@@murraymadness4674 China is a dictatorship of the proletariat and more workplace democracy than the U.S would ever dream to have. You definitely have no idea about Chinese workplace system
@@murraymadness4674 People in China seem to disagree with you. State socialism and state capitalism are the different names for the same thing. Semantics are not important, the material reality is what defines what level of control workers have. Literally what Prof Wolff talks about in this video. The communist party has 100 million members, I bet all of them have read more Marx and Lenin than you have.
@@jamescelliers3195 If you can't elect your leaders, you voice doesn't matter. If you can't protest or strike then your opinion is ignored. When you don't have a free press, you voice is silenced. That is China.
Lenin was very clear in saying that the USSR name represented "the determination of the soviet power to transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order."
@@davidtildesley3197 And indeed exactly that USSR and it's satellites were. And there would be nothing wrong about, if they would achieve that without killing millions human beings.
Please! We need to distance ourselves from these brutal, authoritarian regimes if we want socialism to gain any traction. They are/were just police states. Rhetoric is always empty without action. The USA is far closer to a successful socialist society than China or the Soviet Union. All that is standing in the way is a few oligarchs. Other than that all the apparatus is up and ready to go.
that's because socialism and communism were considered the same thing at the time. But people now refer to socialism as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase basically.
This is very true. It is interesting how people confuse the fact that they have entered a relationship on a contractual basis to do what they are told and get paid for it, according to the terms specified within that contract with the fact that they live in a democracy. The encompassing democracy can set the framework and decide where the line is best drawn between the balance of power of the employer and the employee, and every voter has an ultimate say on that. But the fact that you are in a democracy doesn't mean you can suddenly expect to call more of the shots than your contract and the law says you can.
@@belmiris1371 True. It never did when it was the greatest power on earth for most of the past 3,000 years. In the US we fool ourselves into believing we have democracy. In fact you only really have a voice in your own town hall. Certainly not Capitol Hill.
@@whhusa - the goal is a successful socialist or communist society. It's true that currently in the USA corporations rule our politicians but that is only because the vast majority of Americans live very well and no one is paying attention. When things get bad enough and people start voting again the politicians will have to listen to us or get voted out. In police states it's much harder to get control back.
@@TidyWaste You're right, that was false. Its actually 1000 military bases, and about 950 million people lifted out of poverty. Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
How much did you get paid by CCP ministry of propaganda? 600 million of Chinese are actually living below 1000 Renminbi a month And China employ 3 million Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang as slave labors who must obey CCP's order, if someone doesn't obey, police will beat him up, and if keep resisting, police will kill them Also China has Belt Road Initiative, taking resources by giving out loans to poorer countries, which are protected by Chinese private security companies, aka Chinese Army in disguise as private security, protecting China's interest No, Sir, China is no better than USA
The Western countries are also socialistic towards capitalist concerns - after all, they subsidize oil, gas, coal, natural gas, GM, Big Banks, farmers, and the list can continue. However, if it is socialistic, it is not directed towards human beings, citizens, otherwise known as "the consumers" who the governments don't believe need help and if they are poor it's too bad.
I financially supported my mother from age 16 when Reagan cancelled her check, I was an honors student forced to drop out highschool to do it. Neoliberals then have the effrontery to claim moral superiority and blame us for being poor, I am a teetotaler, muggers bashed my head open delivering food for a restaurant 70 hours a week so I am now mentally disabled, My check is 279 dollars lower each month than the federal line of absolute poverty. Neoliberal Conservatives like Reagan and Trump are evil, and they caused the destruction of my life and the death of my mother. 45 corporations control America. Karl Marx defined corpus or corporation as state, so the US is a dystopian reverse Robinhood socialist nation which is actually fascist. A bundle of corporations is a fasciae. Since Mussolini sold out to an extent to big business his fascia did not serve as worker democratized syndicates, but rather served big business, Therefore America is not socialist it is fascist.
Socialism is the power ( dictatorship) of people who control the critical centers of social, environmental and economic development and direct the development for better life of all
@@guennadifedorov2239 somehow democracy and dictatorship are oxymoronic. mob rule isn’t quite a good thing and if there is a charismatic head of a mob isn’t either.
@@GhostOnTheHalfShell but.is these such a possibility that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have irreconcilable contradictions.likeThe Wolf and the sheep.in the world，Either the weak sheep were killed, or the weak Wolf was starved to death. I had to choose one of them whom the majority or the minority. i am sorry. my english grammar is bad.hope to you can understand. thank you .
Another way of looking at it is not how big the government is but rather what it does. This is particularly important in the US where neocons call everything the government does "socialism"
Given that China has the stated goal of becoming a "Socialist Society" by 2050 I am guessing they would agree that they haven't gotten there yet though would probably disagree with Western critiques who go further than this to say that there is "nothing Socialist" about their project or that it is some grand perversion of the idealized Western Socialist fantasy which we have not yet come anywhere close to achieving in our own existing societies. Personally I hope they succeed in this although it's a long a complicated road ahead with many enemies and few friends awaiting them.
@jacobb3573would you mind explaining to me how Leninism and Socialism differ? I was under the impression that Leninism(well Marxist-leninism) was a form of socialism
@@elledoesmusic a Marxist-Leninist state is controlled by a vanguard party who guide the state towards socialism and eventually communism. Marx envisioned that revolution would occur in late-stage capitalism (imagine high levels of automation and therefore massive unemployment); what we've had so far is revolutions in late-feudal societies (Russia, China) and colonised countries (Cuba, Vietnam). These countries don't/didn't have the advanced economy required to support socialism and thus they've had to figure out how to get there without handing state control to capitalists. Initially many tried implementing socialism by fiat with mixed results - Maoist China and Leninist/Stalinist Russia both had massive economic transformations but also massive famines and other death tolls. Nowadays what we typically have is either a Party-managed mixed economy (China, Vietnam) or closer to a real socialist economy but under heavy siege from capitalist countries (Cuba, North Korea). The former approach seems to be more successful for building the economic base for socialism if only because they can remain connected to world markets, but the communists have to watch out to ensure that state control doesn't revert to the capitalist class.
@@TheDarkIllumination one Taiwanese company operating in Shenzhen is apparently all the workers in China now. Imagine being this proud of your willful ignorance
There's no other country on Earth that has ever lifted 500 million people out of poverty in our history. China is the only country that has ever achieved this.
China's policies are practical and they think pragmatic. You have be out of poverty, a roof over your head and make a good living to spend in order to have economic growth. China achieved that in ~40 years. West achieved that in 100-120 years. That is why they are pissed at china. A non-western, non-white society that performs better than west and doesn't have their version of democracy. China practices democratic dictatorship, if that sounds funny, weird and unique. It says so in their constitution. Specifically "dictatorship of the proletariat".
China, Corporatism, and the East Asian Model Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs No. 33 (Jan., 1995), pp. 29-53 (25 pages) Published By: The University of Chicago Press “Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson talks about the concept of corporatism and the different forms it took in Russia and elsewhere. Corporatism is the economic theory of both nationalism and royalism. It isn't the rule of corporations in our modern sense, but a union of people that serve a specific social function. It Is the original conception of the word “class.” The point is to bring the best of the medieval guilds into our Postmodern condition. It has been tried in many different ways from Taiwan to Germany to Argentina and has been an economic success. It arose in western Europe as a defense against the omnipotence of the financial conspirators who emerged from the First World War. Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal and Germany developed their own Corporate structure. Its manifestation has been different over the decades, but the essence is the same. “The state is not a mechanism of competing interests, but an organism of fraternal service, the unity of faith, honor and sacrifice” says Ivan Il'lyn, the great Russian nationalist. Corporatism is the organization of society into syndicates, social bodies representing necessary functions in society. These are collective and public organizations composed of all persons who together fill the same function in the nation. Its purpose is to assure the exercise of this function in the supreme interest of the nation, by means of rules and rights imposed on its members. This isn't a dry conception of public policy or “consensus politics,” but the very lifeblood of virtue.”
Whether China is capitalist, socialist or communist or not; but China is fast becoming the last best hope for peace and prosperity for the people of the Muslim world.
The Uyghurs would disagree. I can only assume that was the troll bait you were throwing. Congrats! I'm now on your bridge with Three Billy Goats Gruff.
China is constantly changing and evolving according to the time and the level of technology available so as to maximized the economic benefit to their people and their country under concept of socialism.. they are realistic enough to realised that their goal towards communism is very far in the future.. i think the ''bay area 415'' channel explain this perfectly..
what is the benefit for Chinese people to build those few hundred meters tall empty buildings, those empty cities other than to employ them in senseless construction and at the same time climate destruction?
@Ben Ben my point is there is no real benefit in building all those things, which are mainly for show off, for ordinary people, other than making some production going on, maintaining some jobs. All that production required a lot of energy and that why China is still building hundreds coal power plants. Making so much cements and concrete is not sustainable . At the same time, such enormous construction is increasing danger that we will not stop climate change in time and that will not benefit not only China but all the world.
@@cathywuthering6422 You did not give an answer to any of my comments regarding building those big cities with huge scrapes which are only for the show-off.
@@cathywuthering6422 I visited China 2 years ago and saw those over 300 meters skyscrapers, which are mostly empty. You can imagine how much steel and cement are spent to build that and how much CO2 is produced. Those are just a few examples of unnecessary constructions which could be built later when we can have different technology and not used coal to produce all that.
@@sandicirak6223 In fact , most building in china is not a show-off , but many of them are useless , especially in underdeveloped areas they build a large number of house that few people live in there . They called that ghost town . And that's because of the cost of China's economic development ，to improve the GDP , to develop China's economy , Chinese government acquiesced in the high house price constructed by the free development of capital . And because it's profitable , some people join to build more and more house that ignore the market demand , so there are many building that not require for people . And now it's hard to recover , if the chinese government take a tough stance to reduce house price , China's economy may experience the great depression.
I've lived and recieved education in both maryland and beijing, in my perspective, the major difference between china and the US is that in china, the government controls the capital, or to use a metaphor, people are fighting to be the king so that they have unlimited access to more money. whereas in the usa, money outranks everything, thus having enough money grants you the ability to appoint a king for you own benefits.(of course, elections were held in america, but even trump needs support from large enterprises behind his MAGA poster. as for china, as long as the government remains authortarian but not monarch, chances are still equal for everone in the larger sense.) what has to be stated is that the american ruling class has truly done a great job in making it's people think that their voice is heard(compared to china)
I don`t think these big multi-national corporations would ever democratize the workplace. They do not want all their workers voting on major decisions . If they did that , they would have to share the companies profits with ALL their workers . Can you imagine that . Right now the profits trickle up to the CEO`s and other executives. They like it that way.
I don't hear anyone else defining "socialism" as a democratic workplace, and definitions aren't a complete free-for-all. "Socialism" is usually been defined as social control of the means of production. I suppose in one sense, democratic workplaces are socially controlled production, but that only makes them a *type* of socialism, not a *definition* of socialism.
There's another perspective which I believeis more appropriate. Samir Amin, among many described China as transitional. China is a rising socialist country but the dominant world system is capitalism and any rising socialist country has to contend with the agression and violence of capitalism.
But that would imply China de transitioned out of socialism under Mao, in order to have to transition back to it under someone in the future. That's just a justification of reversing socialism in favor of hyper Keynesian economics under Deng and Jintao. Otherwise they wouldn't be transitioning, as without a rejection of socialist modes of production after Mao that transition wouldn't make sense. You can't transition from socialism to socialism.
@@MethaneHorizon You can if you understand communism you would understand the ideas are great but you got huge problems implementing. So they tried implementing it and it failed so they transition first out of that to a more capitalist stage then decide how to transition back.
@@Nites2k Nope i have not mastered the subject. But if you bother to open your mind to new ideas you would realise the ideas of communism are good. But if you read enough about the fall of the soviets and other countries that try to implement communism you would realise good ideas doesn’t necessarily translate well into practical workings in the world. A government for the people by the people is a great idea. But looked how it worked out in real life? You got corruption and homelessness etc.
@@biochemwang2421 If there is any evidence that neoliberalism can do this, I'm a socialist who would be a neoliberal. As the guys says, lets go for the ism that makes everyone's lives better. However in spite of all the trickle down theories, only the lives of the rich seem to improve. The poor are thrown into chaos. Time to try something else.
whatever it is, it's working great. China's GDP grew 40 times in the past 30 years. From 360.9 billion USD in 1990 to 14.72 trillion USD in 2020. Remember, this is a country with more than 1 billion people.
I have seen it with my own eyes, and it's truly stunning. Even what China has done in only 10 years is almost too much to believe. From having 20miles of high speed rail, to 15,500 miles. In only 3 years they laid down more concrete than the United States has in its entire history since 1776. Traveling to China today is like stepping 30 years into the future. It is absolutely incredible the level of development and technological sophistication they have achieved. I think it is absolutely crystal clear that all of this was possible because of Socialism, no other capitalist country has seen development like this in such a short period of time in history. Even Britain during the industrial revolution or America during the 1920s, both nations that saw explosive growth and modernization, but nothing on the level of China today. People still make jokes about Chinese pollution and criticism about China that were valid back during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. What is absolutely incredible is today only 13 years later China is almost unrecognizable compared to 2008, My first in person trip to china was 2009, and my most recent was late 2019. I can tell you as a American living in America right now, my home town, and pretty much anywhere in America today, is exactly the same or worse off in that same period of time.
It's great if you don't mind having no due process or civil liberties. It's great if you like the social score system and surveillance state with nothing like a first amendment.
@@mikejohnson555 Jokes about Chinese pollution? Oh it's no joke...When you can hardly breathe, all of that aggressive development will show its real cost...
@@mikejohnson555 That was a nice propaganda response. I'm not in favor of a cold war with China and I think we should end the embargoes on Cuba and Venezuela. I also acknowledge the improved economic situation in China, as well as lack of freedoms in the U.S. But wow are you full of shit. The social score system is horrendous. China is clearly a surveillance state dictatorship. Any civil libertarian can see that. You are willfully ignorant if you think otherwise.
@@umalaurenbowman7276 It is a joke because it's outdated nonsense. In my multiple times in China I never once experienced noticeable pollution. Certainly not any worse than any American city I have been to. My entire point is China has improved so rapidly that the very real problem of pollution and smog covering cities like Beijing is mostly a thing of the past. I have no doubt they may still have bad days. So too does LA. However the improvement in 10 years is incredible. *Go to any major Chinese city today and you will see thousands of electric cars, electric busses and public bikes. You won't find that level of green technology in any other western city I am aware of, Not in LA, not in Seattle, Chicago, London, New York, Houston, Miami, Paris. etc. If that doesn't impress you, you need to think about your standards.*
I don't care really, as long as I can lead a happy and meaningful life and not have some foreigners come and tell me what is right or wrong. I can freely explore the world and form my opinion either physically or virtually online on my own term, without coming across biased and malignant accusations sometimes even violence against my people and my country. Then it will be enough. I am Chinese.
There are in fact a growing number of people in the West today that truly believe as you do, unfortunately their voice is drowned out (or more commonly, outright censored in one way or another) by the established powers. I am 3rd-gen Malaysian Chinese.
Doesn't the government there heavily censor the internet? Can't you go to prison for saying your leader looks like a certain cartoon character? Are you free to travel? I have no interest in forcing my opinions on others but I question holding China up as some kind of great place to be a worker.
@@belmiris1371 Why are you obsessed with the right to demean, caricaturise and smear political leaders? Is it so hard for you to imagine a culture where people are unkind to unconstructive criticism or derisive portrayal of their leaders? China doesn't subscribe to the theatrics and show business that is "democracy" in so many purportedly advanced countries today. They do not see the need to provide avenue for people to turn their politicians into clowns - an avenue far more needed in the West where politicians increasingly _do_ behave like clowns. There are a number of reasons why internet is more heavily censored in China than the "West" (not least of which its tendency as a tool for foreign powers to instigate colour revolutions and regime change), but honestly you'd be surprised by just how much your governments don't want you to see even in 2021. Also, the Chinese are free to travel - the fact that you believe otherwise proves how much toxic propaganda you've been fed by your media yet you don't notice any of it. p/s: Winnie the Pooh toy is widely sold in China. In case you were wondering.
@@edukid1984 - the right to criticize and even ridicule leaders seems an important part of a government that represents its people. The is plenty of information some leaders in my government people would rather people did not see but they have no ability to censor it. I understand rigid authority is part of many peoples' idea of a healthy society but that just means they have a longer way to go to achieve a socialist society. We should not use them as examples of such societies.
Every large economy in the world today is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The percentage of the mix varies but that mixture is the dominant model.
People should know that even big companies like Huawei are essentially run as worker co-ops. China certainly isn't perfect, but they are doing a far better job than western countries are. China most importantly is moving in the right direction.
Huawei is not a co-op. Workers can have some stocks which do not have voting weight in the board as a monetary stimulus, but they do not have any say on how the company is run.
@@auferstandenausruinen Do you even bother researching before you make comments? "Workers can have some stocks" Workers "can" have stocks of any company in the world, I think you are missing the point that Huawei is largely worker owned and all workers own a stake in the company. Also the workers do in-fact get a say about company business. That is just demonstrably wrong to say they have no say on how the company is run. Likewise all employees are unionized and have strong bargaining power as well. Is it perfect? Obviously no. Can you criticize Huawei? You bet! Is it also significantly better than 99% of all American businesses. *Absolutely yes.* if you don't know what ESOP is. you can only get shares if you are an active employee. when you leave the company, what ever your share is with the company they will pay the money to you, that way only current employees own shares. shares are typically payed out on the bases of what your salary is and how long you been with the company. The shares payed out to employees are free each year. It also functions as a secondary retirement account where when you retire you get money based on the shares you owned. If you had been working at the company for over a decade, it can work out to substantial amounts of money.
@@mikejohnson555 That's where the problem lies. Huawei operates exactly like any other capitalist corporations. The union only has the bargaining power on paper, because the rules and the decisions of the company are made in another shell company completely controlled by the founder Ren Zhenfei himself and the top executives, who happen to be the chairs of the union. ESOP only works as a stimulus and in a way, a bribery to trap them in the company. If the average employees have any say on how the company is run, why would they have 72hr+ work weeks (which is already against the labor law) for a mere 30%~50% bonus in wages and dividends compared with industry average in China?
@@auferstandenausruinen What is even your angle here, you clearly didn't know much about this topic in the first place. claiming workers can have "some stock" and that is it. As I stated before criticize the company all you want. Yet they still are demonstrably better than 99% of Western corporations while proving predominate employee ownership of the company. You even manage to complain they only get paid 30-50% more than the industry standard. The horror. Really what is your purpose here, what do you intend to accomplish? I'm sure your bleeding heart just really cares so much that a rapidly growing Chinese company that demonstrably treats their workers better than many western companies is the focus of your ire?
Democracy in the workplace has the same problem as democracy in general. The average worker doesn’t have the knowledge, expertise, and time required to make the best decisions about running a company. That’s just the reality.
As far as economic growth and development of a modern economy, the Chinese government bet is on surpassing the metrics of the western countries, specifically the US. With their 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' they are putting capitalism and human history on a path totally different than the present one dominated by banks and corporate entities and their puppet governments. One can argue about their lack of a western style democratic society but we are talking about a state form of capitalism herein which their goal is to elevate their population's income. Maybe Prof Wolff could explain that process ...
Capitalism is not the antithesis of socialism. Capitalism is about the the ownership of the means of production by the investors of capital and and communism is about the ownership of the means of production by the workers. The real antithesis of socialism is elitism. Elitism is Captain Kirk's position that "The needs of the few could sometime outweigh the many". Socialism Spock (the alien) position that "The needs of the many should outweigth the needs of the few". Elitism is Captain Kirk's position that "The needs of the few could sometime outweigh the many". Marx has called the western ruling elites the Lackeys of Capitalism because the real eliite few were the big capital investors. So the debate in his time was should the ruling institutions give precedence to the needs of the general population over the needs of big capital with strong regulations or should they give precedence to the capitalists needs over the workets needs. Ronald Reagan in his great wisdom said that debate was moot because everyone knows that giving precedence to the needs of Big Capital it will "trickle down" with time into fullfiling the needs of the population. The CPC "Socialism with chinese characteristics" proved that there was a more efficient set of economic policies that would balance the needs of the few capital investors with the needs of the many population. They have seen a continuous growth of their real purchasing power in the last 3 decades while, with their ultraliberalism, the western economies have seen the wealthiest few having a sharp growth of their wealth and the ordinary many have seen less and less growth of their real purchasing power. For your info theie is an economic sector where Big Capital can invest to make sure of a contnuous growth of their wealth: quinary sector (plural quinary sectors) 'When Big Money talks, Bullshit runs, swims and flies.' (economics) The branch of a country's economy where high-level decisions are made by top-level executives in industry, government, education, media, NGOs, think tanks, etc. Review all the changes that have been made since the 1970's in those institutions to favor large private investments.
Any system fails when corruption & greed is allowed to run completely amok. The devil is in the details, with regards to safeguards, structure, rules & enforcement when dealing with any economic system.
@@pfacka Dont think about it that much they are angry idiots. If you think a McDonald's employee is able to.decide what mcdonalds should do with the proits then why do these ceos earn College degrees? 🤣
It's capitalism. It doesn't matter if it some mixture of state, corporate or private capital. It's capitalism. Wage labour and capital. END OF STORY. Red washed capitalism is still capitalism just the same as green or blue washed capitalism. That's it folks.
@@AlOlexy What do you mean? They have the means. The means of production are factories and other tools of producing things, you know that right? Then they can seize the means of production and have the workers control it. If they were in a feudal society, perhaps not. But they aren't feudalist. "in what other way could they survive in a rabid capitalist world" How did the Bolsheviks survive? Defend the revolution. That doesn't mean you have to go full fledge capitalism. Rabid capitalist world? Make it a socialist one, spread the revolution. That is a defeatist attitude to just give up at the first sight of an obstacle, make compromises, take shortcuts.
Quick note at 0:30, they did say that they are Communist, or more like were pursuing Communism. We still refer to the people who sympathise with USSR as communists, always did. But I know that point is the explicit demonization of the Socialism by West, just thought that it's worth noting. Source: I'm from post-soviet country and my elders grew up in the Union.
Let's remember that the greatest minds are always in the eye of the storm and greatest events of history. Marx was at the heart of the industrial revolution, socrates, Aristotle and the rest at the center of the first "democratic" experiment, Einstein in the great revolutionary universities of science. We at the greatest capitalist nation in the planet.
We tend to try to see the world in black & white. Democracy? Capitalist? Socialist? Communist? The truth is, all countries are somewhat darker or lighter shades of gray. America is a multi-party democratic-republic, with a capitalist economic system, which is a combination of free-market and limited socialism. It's an "Everybody for themselves" marketplace, mixed with social security, unemployment coverage, food stamps, plus medical and housing assistance, among other things, to the neediest among us. China is a single-party, socialist government, which benefits from a state-run, strongly capitalist economy, and which also has a fair-sized slave-labor force. Among all of these things, the most important differences are multi-party -v- single-party governments; more than democratic -v- socialist -v- communist. When it comes to power, all governments are either "Top-Down" (dictators, emperors, kings, etc.) or "Bottom-Up" (democracies, republics, parliamentarian) Theoretically, China and/or the old USSR, could have multiple socialist or communist parties, i.e. "The Red Party", "The People's Party", "The Workers United Party", etc., in which case even in a socialist or communist environment, the people could exercise more power for themselves. They don't, so Xi, like Stalin, is essentially, a dictator. And in theory, America could have turned out to be a dictator-led, free-market, capitalistic society as well. Or we could have done the same thing with a Monarchy. How many shades of gray can we slice the world into?
During Stalin's time, workers were the masters of the country. During Mao Zedong's time, my elders were also the masters of the country. It is a supreme honor and full of hope for the future. During the period of socialism with Chinese characteristics, our university graduates became slaves of the capitalists and their cattle and horses after graduation.
It doesn't matter what political system you have in country. What important factor is that the people of the country are prosperous and happy. However I think socialism is the best system to overcome poverty and many other social problems in society....
Venezuelans and every other people stuck in socialist countries would disagree. And I know, because I live in one! Poverty still exists and it's getting worse, because only a select few (those who are from rich families and the ones linked to the government) are better off. Everyone else is just losing purchasing power. At least with capitalism people can work to get out of poverty; with socialism the more you work, the more you are taxed (exponentially), easily reaching 50% and more, so others can stay at home doing nothing. This results in the country going downhill, because no one has any incentive to work more and be productive. Mediocrity instates.
@apps9052 That's probably a lie, and you know it. Venezuela isn't socialist. Also, the country is poor because the U.S. has it under embargo and is alwyays interfering with socialist countries such as Cuba, Vietnam and even North korea, but it can't with China because its too powerful. You can't say it works if you constantly sabotage it.
Excellent Profr. You just nailed the fundamental question and proper way to aboard the issue. It is not a matter of right or wrong. To be honest the proper objective rational way is what way to organize production.?? Here lays the objectivity of the problem. Not wrong or right simply the proper way to organize the production activity of society. As simple as that. Why start the issue as a conflict.??? Only those that fear loosing a privilege start the discussion that way.
it is a right or wrong matter tho. similar as 2+2=4 should be correct(righ as synonym) answer opposed of 2+2=preferencesonly capitalism pabloescobars etc should be corrupt (wrong as synonym) answer. similarly ,, there's a correct and or should be a right way to be a astronaut on a space station (which requires correct educations), and there's a shitload of corrupt ways to be astronauts on a space station even destroying that space station (and not only killing and violating-rapping eachother on that space station). it's similar on earth. or even as more bigger picture, calculating timelines should be different between right or wrong. there wouldn't be ways around it bc it's a base principle(correct or corrupt right and wrong ).
@@d6wave There is a historic context for every concept to be understood from an ethical point of view. What was wrong in the past may become right today. Common sense in the middle ages became obsolete after the Renaissance giving way to a new common sense. The " American way" was and is common sense for a majority of us citizens but is changing. What was unacceptable before Trump suddenly is legitimized by the GOP. And many behaviours are being normalized by the political right. The same way in feudalism it was transformative the new entrepreneurial shops of the artisans turning factories in time. The serf became a free worker and a new social contract became the prevailing socioeconomic way of organizing production. Serfdom was then obsolete and the many revolutions of the XVIII and XIX centuries ended that old social contract giving way to Capitalism. Today capitalism is obsolete and socialism is the new alternative to organize production. It is the right way and capitalism is becoming the wrong way.
read my comment again, until it's clear that right or wrong would be universal(or every universe timeline) OBJECTIVE, and NOT subjective and group subjectivity insanity and a group consensus insanity of common sense false "objectivity" ..dude. history would be nonrelevant in this equation too. different objectivity than consensus.
@@d6wave ok. Bottom line. Capitalism is a failure. It doesn't work because it is wrong. Morally, politically, economically , etc. It is a bankrupt system for society. That is it.
I lived in China for a period of 10 years the best way to define China is an authoritarian capitalism system, and its the best capitalism system I have seen so far .
Chinese Socialism: Comment from Pakistan Socialism with Chinese characteristics is used as a word of political science. More importantly the Chinese call the economy as a Socialist market economy. The capitalists are allowed to perform the best but under the watchful eye of the people whose interests are represented by the CPC. Among the present myriads of goals the most important is continuously raising the purchasing power of all the people so that they can enjoy the best of the products produced inside or imported from outside. That is why they have massive import exhibitions. This is opposite to keeping the purchasing power of the people to a trickle down using trickle down economics say in the U.S.A. And correspondingly the people need not be burdened with import exhibitions. Such exhibitions can only be an exception in the U.S.A, but in China they are the rule. The second goal is to raise the cultural life through continuously increasing the cultural opportunities for the people that are easly affordable for all the people. This compliments the raising of the purchasing power. In the U.S.A the compliment of the trickle down of purchasing power is the trickle of affordable opportunities for the cultural life of the people. Rather it is the opposite i.e. the sapping of the cultural life of the people. Hence only two examples may be enough to show the qualitative difference between the Socialist market economy and the Capitalist market economy of the U.S.A. The people of the U.S.A could easily achieve all this only if they declare "Peoplé's Republic of the U.S.A", and throw this "trickle down" term of black magic into the past where it belongs, and not the future of the people of the U.S.A. It is only then that the respected Professor Wolff's ideas of democracy in the work place can be realized, not before.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Dear John I have not mentioned any comparisons of purchasing power, only the difference of continuous rise in real wages in one and continuous focus on the trickle of purchasing power as an essential qualitative difference between the aims of the two economies. and similarly the complementing qualitative difference of affordable cultural facilities according to the two forms. Yet your question needs to be answered. Let me give just one meaningful stat for comparison. In China the average household saving is 34 to 35 percent. i.e. a chinese can save that much from his monthly salary. China is the highest saving nation in the world. Can a U.S.A working person save as much from the his/her working salary. One cannot say it is because they are not buying or that they do not like the things being sold, since the whole world is flooded with their products. Another example the chinese working people will by early estimates make 4.1 billion domestic tourism trips in 2021(in 2019 they made more than 5 billion domestic tourism trips). If so many trips are being made, it shows the availablity of very affordable and lots of cultural life. And also proves that the Chinese are not averse to buying since they are buying a lot of tourism trips. And tourism trips are enjoyed when one is able to have good food and drink. Good food and drink does not imply expensive food and drink, that will depend on the individual's income. Thus they are travelling so much yet are also able to save the largest in the world. Hence there must be many and very affordable factors affecting their lives and such factors must be distorted or hidden by the fake elite media in the U.S.A and its minion elite owned countries. This the elite media must hide from their real enemies the people of the U.S.A etc. Rather they fill the peoples minds with floods of fake food for thought, that compliments the trickle down of the food for the stomach, as the primary aim.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Lie down? The Chinese will tell you that they fly with swords when they go out. You should look at their children. They are optimistic about the future and never give up. They suffer failure and then smile and stand up again. All the Chinese children I know are like this. I only see depression in our children, giving up.
I see China's current organizational system (socialism with Chinese characteristics) as a way to remain competitive against (or with) and relevant in the current global economic system. They're probably waiting for capitalism to fail before they ultimately convert to a fully socialist economy.
I define socialism, which takes place in the transitionary phase between state and communist society, by whom it serves. If it serves the many jt is socialistic, if it serves the few it remains a bourgeoise capitalist society. China serves the poor, the peasent, the rural, the urban, the workers, the minority popularions etc. they are the strongest socialist economy but as a people they had to bring in market reforms to allow growth snd development in this global neoliberal world order.
The State sector in China is large if we talk about property and control of some industries, heavy and strategic industries. Nonetheless the State sector in China is not large if we talk about Welfare State. Welfare State is much larger in Western European countries.
The definition of socialism: “When working people together as a class rule over the government and own the means of production (usually through state ownership).” This definition satisfies, both a generic definition of socialism (common ownership of the MOP) and the Marxist definition of socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). However, if there is no governance according to socialist principles and goals then its not really socialism. Dr. Wolff’s definition of socialism: “When working people independently rule over each separate business (usually through worker cooperatives).” This definition does not satisfy either the generic definition of socialism nor the Marxist definition of socialism. This definition is unique and should be called Wolffism rather than socialism.
@WTFViewer marxists.architexturez.net/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm "Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91] Marx expresses here all essential elements of socialism. First, man produces in an associated, not competitive way; he produces rationally and in an unalienated way, which means that he brings production under his control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power. This clearly excludes a concept of socialism in which man is manipulated by a bureaucracy, even if this bureaucracy rules the whole state economy, rather than only a big corporation. It means that the individual participates actively in the planning and in the execution of the plans; it means, in short, the realization of political and industrial democracy. Marx expected that by this new form of an unalienated society man would become independent, stand on his own feet, and would no longer be crippled by the alienated mode of production and consumption; that he would truly be the master and the creator of his life, and hence that he could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. Socialism, for Marx, was never as such the fulfillment of life, but the condition for such fulfillment. When man has built a rational, nonalienated form of society, he will have the chance to begin with what is the aim of life: the "development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom." Marx, the man who every year read all the works of Aeschylus and Shakespeare, who brought to life in himself the greatest works of human thought, would never have dreamt that his idea of socialism could be interpreted as having as its aim the well-fed and well-clad "welfare" or "workers' " state. Man, in Marx's view, has created in the course of history a culture which he will be free to make his own when he is freed from the chains, not only of economic poverty, but of the spiritual poverty created by alienation. Marx's vision is based on his faith in man, in the inherent and real potentialities of the essence of man which have developed in history. He looked at socialism as the condition of human freedom and creativity, not as in itself constituting the goal of man's life. For Marx, socialism (or communism) is not flight or abstraction from, or loss of the objective world which men have created by the objectification of their faculties. It is not an impoverished return to unnatural, primitive simplicity. It is rather the first real emergence, the genuine actualization of man's nature as something real. Socialism, for Marx, is a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols. That Marx could be regarded as an enemy of freedom was made possible only by the fantastic fraud of Stalin in presuming to talk in the name of Marx, combined with the fantastic ignorance about Marx that exists in the Western world. For Marx, the aim of socialism was freedom, but freedom in a much more radical sense than the existing democracy conceives of it-freedom in the sense of independence, which is based on man's standing on his own feet, using his own powers and relating himself to the world productively. "Freedom," said Marx, "is so much the essence of man that even its opponents realize it.... No man fights freedom; he fights at most the freedom of others. Every kind of freedom has therefore always existed, only at one time as a special privilege, another time as a universal right." [92] Socialism, for Marx, is a society which serves the needs of man. But, many will ask, is not that exactly what modern capitalism does? Are not our big corporations most eager to serve the needs of man? And are the big advertising companies not reconnaissance parties which, by means of great efforts, from surveys to "motivation analysis," try to find out what the needs of man are? Indeed, one can understand the concept of socialism only if one understands Marx's distinction between the true needs of man, and the synthetic, artificially produced needs of man." You can read the whole article. For me it is obvious that what is happening in China has nothing with socialism. Yes it improved the standard of living for the majority of its population spreading senseless consumerism ( yes, I visited China).
@WTFViewer First my comment was very short, at the bottom. What is written above is the extract from Erich Fromm Marx's Concept of Man marxists.architexturez.net/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/index.htm Your last sentence does not have any meaning and shows that you do not have any understanding of Marx or Communism. As You said that China or USSR is not Marxist, what does that means. Marxist could be one man because that says that Marxism is his view of the world or his ideology and there is plenty of marxism. That is why From is talking about Marx's views, not about marxism. China's government is communist. What is that? Thet China is governed by a party that called itself a communist party. Or you think that China or USSR is some kind of communist sociaty. Obviously, in that case, you do not know what is communism and you just listen to capitalist propaganda which wants to difine China or USSR as a communist country to develop a fear of communism and avoid any real discussion about communism. It will be useful for you to read that article from From about Marx. That will save you some time because to really read Marx you have to read a lot, not just one book. "It is one of the peculiar ironies of history that there are no limits to the misunderstanding and distortion of theories, even in an age when there is unlimited access to the sources; there is no more drastic example of this phenomenon than what has happened to the theory of Karl Marx in the last few decades. There is continuous reference to Marx and to Marxism in the press, in the speeches of politicians, in books and articles written by respectable social scientists and philosophers; yet with few exceptions, it seems that the politicians and newspapermen have never as much as glanced at a line written by Marx, and that the social scientists are satisfied with a minimal knowledge of Marx. Apparently they feel safe in acting as experts in this field, since nobody with power and status in the social-research empire challenges their ignorant statements.[1]"
If the workers don't control the means of production, then I don't call it socialism. If there are billionaires and overworked labourers I won't call it socialism.
It seems far more hes trying to avoid being absolutely direct, something I have found him doing with the USSR; they are practicing state capitalism regardless of the direction they claim. USSR is gone CCP is not, go figure. Just by reading Marx it's quite clear what this society is. Sure there is progress just like the west talks endlessly about. *But what of the people* ??
Most of them are quite happy with the CPC, and from reading Marx, plenty have concluded that they are, as they say, in the early stages of socialism, itself the lower stage of Communism. What is actually self evident is that most people who use the term state capitalism rarely understand Marx as well as they think.
@@CripplingDuality I could probably find a million Chinese from the ccp that say what you say. Strange how I can also find the opposite. But what do we accept in Marxism? Fallacies do not support the reality of what is being examined. Aka ancedontal evidence is not significant to any argument unless you can show that evidence is clearly demonstrable. So you, someone I dont know or have no idea of your affiliation, saying this and that about people means nothing to the argument at hand. I can find a million socialist that claim its state capital while I can find another that say different. The conclusion is argued from the material not opinion or emotion, yet you are so quick to show such by attempting to insult because I have a opposite position. Lol wow, and people wonder why the left is fragmented. State capitalism is in fact the condition the ccp state is practicing. Is it the facsimile of state capitalism? Based on your fallacious reply you do you support absolutes too? Nordic capitalism is not US capitalism. The topic is a very simplified examination on the complexities of different state operations, Wolf makes that clear. So I'm not gonna sit here and write an eassy on the caveats because any person that knows a lick of logic knows there is more beyond what is said on a TH-cam comment. Especially if you claim Marxism. You being so quick to be the gate keeper of Marxism is quite sad especially when you depend on fallacies to make a point. Aka being state capitalist does not disassociate them from their movement of socialism. Like Wolf said, what will come from it, we will find out. I'm presuming your the one that's quick to attack others when a similar argument of development is employed in USSR? Yea man just disregard my response and insert some sort of lazy insult to be right like you lolol. I guess I'll give up Marxism as well now thanks.
@@Nites2k "State capitalism" is just another word for socialism, even Lenin said as much. The reason why China is socialist and Scandinavian social democracies aren't despite both having regulated market economies and a mix of public and private ownership in the economy, is first and foremost because China is ruled by a dictatorship of the proletariat, the CPC is the vanguard party of the Chinese working class and always puts the interests of that working class first. Capitalists are kept on a tight leash in China and must be subordinate and subservient to the workers' state. This qualitative difference results in a number of essential quantitative distinctions such as a high degree of state control over even private enterprises through party supervision, a high degree of planning in the overall economic direction and the subordination of profit to national interests, and a much stronger state sector than there is in social democracies, and this sector receives significantly more resources and funding than the private sector. In short, unlike in social democracies where the capitalist class is still fundamentally in charge and the economy is purely a market one albeit regulated, in China it is the communist party that is in the commanding heights of the economy while the market and private enterprise are merely used as tools in a carefully controlled fashion.
@@transsylvanian9100 There is a lot to agree with here especially the first few lines you mentioned and the role of a command economy. State capitalism is no facsimile however the style of that capitalism is dictated by that region. So both ccp and USSR practiced this for development. Hence why I said it does not disassociate with socialism. I do not agree that the the state is looking out for the people largely because of the massive discounts in the immediate progress to the individual. I do not disagree there has been a increase in a "middle class" but it's not focused to be widespread. Like western capitalism there are lopsided results however those results rival the west. We agree on that. There is no need to explain the difference between command and market. My point and focus remains on the masses that have been discounted in this movement to socialism. There is no nessesscity to maintain billionaires nor is there logic to the millions that are discounted. People hear negatives of china and are quick to bury them when in reality that takes away from the whole idea of dialectical reasoning. I say this to emphasize that people still need to recognize that many have been lost in this revolution. You say the party is the vanguard of what tho? Is it mechanistic progress or human progress? This is something that can be debated but I am on the side that it is far more mechanistic than human. Like Wolf discusses and to the distaste of many MLs and MLMs, dogmatic dedication to routes is not the only way. In fact its extremely plausible and desirable by a large majority of the masses for another. Ofc I am referring more to left communist modes within the state like democratizing workplace more ubiquitously. What lenin refers to as infantile. But even then we dont need to stick to either pure mechanistic or human it does not need to be a dichotomy. So once again I agree on the wild progress but I disagree on the disproportional focus on the individual. Thanks for writing the caveat
Then China has democratized their own agriculture industry. The farmer will choose and ask from the government what they should produce and what they can produce. They even vote under the supervision of CPC members, example land usage. That why farmer is the most loyal class toward CPC.
At the end of the day all that matters to everyone is how rich the country is what the quality of life is you get. Don’t matter if you get to vote but homeless.
China is state capitalist, end of story. If workers have little to no say in the day-to-day operations of the workplace, if there's massive wealth inequality, and if the employer-employee relationship is still there, then that's not socialism. Like Professor Wolff said, the size and influence of the government don't tell you whether a country is capitalist or socialist. If it did, then the United States would be considered "socialist," which is just silly.
You're wrong. You know nothing about China's economics. I moved from California to China 24 years ago. Workers compensation rose from 50 dollars a month to now 1100. Home prices rose from 50,000 USD to one million in 20 years for a 1000 sq feet apartment. The workers now take annual overseas vacations, 159 million outbound Chinese tourists in 2019. Their sons and daughter are attending Ivy League colleges. Every Ivy League college and majority of top universities around the world has Chinese student as its biggest foreign student population. In fact China has surpassed the US in PPP in 2017 meaning the average person has more purchasing power in daily necessities. And China also has surpassed the US in the number of billionaires. People in major cities are buying more Porsche than Americans, a lot of Mercedes and BMWs.
Doctor Wolff, there are millions of cooperated workers in China. Also, isnt the means of production in the hands of private initiative a valid way to describe capitalism?
I think it's time to separate the two definitions of Socialism and label the democratization of the workplace as Cooperativism since state ownership/private ownership and worker ownership have such different ramifications. Cooperativism should be seen as a critique of Socialism and Capitalism (and Communism). State-owned resources and worker co-op owned industry, all run Democratically seems like a fair and distinct system to me, and should be distinguished from efforts of the past tainted with Bureaucracy, Privatization, or Dictatorship.
A socialist country is a country without private propriety over means of production, no exploitation of people's work. Not to be confused with personal propriety.
How is it capitalist? The majority of the economy is owned by the workers' party. Every private corporation needs to have communist party representation in the board of directors.
@@Mark-zk3gu this only works if you believe the CPC is a workers' party, which it's very clearly not. The CPC claims to be a workers party and it originally was but it's very obvious that they don't function in the best interest of the worker. Breaking up worker strikes and unions, locking up anti-reform communists, allowing working conditions worse than what we see in the US, no universal healthcare system, no housing or jobs guarantee, allowing companies to force their employees to work 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week. A communist party shouldn't allow the existence of billionaires in their country, let alone allow them into the party. They've totally abandoned socialism for the sake of economic development and the country itself has become a success but the workers in China have taken incredible losses. China is literally no different from South Korea or Japan. Chinese people themselves will tell you that the CPC isn't actually moving toward socialism and that most people in China no longer care about socialism. The CPC is a nationalist party. All of those decades of war just to build the country that China would've been if Chiang Kai-shek stayed in power.
@@TIENxSHINHAN The CPC has lifted nearly 100 million people out of poverty through a plan, and it is difficult to believe that capitalist governments, such as India, a similar country, would do such a thing. I believe this is a transitional stage of socialism, because in the face of globalization, China has no ability to resist the highly advanced productivity of Western countries, and they must open up free markets to enhance their strength
@@FrankWrigley-c5hNo india isn't capitalistic. We are still in bottoms of economic freedom. Just because we have democratic government we don't be capitalist. China liberalised economy in 1978 more than we did in 1991 . We still have bunch of price controls and regulations
Worker ownership is 100% compatible with capitalism, and many capitalist companies are either totally or partially worker owned. I don't know why Richard seems oblivious to this fact, and assumes that worker ownership is automatically socialist.
Colonel Douglas Mcgregor said China is not actually communist, but a fascist country. It makes sense. How it can be communist or socialist with so much inequality?
While I am a large proponent along with Wolff of leading socialism by addressing the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, the organization of the workplace/labor; it's important to note that China has some of the most cooperatives in the world and I believe Xi Jinping is looking to increase those numbers. It certainly seems they are playing the long game.
Allowing capitalist enterprises to coexist within the domination of a socialist government accomplishes many things. Some of the fiercest enemies of Cuba and the USSR were exiles but by allowing capitalists to grow rich, albeit in a constrained manner means that China is not constantly hounded by exiles. It allows them access to foreign markets and technology, and there are likely even certain sectors of the economy that operate more efficiently when they are capitalist in nature. Playing the long game is exactly what they are doing. Had they not opened up to the outside world they might not have the technological and industrial base required to repel outside military aggression, or the economic clout to attract non ideologically aligned countries to their camp. The fact that all of the western European nations are hedging their bets in the US-China conflict rather than throwing their full weight behind Washington for a Cold War 2.0 is a stunning coup that the USSR could only dream of. Priority number 1 of any socialist or communist movement needs to be the ending of US unipolar hegemony and the Chinese are biding their time and hiding their strength until such a day that they can pull the rug out from underneath the yankees.
The Communist Party of China is also pretty thoroughly proletarian. While workers may not be able to vote in the workplace (yet), the party which rules the country and decides where many profits go is itself made of workers.
Socialism is the power ( dictatorship) of people who control the critical centers of social, environmental and economic development and direct the development for better life of all
The dictatorship of the proletariat is governance run by the, working majority for the benefit of the working majority. It makes enemies with Fascists Imperialists Colonialists Conservatives Capitalists Libertarians Religious groups who want to gain power to represent people of their own faith.
The big wigs will always choose capitalism, because they're the only ones that matter. It's up to the people to make that decision, and to take the power from the hands of the oligarchs by force - because they won't let go of it peacefully.
@@guennadifedorov2239 I think communism/socialism is quite often defined as being highly democratic rather than a dictatorship. If it IS dictatorship, that is only in the Hobbes/Bagehot sense of sovereignty, 'efficient parts' of the constitution, etc. You have a united 'force' that governs basically until its term of office runs out, as with any elected government or 'elective dictatorship' within any modern democracy. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship You get that with any form of government, in other words.
@RPTOR EMPP Here are the groups who have tried overthrow socialist run countries. Fascists Imperialists Colonialists Conservatives Capitalists Libertarians Religious groups who want to gain power to represent people of their own faith. The only group who succeeded were the CRAPitalists. With the help of CIA and FBI (cold war tactics, see CIAs own website for these). By taking control of the global media, even supporting extremist and dangerous groups. Most wars, certainly not all, have been to overthrow socialist countries. So, you should be feeling very happy.
Source? How did they count it? Did they include everyone who died voluntarily fighting imperialism, feudalism, and state capitalism that were oppressing the vast majority of Chinese people to the verge of despair and death? Maybe they were the useful idiots or tools for western imperialism.
Any idea of china being some socialist beacon is a joke - the first thing you would think a modern socialist country should have is a focus on democracy and workers right, and yet that is the exact opposite of what they have. The US is in many ways much more socialist, much more pro worker, has greater and more expansive public programs, and by all means is much closer to socialism than china is. People dont have a very good understanding of what communism and socialism are, they really only have the historical nations and figures to observe. At its core communism is about ending social exploitation through abolishing classes and the domination of capital, you cant really say china looks anything like this. They are really just your good old classic authoritarian system, benevolent perhaps but ultimately the leaders are fixated on maintaining power, and unfortunately there are not the usual checks and balances of the democratic system (as weak as they often are), so its basically worse than the US in almost all ways.
Capitalism issues money through loans, which results in debt, discrimination, and competition. Socialism issues money through social programs, which results in balance, equality, and cooperation.
China in its initial period of socialism, under Mao, issued money on the basis of material resources. Their currency, renminbi, was tied to grain and other basic necessities, similar to the system used by the USSR.
@@NumeroSystem It was a step in the process of definancialization. Previously, currency was tied to the value of silver. Then, when the CPC shut down the centers of speculation (private banks), the remnants of the banks began speculating on grain and the like. This caused the currency to spike as grain value chains were not controlled by the CPC at this point. Through hoarding and market manipulation the currency massively inflated and speculators left with a profit. The CPC then put an end to this speculation. They forced speculators to sell by manipulating the market themselves, by flooding centers of speculation with cotton and grain. Ultimately, they put an end to speculation entirely, and thus, put an end to financialization of cotton and grain. Afterwards, they weren't giving out loans. The currency was merely a representation of the material necessities for the basics of life. The currency was issued on a work-basis. No longer could financiers earn currency merely by speculating on it. They had to work to live.
Socialism, as proposed by Marx and Engels, is not a democratized workplace, but when all means of production belong to the state. Period. Read the communist manifesto.
@jcxkzhgco3050 Here's a quote from the communist manifesto: 1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes. ... 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
@@yogawan3805 capitalism is the system where surplus value is extracted from workers by a managerial class. it has nothing to do with land ownership. at all.
@@yogawan3805 if a system with total state land ownership extracts surplus value from it's workers, it's absolutely a capitalist system. if a system with completely private land ownership puts the surplus value in common, it is not a capitalist system.
The Chinese characteristics could be summed up Deng Xiaoping's words, when he went towards capitalist road: White cat or black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat. Therefore, definition or ideology is useless unless something works. What's the use of calling something democracy when it is actually oligarchy - when the system is for the rich, by the rich (at the expense of the poor).
@@rogerfaint499 There was also an ancient Chinese Sophist (whose name escapes me at the moment) who said, "A white horse is not a horse." My only point was that the basis for Chinese culture is very different from ours, and maybe we need to learn more about it.
People can go ahead and start a democratized work place. If it is government owned it won't be socialist. Under this model the postal service would be no better than anything else.
It is easier to start companies and factories in China than in US and Europe. Therefore China has more economic freedom than we do. That is why China is winning. Which shows economic freedom (capitalism) is more important than political freedom (democracy), when it comes to creating prosperity.
CHina steals intellectual property, manipulates currency values, and murders minorities in China. They have never made a product that is not junk and that is known fro quality EVER!!! I personally will not buy the jun they build because I don't waste my money. Their biggest gift to the world so far is the COVID virus.
Not really, lol. Whether or not it's easier to start a company in China, which I find doubtful as foreigners can't own more than half of 30% of a company and must partner with a Chinese national, is rather irrelevant. It's about the political goal, and the road towards socialism. There's a reason the Chinese claim is that they are in the early phases of socialism. Marx actually refered to this as the lower phase of communism. Also, capitalism doesn't mean economic freedom, lol. The Nazi party supported capitalism, and it was anything but "free".
@@andrewgreen5574 Our companies move from our country to China. That means we are socialistic, and China is capitalistic. Because companies move from socialism to capitalism. Because companies move to a place where it is easier to do business than their current location. That is pure logic. So dont be fooled by what people call themselves. China can call itself communist all they want and we can call ourselves capitalist all we want. But in reality we are communist and China is capitalist. That is the purest truth as you will ever find. America is not a capitalist country anymore. The economy is becoming more and more centrally planned from Washington. The government (local and federal) spends 50% of all our income. We are half way to Soviet Union. And what the government doesnt take in taxes, it regulates the hell out of. Not to mention the central planning by the federal reserve, where beauracrats are making huge decisions instead of the market. Interest rate should be set in the free market, but we have beauracrats setting it like the old Soviet Union. So we have so much central planning that we can no longer call overselves free market capitalist.
Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy is a system of governing with direct rule by the people. Socialism does not always have workers and businesses. In describing China's economic system, he described America's economic system. It is a mixture of both.
@@MaxStArlyn Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Monarchy and Oligarchy are political systems. Their economies may be socialism or capitalism.
@@ewalker1057 The longest running empire was the Roman Empire led by Constantinople. It had a Monarchy, leading it . What economic system would you say it had?
@@MaxStArlyn I do not know if it was capitalist or socialist or what their economic system was. They are two different things. Economics and politics are not the same thing. They do not have the same meanings. Also you only speak of western cultures and empires. There are older ones.
I'm sorry Mr. Wolff, but I have to strongly object to this idea that these nations are Socialist. And if you truly were a fan of Karl Marx and understood the man, you would understand also that Marx himself would reject you as a socialist as he did to many others during his time. What these countries are is what we call in economics a command/control economy. It should embarrass you that some random person on the internet would need to explain that to you as an economics professor.... Oh and I should also make sure to point out that it doesn't matter what people call themselves. Words mean nothing, only actions mean something. It never matters what a political party calls themselves. Do you think that the "democratic" party in America are truly democratic? If yes then you should retire from teaching anyone anything and find a different hobby.
The sheer arrogance of western leftists is hilarious. The dude has been teaching Marxism longer than many of us have been alive. I'll take his analysis over some teenaged shitlib whose political education comes from streamers, thanks.
@@CripplingDuality My political education comes from everywhere including from Wolff. Your crybaby response because your feelings got hurt doesn't change facts. Are you one of those people that instead of referring strictly to Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity, you suggest that we should also go to a crackhouse and hear out the drug addicts version of how things fall to the ground?
My parents definition of communism is a dictatorship regardless of economic systems used. Similar to how some people use the word fascist to be defined as racist. How is the average person supposed to be able to discuss economics with the way terms are being thrown around these days?
I think whether it is dictatorship has little to do with capitalism, communism or socialism. At the national level, the supreme ruler of the ruling class cannot have the final say alone. He also represents the common will of the entire ruling class. That is to say, if he wants to pass a policy, he needs the consent of the thugs. If the thugs disagree and insist on their own way, it will not be implemented.
@马斯克源神 right but so many people conflate communism and totalitarianism due to years of propaganda. They can't separate communism as an economic philosophy and the other things that the propaganda has associated with it
@@frozenskyhomestead3723The fact is that during the economic crisis at the beginning of the 20th century, the living standards of the Soviet Union under the dictatorship were much higher than those of capitalist countries. Although people were not extravagant, they did not have to worry about their daily livelihood. I come from China. Forty years ago, in China, during the Mao Zedong era, workers were the masters of the country. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, drugs and brothels were eliminated, compulsory education was universalized, and the people's country had a very happy life except for the capitalists and landlords. But now our workers, students, and farmers are all slaves of capitalists and officials. Everything we eliminated in the past has come back inadvertently. The Communist Party of China has come up with something other than the term "communism" in its name.What he did has nothing to do with communism and socialism. Everything now seems to be the original capitalism of the 18th century. The policies are more like those of Nazi Germany. The only difference is that the Jews back then were our workers and farmers, and the ones who exploit us are officials and capitalists.😢😢😢
China, Vietnam, Laos are what you call "Communist party countries preparing the material and social conditions to transfer from a Capitalist system to Socialist system in the near futures". Now here the question, what do you deal with people inside the party whom cooperates with the Communist party to builds the material condition for progress, but don't want to transform the economy system to one that is ran by the working class democratically?
China is on its way to socialism, that's the process of transitioning to socialism from where it was. It's a kind of prefigure to socialist organization of the production where the means of production are not fully owned by those who put them in movement.
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-WR6Zq7Qec/mqdefault.jpg)
china : state-controlled capitalism
US : capitalism-controlled state
perfectly accurate. both have no worker rights
@@murraymadness4674 China is a dictatorship of the proletariat and more workplace democracy than the U.S would ever dream to have. You definitely have no idea about Chinese workplace system
@@murraymadness4674 as a Chinese，I must say you are wrong
@@murraymadness4674 People in China seem to disagree with you. State socialism and state capitalism are the different names for the same thing. Semantics are not important, the material reality is what defines what level of control workers have. Literally what Prof Wolff talks about in this video. The communist party has 100 million members, I bet all of them have read more Marx and Lenin than you have.
@@jamescelliers3195 If you can't elect your leaders, you voice doesn't matter. If you can't protest or strike then your opinion is ignored. When you don't have a free press, you voice is silenced. That is China.
Lenin was very clear in saying that the USSR name represented "the determination of the soviet power to transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order."
Lenin also stated in an address that what they had established in the so called USSR was state capitalism. Straight from the horses mouth.
@@davidtildesley3197 And indeed exactly that USSR and it's satellites were. And there would be nothing wrong about, if they would achieve that without killing millions human beings.
Please! We need to distance ourselves from these brutal, authoritarian regimes if we want socialism to gain any traction. They are/were just police states. Rhetoric is always empty without action. The USA is far closer to a successful socialist society than China or the Soviet Union. All that is standing in the way is a few oligarchs. Other than that all the apparatus is up and ready to go.
that's because socialism and communism were considered the same thing at the time. But people now refer to socialism as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase basically.
Lenin died in 1924. The USSR existed for nearly 70 years afterwards, it was socialist after Lenin's death no question
As I used to say to my employees: You may live in a democracy, but you work for a dictator. lol
This is very true. It is interesting how people confuse the fact that they have entered a relationship on a contractual basis to do what they are told and get paid for it, according to the terms specified within that contract with the fact that they live in a democracy.
The encompassing democracy can set the framework and decide where the line is best drawn between the balance of power of the employer and the employee, and every voter has an ultimate say on that. But the fact that you are in a democracy doesn't mean you can suddenly expect to call more of the shots than your contract and the law says you can.
Don’t you mean “mwahahahaha” not “lol”?
In China you don't have a democracy.
@@belmiris1371 True. It never did when it was the greatest power on earth for most of the past 3,000 years. In the US we fool ourselves into believing we have democracy. In fact you only really have a voice in your own town hall. Certainly not Capitol Hill.
@@whhusa - the goal is a successful socialist or communist society. It's true that currently in the USA corporations rule our politicians but that is only because the vast majority of Americans live very well and no one is paying attention. When things get bad enough and people start voting again the politicians will have to listen to us or get voted out. In police states it's much harder to get control back.
800 million out of poverty or 800 military bases you choose.
US: 800 military bases for sure, I using it control 8000 million peoples, cause I am the boss of the world, the poverty is not my business.
I’ll pass on the false dichotomy. What else do you have that isn’t a false dichotomy?
@@TidyWaste
You're right, that was false. Its actually 1000 military bases, and about 950 million people lifted out of poverty.
Thanks for pointing out the mistake.
@@obione69 my response was for the OC lol
How much did you get paid by CCP ministry of propaganda?
600 million of Chinese are actually living below 1000 Renminbi a month
And China employ 3 million Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang as slave labors who must obey CCP's order, if someone doesn't obey, police will beat him up, and if keep resisting, police will kill them
Also China has Belt Road Initiative, taking resources by giving out loans to poorer countries, which are protected by Chinese private security companies, aka Chinese Army in disguise as private security, protecting China's interest
No, Sir, China is no better than USA
The Western countries are also socialistic towards capitalist concerns - after all, they subsidize oil, gas, coal, natural gas, GM, Big Banks, farmers, and the list can continue. However, if it is socialistic, it is not directed towards human beings, citizens, otherwise known as "the consumers" who the governments don't believe need help and if they are poor it's too bad.
Right
That is called Neo-Liberal Economics.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz 100% 👍
I financially supported my mother from age 16 when Reagan cancelled her check, I was an honors student forced to drop out highschool to do it. Neoliberals then have the effrontery to claim moral superiority and blame us for being poor, I am a teetotaler, muggers bashed my head open delivering food for a restaurant 70 hours a week so I am now mentally disabled, My check is 279 dollars lower each month than the federal line of absolute poverty. Neoliberal Conservatives like Reagan and Trump are evil, and they caused the destruction of my life and the death of my mother. 45 corporations control America. Karl Marx defined corpus or corporation as state, so the US is a dystopian reverse Robinhood socialist nation which is actually fascist. A bundle of corporations is a fasciae. Since Mussolini sold out to an extent to big business his fascia did not serve as worker democratized syndicates, but rather served big business, Therefore America is not socialist it is fascist.
Let's stop calling corporate subsidies socialism, please.
I like this condensed essay, as Wolff has made these comments in long videos.
Socialism is the power ( dictatorship) of people who control the critical centers of social, environmental and economic development and direct the development for better life of all
@@guennadifedorov2239 somehow democracy and dictatorship are oxymoronic. mob rule isn’t quite a good thing and if there is a charismatic head of a mob isn’t either.
@@GhostOnTheHalfShell but.is these such a possibility that the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have irreconcilable contradictions.likeThe Wolf and the sheep.in the world，Either the weak sheep were killed, or the weak Wolf was starved to death. I had to choose one of them whom the majority or the minority. i am sorry. my english grammar is bad.hope to you can understand. thank you .
The system in China is called Whateverworkism
👍😄
Much more precise than socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Seems to me the system in China is called dictatorship.
你有了解中国历史吗，中国特色社会主义道路你不知道吗
@@Ririann34791 特色主义就是笑话，威权政府剥了马克思主义者的皮穿在身上，假装自己是红的，居然还真有人信
In the next 50/100 yrs, don't expect 'socialism/ capitalism' to be still the same.
Silly, there is not 50/100 years left for Human Civilization. Global Warming is rapidly destroying all that shit.
Another way of looking at it is not how big the government is but rather what it does.
This is particularly important in the US where neocons call everything the government does "socialism"
Except that they don't seem to call corporate bailouts socialism.....perhaps one day they will get it right - but I doubt it.
Except war. They call that "spreading democracy".
You know the USSR anthem had the line “it leads us to the triumph of communism”, never noticed it was a destination not the journey.
I learn so much from Mr.Wolff. Preserve this man!
Given that China has the stated goal of becoming a "Socialist Society" by 2050 I am guessing they would agree that they haven't gotten there yet though would probably disagree with Western critiques who go further than this to say that there is "nothing Socialist" about their project or that it is some grand perversion of the idealized Western Socialist fantasy which we have not yet come anywhere close to achieving in our own existing societies. Personally I hope they succeed in this although it's a long a complicated road ahead with many enemies and few friends awaiting them.
@Jacob B nah they’re already mostly socialist
@Jacob B China is a revisionist country since Ping helped Duterte's repression of the NPA (the Communist party of the Philippines)
@jacobb3573would you mind explaining to me how Leninism and Socialism differ? I was under the impression that Leninism(well Marxist-leninism) was a form of socialism
@@elledoesmusic a Marxist-Leninist state is controlled by a vanguard party who guide the state towards socialism and eventually communism. Marx envisioned that revolution would occur in late-stage capitalism (imagine high levels of automation and therefore massive unemployment); what we've had so far is revolutions in late-feudal societies (Russia, China) and colonised countries (Cuba, Vietnam). These countries don't/didn't have the advanced economy required to support socialism and thus they've had to figure out how to get there without handing state control to capitalists. Initially many tried implementing socialism by fiat with mixed results - Maoist China and Leninist/Stalinist Russia both had massive economic transformations but also massive famines and other death tolls. Nowadays what we typically have is either a Party-managed mixed economy (China, Vietnam) or closer to a real socialist economy but under heavy siege from capitalist countries (Cuba, North Korea). The former approach seems to be more successful for building the economic base for socialism if only because they can remain connected to world markets, but the communists have to watch out to ensure that state control doesn't revert to the capitalist class.
@@alexjeffrey3981well done on the revisionist history.😊
I think China’s biggest, most important achievement is poverty alleviation
@@TheDarkIllumination So bad that a country prevents workers from suicide. Oh, by the way, these workers do for Apple, not China.
@@TheDarkIllumination one Taiwanese company operating in Shenzhen is apparently all the workers in China now. Imagine being this proud of your willful ignorance
There's no other country on Earth that has ever lifted 500 million people out of poverty in our history. China is the only country that has ever achieved this.
And Chinas work on staying out of war .!
China's policies are practical and they think pragmatic. You have be out of poverty, a roof over your head and make a good living to spend in order to have economic growth. China achieved that in ~40 years. West achieved that in 100-120 years. That is why they are pissed at china. A non-western, non-white society that performs better than west and doesn't have their version of democracy. China practices democratic dictatorship, if that sounds funny, weird and unique. It says so in their constitution. Specifically "dictatorship of the proletariat".
US has Capitalism with American characteristics.
US has feudalism with American characteristics
@@Rhaegar19 techno feudalism
Some people in US, think "Wearing a mask is sign of Communism" 😐...
I usually take American definitions of foreigner phenomena, as a grain of salt...
China, Corporatism, and the East Asian Model
Jonathan Unger and Anita Chan
The Australian Journal of Chinese Affairs
No. 33 (Jan., 1995), pp. 29-53 (25 pages)
Published By: The University of Chicago Press
“Dr Matthew Raphael Johnson talks about the concept of corporatism and the different forms it took in Russia and elsewhere.
Corporatism is the economic theory of both nationalism and royalism. It isn't the rule of corporations in our modern sense, but a union of people that serve a specific social function. It Is the original conception of the word “class.”
The point is to bring the best of the medieval guilds into our Postmodern condition. It has been tried in many different ways from Taiwan to Germany to Argentina and has been an economic success.
It arose in western Europe as a defense against the omnipotence of the financial conspirators who emerged from the First World War. Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal and Germany developed their own Corporate structure.
Its manifestation has been different over the decades, but the essence is the same. “The state is not a mechanism of competing interests, but an organism of fraternal service, the unity of faith, honor and sacrifice” says Ivan Il'lyn, the great Russian nationalist.
Corporatism is the organization of society into syndicates, social bodies representing necessary functions in society. These are collective and public organizations composed of all persons who together fill the same function in the nation.
Its purpose is to assure the exercise of this function in the supreme interest of the nation, by means of rules and rights imposed on its members. This isn't a dry conception of public policy or “consensus politics,” but the very lifeblood of virtue.”
@@dec13666 wearing a mask never worked during the pandemic did it lol
Whether China is capitalist, socialist or communist or not; but China is fast becoming the last best hope for peace and prosperity for the people of the Muslim world.
Amazing Comment given that the Chinese are Atheists
@@48Ballen amazing response seeing as it's totally irrelevant
ironic
The Uyghurs would disagree.
I can only assume that was the troll bait you were throwing. Congrats! I'm now on your bridge with Three Billy Goats Gruff.
@@48Ballen Amazing comment given that the Chinese are not all Atheists, several hundred millions Chinese have religion.
China is constantly changing and evolving according to the time and the level of technology available so as to maximized the economic benefit to their people and their country under concept of socialism.. they are realistic enough to realised that their goal towards communism is very far in the future.. i think the ''bay area 415'' channel explain this perfectly..
what is the benefit for Chinese people to build those few hundred meters tall empty buildings, those empty cities other than to employ them in senseless construction and at the same time climate destruction?
@Ben Ben my point is there is no real benefit in building all those things, which are mainly for show off, for ordinary people, other than making some production going on, maintaining some jobs. All that production required a lot of energy and that why China is still building hundreds coal power plants. Making so much cements and concrete is not sustainable . At the same time, such enormous construction is increasing danger that we will not stop climate change in time and that will not benefit not only China but all the world.
@@cathywuthering6422 You did not give an answer to any of my comments regarding building those big cities with huge scrapes which are only for the show-off.
@@cathywuthering6422 I visited China 2 years ago and saw those over 300 meters skyscrapers, which are mostly empty. You can imagine how much steel and cement are spent to build that and how much CO2 is produced. Those are just a few examples of unnecessary constructions which could be built later when we can have different technology and not used coal to produce all that.
@@sandicirak6223 In fact , most building in china is not a show-off , but many of them are useless , especially in underdeveloped areas they build a large number of house that few people live in there . They called that ghost town . And that's because of the cost of China's economic development ，to improve the GDP , to develop China's economy , Chinese government acquiesced in the high house price constructed by the free development of capital . And because it's profitable , some people join to build more and more house that ignore the market demand , so there are many building that not require for people . And now it's hard to recover , if the chinese government take a tough stance to reduce house price , China's economy may experience the great depression.
I've lived and recieved education in both maryland and beijing, in my perspective, the major difference between china and the US is that in china, the government controls the capital, or to use a metaphor, people are fighting to be the king so that they have unlimited access to more money. whereas in the usa, money outranks everything, thus having enough money grants you the ability to appoint a king for you own benefits.(of course, elections were held in america, but even trump needs support from large enterprises behind his MAGA poster. as for china, as long as the government remains authortarian but not monarch, chances are still equal for everone in the larger sense.) what has to be stated is that the american ruling class has truly done a great job in making it's people think that their voice is heard(compared to china)
one more thing, I love marland more than beijing🥰
I don`t think these big multi-national corporations would ever democratize the workplace. They do not want all their workers voting on major decisions . If they did that , they would have to share the companies profits with ALL their workers . Can you imagine that . Right now the profits trickle up to the CEO`s and other executives. They like it that way.
I don't hear anyone else defining "socialism" as a democratic workplace, and definitions aren't a complete free-for-all. "Socialism" is usually been defined as social control of the means of production. I suppose in one sense, democratic workplaces are socially controlled production, but that only makes them a *type* of socialism, not a *definition* of socialism.
Yes. He's not very good is he.
There's another perspective which I believeis more appropriate. Samir Amin, among many described China as transitional. China is a rising socialist country but the dominant world system is capitalism and any rising socialist country has to contend with the agression and violence of capitalism.
That is always a justifiably view until the day capitalism is no longer than that hypothesis is put to the test.
But that would imply China de transitioned out of socialism under Mao, in order to have to transition back to it under someone in the future. That's just a justification of reversing socialism in favor of hyper Keynesian economics under Deng and Jintao. Otherwise they wouldn't be transitioning, as without a rejection of socialist modes of production after Mao that transition wouldn't make sense. You can't transition from socialism to socialism.
@@MethaneHorizon You can if you understand communism you would understand the ideas are great but you got huge problems implementing. So they tried implementing it and it failed so they transition first out of that to a more capitalist stage then decide how to transition back.
@@skydragon23101979 lolz well clearly you have mastered the subject
@@Nites2k Nope i have not mastered the subject. But if you bother to open your mind to new ideas you would realise the ideas of communism are good. But if you read enough about the fall of the soviets and other countries that try to implement communism you would realise good ideas doesn’t necessarily translate well into practical workings in the world.
A government for the people by the people is a great idea. But looked how it worked out in real life? You got corruption and homelessness etc.
It doesn't matter what kind of xxxist, so long as the life of ordinary people can be improved!
By stating that, you are a socialist already.
Based
@@PrismC based?
@@biochemwang2421 If there is any evidence that neoliberalism can do this, I'm a socialist who would be a neoliberal. As the guys says, lets go for the ism that makes everyone's lives better.
However in spite of all the trickle down theories, only the lives of the rich seem to improve. The poor are thrown into chaos. Time to try something else.
Agree
Every work class people in US and China should work together to get back their rights and money from those richest
whatever it is, it's working great. China's GDP grew 40 times in the past 30 years. From 360.9 billion USD in 1990 to 14.72 trillion USD in 2020. Remember, this is a country with more than 1 billion people.
I have seen it with my own eyes, and it's truly stunning. Even what China has done in only 10 years is almost too much to believe. From having 20miles of high speed rail, to 15,500 miles. In only 3 years they laid down more concrete than the United States has in its entire history since 1776. Traveling to China today is like stepping 30 years into the future. It is absolutely incredible the level of development and technological sophistication they have achieved. I think it is absolutely crystal clear that all of this was possible because of Socialism, no other capitalist country has seen development like this in such a short period of time in history. Even Britain during the industrial revolution or America during the 1920s, both nations that saw explosive growth and modernization, but nothing on the level of China today.
People still make jokes about Chinese pollution and criticism about China that were valid back during the 2008 Beijing Olympics. What is absolutely incredible is today only 13 years later China is almost unrecognizable compared to 2008, My first in person trip to china was 2009, and my most recent was late 2019. I can tell you as a American living in America right now, my home town, and pretty much anywhere in America today, is exactly the same or worse off in that same period of time.
It's great if you don't mind having no due process or civil liberties. It's great if you like the social score system and surveillance state with nothing like a first amendment.
@@mikejohnson555 Jokes about Chinese pollution? Oh it's no joke...When you can hardly breathe, all of that aggressive development will show its real cost...
@@mikejohnson555 That was a nice propaganda response. I'm not in favor of a cold war with China and I think we should end the embargoes on Cuba and Venezuela. I also acknowledge the improved economic situation in China, as well as lack of freedoms in the U.S. But wow are you full of shit. The social score system is horrendous. China is clearly a surveillance state dictatorship. Any civil libertarian can see that. You are willfully ignorant if you think otherwise.
@@umalaurenbowman7276 It is a joke because it's outdated nonsense. In my multiple times in China I never once experienced noticeable pollution. Certainly not any worse than any American city I have been to. My entire point is China has improved so rapidly that the very real problem of pollution and smog covering cities like Beijing is mostly a thing of the past. I have no doubt they may still have bad days. So too does LA. However the improvement in 10 years is incredible. *Go to any major Chinese city today and you will see thousands of electric cars, electric busses and public bikes. You won't find that level of green technology in any other western city I am aware of, Not in LA, not in Seattle, Chicago, London, New York, Houston, Miami, Paris. etc. If that doesn't impress you, you need to think about your standards.*
I don't care really, as long as I can lead a happy and meaningful life and not have some foreigners come and tell me what is right or wrong. I can freely explore the world and form my opinion either physically or virtually online on my own term, without coming across biased and malignant accusations sometimes even violence against my people and my country. Then it will be enough. I am Chinese.
There are in fact a growing number of people in the West today that truly believe as you do, unfortunately their voice is drowned out (or more commonly, outright censored in one way or another) by the established powers. I am 3rd-gen Malaysian Chinese.
Doesn't the government there heavily censor the internet? Can't you go to prison for saying your leader looks like a certain cartoon character? Are you free to travel?
I have no interest in forcing my opinions on others but I question holding China up as some kind of great place to be a worker.
@@belmiris1371 Why are you obsessed with the right to demean, caricaturise and smear political leaders? Is it so hard for you to imagine a culture where people are unkind to unconstructive criticism or derisive portrayal of their leaders? China doesn't subscribe to the theatrics and show business that is "democracy" in so many purportedly advanced countries today. They do not see the need to provide avenue for people to turn their politicians into clowns - an avenue far more needed in the West where politicians increasingly _do_ behave like clowns.
There are a number of reasons why internet is more heavily censored in China than the "West" (not least of which its tendency as a tool for foreign powers to instigate colour revolutions and regime change), but honestly you'd be surprised by just how much your governments don't want you to see even in 2021. Also, the Chinese are free to travel - the fact that you believe otherwise proves how much toxic propaganda you've been fed by your media yet you don't notice any of it.
p/s: Winnie the Pooh toy is widely sold in China. In case you were wondering.
@@edukid1984 - the right to criticize and even ridicule leaders seems an important part of a government that represents its people. The is plenty of information some leaders in my government people would rather people did not see but they have no ability to censor it. I understand rigid authority is part of many peoples' idea of a healthy society but that just means they have a longer way to go to achieve a socialist society. We should not use them as examples of such societies.
@RPTOR EMPPAnd you seem like someone who can't read past 3 sentences.
Every large economy in the world today is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. The percentage of the mix varies but that mixture is the dominant model.
People should know that even big companies like Huawei are essentially run as worker co-ops. China certainly isn't perfect, but they are doing a far better job than western countries are. China most importantly is moving in the right direction.
Huawei is not a co-op. Workers can have some stocks which do not have voting weight in the board as a monetary stimulus, but they do not have any say on how the company is run.
@@auferstandenausruinen Do you even bother researching before you make comments? "Workers can have some stocks" Workers "can" have stocks of any company in the world, I think you are missing the point that Huawei is largely worker owned and all workers own a stake in the company. Also the workers do in-fact get a say about company business. That is just demonstrably wrong to say they have no say on how the company is run. Likewise all employees are unionized and have strong bargaining power as well. Is it perfect? Obviously no. Can you criticize Huawei? You bet! Is it also significantly better than 99% of all American businesses. *Absolutely yes.*
if you don't know what ESOP is. you can only get shares if you are an active employee. when you leave the company, what ever your share is with the company they will pay the money to you, that way only current employees own shares. shares are typically payed out on the bases of what your salary is and how long you been with the company. The shares payed out to employees are free each year. It also functions as a secondary retirement account where when you retire you get money based on the shares you owned. If you had been working at the company for over a decade, it can work out to substantial amounts of money.
@@mikejohnson555 That's where the problem lies. Huawei operates exactly like any other capitalist corporations. The union only has the bargaining power on paper, because the rules and the decisions of the company are made in another shell company completely controlled by the founder Ren Zhenfei himself and the top executives, who happen to be the chairs of the union. ESOP only works as a stimulus and in a way, a bribery to trap them in the company. If the average employees have any say on how the company is run, why would they have 72hr+ work weeks (which is already against the labor law) for a mere 30%~50% bonus in wages and dividends compared with industry average in China?
@@auferstandenausruinen What is even your angle here, you clearly didn't know much about this topic in the first place. claiming workers can have "some stock" and that is it. As I stated before criticize the company all you want.
Yet they still are demonstrably better than 99% of Western corporations while proving predominate employee ownership of the company. You even manage to complain they only get paid 30-50% more than the industry standard. The horror. Really what is your purpose here, what do you intend to accomplish? I'm sure your bleeding heart just really cares so much that a rapidly growing Chinese company that demonstrably treats their workers better than many western companies is the focus of your ire?
Democracy in the workplace has the same problem as democracy in general. The average worker doesn’t have the knowledge, expertise, and time required to make the best decisions about running a company. That’s just the reality.
As far as economic growth and development of a modern economy, the Chinese government bet is on surpassing the metrics of the western countries, specifically the US. With their 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' they are putting capitalism and human history on a path totally different than the present one dominated by banks and corporate entities and their puppet governments. One can argue about their lack of a western style democratic society but we are talking about a state form of capitalism herein which their goal is to elevate their population's income. Maybe Prof Wolff could explain that process ...
Capitalism is not the antithesis of socialism. Capitalism is about the the ownership of the means of production by the investors of capital and and communism is about the ownership of the means of production by the workers. The real antithesis of socialism is elitism. Elitism is Captain Kirk's position that "The needs of the few could sometime outweigh the many". Socialism Spock (the alien) position that "The needs of the many should outweigth the needs of the few". Elitism is Captain Kirk's position that "The needs of the few could sometime outweigh the many". Marx has called the western ruling elites the Lackeys of Capitalism because the real eliite few were the big capital investors. So the debate in his time was should the ruling institutions give precedence to the needs of the general population over the needs of big capital with strong regulations or should they give precedence to the capitalists needs over the workets needs. Ronald Reagan in his great wisdom said that debate was moot because everyone knows that giving precedence to the needs of Big Capital it will "trickle down" with time into fullfiling the needs of the population.
The CPC "Socialism with chinese characteristics" proved that there was a more efficient set of economic policies that would balance the needs of the few capital investors with the needs of the many population. They have seen a continuous growth of their real purchasing power in the last 3 decades while, with their ultraliberalism, the western economies have seen the wealthiest few having a sharp growth of their wealth and the ordinary many have seen less and less growth of their real purchasing power.
For your info theie is an economic sector where Big Capital can invest to make sure of a contnuous growth of their wealth:
quinary sector (plural quinary sectors) 'When Big Money talks, Bullshit runs, swims and flies.'
(economics) The branch of a country's economy where high-level decisions are made by top-level executives in industry, government, education, media, NGOs, think tanks, etc.
Review all the changes that have been made since the 1970's in those institutions to favor large private investments.
Any system fails when corruption & greed is allowed to run completely amok. The devil is in the details, with regards to safeguards, structure, rules & enforcement when dealing with any economic system.
Greed Wins all the Time
Very coherent and agreeable. Thanks
Imagine what you will get, Kleptocracy
In what in exactly? He could not even agree on definition of socialism with himself.
@@pfacka Dont think about it that much they are angry idiots. If you think a McDonald's employee is able to.decide what mcdonalds should do with the proits then why do these ceos earn College degrees? 🤣
It's capitalism. It doesn't matter if it some mixture of state, corporate or private capital. It's capitalism. Wage labour and capital. END OF STORY.
Red washed capitalism is still capitalism just the same as green or blue washed capitalism. That's it folks.
Finally, somebody with common sense. I don't know how people manage to justify Capitalism, even if it's under a red banner!
@@AlOlexy What do you mean? They have the means. The means of production are factories and other tools of producing things, you know that right? Then they can seize the means of production and have the workers control it. If they were in a feudal society, perhaps not. But they aren't feudalist. "in what other way could they survive in a rabid capitalist world" How did the Bolsheviks survive? Defend the revolution. That doesn't mean you have to go full fledge capitalism. Rabid capitalist world? Make it a socialist one, spread the revolution. That is a defeatist attitude to just give up at the first sight of an obstacle, make compromises, take shortcuts.
Silence angloid
China & Singapore keep changing strategies.
They don hold on a same strategy like a religious person. Things change.
Quick note at 0:30, they did say that they are Communist, or more like were pursuing Communism. We still refer to the people who sympathise with USSR as communists, always did. But I know that point is the explicit demonization of the Socialism by West, just thought that it's worth noting.
Source: I'm from post-soviet country and my elders grew up in the Union.
The difference really is distribution of wealth/resources, no matter what you call the rulers are.
incredible such brilliant explanation comes from US
Let's remember that the greatest minds are always in the eye of the storm and greatest events of history. Marx was at the heart of the industrial revolution, socrates, Aristotle and the rest at the center of the first "democratic" experiment, Einstein in the great revolutionary universities of science. We at the greatest capitalist nation in the planet.
We tend to try to see the world in black & white. Democracy? Capitalist? Socialist? Communist? The truth is, all countries are somewhat darker or lighter shades of gray. America is a multi-party democratic-republic, with a capitalist economic system, which is a combination of free-market and limited socialism. It's an "Everybody for themselves" marketplace, mixed with social security, unemployment coverage, food stamps, plus medical and housing assistance, among other things, to the neediest among us.
China is a single-party, socialist government, which benefits from a state-run, strongly capitalist economy, and which also has a fair-sized slave-labor force.
Among all of these things, the most important differences are multi-party -v- single-party governments; more than democratic -v- socialist -v- communist. When it comes to power, all governments are either "Top-Down" (dictators, emperors, kings, etc.) or "Bottom-Up" (democracies, republics, parliamentarian)
Theoretically, China and/or the old USSR, could have multiple socialist or communist parties, i.e. "The Red Party", "The People's Party", "The Workers United Party", etc., in which case even in a socialist or communist environment, the people could exercise more power for themselves. They don't, so Xi, like Stalin, is essentially, a dictator.
And in theory, America could have turned out to be a dictator-led, free-market, capitalistic society as well. Or we could have done the same thing with a Monarchy.
How many shades of gray can we slice the world into?
During Stalin's time, workers were the masters of the country. During Mao Zedong's time, my elders were also the masters of the country. It is a supreme honor and full of hope for the future. During the period of socialism with Chinese characteristics, our university graduates became slaves of the capitalists and their cattle and horses after graduation.
It doesn't matter what political system you have in country. What important factor is that the people of the country are prosperous and happy.
However I think socialism is the best system to overcome poverty and many other social problems in society....
Venezuelans and every other people stuck in socialist countries would disagree. And I know, because I live in one! Poverty still exists and it's getting worse, because only a select few (those who are from rich families and the ones linked to the government) are better off. Everyone else is just losing purchasing power. At least with capitalism people can work to get out of poverty; with socialism the more you work, the more you are taxed (exponentially), easily reaching 50% and more, so others can stay at home doing nothing. This results in the country going downhill, because no one has any incentive to work more and be productive. Mediocrity instates.
@apps9052 That's probably a lie, and you know it. Venezuela isn't socialist. Also, the country is poor because the U.S. has it under embargo and is alwyays interfering with socialist countries such as Cuba, Vietnam and even North korea, but it can't with China because its too powerful. You can't say it works if you constantly sabotage it.
XDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
China is truly a democratic nation - discipline, hardwork, security, non corruption, non hagemony and government for the people.
NONSENSE.
You'll have to better explain that.
Its not a free country tough ... How can you exclude that ?
Free from corruption, crimes and religious extremism.
@@aaronbaldwin2380 So you really do believe that personnal freedom is not important ? Freedom of speech, privacy, political freedom and so on..?
this person explained it very well.
Yes! Thank you Professor Wolff.
Imagine what you will get, Kleptocracy
The fact that this man has a phd makes me lose any faith left I had in academia
Excellent Profr. You just nailed the fundamental question and proper way to aboard the issue. It is not a matter of right or wrong. To be honest the proper objective rational way is what way to organize production.?? Here lays the objectivity of the problem. Not wrong or right simply the proper way to organize the production activity of society. As simple as that. Why start the issue as a conflict.??? Only those that fear loosing a privilege start the discussion that way.
it is a right or wrong matter tho. similar as 2+2=4 should be correct(righ as synonym) answer opposed of 2+2=preferencesonly capitalism pabloescobars etc should be corrupt (wrong as synonym) answer.
similarly ,, there's a correct and or should be a right way to be a astronaut on a space station (which requires correct educations), and there's a shitload of corrupt ways to be astronauts on a space station even destroying that space station (and not only killing and violating-rapping eachother on that space station). it's similar on earth. or even as more bigger picture, calculating timelines should be different between right or wrong. there wouldn't be ways around it bc it's a base principle(correct or corrupt right and wrong ).
@@d6wave There is a historic context for every concept to be understood from an ethical point of view. What was wrong in the past may become right today. Common sense in the middle ages became obsolete after the Renaissance giving way to a new common sense. The " American way" was and is common sense for a majority of us citizens but is changing. What was unacceptable before Trump suddenly is legitimized by the GOP. And many behaviours are being normalized by the political right. The same way in feudalism it was transformative the new entrepreneurial shops of the artisans turning factories in time. The serf became a free worker and a new social contract became the prevailing socioeconomic way of organizing production. Serfdom was then obsolete and the many revolutions of the XVIII and XIX centuries ended that old social contract giving way to Capitalism. Today capitalism is obsolete and socialism is the new alternative to organize production. It is the right way and capitalism is becoming the wrong way.
read my comment again, until it's clear that right or wrong would be universal(or every universe timeline) OBJECTIVE, and NOT subjective and group subjectivity insanity and a group consensus insanity of common sense false "objectivity" ..dude. history would be nonrelevant in this equation too. different objectivity than consensus.
@@d6wave ok. Bottom line. Capitalism is a failure. It doesn't work because it is wrong. Morally, politically, economically , etc. It is a bankrupt system for society. That is it.
I lived in China for a period of 10 years the best way to define China is an authoritarian capitalism system, and its the best capitalism system I have seen so far .
Chinese Socialism: Comment from Pakistan
Socialism with Chinese characteristics is used as a word of political science. More importantly the Chinese call the economy as a Socialist market economy. The capitalists are allowed to perform the best but under the watchful eye of the people whose interests are represented by the CPC.
Among the present myriads of goals the most important is continuously raising the purchasing power of all the people so that they can enjoy the best of the products produced inside or imported from outside. That is why they have massive import exhibitions.
This is opposite to keeping the purchasing power of the people to a trickle down using trickle down economics say in the U.S.A. And correspondingly the people need not be burdened with import exhibitions.
Such exhibitions can only be an exception in the U.S.A, but in China they are the rule.
The second goal is to raise the cultural life through continuously increasing the cultural opportunities for the people that are easly affordable for all the people. This compliments the raising of the purchasing power.
In the U.S.A the compliment of the trickle down of purchasing power is the trickle of affordable opportunities for the cultural life of the people. Rather it is the opposite i.e. the sapping of the cultural life of the people.
Hence only two examples may be enough to show the qualitative difference between the Socialist market economy and the Capitalist market economy of the U.S.A.
The people of the U.S.A could easily achieve all this only if they declare "Peoplé's Republic of the U.S.A", and throw this "trickle down" term of black magic into the past where it belongs, and not the future of the people of the U.S.A.
It is only then that the respected Professor Wolff's ideas of democracy in the work place can be realized, not before.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Dear John I have not mentioned any comparisons of purchasing power, only the difference of continuous rise in real wages in one and continuous focus on the trickle of purchasing power as an essential qualitative difference between the aims of the two economies. and similarly the complementing qualitative difference of affordable cultural facilities according to the two forms. Yet your question needs to be answered. Let me give just one meaningful stat for comparison. In China the average household saving is 34 to 35 percent. i.e. a chinese can save that much from his monthly salary. China is the highest saving nation in the world. Can a U.S.A working person save as much from the his/her working salary. One cannot say it is because they are not buying or that they do not like the things being sold, since the whole world is flooded with their products. Another example the chinese working people will by early estimates make 4.1 billion domestic tourism trips in 2021(in 2019 they made more than 5 billion domestic tourism trips). If so many trips are being made, it shows the availablity of very affordable and lots of cultural life. And also proves that the Chinese are not averse to buying since they are buying a lot of tourism trips. And tourism trips are enjoyed when one is able to have good food and drink. Good food and drink does not imply expensive food and drink, that will depend on the individual's income.
Thus they are travelling so much yet are also able to save the largest in the world. Hence there must be many and very affordable factors affecting their lives and such factors must be distorted or hidden by the fake elite media in the U.S.A and its minion elite owned countries. This the elite media must hide from their real enemies the people of the U.S.A etc. Rather they fill the peoples minds with floods of fake food for thought, that compliments the trickle down of the food for the stomach, as the primary aim.
@@JohnSmith-mc2zz Lie down? The Chinese will tell you that they fly with swords when they go out. You should look at their children. They are optimistic about the future and never give up. They suffer failure and then smile and stand up again. All the Chinese children I know are like this. I only see depression in our children, giving up.
I see China's current organizational system (socialism with Chinese characteristics) as a way to remain competitive against (or with) and relevant in the current global economic system. They're probably waiting for capitalism to fail before they ultimately convert to a fully socialist economy.
I define socialism, which takes place in the transitionary phase between state and communist society, by whom it serves. If it serves the many jt is socialistic, if it serves the few it remains a bourgeoise capitalist society. China serves the poor, the peasent, the rural, the urban, the workers, the minority popularions etc. they are the strongest socialist economy but as a people they had to bring in market reforms to allow growth snd development in this global neoliberal world order.
I miss Mr. Wolff expressing is moral stance on China's system.
The competitive nature of schools and workplaces in China and the constant pressure to become rich and successful is inherently capitalistic.
Ii really like you prof you approach things not in a negative or anything bad, just different, a different light if you will. Thanks prof
this guy know chinese system so much and more accurate
And he would be the first one to be arrested if he were Chinese. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 he didn't criticise anyone so no negative social credit for him :)
@@MrWill1729 And there is the 50 cents army. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 And there is the CIA op :)
@@MrWill1729 And there is the boring kid who needs a lot of attention. ;-)
The State sector in China is large if we talk about property and control of some industries, heavy and strategic industries. Nonetheless the State sector in China is not large if we talk about Welfare State. Welfare State is much larger in Western European countries.
The definition of socialism: “When working people together as a class rule over the government and own the means of production (usually through state ownership).” This definition satisfies, both a generic definition of socialism (common ownership of the MOP) and the Marxist definition of socialism (dictatorship of the proletariat). However, if there is no governance according to socialist principles and goals then its not really socialism.
Dr. Wolff’s definition of socialism: “When working people independently rule over each separate business (usually through worker cooperatives).” This definition does not satisfy either the generic definition of socialism nor the Marxist definition of socialism. This definition is unique and should be called Wolffism rather than socialism.
Should be
@WTFViewer marxists.architexturez.net/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm
"Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91]
Marx expresses here all essential elements of socialism. First, man produces in an associated, not competitive way; he produces rationally and in an unalienated way, which means that he brings production under his control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power. This clearly excludes a concept of socialism in which man is manipulated by a bureaucracy, even if this bureaucracy rules the whole state economy, rather than only a big corporation. It means that the individual participates actively in the planning and in the execution of the plans; it means, in short, the realization of political and industrial democracy. Marx expected that by this new form of an unalienated society man would become independent, stand on his own feet, and would no longer be crippled by the alienated mode of production and consumption; that he would truly be the master and the creator of his life, and hence that he could begin to make living his main business, rather than producing the means for living. Socialism, for Marx, was never as such the fulfillment of life, but the condition for such fulfillment. When man has built a rational, nonalienated form of society, he will have the chance to begin with what is the aim of life: the "development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom." Marx, the man who every year read all the works of Aeschylus and Shakespeare, who brought to life in himself the greatest works of human thought, would never have dreamt that his idea of socialism could be interpreted as having as its aim the well-fed and well-clad "welfare" or "workers' " state. Man, in Marx's view, has created in the course of history a culture which he will be free to make his own when he is freed from the chains, not only of economic poverty, but of the spiritual poverty created by alienation. Marx's vision is based on his faith in man, in the inherent and real potentialities of the essence of man which have developed in history. He looked at socialism as the condition of human freedom and creativity, not as in itself constituting the goal of man's life.
For Marx, socialism (or communism) is not flight or abstraction from, or loss of the objective world which men have created by the objectification of their faculties. It is not an impoverished return to unnatural, primitive simplicity. It is rather the first real emergence, the genuine actualization of man's nature as something real. Socialism, for Marx, is a society which permits the actualization of man's essence, by overcoming his alienation. It is nothing less than creating the conditions for the truly free, rational, active and independent man; it is the fulfillment of the prophetic aim: the destruction of the idols.
That Marx could be regarded as an enemy of freedom was made possible only by the fantastic fraud of Stalin in presuming to talk in the name of Marx, combined with the fantastic ignorance about Marx that exists in the Western world. For Marx, the aim of socialism was freedom, but freedom in a much more radical sense than the existing democracy conceives of it-freedom in the sense of independence, which is based on man's standing on his own feet, using his own powers and relating himself to the world productively. "Freedom," said Marx, "is so much the essence of man that even its opponents realize it.... No man fights freedom; he fights at most the freedom of others. Every kind of freedom has therefore always existed, only at one time as a special privilege, another time as a universal right." [92]
Socialism, for Marx, is a society which serves the needs of man. But, many will ask, is not that exactly what modern capitalism does? Are not our big corporations most eager to serve the needs of man? And are the big advertising companies not reconnaissance parties which, by means of great efforts, from surveys to "motivation analysis," try to find out what the needs of man are? Indeed, one can understand the concept of socialism only if one understands Marx's distinction between the true needs of man, and the synthetic, artificially produced needs of man."
You can read the whole article.
For me it is obvious that what is happening in China has nothing with socialism. Yes it improved the standard of living for the majority of its population spreading senseless consumerism ( yes, I visited China).
@WTFViewer First my comment was very short, at the bottom. What is written above is the extract from Erich Fromm Marx's Concept of Man
marxists.architexturez.net/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/index.htm
Your last sentence does not have any meaning and shows that you do not have any understanding of Marx or Communism.
As You said that China or USSR is not Marxist, what does that means. Marxist could be one man because that says that Marxism is his view of the world or his ideology and there is plenty of marxism.
That is why From is talking about Marx's views, not about marxism. China's government is communist. What is that? Thet China is governed by a party that called itself a communist party.
Or you think that China or USSR is some kind of communist sociaty. Obviously, in that case, you do not know what is communism and you just listen to capitalist propaganda which wants to difine China or USSR as a communist country to develop a fear of communism and avoid any real discussion about communism.
It will be useful for you to read that article from From about Marx. That will save you some time because to really read Marx you have to read a lot, not just one book.
"It is one of the peculiar ironies of history that there are no limits to the misunderstanding and distortion of theories, even in an age when there is unlimited access to the sources; there is no more drastic example of this phenomenon than what has happened to the theory of Karl Marx in the last few decades. There is continuous reference to Marx and to Marxism in the press, in the speeches of politicians, in books and articles written by respectable social scientists and philosophers; yet with few exceptions, it seems that the politicians and newspapermen have never as much as glanced at a line written by Marx, and that the social scientists are satisfied with a minimal knowledge of Marx. Apparently they feel safe in acting as experts in this field, since nobody with power and status in the social-research empire challenges their ignorant statements.[1]"
If the workers don't control the means of production, then I don't call it socialism. If there are billionaires and overworked labourers I won't call it socialism.
China is a combination of all the three. That is why it is advancing by leaps and bounds.
@WSINH You can't support what you're saying, you just equate "capitalist" with "succeeding."
What a lesson to SL. #politicalcrisisSL #economiccrisisSL #srilanka
Sri Lanka debt share
West 52%
India 42%
China 2%
SL ki buri haalat ke liye wo khud zimmedaar gai along with the west.
It seems far more hes trying to avoid being absolutely direct, something I have found him doing with the USSR; they are practicing state capitalism regardless of the direction they claim. USSR is gone CCP is not, go figure. Just by reading Marx it's quite clear what this society is. Sure there is progress just like the west talks endlessly about. *But what of the people* ??
Most of them are quite happy with the CPC, and from reading Marx, plenty have concluded that they are, as they say, in the early stages of socialism, itself the lower stage of Communism. What is actually self evident is that most people who use the term state capitalism rarely understand Marx as well as they think.
@@CripplingDuality ahh well if most of them are happy then you *must* be correct!
@@CripplingDuality I could probably find a million Chinese from the ccp that say what you say. Strange how I can also find the opposite. But what do we accept in Marxism? Fallacies do not support the reality of what is being examined. Aka ancedontal evidence is not significant to any argument unless you can show that evidence is clearly demonstrable. So you, someone I dont know or have no idea of your affiliation, saying this and that about people means nothing to the argument at hand. I can find a million socialist that claim its state capital while I can find another that say different. The conclusion is argued from the material not opinion or emotion, yet you are so quick to show such by attempting to insult because I have a opposite position. Lol wow, and people wonder why the left is fragmented.
State capitalism is in fact the condition the ccp state is practicing. Is it the facsimile of state capitalism? Based on your fallacious reply you do you support absolutes too? Nordic capitalism is not US capitalism. The topic is a very simplified examination on the complexities of different state operations, Wolf makes that clear. So I'm not gonna sit here and write an eassy on the caveats because any person that knows a lick of logic knows there is more beyond what is said on a TH-cam comment. Especially if you claim Marxism. You being so quick to be the gate keeper of Marxism is quite sad especially when you depend on fallacies to make a point. Aka being state capitalist does not disassociate them from their movement of socialism. Like Wolf said, what will come from it, we will find out. I'm presuming your the one that's quick to attack others when a similar argument of development is employed in USSR?
Yea man just disregard my response and insert some sort of lazy insult to be right like you lolol. I guess I'll give up Marxism as well now thanks.
@@Nites2k "State capitalism" is just another word for socialism, even Lenin said as much. The reason why China is socialist and Scandinavian social democracies aren't despite both having regulated market economies and a mix of public and private ownership in the economy, is first and foremost because China is ruled by a dictatorship of the proletariat, the CPC is the vanguard party of the Chinese working class and always puts the interests of that working class first. Capitalists are kept on a tight leash in China and must be subordinate and subservient to the workers' state. This qualitative difference results in a number of essential quantitative distinctions such as a high degree of state control over even private enterprises through party supervision, a high degree of planning in the overall economic direction and the subordination of profit to national interests, and a much stronger state sector than there is in social democracies, and this sector receives significantly more resources and funding than the private sector. In short, unlike in social democracies where the capitalist class is still fundamentally in charge and the economy is purely a market one albeit regulated, in China it is the communist party that is in the commanding heights of the economy while the market and private enterprise are merely used as tools in a carefully controlled fashion.
@@transsylvanian9100 There is a lot to agree with here especially the first few lines you mentioned and the role of a command economy. State capitalism is no facsimile however the style of that capitalism is dictated by that region. So both ccp and USSR practiced this for development. Hence why I said it does not disassociate with socialism. I do not agree that the the state is looking out for the people largely because of the massive discounts in the immediate progress to the individual. I do not disagree there has been a increase in a "middle class" but it's not focused to be widespread. Like western capitalism there are lopsided results however those results rival the west. We agree on that. There is no need to explain the difference between command and market.
My point and focus remains on the masses that have been discounted in this movement to socialism. There is no nessesscity to maintain billionaires nor is there logic to the millions that are discounted.
People hear negatives of china and are quick to bury them when in reality that takes away from the whole idea of dialectical reasoning. I say this to emphasize that people still need to recognize that many have been lost in this revolution. You say the party is the vanguard of what tho? Is it mechanistic progress or human progress? This is something that can be debated but I am on the side that it is far more mechanistic than human. Like Wolf discusses and to the distaste of many MLs and MLMs, dogmatic dedication to routes is not the only way. In fact its extremely plausible and desirable by a large majority of the masses for another. Ofc I am referring more to left communist modes within the state like democratizing workplace more ubiquitously. What lenin refers to as infantile. But even then we dont need to stick to either pure mechanistic or human it does not need to be a dichotomy. So once again I agree on the wild progress but I disagree on the disproportional focus on the individual.
Thanks for writing the caveat
Then China has democratized their own agriculture industry. The farmer will choose and ask from the government what they should produce and what they can produce. They even vote under the supervision of CPC members, example land usage. That why farmer is the most loyal class toward CPC.
Prof Wolf should interview ERIC LI.
WE could learn more about whats China system.
Let me help you, as someone whoz been there; its all 3 @ the same time. There, just saved you time.
It's a State Capitalism.
At the end of the day all that matters to everyone is how rich the country is what the quality of life is you get. Don’t matter if you get to vote but homeless.
China is good!
I would say that China is "not bad".
China is state capitalist, end of story. If workers have little to no say in the day-to-day operations of the workplace, if there's massive wealth inequality, and if the employer-employee relationship is still there, then that's not socialism. Like Professor Wolff said, the size and influence of the government don't tell you whether a country is capitalist or socialist. If it did, then the United States would be considered "socialist," which is just silly.
I agree, but the Prof should have said that China is an authoritarian, state capitalism with socialist characteristics.
You're wrong. You know nothing about China's economics. I moved from California to China 24 years ago. Workers compensation rose from 50 dollars a month to now 1100. Home prices rose from 50,000 USD to one million in 20 years for a 1000 sq feet apartment. The workers now take annual overseas vacations, 159 million outbound Chinese tourists in 2019. Their sons and daughter are attending Ivy League colleges. Every Ivy League college and majority of top universities around the world has Chinese student as its biggest foreign student population. In fact China has surpassed the US in PPP in 2017 meaning the average person has more purchasing power in daily necessities. And China also has surpassed the US in the number of billionaires. People in major cities are buying more Porsche than Americans, a lot of Mercedes and BMWs.
China hence has a mixed economy like all western countries.
You just mentioned how cooperatives do their businesses.. They have been around for a couple of centuries.
China has worked on economic reform as number 1 not political like the fallen Soviet system cupish!!
Doctor Wolff, there are millions of cooperated workers in China. Also, isnt the means of production in the hands of private initiative a valid way to describe capitalism?
I think it's time to separate the two definitions of Socialism and label the democratization of the workplace as Cooperativism since state ownership/private ownership and worker ownership have such different ramifications. Cooperativism should be seen as a critique of Socialism and Capitalism (and Communism). State-owned resources and worker co-op owned industry, all run Democratically seems like a fair and distinct system to me, and should be distinguished from efforts of the past tainted with Bureaucracy, Privatization, or Dictatorship.
A socialist country is a country without private propriety over means of production, no exploitation of people's work. Not to be confused with personal propriety.
China is capitalist, not socialist.
You can twist your definitions of socialism as much as you want, but it won't change reality.
How is it capitalist? The majority of the economy is owned by the workers' party. Every private corporation needs to have communist party representation in the board of directors.
@@Mark-zk3gu this only works if you believe the CPC is a workers' party, which it's very clearly not.
The CPC claims to be a workers party and it originally was but it's very obvious that they don't function in the best interest of the worker. Breaking up worker strikes and unions, locking up anti-reform communists, allowing working conditions worse than what we see in the US, no universal healthcare system, no housing or jobs guarantee, allowing companies to force their employees to work 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week. A communist party shouldn't allow the existence of billionaires in their country, let alone allow them into the party.
They've totally abandoned socialism for the sake of economic development and the country itself has become a success but the workers in China have taken incredible losses. China is literally no different from South Korea or Japan. Chinese people themselves will tell you that the CPC isn't actually moving toward socialism and that most people in China no longer care about socialism.
The CPC is a nationalist party. All of those decades of war just to build the country that China would've been if Chiang Kai-shek stayed in power.
@@TIENxSHINHAN The CPC has lifted nearly 100 million people out of poverty through a plan, and it is difficult to believe that capitalist governments, such as India, a similar country, would do such a thing. I believe this is a transitional stage of socialism, because in the face of globalization, China has no ability to resist the highly advanced productivity of Western countries, and they must open up free markets to enhance their strength
@@FrankWrigley-c5hNo india isn't capitalistic. We are still in bottoms of economic freedom. Just because we have democratic government we don't be capitalist. China liberalised economy in 1978 more than we did in 1991 . We still have bunch of price controls and regulations
@@FrankWrigley-c5hwhy they lifted millions out of poverty only after Deng xioping, and why famines never happened after Mao
Communist Politic , Capitalist economic there end explained
Worker ownership is 100% compatible with capitalism, and many capitalist companies are either totally or partially worker owned. I don't know why Richard seems oblivious to this fact, and assumes that worker ownership is automatically socialist.
He does have a strange fixation with worker coops for some reason
Yeah Richard Wolff can have some pretty lib takes sometimes.
Colonel Douglas Mcgregor said China is not actually communist, but a fascist country. It makes sense. How it can be communist or socialist with so much inequality?
While I am a large proponent along with Wolff of leading socialism by addressing the fundamental contradiction of capitalism, the organization of the workplace/labor; it's important to note that China has some of the most cooperatives in the world and I believe Xi Jinping is looking to increase those numbers. It certainly seems they are playing the long game.
Allowing capitalist enterprises to coexist within the domination of a socialist government accomplishes many things. Some of the fiercest enemies of Cuba and the USSR were exiles but by allowing capitalists to grow rich, albeit in a constrained manner means that China is not constantly hounded by exiles. It allows them access to foreign markets and technology, and there are likely even certain sectors of the economy that operate more efficiently when they are capitalist in nature. Playing the long game is exactly what they are doing. Had they not opened up to the outside world they might not have the technological and industrial base required to repel outside military aggression, or the economic clout to attract non ideologically aligned countries to their camp. The fact that all of the western European nations are hedging their bets in the US-China conflict rather than throwing their full weight behind Washington for a Cold War 2.0 is a stunning coup that the USSR could only dream of. Priority number 1 of any socialist or communist movement needs to be the ending of US unipolar hegemony and the Chinese are biding their time and hiding their strength until such a day that they can pull the rug out from underneath the yankees.
The Communist Party of China is also pretty thoroughly proletarian. While workers may not be able to vote in the workplace (yet), the party which rules the country and decides where many profits go is itself made of workers.
@@Joey_Buttafoucault daily.jstor.org/communist-party-of-china/
@@Joey_Buttafoucault Lol a dictator is no longer a member of the proletariat.
How many people know how to design a smartphone?
Thought provoking and if the big wigs brings this to the table to formulate collective definition this world might have a chance.
Socialism is the power ( dictatorship) of people who control the critical centers of social, environmental and economic development and direct the development for better life of all
The dictatorship of the proletariat is governance run by the, working majority for the benefit of the working majority.
It makes enemies with
Fascists
Imperialists
Colonialists
Conservatives
Capitalists
Libertarians
Religious groups who want to gain power to represent people of their own faith.
The big wigs will always choose capitalism, because they're the only ones that matter. It's up to the people to make that decision, and to take the power from the hands of the oligarchs by force - because they won't let go of it peacefully.
@@guennadifedorov2239 I think communism/socialism is quite often defined as being highly democratic rather than a dictatorship.
If it IS dictatorship, that is only in the Hobbes/Bagehot sense of sovereignty, 'efficient parts' of the constitution, etc.
You have a united 'force' that governs basically until its term of office runs out, as with any elected government or 'elective dictatorship' within any modern democracy. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_dictatorship
You get that with any form of government, in other words.
@RPTOR EMPP
Here are the groups who have tried overthrow socialist run countries.
Fascists
Imperialists
Colonialists
Conservatives
Capitalists
Libertarians
Religious groups who want to gain power to represent people of their own faith.
The only group who succeeded were the CRAPitalists. With the help of CIA and FBI (cold war tactics, see CIAs own website for these). By taking control of the global media, even supporting extremist and dangerous groups.
Most wars, certainly not all, have been to overthrow socialist countries. So, you should be feeling very happy.
The concept of democratizing workplace has been around since 1960 the latest in China, as can be seen in Mao's propositions on "鞍钢宪法".
What happened on Mao's rise to power and how many died. At least 60 million?
@@paintedwolf2 why don't you find out the number before commenting?
@@xiaopengzong6980 it is estimated at least 60 million. No one knows the exact number.
Once in power power will not be given up. People will comply or die. Simple. So they are useful idiots or dead.
Source? How did they count it? Did they include everyone who died voluntarily fighting imperialism, feudalism, and state capitalism that were oppressing the vast majority of Chinese people to the verge of despair and death? Maybe they were the useful idiots or tools for western imperialism.
Any idea of china being some socialist beacon is a joke - the first thing you would think a modern socialist country should have is a focus on democracy and workers right, and yet that is the exact opposite of what they have. The US is in many ways much more socialist, much more pro worker, has greater and more expansive public programs, and by all means is much closer to socialism than china is. People dont have a very good understanding of what communism and socialism are, they really only have the historical nations and figures to observe. At its core communism is about ending social exploitation through abolishing classes and the domination of capital, you cant really say china looks anything like this. They are really just your good old classic authoritarian system, benevolent perhaps but ultimately the leaders are fixated on maintaining power, and unfortunately there are not the usual checks and balances of the democratic system (as weak as they often are), so its basically worse than the US in almost all ways.
yep 和我想的一样🎉
Capitalism issues money through loans, which results in debt, discrimination, and competition. Socialism issues money through social programs, which results in balance, equality, and cooperation.
China in its initial period of socialism, under Mao, issued money on the basis of material resources. Their currency, renminbi, was tied to grain and other basic necessities, similar to the system used by the USSR.
@@josephbierlein4151 Issuing money on the basis of material resource sounds like collateral required for a loan, more capitalist, than socialist.
@@NumeroSystem It was a step in the process of definancialization. Previously, currency was tied to the value of silver. Then, when the CPC shut down the centers of speculation (private banks), the remnants of the banks began speculating on grain and the like. This caused the currency to spike as grain value chains were not controlled by the CPC at this point. Through hoarding and market manipulation the currency massively inflated and speculators left with a profit.
The CPC then put an end to this speculation. They forced speculators to sell by manipulating the market themselves, by flooding centers of speculation with cotton and grain. Ultimately, they put an end to speculation entirely, and thus, put an end to financialization of cotton and grain.
Afterwards, they weren't giving out loans. The currency was merely a representation of the material necessities for the basics of life. The currency was issued on a work-basis. No longer could financiers earn currency merely by speculating on it. They had to work to live.
a union yes as a USW member we all claim one for all, opposite of all for one, it was my union brothers backs that ached making the profit
Its Socialist with market economy, works wonders :)
A failed experiment so far, let's try one more time shall we?
@@barabimbaraboom7830
Wait wait, do you think China is a failed experiment?
HAHAHA, Bwahaha.. that is priceless
@@obione69 Americans are NOT Chinese, see the culture problem? Oh, you want to abolish the constitution , I see, go on...
@@barabimbaraboom7830
Wtf are you talking about block head, who said anything about abolishing the constitution.
@@barabimbaraboom7830 let's put in
Socialist, democratic and republican into one system
China is actually different from neither capitalism nor socialism. Powerful state-owned corporations and huge market are in coexistence.
Socialism, as proposed by Marx and Engels, is not a democratized workplace, but when all means of production belong to the state. Period. Read the communist manifesto.
Congrats, you botched the very definition of it, never talk about Socialism when you don’t know what it means
@jcxkzhgco3050 Here's a quote from the communist manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
...
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Good one!
Doesn't that make capitalists, authoritarianism..
"china calls itself socialist. therefore, china was always socialist."
this guy walks into this stuff over and over again...
china is the most hyper-capitalist state that has ever existed.
@@jessicasfakeaccount wrong, but u can call State Capitalism.
Everything in China belong to State, including land. So nobody can own land in China.
@@yogawan3805 i don't know what land ownership has to do with capitalism.
@@yogawan3805 capitalism is the system where surplus value is extracted from workers by a managerial class. it has nothing to do with land ownership. at all.
@@yogawan3805 if a system with total state land ownership extracts surplus value from it's workers, it's absolutely a capitalist system. if a system with completely private land ownership puts the surplus value in common, it is not a capitalist system.
Richard Wolff id like to have a debate with you on the definitions of capitalism socialism and communism and maybe some other things please
Will you?
""Chinese characteristics" can also mean ,- something the West should familiarize itself with.
The Chinese characteristics could be summed up Deng Xiaoping's words, when he went towards capitalist road: White cat or black cat, a cat that catches mice is a good cat.
Therefore, definition or ideology is useless unless something works. What's the use of calling something democracy when it is actually oligarchy - when the system is for the rich, by the rich (at the expense of the poor).
@@rogerfaint499 There was also an ancient Chinese Sophist (whose name escapes me at the moment) who said, "A white horse is not a horse." My only point was that the basis for Chinese culture is very different from ours, and maybe we need to learn more about it.
People can go ahead and start a democratized work place. If it is government owned it won't be socialist. Under this model the postal service would be no better than anything else.
It is easier to start companies and factories in China than in US and Europe. Therefore China has more economic freedom than we do. That is why China is winning. Which shows economic freedom (capitalism) is more important than political freedom (democracy), when it comes to creating prosperity.
CHina steals intellectual property, manipulates currency values, and murders minorities in China. They have never made a product that is not junk and that is known fro quality EVER!!! I personally will not buy the jun they build because I don't waste my money. Their biggest gift to the world so far is the COVID virus.
@@48Ballen you write rubbish because you have a bird brain. Just my opinion.
@@48Ballen go away settler
Not really, lol. Whether or not it's easier to start a company in China, which I find doubtful as foreigners can't own more than half of 30% of a company and must partner with a Chinese national, is rather irrelevant.
It's about the political goal, and the road towards socialism. There's a reason the Chinese claim is that they are in the early phases of socialism. Marx actually refered to this as the lower phase of communism.
Also, capitalism doesn't mean economic freedom, lol. The Nazi party supported capitalism, and it was anything but "free".
@@andrewgreen5574 Our companies move from our country to China. That means we are socialistic, and China is capitalistic. Because companies move from socialism to capitalism. Because companies move to a place where it is easier to do business than their current location. That is pure logic. So dont be fooled by what people call themselves. China can call itself communist all they want and we can call ourselves capitalist all we want. But in reality we are communist and China is capitalist. That is the purest truth as you will ever find. America is not a capitalist country anymore. The economy is becoming more and more centrally planned from Washington. The government (local and federal) spends 50% of all our income. We are half way to Soviet Union. And what the government doesnt take in taxes, it regulates the hell out of. Not to mention the central planning by the federal reserve, where beauracrats are making huge decisions instead of the market. Interest rate should be set in the free market, but we have beauracrats setting it like the old Soviet Union. So we have so much central planning that we can no longer call overselves free market capitalist.
Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Democracy is a system of governing with direct rule by the people. Socialism does not always have workers and businesses. In describing China's economic system, he described America's economic system. It is a mixture of both.
CΗίΝα = socialism, with ‘ CΗίΝese’ characteristics. Socialism, with ‘ΝατιοΝαlιςτ’ characteristics. Socialist ΝατιοΝαlιςm ….. ΝατιοΝαl socialism.
USA capitalism = state sponsored υςυrγ.
There is only two REAL powers in the world. Oligarchy, …or Monarchy.
@@MaxStArlyn Socialism and capitalism are economic systems. Monarchy and Oligarchy are political systems. Their economies may be socialism or capitalism.
@@ewalker1057 The longest running empire was the Roman Empire led by Constantinople. It had a Monarchy, leading it . What economic system would you say it had?
@@MaxStArlyn I do not know if it was capitalist or socialist or what their economic system was. They are two different things. Economics and politics are not the same thing. They do not have the same meanings. Also you only speak of western cultures and empires. There are older ones.
I'm sorry Mr. Wolff, but I have to strongly object to this idea that these nations are Socialist. And if you truly were a fan of Karl Marx and understood the man, you would understand also that Marx himself would reject you as a socialist as he did to many others during his time. What these countries are is what we call in economics a command/control economy. It should embarrass you that some random person on the internet would need to explain that to you as an economics professor....
Oh and I should also make sure to point out that it doesn't matter what people call themselves. Words mean nothing, only actions mean something. It never matters what a political party calls themselves. Do you think that the "democratic" party in America are truly democratic? If yes then you should retire from teaching anyone anything and find a different hobby.
The sheer arrogance of western leftists is hilarious. The dude has been teaching Marxism longer than many of us have been alive. I'll take his analysis over some teenaged shitlib whose political education comes from streamers, thanks.
@@CripplingDuality My political education comes from everywhere including from Wolff. Your crybaby response because your feelings got hurt doesn't change facts.
Are you one of those people that instead of referring strictly to Isaac Newton's Theory of Gravity, you suggest that we should also go to a crackhouse and hear out the drug addicts version of how things fall to the ground?
The second definition of socialism you provided is the only actual definition of socialism. Strong state =/= socialism
My parents definition of communism is a dictatorship regardless of economic systems used. Similar to how some people use the word fascist to be defined as racist. How is the average person supposed to be able to discuss economics with the way terms are being thrown around these days?
I think whether it is dictatorship has little to do with capitalism, communism or socialism. At the national level, the supreme ruler of the ruling class cannot have the final say alone. He also represents the common will of the entire ruling class. That is to say, if he wants to pass a policy, he needs the consent of the thugs. If the thugs disagree and insist on their own way, it will not be implemented.
@马斯克源神 right but so many people conflate communism and totalitarianism due to years of propaganda. They can't separate communism as an economic philosophy and the other things that the propaganda has associated with it
@@frozenskyhomestead3723The fact is that during the economic crisis at the beginning of the 20th century, the living standards of the Soviet Union under the dictatorship were much higher than those of capitalist countries. Although people were not extravagant, they did not have to worry about their daily livelihood. I come from China. Forty years ago, in China, during the Mao Zedong era, workers were the masters of the country. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, drugs and brothels were eliminated, compulsory education was universalized, and the people's country had a very happy life except for the capitalists and landlords. But now our workers, students, and farmers are all slaves of capitalists and officials. Everything we eliminated in the past has come back inadvertently. The Communist Party of China has come up with something other than the term "communism" in its name.What he did has nothing to do with communism and socialism. Everything now seems to be the original capitalism of the 18th century. The policies are more like those of Nazi Germany. The only difference is that the Jews back then were our workers and farmers, and the ones who exploit us are officials and capitalists.😢😢😢
China, Vietnam, Laos are what you call "Communist party countries preparing the material and social conditions to transfer from a Capitalist system to Socialist system in the near futures".
Now here the question, what do you deal with people inside the party whom cooperates with the Communist party to builds the material condition for progress, but don't want to transform the economy system to one that is ran by the working class democratically?
Richard You are JUST fucking awesome
awesome? Kleptocracy ?
China is on its way to socialism, that's the process of transitioning to socialism from where it was. It's a kind of prefigure to socialist organization of the production where the means of production are not fully owned by those who put them in movement.
Very informative thanks you !