it is exactly anarchism. it is what Lenin belittles as "our leftist friends" in his writings. Coop is what Marx rejects in the third volume of Capital. These ideas were around since 1800s. Even John Stewart Mill 1848 had supported them. Socialists always disregarded them, now they are distorting the history
Brilliant, as always. Thank you professor!
Been waiting for this breakdown of socialism’s failure of following thru with ownership of biz by the worker. Thx Wolff.
Thank you for explaining this subject. I know I was personally interested in co ops and have been pondering how capitalism owns the means of production. Your videos explain the economics of socialism brilliantly.
Your audience is alot less always online. I think we rotate in and out of the updates. This is a good thing in my opinion. Lots of D@W viewers are normal proles with jobs and families, like me!
Very comprehensive and practical. I like it and think it should've been implemented long ago.
The volume could be a bit higher, please
Another great show Professor. Thank you
Do you so consistently avoid referencing anarcho-syndicalism, from which you seem to take many ideas, simply due to the negative connotations that come with anarchism? Not a criticism, I like how you display and discuss your ideas, but this does interest me.
A conversation between Wolff & Chomsky?
I mean, he has made it clear he wants to state to be the institution that transfers control to workers, not unions
Richard Wolff doesn't like anarchism (used to confuse me because there is a well-known anarchist named "Robert Wolff"), but he does take from anarchist ideas.
Which is a huge improvement, but still...
Hello from Canada! Thank you so much.
As Prof Wolff says ...it's change. And change is evolution...a natural process which requires patience and tolerance
The exact reason I quit my job of 28 years. The hospital I worked for was a great place to work, good benefits,fair and morale was high. The last 2 years the hospital lost millions of dollars. So the board and administration started to lay off many staff and fired staff. My hours were cut drastically. I didn’t know if I was working from one day to the next. Also I had no say and the administration had no concern for my time or financial stress. I really hated working there. So I quit and retired early. I was lucky to get out of the hell I had to work in for last 2 years. I have never been happier and don’t regret it for 1 second
13:50 - I love this bit! But I'm a little confused. I thought this was basically what classical socialism was, and that the USSR was better described as a command economy, or like a state corporation with bureaucrats being the new upper class; in a way, a betrayal of the left. I am not likely nearly as schooled as you on the matter, but thought pre-soviet was about the overthrow of the authorities in both private and government levels of society to make way for a phase of domination by the working class in the workplace. Society would then evolve toward post-scarcity and equality with nation-states evaporating into insignificance or non-existence. This was about circa 1990s early 2000s when I began learning about socialism.
The reality of climate disintegration & ecological collapse is that there will be no such thing as a "post-scarcity" society anywhere. Not if global population grows at even the current rate of 1.07%... a world of 12-16 billion by 2100.
The kkkleptocracy is well aware of this. Hence, the rise of Neo-Fascism.
Socialism must address this existential threat to have any possibility of success or to claim a moral mandate.
That's just a techno-utopia with co-ops, which is how the majority of the people in the core countries imagine "socialism" to be.
@@julieannmyers8714 But that's a separate issue beyond the scope of the theory.
For instance, we don't require population growth. It's equal to what society has permitted. Additionally, our agricultural lands are currently over-extended by a vast amount due to the livestock industry - we have it in our capability to recover up to 38.5 million square kilometers of land for natural growth: 5 Contiguous United States or 7 Amazon Rainforests worth of land. But the expansion of population is a different situation (one in the mainstream since Thomas Malthus over 200 years ago). We should recover some of this land and lessen animal products in the market. While we currently have 7 billion people in this world, we are doing the damage of 30 billion solely based on our animal product consumption. Realistically speaking, we should have ended that trend in society sometime around the 3 billion mark.
Post-scarcity on the Marxist historical track emerges from the technology of automation, and the socialist revolution he predicted would occur due to the leftward march of social progress. That's mostly what Marx and Engels wrote of in Das Kapital (which I admit, I have only studied excerpts of for school around 20 years ago), the move from right to left, or hierarchy to equality - using a materialist view of history to demonstrate.
No doubt, the system that arose in the Soviet Union was one based on coercive (and very brutal) power. The lesson for us is clear: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What history also tells us is that when people establish large nation-states the ability to prevent the concentrations of political and economic power is very difficult. Recognition of this historic problem was one reason the "founding fathers" of the United States opted for as much decentralization of political power as was thought possible while still creating a "union" to function against external aggression. This structure created its own set of problems, and it is arguably the case that the people of the United States have succumbed to the intrigues of nationalists who sought to add more and more territory, territory over which monopolistic economic interests would dominate.
Professor Wolf once again trying to herd the sheep into the light, love you, Professor! Thank you!
Dear Prof!
I always enjoy watching your videos. They are very interesting, clear, logical and straight to the point.
While watching this video I realized that you were talking about “soviets” (советах, councils) and just wanted to make this note. Exactly this scheme of worker co-ops, or soviets, were the fundamental basis of USSR (that’s why it was called Soviet Union). Workers themselves, on the workplace, were given the right to make decisions about what they will do, how they will redistribute income between themselves and who of them (if any) will be the in charge of controlling all those processes and communicating with other worker groups. Well, at least it was planned to be like that; in practice, there were so many problems that in the end everything still collapsed to a centralized control scheme (and then USSR collapsed itself). But the remainings of this idea is still (still!) alive in some places even in modern Russia, e.g. in higher education institutions and universities. You can’t even become an employee unless you are promoted so by the ballot of other employees; people at the positions such as head of faculties and university rector are also chosen by vote, and workload (and payment too) are distributed between workers on the meetings (they are also called “soviets” BTW). Of course the institution itself is controlled from the above by the state, but that’s better than direct control over everything and everyone.
So the concept you were talking about isn’t that much new; it’s at least one hundred years old, but still waiting to be implemented somewhere.
Thank you Dr.Wolf
It's about time we shift paradigm and stop using the word "socialism" as an economic system and replace it with "HUMANITARIANISM" which doesn't carry the negative connotation of the past.
Love the comments from 9:05
Rich the volume is kind of low compared to other yt channels
Great delivery on the need for worker co-ops.
Would seriously love to hear/see you and Bernie sit down and discuss these topics...
Hill dumped on the burn...he is toast..
@@garraper He is ahead in the polls. Go troll elsewhere. Nobody is interested.
I wish I could like Professor Wolff's videos as many times as I find myself nodding; clapping; and/or saying, "Wow! Well said!"
He is one of my inspirations. He is one of the reasons I self-describe as an "alt-Marxist" cooperativist. He is one of the reasons my comrades and I are developing our own network of cooperative enterprises.
Workers of the world, unite!
How to recognize the validity and worth of someone's work and pay them accordingly is a better problem to have than capitilism's fundamental flaw of, "how do I extract as much work as possible while paying as little as possible." Something which inevitably leads to collapses as workers can no longer afford the goods they produce. It makes for more motivated people at work. It's a good trade.
Thank you!
hell yeah man! I supported everything you said in this video
Great video and always learning
You're a great teacher! 🤩
Government-run enterprise isn't more burdensome on workers, as there is no competition for profit margins. However, it still places a profit-seeking burden on workers as well as limiting consumers to barely sufficient - albeit readily available - products. And then, to quell dissent, marketing campaigns run rampant, from instilling a sense of duty to creating passion projects to show off to the world like putting a person into space or building an idealistic green city.
Best not to make the government the only corporation that exists.
That's a ridiculous solution to class conflict. It just gives one class of people absolute power to exploit, instead of... absolute... power... to exploit...
Hm...
It's state capitalism.
A very good lecture!
Prof. Wolff, How does a a democratized workplace deal with minority rights? In other words, in a region where there might be an embrace of the idea of worker control, but endemic racism or other forms of bigotry still exist, how do those workplace bodies become truly equal & just? Do those rights still have to be guaranteed & backed up by law & force (ultimately) from the State, or are there internal mechanisms that would mitigate the "tyranny of the majority"?
@ Julie. No reason why ethnic groups or minority groups couldn't do their own worker corporate. Honestly tho by the time society reach that point racism will be on the back burner. People will organize based on classes. The common connection will be working class as compared to race.
This might actually solve the race problem because race was more of a divide and conquer tool.
The first part of the video should be called "How anarcho-communists predicted the failures of Communist states". Everything you said (the things socialists "realized" was wrong about the USSR) was predicted over a century ago by another socialist philosphy: anarchism ;)
Nevertheless, great video! Super informative!
Do you have any authors in mind?
@@EdwardMDL I was actually planning on making a video on that topic! (I make videos on anarchist theory)
I did a series on Ericco Malatesta's pamphlet Anarchy, written in 1891, where I summarize the book chapter by chapter. In chapter 5 of that book (which you can find the summary on my channel), Malatesta writes (speaking of communist governments):
“And then the old story of the privileged class which arises through the complicity of the government starts all over again and, in this instance, if it did not seize the land would certainly capture key posts, specially created, and would oppress and exploit no less than the capitalist class.”
“And thus government would be passed to and fro in the same hands, and democracy, which is the alleged government of all, would end up, as usual, in an oligarchy, which is the government of a few, the government of a class.
And what an all-powerful, oppressive, all-absorbing oligarchy must be one which has at its service, that is at its disposal, all social wealth, all public services, from food to the manufacture of matches, from the universities to the music-halls!”
@@EdwardMDL Also, Mikhail Bakunin did great at predicting authoritarian communism. (He was still a socialist. He fought his whole life for the abolition of the private ownership of the means of production. He just thought that a communist State would be oppressive since it's a hierarchical form organization). I recommend his 1873 Statism and Anarchy.
It was socialist though. I think wolff as well as anyone else who defends Marx knows defending Stalin, Mao and others shoots them in the foot so they try to brush it aside.
"the failures of communist states" as opposed to your very successful anarchist communes who were clearly the only pure socialist societies and proved to be able to defend the revolution from imperialism
Professor Wolff is encouraged to do a program that includes individuals who have successfully challenged existing laws and regulations that stand in the way of people organizing cooperative enterprises.
Great summary Richard!
I Had A CO-OP Contract Machine Shop Decades Ago. It Worked Well. My Top Machinist In 1981 Made $102,000.00.
Roger Strom , my god, you capitalist! Lol
Roger Strom
Sounds like government military contracts.
This makes so much sense!
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Everything Richard Wolff said was perfect until 7:51. Soviet state officials tasked with managing factories were not capitalists... These state officials were paid in salaries from the state for the labor they did in managing the factory - they did not live off of the surplus from the workers in the factory like a capitalist.
Prof Wolff is brilliant and explains a complex confusing system misunderstood by many in a very clear way and offers excellent 👍 👍 solutions ...fresh new effective ideas that benefit all ...
Work place Co-ops would never work for most people in most jobs. They only work on a limited bases because it requires the workers to be dedicated to making it work and most people don’t have that level of dedication to their job.
The mere idea of government planning scares the hell out of me.
Jack Jacobs yes I want things to go in the direction of worker coops outside of federal government.
But realistically in order for that to happen a good business or institutional plan for various services needs to be devised.
I can certainly imagine the possibility of a cooperative bank as a service people might prefer because they might actually gain the immediate benefit of higher savings interest as they did in the past. As well as fair credit loans and financial consultation.
I can easily imagine worker cooperatives replacing the fast food franchise system. Because it would be a small number of local workers who would earn more and there would be a great insensitive for group success.
It would mean that workers take greater responsibility for better outcomes.
The question is how do we get from here to there where people are motivated to implement it themselves.
I'm not sure where you live but government planning happens all the time even in our capitalist economies. Infrastructure, roads, education, healthcare, etc...
Modern government institutions (which are hundreds of years old) are not meant to facilitate mass democratic decision making, thus it is no mystery government planning does not genuinely reflect the will of the people.
The goal is to, through a social movement, create new inclusive institutions that allow for authentic democracy (which includes economic democracy) that can justly and efficiently organize society in a way that is able overcome the failings of modern industrial capitalist society. Democratic planning.
What scares the hell out of me is the destruction of the global ecosystem because the major polluting industries have been able to operate unregulated in the "free market". Planning is everywhere in our society. Logical planning is considered a strong value.
Democracy is proclaimed everywhere in our society. It is considered a strong value.
It's time to drop the market fundamentalist religion, take responsibility, and extend these cultural virtues to the realm of economics before our lack of planning dooms us all.
We are not above nature. There are boundaries and limites we must adhere to and doing so is impossible without some degree democratic planning of the economy.
Reality4Peace I understand that vision. And definitely there needs to be controls on the worst forms of capitalism.
BUT
I think what you are describing requires a great psychological revolution.
On the one hand there needs to be a shift in our understandings of what Chomsky called legitimate authority and illegitimate authority. And a resistance against illegitimate authority.
But then there is a secondary problem for those who idealize democracy, what do we do when we get a democracy of the stupid, the ignorant, the irrational, the resentful, the emotionally immature, the unwise, the hateful, the deceitful etc.
Another problem, the left has been pretty bad at critiquing bureaucracies. The right does have a critique, but not a very good one.
@@matthewkopp2391 You raise legitimate concerns.
A great revolution in consciousness is what is needed, though it is far from inevitable to occur. But what what is inevitable to occur is the collapse of modern industrial capitalism and Western colonial domination.
It was never sustainable and now time is almost up in face of climate change, rise of China and inter-imperial rivalry, rising population, grotesque inequality, etc...
So for me, the emphasis is on educating and standing is solidarity with others for what we believe is both a) right, and b) necessary. We cannot force a consciousness shift but we will do our best and when the time comes where our system is frail, our institutions of authority being questioned and defied, people are in the streets, we will have a fleeting chance at establishing a new paradigm, hopefully better than the last.
For the question of democracy: yes, democracy has its flaws. Though there are different forms of democracy and if we stay in the realm of Chomsky, we can advocate types of democracy including citizen's assembly, workers' councils, with re callable representatives. There are also times where minorities need to protected from a potentially bigoted majority. This is where the idea of "those who are most affected by a decision ought to be the one's with the most say" comes into play. We can also consider a sort of "New Constitution" that protects certain rights for everybody.
Democracy is not perfect, but many of us believe it is the most ideal system we can strive for in these circumstances. Again the onus is on teaching, listening, and leading by example for activists who wish to manifest this change.
Critiquing bureaucracies is a very legitimate thing to ask from those on the Left. Just quickly comment, Dr. Wolff at least does a good job in critiquing corporate bureaucracy in noting it's similarity to government bureaucracy.
These types of ideas need to be discussed more in the mainstream.
Socially Democratic ideas have started to infiltrate but co-ops are still a relative unknown to most here.
As usual, Lobo breaking it down proper.
I live on Vancouver Island which as far a 'model' for being a modern version of socialism is probably as good as it gets in North America. Credit Unions dominate banking, gas stations are mostly Co-op and there are worker owned large enterprises. And the distinction is 'worker owned' ie worker owned capitalist enterprise. The workers own the company shares and ARE the board of directors.
The weak point in this idea is that there has to a seed planted... somebody has to have the original idea that led to a profitable enterprise. That is the strength of the original capitalist model innovation leading to hard work that leads to wealth. That seed enterprise is crucial and frankly I can't see this being done by a committee. Yes once the worker enterprise is up and running it can produce innovation on a large scale, but the worker owned businesses I see here, usually start with a failing plan. We had a pulp/paper mill here that was going to close. Some of the workers and one key private investor bought it and have for decade now run it as workers being prime shareholders. The worker/owners now run the plant with about half the original workforce and with the wages and benefits that the profitability of the business can afford to pay. With self interest in the equation the place runs very efficiently. It didn't before. The critical take away is that they took over a failing enterprise,... they didn't create it. You have to have a level of self interest to be successful and... it will work best on taking over old failing business, not starting from scratch.
Any suggestions on literature on how to start a coop? Including how one would involve other stakeholders than only the workers.
Professor Wolf, would be interested in a video who your new socialism differs from anarchism. Also, with markets in place and people being free to associate, e.g. create coops with only people with skills in high demand, are you sure there would be no need for redistribution?
Yes! love it! IS there a more practical hand on guide to implementing this in the workplace?
Even worker coops will need to make sure that they can produce their stuff at a reasonable price. If you give people more money based in need and not based on contribution, that will lead to problems. A better idea would be to have strong public programs for that purpose so everybody has to contribute (and not only the unlucky coops with many people who need extra money).
I agree, however, that different skills shouldn't lead to different pay - only if you are better at what *you* are doing than your colleages are at what *they* are doing, differences might be justified.
There is great merit in worker-directed enterprise (worker co-ops) in controlling the means of production for many types of businesses. One question that arises is, would worker co-ops compete against profit-seeking private enterprise or would the latter not be allowed at all (or special favors would be granted to worker co-ops to be competitive in the market)?
Great teaching. This man needs to do seminars for African socialist movements, it would do wonders for our politics. Keep on going Dr Wolf. ✌🏿&❤4rm🇿🇦
It must be made financially worthwhile for people/us to start sharing the jobs WE democratically decide WE need/want to have done and work LESS. The whole problem is that the people with or in control of the money get to decide what jobs/work WE do and what we get paid to do and not us... WE sure wouldn't democratically decide WE need to do the jobs/work of building Mansions, palaces, pyramids, castles, yachts, supercars, etc. etc..you get the picture
Good work
The transition music fucking slaps
Hi Richard. Please review the new legislation put out by the Sander's campaign to democratise the workplace. It would also be nice to have it compared to the Warren legislation.
The world wars destroyed most of the monarchies and feudal empires.
@Sarah Blue
Only in name ! The power structures remained and the new kings were titled CEO ,COO etc etc
Feudalism was destroyed mainly by modernization by the era of Francis I and Charles V, around 400 years before the world wars. The death knell being struck with the French Revolution.
@@lindenstromberg6859 Of course. Rome did not in whole fall to the Vandals, they were both chipped away at by multiple parties over centuries. But then why did so many feudal empires fall after WW 1 & 2? (Example: Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires) I'm saying it was WW 1 & 2 that was the final proof the feudal model could no longer survive in the modern world. Only special outliers can exist, such as: North Korea and Saudi Arabia.
@@JudePoe Neither the Austro-Hungarian Empire nor the Ottoman Empire practiced feudalism. The Ottoman Empire practiced a system similar to Feudalism originating from Asiatic origins: primarily Turkik and Timurid. This was synthesized with a Roman-style globalist structure (probably adopted directly from the Byzantine Anatolia). But, by the end of the 16th century, this system had been mainly replaced by mercantile globalist and guild-based economy. Long before WW1, the Ottomans were thoroughly Industrial capitalists, and Austria-Hungary had been such since before its inception.
Socialism can be what we make it. We have social events such as a dances, barbecues, concerts and the like. They are to bring people together. That is how we should think of it. It does not mean there is a dictator, which I used to associate it with. Probably because of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). We need to take care of each other and respect our differences. That is what our country was supposed to be about.
Living in a non monetary, non capitalistic, non scarcity, everything demonetized, automated, abundance based system where nobody doesn’t have to worry about money in order to economically survive is a destination we should get to. For the benefit of the planet, the environment, and humanity itself and every other living inhabitant/ species.
That would require rationing which is fine by me but is not going to go over well with most.
I can see that these ideas look as if they should fit into an existing workplace but how might it be made to work in a start up? If I am a plumber and I start to get more orders than I can cope with on my own I might decide to take someone on. Then I might grow to two and three employees and so on. At what point does the worker co-op kick in? It is, after all, my business built on my initial idea and skill.
I would add that one other aspect of D@W seems to be an increased level of transparency for how companies operate. This aspect should not be underrated.
The only problem is that the people in power won't give it up their power which means that will never be a transition to a worker's Co-op in the workplace.
There should be a movement for every workplace to be a co-op, then.
Arthur Aleksandravicius Under the current system, no one is stopping anybody from forming co-ops, and if you’re suggesting that government power should be used to take away the private companies from the owners and give it to the employees, that would be theft!
What is stopping groups of workers from starting co-op businesses now?
lack of capital.
Change is inevitable.
Anyone aware of something similar to this but about Dutch economics and politics?
I have been searching for a while, cannot find it.
The country is radicalizing, mostly right wing, i needs something like that.
excellent
I've always been in favor of Worker's cooperatives. Early 20th Century American Socialists a la Jack London, Eugene Debbs, etcetera had the right idea. Likewise the idea of the Guild system as promulgated by the Strasser brothers, Gregor and Otto, in Germany.
I've started to businesses and a non profit. The next time I create a business it will be a worker co-op for sure!
There was a proposal for healthcare cosponsered by a Republican and a Democrat which was a health care cooperative outside of the federal government.
When I explain the cooperative structure alternative to Republicans they often love the idea because it is separate from the federal government. It makes sense to them.
But it also creates real competition with shareholder corporations.
In my opinion the idea is what would unit the Republicans and Democrats. I think both would be for cooperative health insurance, cooperative banks, cooperative businesses like the auto industry etc.
The thing to know is the corporate politicians are more threatened by this idea than by thing like Medicare4all.
Because it puts cooperatives outside of their political control and becomes a model which they can’t compete with.
can you talk about rent control? The city where I live has a democratic socialist running for mayor with one of his main goals is to use rent control. I do not know much about this topic and thought it would be interesting to hear your take on this issue.
When you eliminate landlords, you eliminate the need for rent controls.
Common or shared ownership necessitates democracy; sole ownership precludes it. We have a legal system that defines, and allows for both approaches.
I would like to see a discussion how over time, worker co-ops would change or adapt to the automation problem.
Aka automation takes one job at a time when it automates. It doesn’t affect all simultaneously. Wouldn’t the majority of people still vote out the minority being replaced?
I would like to see it lead to the longer term shorter work week, just curious how you see this happening.
Though Communists were always vilified. The rest of what you're saying was some how instilled/learned by my peers during the 60s counter culture wars. Obviously a war lost to rampant greed & corruption. Thx You for the counter corruption.
Well explained prof Wolff. In my reading of Dr Steiner who definitely took Marx's ideas to task, explained the meaning of coops of which there'll be three kinds : i) the workers & producers ii) the retail & transport iii) consumer coops. These coops will act under democratic laws made by we the people = real democracy (not the ballot kind).
In other words when a dispute must be settled, the only way would be through democratic legislature. That is, the legal domain which can only cast a fair ruling in the dispute, if it is untainted by both the economy(profit) and by culture(skin color). Now here's the vital part --- Labor by itself, is NOT an economic affair at all because it's NOT a commodity, but a legal matter, which separates it from the goods/services produced by the worker/artisan which ARE commodities, i.e. part of the economic circuit.
So we have two arenas involved here : the economy that runs on skills & merit (where there is no equality), and the legal domain protecting the worker in which only equality can ensure its proper function --- see the difference ? I know it sounds like nit picking but it's a vital part for laying a proper foundation to build a social democracy on.
So democracy's task is to ensure the worker is not paid an arbitrary/minimum wage, but a fair compensation directly related to the workers output. Now this has a very liberating effect on the worker : he becomes his own boss ! He gets paid exactly as much as he is prepared to work.... Nobody has to boss such a worker.
In SFR Yugoslavia workers did decided what to produce, and what to do with it. They did it through their delegates. Delegates could have been fired in any time and CEO's too. :)
Land and Agriculture reforms, Real estate Reforms, Human Resource & Employability Reforms (4 to 5 hours work rule and assured jobs as soon as they finish Vocational Training for large section of Youth population under small and large scale cooperative unit setup, are the key to achieve EQUALITY and JUSTICE for the whole of humanity, in this internet age.. Long Live #CooperativeSocialism
Can you do a series where how America rise as a country, to global power and what are, when did the factors which prevented more fair distribution of wealth and taken economy hostage?
One thing is certainly clear: there are problems inherent in every system tried thus far. No system has been able to consistently provide a benefit to all (or even most) over the long term.
That means the best answers have yet to be discovered. So any system willing to critique its own flaws and cast about for tweaks and/or overhauls is most likely to find a superior answer. After all, you must first admit to having a problem in order to solve the problem.
Keep an open mind when hearing the ideas of ALL your fellow humans - they just might have a piece of the puzzle. I’ve heard bits of wisdom from the highly educated AND the homeless, the spiritualist AND the violent criminal. From the Luddite AND the industrialist.
In short, NO single person or group has the answer yet, a democracy of ideas will best produce the answer(s) we seek.
We should try Capitalism.
@@dragonore2009 , yeah, can you imagine a purely capitalist system? You'd be better off living in hell! It's not possible anyway. Capitalism is the economic system of parasites and a variation of slavery. Who in their right mind is going to advocate slavery is a form of social organization?
Ok, let’s try actual capitalism. But Rather than have governments (created by the rich for the rich) protecting the big corporate interests, let’s combine capitalism with a truly moral system - anarchy. No one actually has the right to rule anyone else anyway. Democracy is just a sanitized term for mob rule. Any government in a capitalist system will always end up answering to the most successful (i.e. powerful) capitalists and devolve into an plutocracy. The only way to avoid being ruled by the rich in such a system is to simply eliminate government entirely. Let’s see the United Fruit Company maintain its massive holdings without taxpayer-funded military support.
@@HillbillyHippyOG , that's a contradiction? So such thing is moral slavery. You want to attach slavery to morality? No one should be entitled to the wealth generated by someone else's labour. It's bad enough that we capitalize on cows and honey bees by stealing the product of their labour. Reducing human beings to livestock, yeah, not exactly the most moral system of organization.
@@HillbillyHippyOG , doesn't really matter, because you can't have capitalism without big government, anyway. There's no such thing as combining anarchism and capitalism. Can you imagine having a non-hierarchical monarchy? Capitalism is a hierarchical system. There's no such thing as non-hierarchical capitalism.
It sounds like a good idea in theory, and maybe companies set up as co-ops from the start can eork. But I have seen businesses that became employee-owned once the business starts struggling, and it seems to me to be a way to push all the costs and risk down to the employee level. People are afraid to waste a piece of paper or take a lunch break because they see that as coming out of their own pockets. They do not see it as "we are all in it together", but rather everyone is directly competing against the person sitting next to them. Regular workers can be just as greedy in their own way as CEOs, in my experience.
Individual co-ops/collectives existed in many socialist states and had a good chunk of their economy. You can't have an economy solely based on worker co-ops doing their own thing, there needs to be a state behind it to not only keep them one of the big functions of the economy but to have public state property to help along with it.
What socialism is:
-Elimination of wage labor to a merit type of system (where workers are paid based on how much they produce and work instead of a set rigged wage)
-an economy focused on both the state public sector (controlled through our democracy like Soviet or Cuban democracy) and individual co-ops and other collective properties.
-ran through mostly planned economy but can have some small (edit: local) markets along with it.
-Elimination of private property (or at least be very, very, very small like a few ma and pa shops) and capital accumulation.
Cuba and Cuban democracy is the only present example of socialism in today's world.
Good explanation, keep up the good work
Thank you
Why can't you have an economy solely based on worker co-ops doing their own thing? Why, exactly, is a central state with absolute authority over everything necessary to keep them in line?
Everything needs to be a co-op, owned by the workers directly, so that the workers can decide for themselves what is best, and to ensure that the workers always remain free to do what they are good at and what they are passionate about.
If you want to say that certain things need to be PAID for by the government, to make absolutely sure that everyone is taken care of, then that's fine. I can agree with that. But if the government is directly in charge, and they are the ones who get to control everything about the process, then it doesn't actually matter if it is technically a democracy or not. They will still manage to find a way to ruin it. It's unrealistic to think government officials actually care about anyone, just because their party politics says that they do. It's no different from having blind faith that "democrats" actually believe in democracy. It is all about power and authority. Unjust hierarchy needs to be obliterated everywhere it exists.
The people themselves can choose whether or not they care enough to do a given job. Things are too important to entrust entirely to a handful of authorities. That is why socialism has failed so often. It will never work if you don't learn how to do it correctly.
@@shadow_of_thoth when it comes to regards to the state, first off, I didn't say they need absolute authority over the entire economy. Second of all, corruption can be held accountable through the democratic process to keep the administrators in check.
It is vitally important to have centralism in any economy because not only is it very efficient, it makes sure that resources go where they are needed the most. Having things function purely on whatever the interest of co-ops has will inevitably have resources be divided very unequally and places that don't serve the interest of co-ops will suffer. Think like a co-op in Michigan is not going to care much about what resources a co-op in Florida needs because the co-op in Michigan has no personal profit interest in it. There's also the need to provide a material connection between the countryside and inner cities. You can't expect people to altruistically "give" things, you need a system that makes them do it. If you solely rely on these divided, horizontal, co-op democracies it will be so inefficient it will fall into stagnation.
Edit: I'm saying that co-ops only care about their own communities, not others.
Such a thing happened in Catalonia where the inner cities developed fast while the countryside had barely any change (remaining stagnant) and the economy crashed right after production doubled and had to rely on large support from the republic of Spain to support their shity economy. Compare that to the soviet economy which was very stable despite numerous embargos, sabotage, and invasion.
@@ulysses7157 Well guess what there is a solution and it's called worker co-op federations. No need for states or any other garbage.
News Flash: There Won't BE ANYONE to Look Back at the 21st Century.
Then I'd rather die fighting
@@agluebottle I'm Already, doin That!
News Flash: there is no way for anyone of us to ever find out whether you are right or wrong. So why say it?!
@@kvaka009 mass extinctions, going on now. Fyi
Clearly all the workers need a democratic vote in the workplace, and insofar as those workers are part of the larger community, the community is represented. Giving all the "stakeholders": customers (i.e. the market), workers, other community members may not be all that fair to the workers who have more of a stake in the business than others.
These billionaires are not just gonna lie down and give up their wealth - what’s the plan?
Do like the billionaires did re wright the rules and regulations only this time it will benefit the people instead of the billionaires.
Guillotines?
We challenge them to a dance off, judged by the communist party, and the winners get ownership over the means of production.
Wolff 2020
You did not stress enough that the workplace decisions should also take in consideration the impact that it has on the community, such as the pollution, noise, management of waste, etc. The community should have input on this. Otherwise great video .
I think a huge Problem in older socialist societys was that they didn't have a Democracy. So the average People didn't have any power over the Party.
I believe in what i would call a 3 sector System.
1. Sector: things in the hand of the government. This would include everything that is a basic necessity for People: Healthcare Transportation (Trains) Housing etc. Everyone has a vote on the People that control this sector because it effects all People.
2. Sector: What we today would call the private market but with worker Co-ops that are allowed to compete with each other. In this sector i would have everything that we would call a Luxury. So Hotels, Cars Restaurants etc. So Things you don't need to have a happy and fulfuilled life but are nice to have. The Government should (appart from Basic regulations) stay out of that sector
3. Sector: A Mix of both. This would be Things where the Government have it's own horse in the race so to speak. Like the media for example. Only state media would have huge propblems but only private media is obviously also not perfekt. The Government should fund a media that is obviously Independent on some level but i think a "private" worker Co-op Media as a counter wight for that wouldn't hurt.
The idea of private companys that employ other people should be outlawed though. Thats a given.
im not sure if I agree that if someone has a longer commute, they deserve higher pay and also if a worker has more kids that they deserve more pay. I think the worker's education and experience should effect pay. change my mind?
You said that you read every comment. I have been talking about Windyday Concept. We need to have Worker Coop factories in all cities on all continents for batteries, solar panels, wind & tide turbines, tiny homes, and local farms for our food supply. As well as food, we need to grow hemp, linseed and bamboo. This can help detoxify the soil, rebuild the fungal hyphae, capture 7X more CO2 than trees, and give us a material that helps replace plastic. We are heading into a winter that might not be a winter, so why not spread hemp seeds in all fields now and see what happens? I have written to your site and to Mondragon in Spain. No answer. No comments from anyone. FFS we have run out of time, the Methane Dragon has woken up and no one is moving.
Serious question: Say a person or a small group of individuals come up with and develop a new business of some kind. They take all the monetary risk and put in an extraordinary amount of work to get the business to be successful. At what point in that process do the socialists decide the business belong to the workers? And how are the founders compensated for their blood, sweat and tears?
Have you been watching too many anti-communist movies? :-) no one is going to come for your business or your toothbrush. When you have your own toothbrush, you don't need to steal or rent one. That's the point!
@@michaelmappin1830 Really... So how exactly will co-ops get the capital to buy out anything? please explain.
@@s-g-j , labour already produces all the capital. All wealth comes from mixing Labour with capital. We need to start redirecting the massive amount of money that's currently going to the military and subsidizing corporations. If we give workers access to Capital, they'll easily be able to compete capitalist Enterprises. Where I live, University students were able to come up with a combustion engine that was far superior to any existing commercial product now available. We can easily produce everything we need: TVs, cars, Condominiums, Etc. There's no need for middlemen and capitalist parasites. cut them out, and we could probably move to a 20 hour work week.
@@michaelmappin1830 Why not just take the money going to the military and corporate subsidies and use that to reduce the taxes of the workers so they can pool their resources and start co-ops because they have extra money. If this model is viable, that should work. People would quit capitalist companies and start co-ops and put capitalist companies out of business. Personally, I doubt it would take out capitalists because in my experience, most people are sheeple, not entrepreneurs. What kind of co-op would you start?
@@s-g-j , Because all increases in productivity go to the owners of capital. When you cut taxes, it ends up going to those at the top. Why do you think we still have the 40 hour work week?
Would USSR be able to defeat the Nazis if they had a Worker Cooperative system instead of State Capitalism? Would they be able to grow as they did, in that short amount of time under a Worker Cooperative sysytem?
No, the entire economy needs to be planned and coordinated. Co-ops could not possibly accomplish this on their own.
There is on fundamental flaw in worker co-ops prof Wolff won't tell you about, or he just doesn't know. The flaw is human self interest (good in Capitalism) can work against a co-op.
Suppose you have five grocery stores in a town, one of which is a democratically ran, worker own co-op. Well the co-op grocery store needs to stay competitive as does the other grocery stores, so they need to cut down on cost. It turns out this particular co-op's labor cost are a bit high. To remedy this, a suggestion is made for self checkout machines. Introducing self checkout machines will save on labor cost, and make the co-op competitive, but as I said, self interest will get in the way.
In order to pass the measure, to have self checkout machines to save the business from failing, the workers have to vote on it. So, to the geniuses in the comment section, which workers will vote for the self checkout machines, which is a vote to be layed off? Hmmmm? Anyone? Do you see the problem? Workers in their own self-interest are not going to vote out there jobs, so instead of making the necessary sacrifice to get the self checkout machines, they will let the grocery store fail and everyone loses their job.
What a lot of people don't realize is that we can already produce much more than we're capable of consuming. Industry can't even come close to running at 100%. The only reason we're still working 40 hours a week is because all increases in productivity made possible by technology is siphoned off by the owners of capital.
For example. If you give a cow bovine growth hormone in order to double milk production, does that result in the cow having to work half as many hours? No. The milk belongs to the farmer.
Under capitalism the incentive is to create more work. Under socialism the incentive is to reduce work as much as possible with labor-saving technology. If you can replace 500 workers with automation, that's wonderful! You now have 500 workers to share in the remaining workload.
that's why socialism is sustainable and capitalism is not. just like when you eat a meal, when you're full, you stop eating! most species form a natural equilibrium within the biosphere because of natural limitations. Capitalism, however, is a kind of religion. It gives magical properties to money! with it you can own a person's labour and transfer the Labour energy of other people to yourself! and you can do that in perpetuity. you can't eat a million calories in an hour, but capitalism gives you the ability to make a million dollars in an hour. There are billionaires out there accumulating 2 million dollars per hour just from their Capital Holdings! all of that money is coming at the expense of people that actually work for a living. every time you have a dollar going to a non producer, somewhere else you have a producer who worked for a dollar that he didn't get! if the beekeeper takes 50% of the Bees Honey, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what was stolen. that's why we still have the 40 Hour Work Week and why most of our labour energy ends up going to the landfill.
I want to make a worker co-op with Artist. A storytelling company own by its creatives