After WW2, Stalin ordered to kill 90 percent of the Nazis and imprison the remaining 10 percent for life and prison labor camps. Know what the US did to the Nazis? Nazis became the heads of organizations like NSA, NATO and CIA.
I consider myself (69 year old third generation Socialist) a student of Wolff for a decade or more. He makes complicated issues easily understood. Thank you.
Now Catilize the Transformation with Words, not Rounds? Not simple? No doubt the Wolff is opening many eyes as he has mine! But the Road ahead is not easy. The current system is a massive failure that has no hope! I can feel it! As I'm sure you can? Very complicate shxt my friend to say the least! After you study 8 plus billion humans on a finite planet looking for a 3 percent growth rate staring down a doubling effect rate of the consumption of Natural Resources every 30 years? We are simply Fuxked without serious changes rapidly! Not likely that's gonna happen! It is about "energy return on investment" aka: Thermodynamics. Thank Fossil Fuels for that one and Inquisitive Mind of the Human Species? Love the Wolff, but the observation dwindling resources with infinite growth on a finite planet don't reconcile! Have a good evening my friend! Good comment! Humans are a strange species?!
Socialism has been around for a very long time now. It's an ideology to counter Capitalism. It preexisted Marx. If you believe Marx was right, then you also believe that Capitalism collapsed into Communism (and Communism and lying about it - Fascism). Then, we had Neoliberalism / Liberal Communism / the corruption of Communism. This epoch appears to have peaked, and we need a new direction. It is my hope that we abandon the old political ideologies, and proceed in a more practical counter Neoliberal manner. There's new terminology to be created here, in the meantime we need to innovate, erode the status quo, and organize around its erosion. Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism have all shown their deficiencies and period of relevance. We should not reject innovation in the name of ideological homogeny and hegemony. Language is the first step. Capitalism will not die until we declare it dead!
"People often say, with pride, 'I'm not interested in politics.' They might as well say, 'I'm not interested in my standard of living, my health, my job, my rights, my freedoms, my future or any future.' ... If we mean to keep any control over our world and lives, we must be interested in politics." Martha Gellhorn
I was a sort of liberal socialist before I had a chance to experience China first hand for extended periods of time. I am now a U.S. card carrying communist (literally, I think we have cards just to make that line funny lol). The U.S. version of communism is not nearly as advanced as the CPC (some people still say CCP), but you have to start somewhere. I think the two things that made me change my mind about liberal socialism (or even liberal democracy) to a less than liberal approach were: 1. Competency - The level to which competency plays a factor in one's position in the government in the CPC is radically different from randomly picking someone "you can have a beer with" in liberal democracy. Not only do you have to know what you are doing, you have to prove it, and the people have to agree with you by direct feedback, or you can lose your position and/or not move up in the government. 2. Free-Market Capitalism - In the U.S. we like to talk about Free Market Capitalism as if it somehow promotes freedom because it has "Free" in the name. What I have come to know is that when capitalism is "free" to run amok on its own without supervision, it will ultimately buy your "democracy" and what you have after that is anyone's guess, but whatever it ends up being, 99% plus of the people will no longer be represented or cared about in any form other than for more tax dollars. In the U.S., the powers that be are no longer occupied by manipulating you into voting a particular way. They know how you will vote because they have done all the manipulation over time. Some people believe X and some people believe Y already. They are only concerned with the manipulation of how it looks. Sure you vote, but on what exactly? I assure you, the Like you click on this video has far more of a real world effect than any vote you have taken in your life time in the U.S. They are really only concerned with you not coming to the realization that your vote doesn't mean anything at all. It is a show. Kind of an expensive show, but a show nonetheless.
Currently, the CPC *is* as Professor Wolff puts it, an institution that "limits itself to improving the position of workers under capitalism," *it is not* abolishing class -- in fact, in the official doctrine starting in the 70s, they erased any notion of "class struggle" or "class conflict" and replaced it with, as Xi says now, "harmonious class relations." That's why many Marxists criticize the PRC as a *class collaborationist* state. Like any American Progressive would, instead of challenging the existence of class, the CPC now talks about "inequality" and income stratas. The CPC focuses on improving the lives of workers by ameliorating the damage of capitalism (and sometimes hastening it), not by finding a different path -- they focus, like a Progressive social democrat would, on technical management of the economy by experts (via development, FDI, anti-corruption campaigns, welfare programs, etc, just like all States) -- they do not empower workers or the working class directly, not in their workplaces, where typical capitalist relations hold, and not in the State, where membership in the Party is a difficult thing to attain (but not if you're rich). The PRC's management of their nation may be preferable to and better-run than a Western liberal state, okay, but it is not a system that challenges class rule -- it's a system of class collaboration *under capitalism* Workers live much the same life they do in the West: they wake up in the morning and go to work, they work for an employer, they work for a wage, they buy what they need to live in the form of commodities, they try to send their kids to a better school to get a high tech job, etc. They might have needs unmet by the market, and like an FDR Democrat, the CPC may (only very recently!) provide basic healthcare; workers might do a strike, and like in America, their ability to strike is both supported by and limited by state institutions, etc etc. They have successfully grown their economy through market measures, but now instead of transitioning away from that, the CPC are focusing on growing their domestic consumption, just as Western and East Asia Tiger economies did a generation ago Our differences are vastly overestimated, when you take a worker's POV
@@Adam-ui3bl You are missing one extremely important aspect however. As implemented in the Constitution, as a matter of supreme law, the government as a matter of implementation is a dictatorship of the proletariat. What this means, is there is no class struggle because the proletariat is the working class and they hold absolute power. Having said that, I do not advocate a copy of China's system to the U.S.. The U.S. has to find its own way, though, I think there are significant lessons to be learned from China and one of those is that no matter how rich and powerful a company or individual gets, it cannot buy its way out of the consequences of its actions, and the needs of the people come first.
@@Adam-ui3bl The CPC has not erased "class struggle" or "class conflict". They simply have not seen that as the most immediate contradiction facing it in the present time. But the party constitution itself, as well as in "Governance of China" by Xi, clearly states that workers and the working class is the leading class in Chinese society and that the CPC is the vanguard party formed from the alliance of workers and peasants/farmers and that the Chinese state is a dictatorship of the proletariat
To sum up the current Chinese Communist Party's approach to building Socialism with Chinese characteristics: *Grow through the pains* , as Deng envisioned in his theories. It's important for people to break away from the Cold War era dichotomy between Communism and Capitalism (especially all the stereotypes that were intentionally attached to political systems) ... The liberation and development of productive forces are the foundation for and pathway to higher stages of human development and liberation. And the key role of the Communist Party's leadership, especially political leadership, is to ensure and guarantee the direction of such process evolves as they were supposed to serve the common good of the People/Mass. As a matter of fact, Deng Xiaoping's theory of socialism is a much holistic approach that fundamentally consolidated market economy as an means which serves the end of gradually achieving Communism through different stages. And this process is the definition of 'Socialism'. From this perspective, it becomes much clear that how naive it is today for many in the West to still view the world through the categorical juxtaposition of Communism/Socialism vs Capitalism/Liberalism .... and at the same time, it also reveals how the Communist Party of China had been able to draw the fine line between Modernization vs Westernization in the past few decades, which led to its successful peaceful rise in the world for the past 2-3 decades.
@@ariesmarsexpress Sorry,because my English is bad ,so i can only speak Chinese.中国以前走的是传统社会主义道路，发现走不通，所以后来中国结合自己的国家情况，走特色社会主义道路。如果你去观察，你会发现中国的特色社会主义和其他社会主义国家，包括苏联，是不一样的。所以你是对的，美国需要找到自己的路，可以参考中国，但是不能照搬。
Dear prof. Wolf, I love your lectures and interviews. The topic of old and new socialisms interested me because I lived in Yugoslavia, which from the 60s and 70s developed a very specific, endemic kind of socialism - the self-governing socialism, under the moto "factories to the workers, the land to the farmers". It's a type of socialism very similar to the one that you described as the "socialism for the 21st century". There was a great enthusiasm in the country to develop it, both from the political and the workers class. But it failed miserably. It failed not only because of predatory geopolitics which strived to dissolve the country, and/or historical & cultural preconditions, but also because of the inherent contradictories of the very concept. For example, one of the main governing bodies in the companies, factories etc. was the "worker' council", where representatives from various departments were delegated as members with limited time (a year or so). They would have discussed about all the issues concerning the better productivity, worker's rights etc. and would have voted for the suggested solutions. It seemed a fair process. But human nature is inherently corruptive and soon workers' councils perverted themselves into a bunch of corrupted cliques of people, people of this or that manager, who forced solutions in their interest. The next, interpersonal relations in the company would have became poisoned by it, people started to hate each other, not to work for the general good, but to personal hurt... In conclusion, I'd like if you try to analyze this Yugoslavian very specific type of self-governing socialism in one of your lectures. Thank you. l
@JasminaPakaski Thank you for a great comment which shows how Professor's view is incomplete, in the sense that the "old socialism" is not in contradiction with "new socialism". In fact, what he proposes as new socialism was already part of many versions of "old socialism" in various degrees and forms, it was a process, and things were changing from year to year. But focusing on a single issue only as he does - the relations within the enterprise, however important the issue is, does not make a system to be a socialism yet. There still will be a government and politics, and there still have to be the management of all the other issues in the society, and that can be done in different ways, and it is important to say how it will be done, and that is also part of socialism. So Professor is very quick in saying that people are wrong about their view what socialism is, while he is being even more wrong in what he proposes as the definition of socialism. But back to your finding about the internal mafia wars within companies as you described. Yes, you are right that it is not easy and leads to lot of trouble here and there, but overall, Yugoslavia was doing quite well, and if it was not so much a geopolitical failure, it could have worked on fixing those issues you mention. Still those small mafias were much more innocent than the capitalist mafia and oligarchs that control the societies today. People are difficult creatures, and democracy is not easy, but it is the only thing that works. So yes, we have to learn much more from the example of Yugoslavia, try to analyze how to clear that negative influence of geopolitics and over-focus on ideology and how to provide better guidelines for the internal processes in the companies. I believe it can be done, we have to believe that.
I think the problem with human beings is that since we stopped being cooperative hunter gatherer societies, we have instilled small-t trauma on ourselves even before birth. See Gabor Maté's "The Myth of Normal."
Socialism has no victims without people willing to trade, which includes every Capitalist from the owner to the worker. Socialism is an *_anti-trade_* ideology...and anything anti-trade is anti-society. Socialism is the set of ideas any person would want to have if chaos and destruction were their goal.
Actually from what I read, China's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is based on 'effective market, effective government', Scientific Socialism. This is the most advanced form we have right now.
@@stevedbertramI mean, they've eliminated extreme poverty, so I'd rather be a Chinese worker than an Amazon employee. Just remember that we're in a cold war. I dunno if you lived through the last one, but a big thing to keep in mind is that this affects corporate 'news' media. Capitalist agendas are heightened. Healthy skepticism is necessary.
UK Here: Good video, but I feel the part you’ve probably missed for US audiences is understanding that this new socialism you’re talking about, takes a lot of its grounding and framework from the Anarchist movement, more specifically the radical ideas around Anarcho-Communism. It is largely an anti-statist movement, recognising the fallacy of trying to make the state look after peoples wellbeing, when the fundamental reason for the state existing in the first place was to protect private capitalists interests. So the state has to go. Secondly the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement has long been an advocate for work place democracy and strong unionisation. The most famous of which was a massive strike in Barcelona in 1917. Almost all of the working class rights and conditions around Europe exist today (and we’re all still much further left wing) because of anarchist, communist, socialist, unionist movements and policies. Despite our differences in terms of fundamental frameworks, the broader left wing MUST stand together on the majority of the issues, there are some middle ground ideas between Anarchism and communism, such as council communism. But largely we need a highly democratic system to enable every citizen a genuine voice over policies, laws and production.
Under fascism (Italy) the state controlled capitalism and for the benefit of the people and working class, Dolfuss, Mosely, Franco, and FDR all realized this before war erupted.
Anarcho-Communism is a BS. There are no unions without a state that would guarantee their rights. So you call for the state to go in one sentence and then talk about unions and law in another sentence. Law is only enforced by the state. Inserting this kind of BS noise into a serious discussion does not lead anywhere good, sorry.
@@smelyzzajko Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some key points and address the concerns you've raised regarding Anarcho-Communism and its relationship with unions and the state. First, it's important to understand the fundamental principles of Anarcho-Communism. This ideology envisions a stateless society where collective ownership and direct democracy replace hierarchical and capitalist structures. The aim is to establish a system where resources and means of production are communally owned and managed by the people, without the need for a state apparatus. Regarding your point about unions, it's crucial to note that Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is closely related to Anarcho-Communism, places a strong emphasis on workplace democracy and the power of unions. However, these unions differ from those typically found within a state-run system. Anarcho-Syndicalist unions are intended to be self-organized and self-managed by workers, operating independently of state control. These unions derive their strength from the solidarity and direct action of the workers themselves, rather than relying on state enforcement. Historically, the success of these movements, such as the massive strike in Barcelona in 1917, demonstrates that workers can effectively organize and advocate for their rights without state intervention. These movements have shown that mutual aid, direct action, and collective decision-making can serve as powerful tools for social change and the protection of workers' rights. The assertion that law and order can only be enforced by the state overlooks the potential for community-based systems of justice and conflict resolution. Anarchist thought advocates for restorative justice models that emphasize rehabilitation and community involvement rather than punitive measures imposed by a central authority. In this way, laws and norms can be maintained through consensus and mutual respect, rather than coercion. Moreover, the notion that the state is the sole guarantor of rights is contentious. The state, as a protector of capitalist interests, often undermines workers' rights and prioritizes the interests of the elite. By contrast, an anarchist framework seeks to dismantle these power imbalances and create a system where people have direct control over their lives and work environments. In conclusion, while Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism propose radical changes to the current socio-political system, they also offer alternative models of organization and justice that do not rely on state structures. These ideas emphasize the power of collective action and direct democracy to create a more equitable and just society. It's essential for the broader left-wing movement to find common ground and work together towards these shared goals, recognizing the diversity of thought and approaches within the movement. I hope this clarifies the principles and goals of Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Thank you @@andheydsj for trying to explain to me the principles and goals of Anarcho-Communism. Unfortunately, I will have to insist that what you have just described already has a state concept embedded in it. You have already explained some principles and goals (and these are just very few, there would have to be many more as the real life brings up many issues that need to be taken care of). These rules already form an agreement of a larger society that is to follow them, and that already constitutes an existence of a state. The ideas you describe talk about a community. The key point you have to understand is that state is nothing more and nothing less than a large-size community. While you can run your society on a small scale, you will still need to have a larger community at a higher level, because such large issues such as education, healthcare, transport, and many other need to have common agreed rules at larger community level. Those rules have to have an enforcing administration, because otherwise they will not work. Your words about mutual respect sound sweet, but they fail to match reality of human nature, which is given. So yes, if people living in a state have mutual respect, they can have a good society, and prosperity, and ideal world. But then there is absolutely no reason to not have a state. In other words, if the preconditions required by the Anarcho-Communism are met, then a state is not anymore an obstacle (but I argue that it is an advantage).
@@smelyzzajko Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your points raise important considerations about the practical implementation of Anarcho-Communist principles and the nature of state and community. To address your concerns, it is essential to delve deeper into the concepts of federations and syndicates, which play a crucial role in the anarchist framework. Firstly, it's important to clarify that Anarcho-Communism does not reject the idea of organization or coordination at larger scales. Instead, it advocates for decentralized federations and syndicates that are rooted in direct democracy and local autonomy. These structures aim to facilitate cooperation and coordination without the hierarchical and coercive elements typically associated with the state. Federations In an Anarcho-Communist society, federations are networks of autonomous communities or collectives that come together to address common issues and coordinate efforts. These federations are voluntary and operate on principles of mutual aid, cooperation, and direct democracy. Decision-making is decentralized, with power flowing from the bottom up, ensuring that each community retains its autonomy while participating in broader agreements. Syndicates Syndicates are worker-run organizations that manage production and services within various industries. These syndicates are democratically controlled by their members, ensuring that decisions about work conditions, production methods, and resource distribution are made collectively. Syndicates can also federate at regional, national, or even international levels to address larger-scale economic and social issues, creating a network of self-managed industries. Addressing Larger Societal Issues Regarding your point about large-scale issues such as education, healthcare, and transport, these can be effectively managed through federations and syndicates. For example: Education Local communities can establish educational institutions tailored to their specific needs and values. These institutions can then federate to share resources, develop standardized curricula, and ensure educational equity across different regions. Healthcare Healthcare services can be organized through local clinics and hospitals managed by healthcare syndicates. These syndicates can federate to share medical resources, research, and expertise, ensuring comprehensive care for all. Transport Transport infrastructure can be coordinated by syndicates of workers in the transportation sector. These syndicates can collaborate across regions to create efficient and sustainable transportation networks. Enforcement and Administration Your concern about the enforcement of rules is valid. In an anarchist society, enforcement is managed through community-based systems and restorative justice practices rather than centralized state authority. These systems emphasize rehabilitation and community involvement, focusing on resolving conflicts and addressing harm in ways that strengthen social bonds and mutual respect. (There are good examples of this in practise from various native/Indigenous communities. While human nature does present challenges, it is worth noting that hierarchical state structures have not eradicated these issues. Anarchist principles aim to create environments that foster cooperation, empathy, and mutual respect, which can lead to more harmonious and equitable societies. The practical implementation of Anarcho-Communist ideas is complex, but the principles of mutual aid, direct democracy, and local autonomy offer a compelling alternative to traditional state structures especially when you factor in our rapid technological progress as potential ownership of advanced Ai & Robotics systems is quickly becoming a global concern.
I highly highly recommend a book called Vulture Capitalism by Grace Blakely. I think it's one of the most important current works today. It explains how and why socialism within capitalism can and does not work in terms of the current day economic and technological capitalist system. It is primarily a discussion about economic versus state. And the false idea that the state can somehow exist above, beyond, and separate from economics.
I made her book jacket an avatar for my user ID on a forum I frequent (one that is totally unrelated to politics, economics, etc.). It's not much but at least some very small part in getting the book and that type of perspective a wider audience.
You are an outstanding teacher !! I love ❤️ learning from you . Thank you so very much! I will order the three volume trilogy . You make learning interesting 🤨
Yugoslavia had that Socialism (not converted to Culture yet). The factories belonged to the workers, but were not converted fully in practice & then the Wester Capitalists destroyed all of that :(
@@samaval9920 Not clear what you mean. Competition is not Socialist attribute, but Cooperation. Now that was just the beginning of the Socialist conversation from Feudalism they had before, so it requires time to convert to culture. Capitalist Western culture is still very Salvery (exploitation of workers hours) & Feudal (possessions, Techno Feudalism by FB, YT, Apple, Amazon, Twitter...)
Thank you so much , my dear for your seamless presentation , it is not only informative but deeply instructive . Matchless sipping treatement medicament for those who never ever come across the subject /topic . Bye dear .
This is what I figured out years ago on my own (because of my own anarchic egalitarian beliefs and observations) but never had the historical arguments to present to others cogently. Thank you Professor Wolff!
Thanks for the understandable history of the two Socialisms. Looking forward to many more episodes dealing with the new Socialism - the struggle for democracy in the workplace. Question: what importance do the new Socialists place on equality of all races, nationalities, gender, etc. Seems to me democracy and equality should go hand in hand in the struggle for a much better world.
The old socialisms were focused mainly on economic conditions, and to a certain extent gender equality (allowing women access to education, work, abortion). To stay relevant in today's landscape, modern-day socialism has to take into account various factors besides pure economics, such as gender diversity, neurodiversity, disability, mental health, and trauma to truly create an inclusive society that is accessible for everyone.
Actually it's already happening! Look at Huawei, a co-op, employee owned company, probably the most innovative, competitive and resilient one in China.
@@qjtvaddict That is why the Huawei CEO Ren Zhenghfei is probably one of the most respected popular figure in China. But western media leaks crocodile tears for Jack ma, who wanted to impose Neo Liberal policies.
As a former union official I can assure you that any enterprise that tries to run by committee will fail. You give no details on how this might work. It is just talk.
So true. Same with the worker-owned enterprise, so many failures, so few lasting success stories. Perhaps something innate in the human being, being greey or jealous, no matter how comradely are the best of cohorts. People working with other peoole is hard, sadly.
Socialism, capitalism, communism are theories for academic school of learning. How to make use of these theories successfully in a country depends entirely on having a competent leader who can lead the country in a positive way. He needs his countrymen to be united to fulfill their aspiration. China' imperial ruler of the Song Dynasty (960-1279) had the world largest economy due their practice of Confucius teaching that emphasizes that the strength of a government ultimately is based on the support of the people and virtuous conduct of the ruler.. Recent China history shows Chinese leaders practice Confucius teaching, communism, socialism and capitalism in successive stages, First stage getting rid of the corrupt officials and warlords, 2nd stage providing foods and housing to all and 3rd stage, allowing private individuals do business to become rich.4th stage eradicating poverty entirely and achieve economic success. China calls their ideological system as "Socialism With Chinese Character" However, if official corruption is rampant , China will be doomed irrespective of political ideology. .
I think this is a great, very useful way of framing -- despite their differences, these two plans for Socialism ("reform vs revolution") shared a single strategy: wield state power to control the market. Both paths have hit a dead end, so we should examine those shared assumptions. We should rethink what vision we're bringing to people -- let's start by re-committing to our true goals: *not* to merely improve the lives of workers, but to give real power to workers & by doing that, to begin transitioning to a new economic stage in history, leaving behind finally any class (or caste) divisions
I have a question: Was the Roaring 20's a form of Socialism for the Rich, threw Capitalist means of Communism and Fascism, of those of Wealth's Ideologies overall, via Power and Influence of a Small Group of Inherited Positions? Hope that makes sense. Thanx.
Seeing that there are socialist and capitalist countries it’s better that all socialists leave the capitalist countries and go live their socialists dreams in the existing socialists countries. No group of people have the right to infiltrate a nation and then turn that nation’s lives upside down in order to accommodate the infiltrator’s ideologies. We say go home leave us alone.
The reason Lenin advocated for violent revolution is because of counter revolution. It’s a fact that the bourgeois class will not stop in re-establishing its position in society. Therefore, by removing the mechanisms that allow for the return of capitalism, you protect the socialist system, and therefore, the proletariat.
You can't abolish capitalism - socialism can only come about when capitalism has created the conditions for its own demise and a political force exists to legalise and back up that process.
There are barriers to our old notions of "factory floor democracy": ever more complex technology and the specialization to support it. In his "Radical Democracy", C. Douglas Lummis pointed out how we choose to culturally enslave ourselves by going deeper into mass production and technologies. "Choose a technology and you choose the politics (ie: the order of work) that comes with it. Choose mass consumption and you choose mass production and a managed order of work." A few pages later: "It is liberating, I think, to remind ourselves that most of the technologies that a human being really needs to live an orderly, comfortable and healthy life are ancient."
While I agree with your statement, that we need a democratic enterprise, I think this isn't enough. We need to increase public participation in said enterprises as well. Otherwise it just becomes capitalism with cooperatives, like it happened in Yugoslavia.
New Socialism is most likely worker owned cooperatives. The best way to explain it is this, under Capitalism if there are 4 people one person takes at least 60% to 80% of the profits and the other 3 people get the remaining amounts. Under New Socialism, or worker owned cooperatives, each of the 4 people would get 25% of the profits, after expenses to keep the worker owned cooperative afloat.
First of all, their are no PROFITS in socialism. Wolff clearly states that profit is THEFT. Secondly, the problem with your hypothesis is the other three people in your scenario have no CAPITAL to invest in the company. You are implying that all four invest equally to share the PROFIT. If the other 3 have no skin in the game why would they get to share the reward? Prof Wolff has taught Marxism and socialism to thousands of college students over several decades and has pumped out weekly video's for over a decade with over 300,000 D@W cult members. I challenge you to name just one former student or current D@W partner that has fled capitalism to live in a socialist economy. Name just one former student or current D@W member who has successfully created an employee worker cooperative. I'll wait.
@@TC-eo5eb@TC-eo5eb That is Not entirely true since Wolff contradicts himself constantly... and the "what to do with the profits" is the tagline in his worker co-op mode. But he doesn't know what the word "profit" means any more than he knows what capitalism is. In this video, the attempt to equate capitalism with slavery is clear. And, again, offers another historical error claiming that the Emancipation freed the slaves. Also interesting in this video is that socialism has evolved as the shadow of capitalism... but capitalism hasn't evolved even though it is responsible for the improved standards of living everywhere, even in China. ( such as that is )
@@TC-eo5eb Point taken. I'm just saying that whatever is left needs to be divided and distributed equally between those who work in a Worker Cooperative. If PROFIT incentives need to removed then so be it. All organizations, both profit and nonprofit have expenses that need to be paid.
@@jgalt308 Good to see you are still monitoring the Nutty Professor too. Actually, this video contains numerous contradictions. His talk about free elections allowing the people to decide their fate is what we already have.
Capitalism is a pejorative term invented by Marx (a truly degraded human being in his actual life). Human beings thrive under free enterprise. Property rights, sound money and minimal government interference in our lives (no that is not the US today). All the communists and socialists (National Socialists - sorry but Nazi Germany was socialist and welfare state socialists - closer to what exists in the west today ) and corporate capitalist out there all wish to tell me what to do and how to live. The end of all these materialist isms end in tyranny and mass murder as history has shown over and over again. Collectivist ideologies all begin from the idea that rights are a gift from the group. From that monstrous assumption nothing but evil can follow.
most soviet states are not socialist states let alone what people be calling communist and You know that right. What socialist element you like about Vietnam state? yes you can find socialist elements in every state that not doom to fail.
Vietnam has abandoned many socialist policies. They recognize, like most of Europe (Belarus is an example), that Marxism and Leninism are not practical...and what is not practical is not worthwhile. They will eventually abandon much of what remains, leaving Leftist social policies to rot in the mass graves of their victims. The next task for Europe will be for them to abandon the "Rightist" social policies, all of which depend on Socialism's similarity to Christian ethical principles, to gain political power. Left and Right are not opposite ends of a "spectrum" of political views, they are simply two branches of Authoritarianism, which sits in the bottom of the garbage heap of bad political ideas.
@A_friend_of_Aristotle you literally don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what are the policies of the comunist party of Vietnam, the relationship of the people to Vietnam to socialist principles, and how they have to make concessions to lift the country from the ashes of the imperialist war of the USA. You are operating from an idealist and dogmatic view of socialism.
But the old socialist projects (USSR, China, Cuba etc.) weren't just about government control either. They also tried to transform and democratize the workplace, they might have not fully succeeded at that (under their specific material conditions) but we shouldn't discredit those attempts and call them irrelevant.
Rate cuts commence in June 2024, taking 6-8 months to complete. A potential crash, if any, might occur by March 2025. The soft landing narrative is gaining traction, making this big recession everyone is calling for less likely. With $1 million from a business sale, I'm seeking profitable investment opportunities for the next 3 years.
True, I’m quite lucky exposed to personal finance at early age, started full time job 19, purchased first home 28, got laid-off work at 36 amid covid-outbreak, and at once consulted a well-qualified advisor to stay afloat. Thankfully, my portfolio has maintained steady growth ever since, amassing nearly $1m after subsequent investments to date.
I agree. There's a lot of potential in the market. My friend introduced me to a fiduciary advisor in 2021, and even though I was skeptical, I went on. I finally was making enough monthly dividend to quit my soulless job and pursue my dream to start a restaurant in New Jersey and still earn five figures in monthly dividends.
I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same but it seems you’ve got it all worked out with the firm you work with so i surely wouldn’t mind a recommendation.
Finding financial advisors like '" Lynn Staples” who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Thanks for sharing, I just looked her up on the web and I would say she really has an impressive background in investing. I will write her an e-mail shortly.
I love your take on history and on how the world is today (for the love of x, keep doing what you do), but why on earth didn't you narrate your own books (apologies in advance if I read the instructions wrong)
Talk about specific sectors and how unions can be prevented from becoming corrupt. Grocery store union even car unions collect pensions and then decide if you're worthy
@@pla9012 The peculiarities and similarities that exist between and amongst species would only be possible if one had access to the work of those who engaged in the study of them. Names that jump out now are E.O Wilson for insects and "eusocial species". And for hominids ( primatologists ) Robert Sapolsky, Jane Goodall, Desmond Morris, Robert Trivers, Eric Weinstein, etc. since we are self-interested creatures that our behavior and that of our cousins would be the primary focus is hardly surprising. The question, are we rational creatures or is our behavior biologically compelled and then rationalized is still a matter of fierce contention, as is the matter of "free will" and if you are interested in exploring this, Robert Sapolsky seems to be front and center on this question. He has a complete lecture series available online, and the first 2 or 3 classes are quite interesting as an introduction. Some observations that pertain to your question: Do bees make just enough honey? Do bears stop eating when they are full or is there such a thing as full given the reason they are doing it? Do trees stop growing? (even though excessive growth can produce negative consequences. ) Why do chimpanzees require an 8 to1 advantage before they will attack and kill another chimpanzee who is not a member of their group? Since all life operates on the same prime directive imposed upon them by the conditions of the environment in which they exist...it stands to reason that those with the greatest flexibility in adapting to the changes in those conditions by whatever means are available will succeed, For more advanced lifeforms, these strategies may involve a complete departure from the previous behavior patterns that are no longer useful due to the change in circumstances they are confronted with. Hopefully, this is sufficient to explain the concepts that I have suggested?
LOL...Prof Wolff has no worthwhile or valid opinion on the subject. He has no clue what AI is, or what it means for an individual, an organization, or a culture.
It doesn't. AI has very specific uses for research, creating models to test certain theories and coordinating uses of massive amounts of data. It can't directly replace most jobs. That's fantasy.
Prof Wolff, what do you make of David Ellerman's critique of Marxism, and of Ellerman's use of the labor theory of property to demonstrate the illegitimacy of capitalism (which he calls 'human rentals', instead of "capitalism")?
How can we understand socialism when the idea of republicanism is beyond us and we have a very hazy idea of how to use democracy. Thank you for your patient efforts and ongoing optimism. Some hope is a help.
If the working class wants a bigger slice of the cake they should also be prepared to take more liabilities i.e. at the moment when a business goes bust the banks don't go to workers to collect their debt but to the owners of the company.
I believe that one of the ways that has been used to anchor the narrative in favor of capitalism is for pro-capitalist people to use the word ‘predatory’ in connection with capitalism to create the illusion that there’s a form of capitalism that isn’t inherently predatory; but in fact, capitalism doesn’t even work without the opportunity for exploitation, which is the very nature of the predator: to take advantage of, exploit or prey upon the disadvantaged, the disabled, those in need of healthcare and the financially or otherwise vulnerably handicapped. This is the reason that what the United States calls competition is rightly perceived by China as confrontation; because where there is competition, there’s always a winner and a loser and more often than not, more than one loser. Rightly or wrongly, however, it certainly is NOT, nor can it be seen as an effort at cooperation. The capitalist system depends on a growing economy (or profit expansion) to work properly, but the banking system is based on the creation of debt which gets back to the predatory nature of capitalism. It just doesn’t work for the common everyday people. It only works for those who are already wealthy.
There's like this difference between a sort of spirit of competition and an economic bloodlust tho right. Like hotdog stands. People like hot dogs people like to go to outside thing people outside sometimes want a hot dog. There can be 2 hot dog stands on one block. They should be trying to outdo eachother right but should ones family starve for the other to succeed and own every hotdog stand? The hotdog soviet might have to say hey stand #2 your stand is getting moved or rolled or changed to a burger stand. But you still have a job and a house and a fed and educated child. I feel like I'm going into left field (lol) but I've been using this analogy to refute "no competition no progress" and shite understandings of private property.
When leftists have to admit they got it wrong they always say they learned from their mistakes and got it right now and go right back to being wrong again.
Democracy in the company? Maybe every employee should also be the shareholder of the company. Only the workers have the right to vote, not any outsider. Could this be an idea?
I don't know how can I contribute to your noble task. I am an old retired maths teacher from Kerala, lndia. I am not accostemed to the modern transaction by means of internet. So please advise me how l can contribute my humble share which will help me to get the satisfaction of contributing to an historic event of the modern era.
Also Vijay Prashad Bikrum Gil Radhika Desai Indian &!aGlobal Left Utsa & Prabhat Patnaik Great Indan left thinkers!! aLert journalist in England Ms.AshbSarjar A left activist in USvMs.Kshama Sawant
Richard , I have been commenting asking you to cast a glance on Kenya . I hope the recent GenZ demos will attract your attention to comment especially pointing to the nexus with Kenya strategic alignment with the USA
The next book could be《Understanding Socialism with Chinese Characteristics》. There are already books published in China with similar titles, meaning it is not too hard to write a book like this.
“It is the heart of U.S. policy to use fascism to preserve capitalism while claiming to save democracy from communism.” - Michael Parenti
After WW2, Stalin ordered to kill 90 percent of the Nazis and imprison the remaining 10 percent for life and prison labor camps. Know what the US did to the Nazis? Nazis became the heads of organizations like NSA, NATO and CIA.
All true except they are not using fascism, Mussolini's government would control capitalism, where in america capitalism controls government.
Thank you soberthinking. I had never heard of Parenti until now
I added that quote to my web site.
You nailed it!
@@TheTerminator-2watch his lectures. It’s absolute gold. Clear, concise, well delivered arguments.
I consider myself (69 year old third generation Socialist) a student of Wolff for a decade or more. He makes complicated issues easily understood. Thank you.
Now Catilize the Transformation with Words, not Rounds? Not simple? No doubt the Wolff is opening many eyes as he has mine! But the Road ahead is not easy. The current system is a massive failure that has no hope! I can feel it! As I'm sure you can? Very complicate shxt my friend to say the least! After you study 8 plus billion humans on a finite planet looking for a 3 percent growth rate staring down a doubling effect rate of the consumption of Natural Resources every 30 years? We are simply Fuxked without serious changes rapidly! Not likely that's gonna happen!
It is about "energy return on investment" aka: Thermodynamics. Thank Fossil Fuels for that one and Inquisitive Mind of the Human Species? Love the Wolff, but the observation dwindling resources with infinite growth on a finite planet don't reconcile! Have a good evening my friend! Good comment!
Humans are a strange species?!
Socialism has been around for a very long time now. It's an ideology to counter Capitalism. It preexisted Marx.
If you believe Marx was right, then you also believe that Capitalism collapsed into Communism (and Communism and lying about it - Fascism).
Then, we had Neoliberalism / Liberal Communism / the corruption of Communism.
This epoch appears to have peaked, and we need a new direction.
It is my hope that we abandon the old political ideologies, and proceed in a more practical counter Neoliberal manner.
There's new terminology to be created here, in the meantime we need to innovate, erode the status quo, and organize around its erosion.
Capitalism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Fascism have all shown their deficiencies and period of relevance.
We should not reject innovation in the name of ideological homogeny and hegemony.
Language is the first step. Capitalism will not die until we declare it dead!
That's because he actually understands his field.
You are - through your master classes - appreciated much more than you can ever imagine...
The Wolff of Main Street is the real deal
PRW - you're my mentor. Thanks to you, I've learnt lots.
"People often say, with pride, 'I'm not interested in politics.' They might as well say, 'I'm not interested in my standard of living, my health, my job, my rights, my freedoms, my future or any future.' ... If we mean to keep any control over our world and lives, we must be interested in politics." Martha Gellhorn
They're anti communist. It's their side killing the ecosystem and they're above us.
Thank you prof.Wolff for every word you ever speak.
Thank you for your service Dr Wolff
Richard you are a great teacher, you really simplify things. your logic is crystal clear
I was a sort of liberal socialist before I had a chance to experience China first hand for extended periods of time. I am now a U.S. card carrying communist (literally, I think we have cards just to make that line funny lol). The U.S. version of communism is not nearly as advanced as the CPC (some people still say CCP), but you have to start somewhere. I think the two things that made me change my mind about liberal socialism (or even liberal democracy) to a less than liberal approach were:
1. Competency - The level to which competency plays a factor in one's position in the government in the CPC is radically different from randomly picking someone "you can have a beer with" in liberal democracy. Not only do you have to know what you are doing, you have to prove it, and the people have to agree with you by direct feedback, or you can lose your position and/or not move up in the government.
2. Free-Market Capitalism - In the U.S. we like to talk about Free Market Capitalism as if it somehow promotes freedom because it has "Free" in the name. What I have come to know is that when capitalism is "free" to run amok on its own without supervision, it will ultimately buy your "democracy" and what you have after that is anyone's guess, but whatever it ends up being, 99% plus of the people will no longer be represented or cared about in any form other than for more tax dollars.
In the U.S., the powers that be are no longer occupied by manipulating you into voting a particular way. They know how you will vote because they have done all the manipulation over time. Some people believe X and some people believe Y already. They are only concerned with the manipulation of how it looks. Sure you vote, but on what exactly? I assure you, the Like you click on this video has far more of a real world effect than any vote you have taken in your life time in the U.S. They are really only concerned with you not coming to the realization that your vote doesn't mean anything at all. It is a show. Kind of an expensive show, but a show nonetheless.
Currently, the CPC *is* as Professor Wolff puts it, an institution that "limits itself to improving the position of workers under capitalism," *it is not* abolishing class -- in fact, in the official doctrine starting in the 70s, they erased any notion of "class struggle" or "class conflict" and replaced it with, as Xi says now, "harmonious class relations." That's why many Marxists criticize the PRC as a *class collaborationist* state.
Like any American Progressive would, instead of challenging the existence of class, the CPC now talks about "inequality" and income stratas. The CPC focuses on improving the lives of workers by ameliorating the damage of capitalism (and sometimes hastening it), not by finding a different path -- they focus, like a Progressive social democrat would, on technical management of the economy by experts (via development, FDI, anti-corruption campaigns, welfare programs, etc, just like all States) -- they do not empower workers or the working class directly, not in their workplaces, where typical capitalist relations hold, and not in the State, where membership in the Party is a difficult thing to attain (but not if you're rich). The PRC's management of their nation may be preferable to and better-run than a Western liberal state, okay, but it is not a system that challenges class rule -- it's a system of class collaboration *under capitalism*
Workers live much the same life they do in the West: they wake up in the morning and go to work, they work for an employer, they work for a wage, they buy what they need to live in the form of commodities, they try to send their kids to a better school to get a high tech job, etc. They might have needs unmet by the market, and like an FDR Democrat, the CPC may (only very recently!) provide basic healthcare; workers might do a strike, and like in America, their ability to strike is both supported by and limited by state institutions, etc etc. They have successfully grown their economy through market measures, but now instead of transitioning away from that, the CPC are focusing on growing their domestic consumption, just as Western and East Asia Tiger economies did a generation ago
Our differences are vastly overestimated, when you take a worker's POV
@@Adam-ui3bl You are missing one extremely important aspect however. As implemented in the Constitution, as a matter of supreme law, the government as a matter of implementation is a dictatorship of the proletariat. What this means, is there is no class struggle because the proletariat is the working class and they hold absolute power. Having said that, I do not advocate a copy of China's system to the U.S.. The U.S. has to find its own way, though, I think there are significant lessons to be learned from China and one of those is that no matter how rich and powerful a company or individual gets, it cannot buy its way out of the consequences of its actions, and the needs of the people come first.
@@Adam-ui3bl The CPC has not erased "class struggle" or "class conflict". They simply have not seen that as the most immediate contradiction facing it in the present time. But the party constitution itself, as well as in "Governance of China" by Xi, clearly states that workers and the working class is the leading class in Chinese society and that the CPC is the vanguard party formed from the alliance of workers and peasants/farmers and that the Chinese state is a dictatorship of the proletariat
To sum up the current Chinese Communist Party's approach to building Socialism with Chinese characteristics: *Grow through the pains* , as Deng envisioned in his theories. It's important for people to break away from the Cold War era dichotomy between Communism and Capitalism (especially all the stereotypes that were intentionally attached to political systems) ... The liberation and development of productive forces are the foundation for and pathway to higher stages of human development and liberation.
And the key role of the Communist Party's leadership, especially political leadership, is to ensure and guarantee the direction of such process evolves as they were supposed to serve the common good of the People/Mass. As a matter of fact, Deng Xiaoping's theory of socialism is a much holistic approach that fundamentally consolidated market economy as an means which serves the end of gradually achieving Communism through different stages. And this process is the definition of 'Socialism'.
From this perspective, it becomes much clear that how naive it is today for many in the West to still view the world through the categorical juxtaposition of Communism/Socialism vs Capitalism/Liberalism .... and at the same time, it also reveals how the Communist Party of China had been able to draw the fine line between Modernization vs Westernization in the past few decades, which led to its successful peaceful rise in the world for the past 2-3 decades.
@@ariesmarsexpress Sorry,because my English is bad ,so i can only speak Chinese.中国以前走的是传统社会主义道路，发现走不通，所以后来中国结合自己的国家情况，走特色社会主义道路。如果你去观察，你会发现中国的特色社会主义和其他社会主义国家，包括苏联，是不一样的。所以你是对的，美国需要找到自己的路，可以参考中国，但是不能照搬。
Dear prof. Wolf, I love your lectures and interviews. The topic of old and new socialisms interested me because I lived in Yugoslavia, which from the 60s and 70s developed a very specific, endemic kind of socialism - the self-governing socialism, under the moto "factories to the workers, the land to the farmers". It's a type of socialism very similar to the one that you described as the "socialism for the 21st century".
There was a great enthusiasm in the country to develop it, both from the political and the workers class. But it failed miserably. It failed not only because of predatory geopolitics which strived to dissolve the country, and/or historical & cultural preconditions, but also because of the inherent contradictories of the very concept. For example, one of the main governing bodies in the companies, factories etc. was the "worker' council", where representatives from various departments were delegated as members with limited time (a year or so). They would have discussed about all the issues concerning the better productivity, worker's rights etc. and would have voted for the suggested solutions. It seemed a fair process. But human nature is inherently corruptive and soon workers' councils perverted themselves into a bunch of corrupted cliques of people, people of this or that manager, who forced solutions in their interest. The next, interpersonal relations in the company would have became poisoned by it, people started to hate each other, not to work for the general good, but to personal hurt...
In conclusion, I'd like if you try to analyze this Yugoslavian very specific type of self-governing socialism in one of your lectures.
Thank you.
l
@JasminaPakaski Thank you for a great comment which shows how Professor's view is incomplete, in the sense that the "old socialism" is not in contradiction with "new socialism". In fact, what he proposes as new socialism was already part of many versions of "old socialism" in various degrees and forms, it was a process, and things were changing from year to year. But focusing on a single issue only as he does - the relations within the enterprise, however important the issue is, does not make a system to be a socialism yet. There still will be a government and politics, and there still have to be the management of all the other issues in the society, and that can be done in different ways, and it is important to say how it will be done, and that is also part of socialism. So Professor is very quick in saying that people are wrong about their view what socialism is, while he is being even more wrong in what he proposes as the definition of socialism. But back to your finding about the internal mafia wars within companies as you described. Yes, you are right that it is not easy and leads to lot of trouble here and there, but overall, Yugoslavia was doing quite well, and if it was not so much a geopolitical failure, it could have worked on fixing those issues you mention. Still those small mafias were much more innocent than the capitalist mafia and oligarchs that control the societies today. People are difficult creatures, and democracy is not easy, but it is the only thing that works. So yes, we have to learn much more from the example of Yugoslavia, try to analyze how to clear that negative influence of geopolitics and over-focus on ideology and how to provide better guidelines for the internal processes in the companies. I believe it can be done, we have to believe that.
I think the problem with human beings is that since we stopped being cooperative hunter gatherer societies, we have instilled small-t trauma on ourselves even before birth. See Gabor Maté's "The Myth of Normal."
Can’t play ‘capitalism’ without the working class 🤘🏾
Socialism has no victims without people willing to trade, which includes every Capitalist from the owner to the worker. Socialism is an *_anti-trade_* ideology...and anything anti-trade is anti-society. Socialism is the set of ideas any person would want to have if chaos and destruction were their goal.
Exactly
That seems to suggest that you know what capitalism is...please share??????
@sandponics Robots aren't consumers. No consumption, no capitalism.
Actually from what I read, China's "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is based on 'effective market, effective government', Scientific Socialism. This is the most advanced form we have right now.
The body is socialism,the clothes or coat is capitalism.So if something goes wrong with the clothes,the body can modify it or change another clothes..
Well considering how hard life still is for most Chinese workers that isn't reassuring
@@stevedbertramI mean, they've eliminated extreme poverty, so I'd rather be a Chinese worker than an Amazon employee. Just remember that we're in a cold war. I dunno if you lived through the last one, but a big thing to keep in mind is that this affects corporate 'news' media. Capitalist agendas are heightened. Healthy skepticism is necessary.
@@cassiedevereaux-smith3890 You don't know shit if you actually believe that
@@stevedbertram Hard life isn't caused by socialism itself but because of western imperialism still exploiting the rest of the world.
UK Here: Good video, but I feel the part you’ve probably missed for US audiences is understanding that this new socialism you’re talking about, takes a lot of its grounding and framework from the Anarchist movement, more specifically the radical ideas around Anarcho-Communism. It is largely an anti-statist movement, recognising the fallacy of trying to make the state look after peoples wellbeing, when the fundamental reason for the state existing in the first place was to protect private capitalists interests. So the state has to go. Secondly the Anarcho-Syndicalist movement has long been an advocate for work place democracy and strong unionisation. The most famous of which was a massive strike in Barcelona in 1917. Almost all of the working class rights and conditions around Europe exist today (and we’re all still much further left wing) because of anarchist, communist, socialist, unionist movements and policies. Despite our differences in terms of fundamental frameworks, the broader left wing MUST stand together on the majority of the issues, there are some middle ground ideas between Anarchism and communism, such as council communism. But largely we need a highly democratic system to enable every citizen a genuine voice over policies, laws and production.
Under fascism (Italy) the state controlled capitalism and for the benefit of the people and working class, Dolfuss, Mosely, Franco, and FDR all realized this before war erupted.
Anarcho-Communism is a BS. There are no unions without a state that would guarantee their rights. So you call for the state to go in one sentence and then talk about unions and law in another sentence. Law is only enforced by the state. Inserting this kind of BS noise into a serious discussion does not lead anywhere good, sorry.
@@smelyzzajko Thank you for your reply. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify some key points and address the concerns you've raised regarding Anarcho-Communism and its relationship with unions and the state.
First, it's important to understand the fundamental principles of Anarcho-Communism. This ideology envisions a stateless society where collective ownership and direct democracy replace hierarchical and capitalist structures. The aim is to establish a system where resources and means of production are communally owned and managed by the people, without the need for a state apparatus.
Regarding your point about unions, it's crucial to note that Anarcho-Syndicalism, which is closely related to Anarcho-Communism, places a strong emphasis on workplace democracy and the power of unions. However, these unions differ from those typically found within a state-run system. Anarcho-Syndicalist unions are intended to be self-organized and self-managed by workers, operating independently of state control. These unions derive their strength from the solidarity and direct action of the workers themselves, rather than relying on state enforcement.
Historically, the success of these movements, such as the massive strike in Barcelona in 1917, demonstrates that workers can effectively organize and advocate for their rights without state intervention. These movements have shown that mutual aid, direct action, and collective decision-making can serve as powerful tools for social change and the protection of workers' rights.
The assertion that law and order can only be enforced by the state overlooks the potential for community-based systems of justice and conflict resolution. Anarchist thought advocates for restorative justice models that emphasize rehabilitation and community involvement rather than punitive measures imposed by a central authority. In this way, laws and norms can be maintained through consensus and mutual respect, rather than coercion.
Moreover, the notion that the state is the sole guarantor of rights is contentious. The state, as a protector of capitalist interests, often undermines workers' rights and prioritizes the interests of the elite. By contrast, an anarchist framework seeks to dismantle these power imbalances and create a system where people have direct control over their lives and work environments.
In conclusion, while Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism propose radical changes to the current socio-political system, they also offer alternative models of organization and justice that do not rely on state structures. These ideas emphasize the power of collective action and direct democracy to create a more equitable and just society. It's essential for the broader left-wing movement to find common ground and work together towards these shared goals, recognizing the diversity of thought and approaches within the movement.
I hope this clarifies the principles and goals of Anarcho-Communism and Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Thank you @@andheydsj for trying to explain to me the principles and goals of Anarcho-Communism. Unfortunately, I will have to insist that what you have just described already has a state concept embedded in it. You have already explained some principles and goals (and these are just very few, there would have to be many more as the real life brings up many issues that need to be taken care of). These rules already form an agreement of a larger society that is to follow them, and that already constitutes an existence of a state. The ideas you describe talk about a community. The key point you have to understand is that state is nothing more and nothing less than a large-size community. While you can run your society on a small scale, you will still need to have a larger community at a higher level, because such large issues such as education, healthcare, transport, and many other need to have common agreed rules at larger community level. Those rules have to have an enforcing administration, because otherwise they will not work. Your words about mutual respect sound sweet, but they fail to match reality of human nature, which is given. So yes, if people living in a state have mutual respect, they can have a good society, and prosperity, and ideal world. But then there is absolutely no reason to not have a state. In other words, if the preconditions required by the Anarcho-Communism are met, then a state is not anymore an obstacle (but I argue that it is an advantage).
@@smelyzzajko Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your points raise important considerations about the practical implementation of Anarcho-Communist principles and the nature of state and community. To address your concerns, it is essential to delve deeper into the concepts of federations and syndicates, which play a crucial role in the anarchist framework.
Firstly, it's important to clarify that Anarcho-Communism does not reject the idea of organization or coordination at larger scales. Instead, it advocates for decentralized federations and syndicates that are rooted in direct democracy and local autonomy. These structures aim to facilitate cooperation and coordination without the hierarchical and coercive elements typically associated with the state.
Federations
In an Anarcho-Communist society, federations are networks of autonomous communities or collectives that come together to address common issues and coordinate efforts. These federations are voluntary and operate on principles of mutual aid, cooperation, and direct democracy. Decision-making is decentralized, with power flowing from the bottom up, ensuring that each community retains its autonomy while participating in broader agreements.
Syndicates
Syndicates are worker-run organizations that manage production and services within various industries. These syndicates are democratically controlled by their members, ensuring that decisions about work conditions, production methods, and resource distribution are made collectively. Syndicates can also federate at regional, national, or even international levels to address larger-scale economic and social issues, creating a network of self-managed industries.
Addressing Larger Societal Issues
Regarding your point about large-scale issues such as education, healthcare, and transport, these can be effectively managed through federations and syndicates. For example:
Education
Local communities can establish educational institutions tailored to their specific needs and values. These institutions can then federate to share resources, develop standardized curricula, and ensure educational equity across different regions.
Healthcare
Healthcare services can be organized through local clinics and hospitals managed by healthcare syndicates. These syndicates can federate to share medical resources, research, and expertise, ensuring comprehensive care for all.
Transport
Transport infrastructure can be coordinated by syndicates of workers in the transportation sector. These syndicates can collaborate across regions to create efficient and sustainable transportation networks.
Enforcement and Administration
Your concern about the enforcement of rules is valid. In an anarchist society, enforcement is managed through community-based systems and restorative justice practices rather than centralized state authority. These systems emphasize rehabilitation and community involvement, focusing on resolving conflicts and addressing harm in ways that strengthen social bonds and mutual respect. (There are good examples of this in practise from various native/Indigenous communities.
While human nature does present challenges, it is worth noting that hierarchical state structures have not eradicated these issues. Anarchist principles aim to create environments that foster cooperation, empathy, and mutual respect, which can lead to more harmonious and equitable societies.
The practical implementation of Anarcho-Communist ideas is complex, but the principles of mutual aid, direct democracy, and local autonomy offer a compelling alternative to traditional state structures especially when you factor in our rapid technological progress as potential ownership of advanced Ai & Robotics systems is quickly becoming a global concern.
I highly highly recommend a book called Vulture Capitalism by Grace Blakely. I think it's one of the most important current works today. It explains how and why socialism within capitalism can and does not work in terms of the current day economic and technological capitalist system. It is primarily a discussion about economic versus state. And the false idea that the state can somehow exist above, beyond, and separate from economics.
I made her book jacket an avatar for my user ID on a forum I frequent (one that is totally unrelated to politics, economics, etc.). It's not much but at least some very small part in getting the book and that type of perspective a wider audience.
Thank you, professor, for another fascinating lesson and yes, we do monetarily support you.
Amazing knowledge
You are an outstanding teacher !!
I love ❤️ learning from you . Thank you so very much!
I will order the three volume trilogy .
You make learning interesting 🤨
📚
Thank you. Keep up the awesome work.
Thank you Dr. Wolff
Yugoslavia had that Socialism (not converted to Culture yet). The factories belonged to the workers, but were not converted fully in practice & then the Wester Capitalists destroyed all of that :(
Though I am uni that workers collectives competed in capitalist markets vs. each other.
@@samaval9920 Not clear what you mean. Competition is not Socialist attribute, but Cooperation. Now that was just the beginning of the Socialist conversation from Feudalism they had before, so it requires time to convert to culture. Capitalist Western culture is still very Salvery (exploitation of workers hours) & Feudal (possessions, Techno Feudalism by FB, YT, Apple, Amazon, Twitter...)
Thank you so much for a very nice and thoughtful speech!
Thank you so much , my dear for your seamless presentation , it is not only informative but deeply instructive . Matchless sipping treatement medicament for those who never ever come across the subject /topic . Bye dear .
Thanks!
Prof. Wolff should be the president of the US. He will do a good job, just like President Roosevelt did.
This is what I figured out years ago on my own (because of my own anarchic egalitarian beliefs and observations) but never had the historical arguments to present to others cogently. Thank you Professor Wolff!
Thank you Prof. Wolff... I've learned a lot.
Charlie "Ready and Willing" Fabian. The hardest working socialist on the scene. Keep up the good work, Chralie!
Democracy is a practice, the more we build that practice, the better our (in terms of the general sense) best interests are met.
"Democracy at work!" - channel name.
Thank you.
Thanks for the understandable history of the two Socialisms. Looking forward to many more episodes dealing with the new Socialism - the struggle for democracy in the workplace. Question: what importance do the new Socialists place on equality of all races, nationalities, gender, etc. Seems to me democracy and equality should go hand in hand in the struggle for a much better world.
The old socialisms were focused mainly on economic conditions, and to a certain extent gender equality (allowing women access to education, work, abortion). To stay relevant in today's landscape, modern-day socialism has to take into account various factors besides pure economics, such as gender diversity, neurodiversity, disability, mental health, and trauma to truly create an inclusive society that is accessible for everyone.
Your work is so easy to understand and I really appreciate it - thank you sir!
Thank you Ne Wolf, your English is beautiful and cyristal clear. As a foreigner I easily understand.
Actually it's already happening! Look at Huawei, a co-op, employee owned company, probably the most innovative, competitive and resilient one in China.
They a co op? Woah
@@qjtvaddict That is why the Huawei CEO Ren Zhenghfei is probably one of the most respected popular figure in China. But western media leaks crocodile tears for Jack ma, who wanted to impose Neo Liberal policies.
Exactly. It is probably the most powerful and successful employee owned business in the world.
Brilliant lecture.
Tks. much
Big thanks for the topic and the excellent presentation! ❤
I knew it I absolutely damned well knew it. When challenged to define Socialism in and of itself you remain silent.
You knew nothing.
Very informative
As a former union official I can assure you that any enterprise that tries to run by committee will fail.
You give no details on how this might work. It is just talk.
So true. Same with the worker-owned enterprise, so many failures, so few lasting success stories.
Perhaps something innate in the human being, being greey or jealous, no matter how comradely are the best of cohorts. People working with other peoole is hard, sadly.
Behold.. the Wolff of Main Street. Thanks prof.
Socialism, capitalism, communism are theories for academic school of learning. How to make use of these theories successfully in a country depends entirely on having a competent leader who can lead the country in a positive way. He needs his countrymen to be united to fulfill their aspiration. China' imperial ruler of the Song Dynasty (960-1279) had the world largest economy due their practice of Confucius teaching that emphasizes that the strength of a government ultimately is based on the support of the people and virtuous conduct of the ruler.. Recent China history shows Chinese leaders practice Confucius teaching, communism, socialism and capitalism in successive stages, First stage getting rid of the corrupt officials and warlords, 2nd stage providing foods and housing to all and 3rd stage, allowing private individuals do business to become rich.4th stage eradicating poverty entirely and achieve economic success. China calls their ideological system as "Socialism With Chinese Character" However, if official corruption is rampant , China will be doomed irrespective of political ideology. .
Thank you! Good summary.
I never get notifications for your updates. 😢
Great job, btw!
Good job
As always...Great program!
I think this is a great, very useful way of framing -- despite their differences, these two plans for Socialism ("reform vs revolution") shared a single strategy: wield state power to control the market.
Both paths have hit a dead end, so we should examine those shared assumptions. We should rethink what vision we're bringing to people -- let's start by re-committing to our true goals: *not* to merely improve the lives of workers, but to give real power to workers & by doing that, to begin transitioning to a new economic stage in history, leaving behind finally any class (or caste) divisions
Great stuff, as usual, Professor!
Thank you!😄🌺🤗Robin
Wonderful
I have a question:
Was the Roaring 20's a form of Socialism for the Rich, threw Capitalist means of Communism and Fascism, of those of Wealth's Ideologies overall, via Power and Influence of a Small Group of Inherited Positions? Hope that makes sense. Thanx.
It didn't make any sense. ( in an era where shoeshine boys gave stock market advice to their customers? )
Seeing that there are socialist and capitalist countries it’s better that all socialists leave the capitalist countries and go live their socialists dreams in the existing socialists countries. No group of people have the right to infiltrate a nation and then turn that nation’s lives upside down in order to accommodate the infiltrator’s ideologies. We say go home leave us alone.
The reason Lenin advocated for violent revolution is because of counter revolution. It’s a fact that the bourgeois class will not stop in re-establishing its position in society. Therefore, by removing the mechanisms that allow for the return of capitalism, you protect the socialist system, and therefore, the proletariat.
The body is socialism,the clothes or coat is capitalism.So if something goes wrong with the clothes,the body can modify it or change another clothes..
"the shadow knows"lol
excited for the book!~!
You can't abolish capitalism - socialism can only come about when capitalism has created the conditions for its own demise and a political force exists to legalise and back up that process.
Very well explained.. thanks.
Thank you Mr Wolf
There are barriers to our old notions of "factory floor democracy": ever more complex technology and the specialization to support it. In his "Radical Democracy", C. Douglas Lummis pointed out how we choose to culturally enslave ourselves by going deeper into mass production and technologies. "Choose a technology and you choose the politics (ie: the order of work) that comes with it. Choose mass consumption and you choose mass production and a managed order of work." A few pages later: "It is liberating, I think, to remind ourselves that most of the technologies that a human being really needs to live an orderly, comfortable and healthy life are ancient."
While I agree with your statement, that we need a democratic enterprise, I think this isn't enough. We need to increase public participation in said enterprises as well. Otherwise it just becomes capitalism with cooperatives, like it happened in Yugoslavia.
How do we avoid the Iron Law of Oligarchy?
Peace and blessings everyone ✌️⚖️🇵🇸🕊️☮️
New Socialism is most likely worker owned cooperatives. The best way to explain it is this, under Capitalism if there are 4 people one person takes at least 60% to 80% of the profits and the other 3 people get the remaining amounts. Under New Socialism, or worker owned cooperatives, each of the 4 people would get 25% of the profits, after expenses to keep the worker owned cooperative afloat.
Oh no yeah, it went just _so well_ in Yugoslavia didn't it.
First of all, their are no PROFITS in socialism. Wolff clearly states that profit is THEFT. Secondly, the problem with your hypothesis is the other three people in your scenario have no CAPITAL to invest in the company. You are implying that all four invest equally to share the PROFIT. If the other 3 have no skin in the game why would they get to share the reward? Prof Wolff has taught Marxism and socialism to thousands of college students over several decades and has pumped out weekly video's for over a decade with over 300,000 D@W cult members. I challenge you to name just one former student or current D@W partner that has fled capitalism to live in a socialist economy. Name just one former student or current D@W member who has successfully created an employee worker cooperative. I'll wait.
@@TC-eo5eb@TC-eo5eb That is Not entirely true since Wolff contradicts himself constantly...
and the "what to do with the profits" is the tagline in his worker co-op mode.
But he doesn't know what the word "profit" means any more than he knows what
capitalism is.
In this video, the attempt to equate capitalism with slavery is clear.
And, again, offers another historical error claiming that the Emancipation freed the slaves.
Also interesting in this video is that socialism has evolved as the shadow of capitalism...
but capitalism hasn't evolved even though it is responsible for the improved
standards of living everywhere, even in China. ( such as that is )
@@TC-eo5eb Point taken. I'm just saying that whatever is left needs to be divided and distributed equally between those who work in a Worker Cooperative. If PROFIT incentives need to removed then so be it. All organizations, both profit and nonprofit have expenses that need to be paid.
@@jgalt308 Good to see you are still monitoring the Nutty Professor too. Actually, this video contains numerous contradictions. His talk about free elections allowing the people to decide their fate is what we already have.
reform within the capitalist system is valid insofar as it supports the revolutionary goals of abolishing it.
What is the ideal socio-economic program? In other words a system that benefits everybody and would be long enduring?
after the French election, I knew this would be the place to go.
Capitalism is a pejorative term invented by Marx (a truly degraded human being in his actual life). Human beings thrive under free enterprise. Property rights, sound money and minimal government interference in our lives (no that is not the US today). All the communists and socialists (National Socialists - sorry but Nazi Germany was socialist and welfare state socialists - closer to what exists in the west today ) and corporate capitalist out there all wish to tell me what to do and how to live. The end of all these materialist isms end in tyranny and mass murder as history has shown over and over again. Collectivist ideologies all begin from the idea that rights are a gift from the group. From that monstrous assumption nothing but evil can follow.
6:10 there it is, thank you
Is there any chance of this new book finding its way onto audible or another audiobook platform? My brain works better with audiobooks
You should make a program about the amazing evolution of socialism in Vietnam.
most soviet states are not socialist states let alone what people be calling communist and You know that right. What socialist element you like about Vietnam state? yes you can find socialist elements in every state that not doom to fail.
@@gamervox1707 study.
Vietnam has abandoned many socialist policies. They recognize, like most of Europe (Belarus is an example), that Marxism and Leninism are not practical...and what is not practical is not worthwhile. They will eventually abandon much of what remains, leaving Leftist social policies to rot in the mass graves of their victims.
The next task for Europe will be for them to abandon the "Rightist" social policies, all of which depend on Socialism's similarity to Christian ethical principles, to gain political power.
Left and Right are not opposite ends of a "spectrum" of political views, they are simply two branches of Authoritarianism, which sits in the bottom of the garbage heap of bad political ideas.
@A_friend_of_Aristotle you literally don't know what you are talking about. You don't know what are the policies of the comunist party of Vietnam, the relationship of the people to Vietnam to socialist principles, and how they have to make concessions to lift the country from the ashes of the imperialist war of the USA. You are operating from an idealist and dogmatic view of socialism.
@gamervox1707 you have an utopian conception of socialism.
I would love to see Wolff's commentary on the Spooner/Tucker tradition from America.
I’m curious Prof. Richard D Wolff, what you make of the concept of Worker’s Councils & Council/Soviet Democracy?
But the old socialist projects (USSR, China, Cuba etc.) weren't just about government control either. They also tried to transform and democratize the workplace, they might have not fully succeeded at that (under their specific material conditions) but we shouldn't discredit those attempts and call them irrelevant.
✊🏾✌🏾
Rate cuts commence in June 2024, taking 6-8 months to complete. A potential crash, if any, might occur by March 2025. The soft landing narrative is gaining traction, making this big recession everyone is calling for less likely. With $1 million from a business sale, I'm seeking profitable investment opportunities for the next 3 years.
True, I’m quite lucky exposed to personal finance at early age, started full time job 19, purchased first home 28, got laid-off work at 36 amid covid-outbreak, and at once consulted a well-qualified advisor to stay afloat. Thankfully, my portfolio has maintained steady growth ever since, amassing nearly $1m after subsequent investments to date.
I agree. There's a lot of potential in the market. My friend introduced me to a fiduciary advisor in 2021, and even though I was skeptical, I went on. I finally was making enough monthly dividend to quit my soulless job and pursue my dream to start a restaurant in New Jersey and still earn five figures in monthly dividends.
I think this is something I should do, but I've been stalling for a long time now. I don't really know which firm to work with; I feel they are all the same but it seems you’ve got it all worked out with the firm you work with so i surely wouldn’t mind a recommendation.
Finding financial advisors like '" Lynn Staples” who can assist you shape your portfolio would be a very creative option. There will be difficult times ahead, and prudent personal money management will be essential to navigating them.
Thanks for sharing, I just looked her up on the web and I would say she really has an impressive background in investing. I will write her an e-mail shortly.
I love your take on history and on how the world is today (for the love of x, keep doing what you do), but why on earth didn't you narrate your own books (apologies in advance if I read the instructions wrong)
Good job thanks
❤❤❤❤❤
Do you have any "brand new" financial @ monetary model@system..!!?? Peace be upon you'll out there
🎉
❤
❤❤❤
Richard, could you go into greater detail just this New Socialism entails?
Talk about specific sectors and how unions can be prevented from becoming corrupt. Grocery store union even car unions collect pensions and then decide if you're worthy
No system seems to offer immunity from the species proclivity to gorge on the seven deadly sins. We are hopeless
@@pla9012 But it is hardly a unique feature among species...and is only limited
by the specific adaptability imposed by the biology of same.
@@jgalt308 interesting. So canines, crocs, mosquitos, penguins and so on, as examples, all display similar characteristics, adjusted for biology?
@@pla9012 The peculiarities and similarities that exist between and amongst species
would only be possible if one had access to the work of those who engaged in the study
of them.
Names that jump out now are E.O Wilson for insects and "eusocial species".
And for hominids ( primatologists ) Robert Sapolsky, Jane Goodall, Desmond Morris, Robert Trivers,
Eric Weinstein, etc. since we are self-interested creatures that our behavior and that of our cousins would
be the primary focus is hardly surprising.
The question, are we rational creatures or is our behavior biologically compelled and
then rationalized is still a matter of fierce contention, as is the matter of "free will" and
if you are interested in exploring this, Robert Sapolsky seems to be front and center on
this question. He has a complete lecture series available online, and the first 2 or 3
classes are quite interesting as an introduction.
Some observations that pertain to your question:
Do bees make just enough honey?
Do bears stop eating when they are full or is there such a thing as full given the
reason they are doing it?
Do trees stop growing? (even though excessive growth can produce
negative consequences. )
Why do chimpanzees require an 8 to1 advantage before they will attack and kill
another chimpanzee who is not a member of their group?
Since all life operates on the same prime directive imposed upon them by the conditions of
the environment in which they exist...it stands to reason that those with the greatest flexibility
in adapting to the changes in those conditions by whatever means are available will succeed,
For more advanced lifeforms, these strategies may involve a complete departure from the previous
behavior patterns that are no longer useful due to the change in circumstances they are confronted with.
Hopefully, this is sufficient to explain the concepts that I have suggested?
@@pla9012 seems the censorship algorithm has objected to my "reply"..
select "new" to see the response.
✋
What does prof Wolfe think about advances in AI" which seems to have the potential for eliminating the work place?
Eliminating the human race, more like.
LOL...Prof Wolff has no worthwhile or valid opinion on the subject. He has no clue what AI is, or what it means for an individual, an organization, or a culture.
It doesn't. AI has very specific uses for research, creating models to test certain theories and coordinating uses of massive amounts of data. It can't directly replace most jobs. That's fantasy.
Prof Wolff, what do you make of David Ellerman's critique of Marxism, and of Ellerman's use of the labor theory of property to demonstrate the illegitimacy of capitalism (which he calls 'human rentals', instead of "capitalism")?
Where is the data on the annual depreciation of automobiles since Sputnik?
How can we understand socialism when the idea of republicanism is beyond us and we have a very hazy idea of how to use democracy. Thank you for your patient efforts and ongoing optimism.
Some hope is a help.
Just bought first edition - understanding Marxism. Thank you. Once read, I will leave it in my work office (large energy company in the UK)
💙
If the working class wants a bigger slice of the cake they should also be prepared to take more liabilities i.e. at the moment when a business goes bust the banks don't go to workers to collect their debt but to the owners of the company.
I believe that one of the ways that has been used to anchor the narrative in favor of capitalism is for pro-capitalist people to use the word ‘predatory’ in connection with capitalism to create the illusion that there’s a form of capitalism that isn’t inherently predatory; but in fact, capitalism doesn’t even work without the opportunity for exploitation, which is the very nature of the predator: to take advantage of, exploit or prey upon the disadvantaged, the disabled, those in need of healthcare and the financially or otherwise vulnerably handicapped. This is the reason that what the United States calls competition is rightly perceived by China as confrontation; because where there is competition, there’s always a winner and a loser and more often than not, more than one loser. Rightly or wrongly, however, it certainly is NOT, nor can it be seen as an effort at cooperation. The capitalist system depends on a growing economy (or profit expansion) to work properly, but the banking system is based on the creation of debt which gets back to the predatory nature of capitalism. It just doesn’t work for the common everyday people. It only works for those who are already wealthy.
There's like this difference between a sort of spirit of competition and an economic bloodlust tho right. Like hotdog stands. People like hot dogs people like to go to outside thing people outside sometimes want a hot dog. There can be 2 hot dog stands on one block. They should be trying to outdo eachother right but should ones family starve for the other to succeed and own every hotdog stand?
The hotdog soviet might have to say hey stand #2 your stand is getting moved or rolled or changed to a burger stand. But you still have a job and a house and a fed and educated child.
I feel like I'm going into left field (lol) but I've been using this analogy to refute "no competition no progress" and shite understandings of private property.
Marxist “exploitation” is bunk and was refuted over a century ago.
When leftists have to admit they got it wrong they always say they learned from their mistakes and got it right now and go right back to being wrong again.
Bingo. You sure nailed it here. Same shit, different day
Democracy in the company? Maybe every employee should also be the shareholder of the company. Only the workers have the right to vote, not any outsider. Could this be an idea?
Thank you professor.
Can u please do a program on Psuodo Democracy n the unequal distribution of wealth by corporations?
I don't know how can I contribute to your noble task. I am an old retired maths teacher from Kerala, lndia. I am not accostemed to the modern transaction by means of internet. So please advise me how l can contribute my humble share which will help me to get the satisfaction of contributing to an historic event of the modern era.
Also
Vijay Prashad
Bikrum Gil
Radhika Desai
Indian &!aGlobal Left
Utsa & Prabhat Patnaik
Great Indan left thinkers!!
aLert journalist in England
Ms.AshbSarjar
A left activist in USvMs.Kshama
Sawant
Richard , I have been commenting asking you to cast a glance on Kenya . I hope the recent GenZ demos will attract your attention to comment especially pointing to the nexus with Kenya strategic alignment with the USA
The next book could be《Understanding Socialism with Chinese Characteristics》. There are already books published in China with similar titles, meaning it is not too hard to write a book like this.
I go back to the first time I heard wolff. We are organizing ourselves irrationally, it's more obvious than ever.