@john Cenna No, he doesn't really, because economics is a human construct, not an empirical one, and all of what exists now is enabled and maintained by "governments" that have been corrupted and do the bidding of "their masters" assuming one is capable penetrating their rhetoric. (and this is not capitalism no matter how much mental gymnastics Wolff invests in attempting to present it as such.) Wolff ultimately is a distraction from the systemic change he claims to be seeking since it contains no actual understanding of the system he is seeking to change and the hierarchical component that is the driving force behind it, has been the dominant one since the agricultural revolution of the late neolithic which presents a bit of irony in that he references all of them, but fails to recognize that there is no distinctive difference between what has existed and what has evolved from them. Our present dilemma has been compounded by the industrial revolution which has destroyed the ecological system on which we depend, as well as exposing our dependence on continual growth regardless of what economic "ism" may be in place. It is a function of human nature to seek to gain control over those elements of our existence to gain advantage and improve this condition to whatever level we are capable of and this includes overcoming natural impediments and threats as well as those posed by our fellow humans. We have essentially not evolved very much in this sense and the conditions which fostered the co-operative behavior and reciprocal altruism and provided checks against selfishness in exchange for inclusion are long gone, for there is no way to isolate competing groups from one another and nowhere to run to prevent external imposition by forces greater than those we can marshall in our own defense. The appeal of Wolff's message and that of many others is the simplistic naivete with which it is presented, with the suggested moral implications of "can't we all just get along" and the answer to that question at the moment and for quite some time has clearly been no. ( as in all of human history ) His solutions alter nothing in the present paradigm since they are essentially a redistribution scheme which is cosmetic only, and would actually exacerbate our present path and accelerate it, while continuing to rely on the exploitation upon which developed nations depend and this would have to continue to support the standard of living we have grown accustomed to and are even now clamoring for its return. Being unable to penetrate this ( Wolff's ) rhetoric, ensures that the rhetoric of those in control remains even further out of reach and even though it states that one has the RIGHT to redress grievances, this has little impact, when one is directing one's appeal to the actual source of that grievance and it will take far more effort than that being expended by those whose contributions amount to a litany of worsening symptoms while being totally clueless as to the underlying cause. The following articles will help explain that capitalism is NOT the problem for THIS is NOT capitalism. www.city-journal.org/html/fake-capitalism-14790.html www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/10/how-corruption-is-becoming-americas-operating-system.html?Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29 As for the real solutions, they are far more complex than anything Wolff will ever be capable of... The following is the "introductory observation" that is offered in the final chapter of "Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update." "Can we move nations and people in the direction of sustainability? Such a move would be a modification of society comparable in scale to the only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries, Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation, guided by the best foresight science can provide......If we actually do it, the undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity's stay on the earth." William D. Ruckelshaus, 1989
@@jgalt308 it seems to me it's you who's not understanding things here. I tried looking for better answers in the links and yeah... There's your problem.
@@EdwardSkihands Wow, what a detailed examination and illustration of my problem...so much so much that I'm sure it is known and shared by all your fellow cult members. We should all be grateful that you were willing to generously share your seemingly effortlessly expressed certainty.
@@jgalt308 thanks and you're welcome. Seriously, there's so much wrong a vague criticism is all that I'm going to give. It's all based on made up facts that are invented in defense of the increasing wealth inequality
@@jgalt308 defenders of capitalism often cite the "free market" as the redeeming quality of capitalism. OP probably wrote what he did in the context of an argument with such a person.
@@holleey Well, I guess he can clear that up if he wants to...but the effort of precise language and clear definitions do not seem to be the point of most discussions that take place in the democracy that is the internet...but rather the exact opposite with as little effort invested as possible.
@@jgalt308 "The free market" is a phrase that used synonymously with capitalism. Since markets are not actually the defining characteristic of capitalism, nor are markets really "free" under capitalism, referring to capitalism as a "free market system" is actually misleading in more ways than one. Get my meaning now?
@@keving5564 Which would be to say that it is an element of capitalism and since this is NOT capitalism and markets are also NOT free, your use of either as a description of what exists is simply incorrect. Of course, you seem to be crediting Wolff for this understanding, and I would agree with you, this makes him incorrect also, but he has always been so...and his understanding rests an alteration of what capitalism is and distorting it beyond all recognition. His error is his continued failure to recognize that whatever economic system he is talking about, how it operates and who it serves has always been determined by those who are in control of it since they are the authority and exercise the "force" in maintaining it...what is different about the present iteration is that in the past the corruption of government came from within the system ( the central authority ) where the wealth and advantage was concentrated, whereas with the emergence of banks, beginning with the Medici's in Italy in the 13th century, the accumulation of wealth became possible from outside this authority, and began to compete directly with it, while the advent of "industrialization" expanded the possibility of this accumulation of wealth to more outsiders, each of whose interests required the continued corruption of "this authority" to protect their advantage. One might therefore contrast the "rhetoric of capitalism" with the "rhetoric of government" and recognize that what exists is no more capitalistic than our government is one "of, by and for the people with liberty and justice for all." So whether the problem rests with "government" or "corrupted government" it is with the "state" that the problems lie, and it is here that one's efforts, understanding and energy must be focused. In this, Wolff is simply misdirection and distraction and one of many factions whose disparate interests, serve to maintain what already exists and ironically do most of the work in maintaining those divisions, essentially self-sabotaging their own efforts in the process.
It really is funny how the enthusiasts of capitalism will say this is the best system that humanity has created, however the universities are not allowed to teach about alternatives. How is it that the best system possible cannot stand under any type of scrutiny?
@adam riddle look at the uk friend...they are banning it. How long will it be before they do it here too? If they hadn't already they probably will eventually once the initial brainwashing wears off
At the time I wrote this there are two replies, one from adam riddle and the other from Kasadoll. One of them is polite and adds to the conversation, the other uses an insult "retards". For me personally, if I have something to say that I would like to be taken seriously, the LAST thing I would do is insult my audience. I hope this helps one of you.
adam riddle Imagine if you had two opportunities for employment: 1. A corporate enterprise where you make $10 per hour snd no other benefits and have no vote in what the enterprise does. Or 2. A democratic cooperative where you had a vote in the enterprise and you made $30 an hour plus benefits because you do not have corporate shareholders taking the majority of the profits. Which employment do you choose and why?
I would also remark on the gigantic maze of "Free Trade" deals involving almost every country on the planet. The purpose of the deals is to restrict markets available to the consumers. The word *Free* is a complete misnomer.
@@Dsonsee Hi. I'm going to post some links. (it's a lot of reading, and I recommend a whiteboard to keep track). ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#:~:text=The%20Transatlantic%20Trade%20and%20Investment,trade%20and%20multilateral%20economic%20growth.&text=Negotiations%20were%20halted%20by%20president,trade%20conflict%20with%20the%20EU. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership (This is in effect now.)
@@Dsonsee You can also just go to each country and search their equivalent of the USTR. If you want to see what a "Free Trade" arrangement does, look up the old NAFTA, and then the "new" USMCA.
Definitely agree, but a revolution (or some form of disruption) has to take place first, I think, to remove the current system because, sadly, I don't see a 'seamless' transition.
@@cosmicviewer477 Nothing is ever seamless. You gotta break a few eggs, etc. But... I am hoping for some evolution instead. Peace, Love & Groovy Things has been around a LONG time. We will see.
Worker Co Ops and community banks also exist. No one is stopping them in a capitalist environment. Please check Amul in India. Very successful and very good quality but even they have a structure and they are also kind of a monopoly. But if you see even in a capitalist society such things work. You do not have to force it.
@@clarestucki5151 The problem is free market is a myth. That is just the song they sing as they each try to own the monopoly. The award goes to the corporation that has enough power to control how "government intrusion" hurts the competition. Then we have segments of the economy where competition does not occur. Look at the insurance industry, or the petroleum industry. They clearly do not try to compete. There is too much concert in their actions. The consumer has to pay for it.
@@clarestucki5151 You refer to the 'free money markets' where the barrier to entry is that only the hyper wealthy or banks or similar can play. Try to enforce transaction taxes on the free money markets and see where that gets you. Everyone else pays direct tax on income. Only the hyper wealthy pay negative tax. In nature there's no free lunch no matter how wealthy you think you are. Check out the dinosaurs, Rome, Greece, Britain... I could go on.
You know, you're doing something amazing and I value you for it. I watched your 1h30 talk at google and I was blown away at everything you said and couldn't stop watching. If only Noam Chomsky was younger, we'd have another great mind on TH-cam. The world needs more people like you.
You are wrong capitalism and feudalism are the same .Also in my opinion capitalism started a lest from the time of ancient Phoenicia .i am ready to Debate you on this topics
"Illusion". Perfect descriptive word for so very much. A pathway from what I'm fed by the media, to how the electricity and chemicals work my brain, to my actions, opinions, likes, dislikes, To what I think I am. A science used by the few to control the many. Thanks for the good think.
I knew about market socialism, mutualism, etc., but it's so enlightening to hear the distinction phrased like: "capitalism is not a system of distribution (e.g. a market), it's a system of production". Thanks Prof Wolff! Great stuff as always
It is a system of distribution. How are you going to distribute if things are not produced. It is FREE market system. He deceptively left that because he had to misguide you. Capitalist serve the market not the people in the organisation. This is not good stuff from this man. In socialist or communist country they don't serve the market at all and that's why people end up poor. Every country knows Capitalism is a money generator and it is the best. Please try and understand and not be misguided
Capitalism is the generalization of commodity production. Production for selling. Labor power is also a commodity. That's what defines capitalism. It is a system based on production to sell on the market, it's a market system.
Owner vs worker is also not unique to capitalism. It's just change of name (master/slave to employer/employee). The real unique quality of capitalism is the special role of capital -- the belief that capital gain should be hard for those who don't have it, but can grow freely for those who already have lots.
Errr, I still don’t understand. It’s too complicated. The Owners who pay to write my books, report the news, & buy my politics have told me different and I believe the because they’re good people who want the best for everyone, even if it’s not the best for them personally. 🤑😉
AUTHORITARIAN PRODUCTION SYSTEM that has outlived its usefulness. Brilliant!! Perfect. Almost everyone can relate to that. Who has not felt that on the skin???
Call it what you want. Capitalism is freedom. Socialism is FORCE. The incentive to work in capitalism is profit and/or fear of failure. The incentive to work in socialism is the whip. Capitalism is not just a market. It is a free market. It is not just a system of production. It is freedom to choose your system of production. There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from starting a company and setting up production in a socialist way. If you think that is the best way to produce goods, by all means go for it. You can take a vote every morning on what to do that day, and see if you can get anyone to put their full effort into the process. Those that are lazy? Well you know, share and share alike, equality and all that. Democracy at work. It is so wonderful. Then if you ever get anything made, you can vote on who gets to go sell it. I don't know if anyone gets paid or not or if you just distribute what's left of the money. Everyone can sign checks right? Of course there is no real way to start up such a company, because every employee would have to put in an equal amount of investment capital to get it started. I guess only rich people could work here? If someone tries to leave, do you take a vote on what to give them as value for what their initial investment was? What about the guy who is clearly more talented and works harder than those around him? You know, the guy with the ideas. Think Steve Jobs vs the guy who cleans the toilets. I guess 51% can force him to stay. Equal shares of non-existent profits for all. He will be so happy. Equality. Democracy at work. The reason no one does this in a free society is because a company like this would get crushed by their capitalist competitors, the way the USSR got crushed by the United States. No, the only way to have true socialism, is to have communism. Total government control of production and distribution. 51% wants it? Sounds great. Equality. Force. Central planning. Zero freedom. Lovely. I think this has been tried. Democracy at work.
Centrist here - I like Wolff. I find him clear and educational. Good material for forming more nuanced opinions. When I've defended capitalism in the past I've really just been defending markets, so I'll be sure to correct myself here.
Employer and employee is necessary in Capitalism. Why ? Because without them money can not exist. Same as buyers and sellers. Money is master of both employee and employers.
A summary. Capitalism is not a market system but, rather, an authoritarian production system that is a drag on the human race. Indeed. Let's work to change that system everywhere it exists. We can transform society into something much better.
Zeitgeist Addendum talks about the fractional federal reserve banking system, modern money mechanics/ theory, and the debt based monetary system. We need to strive for a debt free moneyless system based on abundance for everyone, the preservation of the environment, technological automation, efficiency, economic localization/ decentralization, efficient resource allocation, etc
Ditto for jobs that require any creativity and specialized knowledge that greatly multiple the value (profits) for the end product. Salary is weakly, or not linked to the employer's profits, i never witnessed a fair salary evaluation process. Yearly Merit reviews were crushing, the manager typically had no clues as to what the worker was contributing. Project teams converged to one man bands. Middle managers became extinct, secretaries not required, HR online. No career growth or advancement. Critical necessary (skills) engineers were just laid off. To keep the body count low. Contractors and Consultants became the valuable players. good successful companies were acquired and gutted. My solution was change jobs when the employer/employee arrangement was no longer a bargain for me, but great for them. Mention COLA and get a big laugh. Employee satisfaction was not on the table, it became employee engagement. LOL done & retired
Glad you're retired. The Manifesto has this passage I think about a lot. "The lower strata of the middle class - the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants - all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population." And this one "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."
@adam riddle why are you here? I mean, it's great that you're listening to an intelligent man like Professor Wolff, but you haven't seemed to learn anything. Or perhaps you're in the comments to feel better about yourself and didn't actually watch the video? Sad, either way.
@adam riddle U R a swiss army knife ! You need no support. No, no, i am not a cog in the corporate gear. Team, what team ? divide and control. forget feedback, managers do not want it
@@dogeyes7261 Resonates for me. Here check this out: SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” hint hint, two class system, neoliberal (capitalist) KILLED the middle class rich / poor Employer / employee Bourgeois / labor Lord / serf Master / slave In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society. CAPITALISM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC AND IT IS BROKEN as in: you are labor babe, sorry ARE YOU THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE ARE YOU THE BOURGEOISIE OR LABOR ARE YOU THE LORD OR A SERF ARE YOU THE MASTER OR A SLAVE Can you quit your job ? retire ? No, then you are labor, make that a slave. LOL when can you retire ? $10B AT 3.65% = $1M PER DAY $365M PER YEAR $1B AT 3.65% = $100K PER DAY $36.5M PER YEAR $100M AT 3.65% = $10K PER DAY $3.65M PER YEAR $10M AT 3.65% = $1K PER DAY $365K PER YEAR $1M AT 3.65% = $100 PER DAY $36.5K PER YEAR $100K AT 3.65% = $10 PER DAY $3.65K PER YEAR What is wrong ? well punk, are you a slave ? That's right the Capital brings the relationship of power, class division if you understand it as so. Capital is not only that described by prof. Wolff but also political power that is needed to maintain it, the superstructure. So for example, in 2008 the Gov. could have instead of giving the billions bailout "almost free money" to the financial system, actually financed(bought) part of the debt of the people who bought the houses or whatever. Even if the price was too high, the effect would be exactly the same(maybe better for the bubble) for the economy except that the power would go to save the people and no the rich capitalists who made a lot on the financial system. The money would come exactly from the same place, but without people have lose their homes, etc. Unfortunately, that irelative power. Capital is power,as much any previous class system we had. The only difference is that the previous systems used a form of violent dominance over the lower class, while Capitalists uses their Capital and power to create their ideology, including that fake story that says everyone can be rich is just a matter of hard working or good entrepreneurship. got your rice and beans ? 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Too many people conflate capitalism with markets and talk about them as one and the same when they are not. Capitalism describes a system where the dominant mode of production is one where private capital inputs are transformed through wage labour into commodities with higher value and then sold for profit for the capital holder. The market merely is the method through which commodities are exchanged, and while capitalism necessarily needs markets in some form to function, markets are not exclusive to commodities produced by the capitalist mode of production, and are perfectly fine with commodities produced by a mode of production where the capital holder and the labourer are one and the same as in a worker coop.
I'm pretty sure nobody said capitalism=markets. Capitalism is a system based on market trade of products and private ownership of capital. Markets can exist in a small form even under Communism, markets by themselves are not Capitalism lol. I have seen more left-wing ideologues conflate capitalism with markets when they were trying to prove the USSR is capitalist because 4% of its economy had international trade. Too many people conflate capitalism with employment. Being employed has nothing to do with capitalism, you can be employed in a Communist country.
W what's your notion is, BUT... too bad, the Capitalism and it's capitalists capture and got control over the presumably free market? A million dollar question, should a system encourage and works for the people OR should the people work for the system to benefit those who presumably controls the market??? Then again, to consider the short n long term effects/benefits of the systems to the people as a whole(in parity)....... if not, where's the free market n it's purpose??? The strong/rich survive while the weak/poor dies in the present free-market? Than obviously, the system failed in a whole as presumably believed?/!.
Thank You Professor Wolf you are a great teacher and with your simple explanation make all students like myself educated. Most of all I want to come to your classes for a breath of fresh air
Gertcha I think those are tools, the item on the far left looks like a wrench to me (albeit, a very large one). The third one looks very similar to a dipstick. The middle one, though, doesn’t really resemble a tool I am familiar with.
Hi Richard, your ideas are sound and well-presented. What I was hoping for is for you to offer alternatives to the current system, or at least ideas on how to make it better. Although properly identifying and naming the problem is essential, and on that, you have done an excellent job, but we need specific ideas for reform. If you have none, that is fine. You can't be expected to do everything, but say that, and enlist all of us in the quest to help find improvements.
Honest question... So does this mean that the definition of capitalism isn't true? It being "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." ? If I'm understanding you correctly, capitalism only exist in situations where there are huge companies with board members, and CEOs with a large number of less fortunate workers underneath them. But it doesn't exist among smaller businesses or individuals doing business with one another?
The vast majority of the world population don’t create their own employment so it’s a facile argument. People are free to become self employed and take on risk, employees are sheltered from risk by taking employment offered.
That is a false argument because A The majority of the work force need the capital to begin, and B they may not have the natural talents. That is why a true Socialist country looks after everybody and uses their natural talents for the good of everyone else.
Capitalism was conceived as a market economy. Indeed, Smith said: If you get up early in the morning to make your dough, you can sell your bread for profit at the market -marché in French, meaning places to which you can walk and where "invisible hands" control the capitalist merchants. However, modern Capitalism is its fallacy. Today's capitalists, - backed by Friedman's thesis that enterprises' only responsibility is to make profits for their shareholders- say: we make profits (the antecedent) we are good for our shareholders (the consequent). That is the perfect example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent since, in essence, what Smith said is, "If capitalist individuals are good for society (the antecedent), they can make profits (the consequent). Profit was supposed to be the "means" to have entrepreneurs get up and work for others; now, it is what allows them to live on yachts lavishly. Capitalism has thus become a Radical Monopoly which takes the means for the goals. Because of that, it is recreating what it was supposed to abolish, the ruling aristocracy. Because of this unrecognized fallacy, many more live like kings, supported by the fees and the taxes that price inflation provides.
It's a very selective stance to focus exclusively on the production side of the system since both production and distribution are inextricably linked together. Markets may not be an exclusive feature of capitalism but I don't see why it should to be a important part of it; capital goods, source materials and "job-worthy" skills, which are all required on the production side, have markets in which people can engage in trade... thus making Markets as integral as Production for capitalism.
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkapədlˌizəm/ noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Yup, nothing in there about it being a market (goods DISTRIBUTION). Also nothing in there defining private owners. You can have as many owners as you'd like. What drives the amount of owners/workers is the efficacy derived from division of labor efforts. Those starting a business and those tasked with maintaining a business routinely manage that ratio. This happens in all business, in all socio-economic models.
WHAT? How is a family dinner not a market? Someone had to need the food and therefore someone had to produce it. And how is slavery a market? Slavery is one person or group saying you have to produce. A market even by your definition is needed being met by another who can produce it. As far as your minority (owner. manager, CEO) what about their minority of knowledge? Does the guy that can weld a car part know why he is welding that part? Does he know the codes and strength that relates to the entire vehical? Also whats your deal with slavery and employment? Did slaves apply to be slaves like employees applied for a job? I guess my overall question for you is do you know how to run a landscape company? Do you know the rates, how to lay irrigation pipe, when to and not to mow a lawn, how to place sprinklers, and what demographic can pay more then others? And if given the choice would you wake up at 5am and stay till 9pm vs showing up at 7am and leaving at 5pm? Or do you want to stay up the extra hours to figure out all the details on every dession?
Ok you have made the issues very clear. There are those of us out here that have also known this. Now how to change it. What are some of the solutions that the average person can do to start this change. People that don’t have the start up money for a business. People with trashed credit not because they didn’t want to pay their bills but because the system dragged them under do to medical bills a lost job having to spend 11 years taking of a disabled parent. We understand the issues now we need a starting point????
No problem.... truthout.org/articles/capitalism-is-not-the-market-system/ But the problem is, it's all bullshit, and neither capitalism nor the free market required by it. So you might want to consider these bits also. www.city-journal.org/html/fake-capitalism-14790.html
Dear Mr. Richard Wolff, question, with regards to employer, employee system where people/employees have no and in some cases have had no say/decision making powers for generations, is it possible to then make a change and give them the say and have it work as a viable system. I think what im saying is are people then conditioned to be unable to make proper choices for themselves?
@@beno1658 Your living in fantasy land. As a capitalist I'm going as much automation as possible! Forget employees, they have no value. They do nothing but cause inefficiency and if a decision needs to be made, then I can do that.
Capitalists can buy politicians and with them control the market to a great extent. They can also monopolize markets. But they're still markets, even to a basic extent free markets, rather than command markets. Capitalist competition doesn't exist without markets. Capitalist production wouldn't make sense without markets. In Marx's analysis, capitalist production is determined by the market it serves with its products, the point at which it realizes the profit that was created by surplus labor value. When capitalism erects barriers to its markets, it finds ways to jump those barriers, for example by exporting capital abroad. You can say capitalism isn't a market system; but, when you do so, you're abandoning Marxism. In Marx's description of capitalism, the inclusion of a market mechanism wasn't a distraction.
So, if " the point at which it realizes the profit that was created by surplus labor value. " then if a production system is entirely automated, from whence comes the "surplus value."? For this example, the system created is due to the labor and intellect of a single person. Is there no profit? Or is the man guilty of exploiting himself?
@@jgalt308 If the production process is 99.99% automated, the productivity of labor has increased to the point at which fixed costs (of automating devices and methods) are determinant for investment and variable costs (labor) are negligible in comparison. This is the situation that's approached when someone buys electric machinery to produce the goods for themselves, for instance a sewing machine, or better a hypothetical computerized, robotized sewing machine that runs itself. Production with the sewing machine is entirely for use value, not for profit. There's no return on investment with the sewing machine that could be assigned a monetary value. Unlike the sewing-machine owner, the owner of the commercial production process uses the investment in input costs in order to secure a return that will cover those costs and, in addition, an expected surplus-- not one in extra product, but a surplus in return on investment in the form of fluid capital (money). A capitalist doesn't break ground on a new auto plant and then sink millions into it every time he needs a new personal automobile. Capitalist production has one purpose, and that's to turn initial capital (M) into augmented capital (M') through the use of commodity inputs (C). Such commodity inputs have no use value for the capitalist: their only value is as the means to augment his investment. The process was indicated by Marx as M-C-M'. If, as with the sewing machine, production is turned to producing goods for use value, it's the inputs that are augmented rather than capital, as C-M-C'. Capital investment remains fixed (M). This can be the case only when the fixed costs of automating devices and methods have completely replaced the variable cost of labor. There's no payment to labor power, so there's no labor surplus. Note two things: (1) commodity inputs are still turned into commodities that have use value and (2) there's no need for human labor. The production process provides commodity wealth to the society without the need for society to reward labor (with wages) or capital (with profits). How does the producing enterprise purchase commodity inputs? It doesn't, because they're cost-free since the enterprises that provide the inputs have no variable costs of their own. Where does management come from? Isn't there a cost of management? Management is fully automated, which is facilitated by not having humans to deal with in the process. You lead people, you manage things. People are free to decide on the logistics of the social process, by which they're assisted with computer automation. The social process has a servo mechanism (feedback loop), because periodically the cybernetics generates reports (eventually in the form of documentaries) which the people can use to sharpen their decision-making. One of the facets of the reporting process is that the social-logistical machinery gauges the level of democracy shown in the decision-making: Is it effective in achieving goals? Is it efficient in protecting what people value? The entire social process will increase constantly in productivity according to how much the social productive processes are satisfying needs-- with physical recreation, personal educational enhancement, entertainment, free travel and tourism, and the like. People will exploit their own mental-labor power to keep society providing an ever more enriching life, but the exploitation will decrease as the automated social process increases in productivity. In such a society, the democracy of the profit-makers will increasingly seem alien and a relic of the barbaric past. Workers' democracy will guide its implementation, and class distinctions will rapidly be assigned to the ash heap of history. Human nature will finally be free to evolve until coöperation will be the norm: no longer senseless competition and sociopathic sub-optimization. In such a society, individualism will be valued as a measure of health to the degree that it promotes coöperation and the enhancement of the lives of others. Is there something mystical in the vision of such a social process? Well, is there something mystical about your personal computer?
@@AtlantaBill How did society get to own the means of production? The only labor here is that of the owner, who built the production line whose production he sells to society, which he does at a profit. If there is no surplus labor ( and there is because the machines are doing it ) then there would be no profit. ( which there is. ) So it seems you have invested a great deal of effort in avoiding the question because the labor still exists, it is just being done by the machinery, whose costs are met ( according to their need ) and produce a profit. ( according to their ability. ) And this is both precise and accountable for all aspects of need and ability as they apply to the machines. The production which is the end result still has value, so where did the value come from? There is no surplus labor, for the needs of labor in this instance are precisely met...so the labor is not being exploited. This would suggest rather starkly that what profit is, it is not due to the surplus value of labor but rather from the transformation of the materials used from a less useful form to a more useful one. ( and none of the labor here contributed anything to the intellectual process of devising that transformation, ) It also challenges directly the idea that when machines replace humans, any increase in productivity is due to the human, when it is clearly due to the machine. It might even be argued, and rather strongly that the contribution of human labor to the end result has actually decreased since the energy expended by what humans remain is empirically less. ( as determined by the empirical calculation of work ) Now it's not that I don't appreciate your utopian view of the future where all of societies' needs are met...the problem is, whose surplus-value of labor are you going to exploit to meet them? In the above example the only exploitation that occurs is that of the owner, who also receives all of the profits from the production. ( if there are any. ) It had been hoped that the initial example given would have been sufficient to avoid requiring further explanation but that was obviously overly optimistic. Now that the detritus has been cleared away I would appreciate it if you would present any argument you may wish to make in response to the points made directly as they have been expressed simply enough that even Marx would be able to comprehend them. ( or maybe not. )
@@jgalt308 I misunderstood you. I'm not going to waste time arguing with a Jacobin. There's no absolute right of property that the working people are obliged to respect. But I didn't waste my own time because people with a modern understanding of economics, free of feudal illusions grounded in Idealism and Philosophical Impressionism, are going to read it.
@@AtlantaBill Seems like a lot of rhetoric to avoid answering the simple questions the example provokes, and since it essentially destroys all of Wolff's arguments whether they are congruent with Marx or not, your failure to respond is duly noted. ( and I accept your concession even though you can not bring yourself to admit your failure directly. ) Your use of the label is interesting and entirely nonsensical, and you are sadly mistaken if you think anyone here is going to bother to read your initial response...since most here can't, don't and won't read and even your latest avoidance is probably beyond their attention span and makes even less sense than your initial one. But thanks for sharing ( although mostly not sharing ) even though the task was made as simple as possible for you. "It has been the acknowledged right of every Marxist scholar to read into Marx the particular meaning that he himself prefers and to treat all others with indignation. " "Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. " "Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true. " "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable. " "The great dialectic in our time is not, as anciently and by some still supposed, between capital and labor; it is between economic enterprise and the state. " “The problem is not economics; it goes back to a far deeper part of human nature. As people become fortunate in their personal well-being, and as countries become similarly fortunate, there is a common tendency to ignore the poor. Or to develop some rationalization for the good fortune of the fortunate. Responsibility is assigned to the poor themselves. Given their personal disposition and moral tone, they are meant to be poor. Poverty is both inevitable and in some measure deserved. The fortunate individuals and fortunate countries enjoy their well-being without the burden of conscience, without a troublesome sense of responsibility.” John Kenneth Galbraith ( all of the above )
our present Corporate share and shareholder based system is called a market system in reference to the "stock market"...in which the vast majority of us serve as cannon fodder...
@Dirk Knight my point exactly...now days the federal reserve is buying corporate debt...now we all have shares... regardless...the fact people have been drafted to serve in, undeclared wars...such as Vietnam...for which I had a number briefly... benefiting only arms manufacturers, serving essentially as cannon fodder ... shouldn't be seen as part and parcel of our so called nation...No one should force anyone to buy shares in corporate stocks...none should exist to begin with..without national public approval and national public ownership...The best working relationship a Corporately shared entity could have with its workers is one of outright ownership/slavery...the way they are constructed ensures this if and whenever possible...you can now invest in a growing for profit prison industry which does take advantage of the clause contained in the Thirteenth amendment allowing "slavery" for incarcerated people...of course this Privatization of a public institution "jails and prisons" only extends the slavery the state has up till now...since the end of original "private" slavery...back to the new Lords of us all... corporate entities owned in majority shares by a tiny handful of ultra wealthy flesh and blood individuals...to the detriment of everyone else....my opinion...nothing more..."we" can do better
@Dirk Knight are you being disingenuous or are you actually as ignorant as you presently are presenting yourself to be...the federal reserve has bought or bailed out bank debt...it churns out money to banks to ensure short term lending between banks which otherwise don't trust each other...for good reasons...and has now...just recently...for the first time in my lifetime...and I do believe ever...begun to buy Corporate debt...instead of letting dead corporate entities die...they are able to now sell their debt to the federal reserve..."us all"... socialism for them...and nothing for flesh and blood...my point about Vietnam is absolutely valid...you are unable though...for reasons unknown...to grasp my points...I suggest don't want too... I was clear and concise enough for most to grasp my meanings...
@Dirk Knight you know what love...I am self employed...self sustaining...and have equity up the ass...your dismissing of me...with suggestions you know me simply demonstrate the level of ignorance and assumption you are presently drowning in...I won't waste anymore time in responding to your obvious ignorance...live long and sink or swim...
@Dirk Knight I am an essential ...I always have work...do you???...I charge 75 dollars an hour for my time...it should be more...often I take pity on poor rich people in over their heads...with property in Aspen...with a roof...and a roof leak...I am needed..are you?...if the water was coming into your home...ruining it...would you get up there all seasons and fix it???...could you??? Or would you call someone...perhaps me...fully ensured at the cost of 5000 dollars a year...as a roofer...to come to your aid...even if you got up there and found the problem...you would...as most homeowners...have me...or another above board roofer come to your aid...and you would pay me...how essential are you?... I bet I could live my whole life...and never need you...or anyone like you...tell me if I am wrong...and then...get on with your life and leave me out of it...you know...eat the unavoidable shit that comes in all processed packaged foods ...if you eat them...and die... eventually...as we all do... capiche?
Another point: markets are based upon the economic principle of the creditor/debtor relationship, that is one party owes something to another. In a domestic economy, like a household or a commune, no one owes anyone anything in a currency of exchange; you're not paying Billy or Suzy to take out the trash by cooking them dinner or getting them new video games (though, I'm sure plenty of families like to treat their kids, there is no debt involved in it). Markets require this relationship to function as markets, or else they become simply a locus of distribution, like a warehouse (no judgement here, since I'm a communist and find the idea of a collective distribution warehouse as being ideal). Capitalism most certainly takes this principle and runs with it, as with the social actor roles from my previous post, expanding upon the principle to such a sophisticated and complex degree as to be very cumbersome to unpack.
Okay well those "decision makers" often do not really make the decisions they just take the credit from the people below them who did all the work and made the decision that this was something that would work and the CEO just goes: "ok". And for that they are paid much more handsomely than the people who did the work and made the real decision.
There's been markets since the dawn of time. Capitalism didn't add market to the equation, it created a nondemocratic, hugely destructive arrangement of production.
Wolff is either a moron, or a grifter. He thinks companies can be run successfully by the workers. What he fails to understand or understands and doesn’t want you to know, is that human beings don’t think the same way, especially in groups. They have their own agendas, belief systems and morality. There is no company or group in the world that can function efficiently and effectively if their is a collective in charge.
At 65 as I knew my father's father his job title was "Head of Maintenance" for the "Kewanee Technical Corporation" and my Dad was a "Fixer of Fixers" in the textile mills for "Burlington Industries" ... Bred born and raised in an area where the "Southern Screw Company" once existed that way of life didn't interest me. But like the ring of Martin Luther King Jr's voice would say, somewhere I have read, somewhere I have heard of a man who ask the question, "When is the optomin time to trade my vehicle?" Who began applying the principles an technics used in the "PRODUCTION" of them to one unit re-asking the question, to which his answer was never! On his death bed my Daddy said, "People got to much stuff." Via duh way George Carlin with his "STUFF" is a vey good perspective of reality!
Capitalism is pretty distinct/unique for it's tendency to blame the victim... in feudalism, lords rule by birthright. In slave economies, the slavery is justified through property rights, or some other ham rationalization. In capitalism, well, if you're still poor after working hard, 200 hours a week, for 40 years, well, you should have tried harder... put your back into it. It's your fault, not your employers.
Since it is the private ownership of the means of production and it doesn't blame anyone for anything. If you are not a slave, then you are entitled to the fruits of your labor...if all your labor represents is the equivalent of an energy input that can be replaced by a cheaper energy input, then you will be replaced. This would be true even if you are working for yourself. Now that argument would be interesting to observe as you argue with yourself, about the benefits of working harder rather than smarter. I wonder who will win?
Of the 35 million businesses in the US, who is being exploited from the 25 million that are owner-operated with no employees? Can they be decision makers and victims at the same time? From an economic perspective, what is the difference between an employee and an owner-operator? How is the owner-operator able to refuse a job or quit and not end up having to find someone else to employ him or risk starvation? If an owner-operator is working as a general contractor, is he exploiting the value of an owner-operator of a subcontractor that is hired to handle a specific portion of a project? What changes if the owner operator decides to hire the subcontractor as an employee? Is he now a wage slave whose only option after quitting is to find another employer or die of starvation? If so, couldn't this be addressed by making employees illegal? No employees, no exploited victims.
The relation of markets and capitalism is deeply explained is Ellen Wood's The Origin of Capitalism. Everyone interested in this debate should read it.
From my point of view that sounds very interesting to me. The idea of production cooperatives is not new, but it is well rethought. What I only find interesting is that in my home region (Thuringia) there are a lot of agricultural cooperatives that work on huge areas of land as a collective and then share the profits. That is still a souvenir of the GDR era. I would be interested in what you think of it. socialist greetings from Germany
"Free market" is a bait and switch term. This market system we have is not freer than previous ones, as there are exploited and exploiters. It is not free, if the term was stolen to mean descriptively something else, namely consumerism which gives us the inevitable paralysis of choice and then the inevitable crisis of meaning. A socialist market system or even market anarchism of some formulation would be a truly free economic system due to its collectivist nature and probably also its inherently ecological nature.
Great video, thanks, one quibble: at 2:52 you seem to depict slavery and capitalism as two different things. Actually, the slave trade was arguably the first instance of capitalism. The Chinese had much better ships in 1400 -- why didn't they they conquer the world? Because the Chinese captains took orders from above, and there was no order to conquer the world. Columbus's men and other after him were all their own entrepreneurs. The benefited personally from their own actions. Later, the slave trade fueled capitalism in the UK; British textile factories needed amounts of cotton etc. that could (apparently) only be produced by slaves. So massive global modern slavery gave birth to modern capitalism. The two went hand in hand.
Okay, Mr. Wolff... The majority of people working in a given line of work have no idea what is required to make their work possible. If those people did understand what make their work possible, they would be creating their own work and hearing people that have no ideas what is required to make their work possible. This is the nature of the strong and the weak of the intellect. It is what it is Mr. Wolff, and you can't change it by wishing.
it's correct, but there's an important deatil: in capitalism the work it self it's transformed in a "service" in the "market". work and salary works in a logic of market place, where if there is a lot of people that need to work and fewer workplaces, the salarys go down and more and more abuses are considerate "normal". in this context, it is a market system. the human are transformed in a object in the market shelter.
There has always been capital ie. Money. And it was created for exchange in commerce. Capitalism is a political system for the benefit mainly for the greedy people at the top. Especially in a Republic they make the rules to favor them and their financial donors. A wage is not nothing. Many people today are entrepreneurs they work for themselves and are successful. Capital is not the problem its greedy vulture capitalism in cahoots with congress that is the problem and i can tell you the solution. Just think if Howard Schultz would of asked me for free as his Presidential campaign advisor instead of grossly overpaid Steve Schmidt, Howard would be sitting very strong between the 2 party establishment criminal bullshiters. Believe me i conveyed my intentions to him many times. All I was asking was to get a small space in Austin Texas hang a shingle out as Independent headquarters. No party, no arduous subservient rules just a massive national networking voluntary mass participation. Politics done right "we the people". Our nation could have supported many many Independent candidates running for Congressional seats that could break the back of the 2 party hyperpartisan self serving corrupt politicians. Between the insanity of it all. th-cam.com/video/FDqexh3pdiA/w-d-xo.html
I hear you, but how does this relate to the debt-/loanbased economy of banking and growth? Is not that an exclusionary aspect of capitalism, even if all enterprises were democratic?
Wrong Mr. Wolff, Capitalism isn't called the "Market System" that would be inaccurate, Capitalism is rightfully identified as, the "Free Market System". Totally a different thing, but why would I imagine your powers of differentiation would bring you to this conclusion... I wouldn't.
Capitalism isn't connected or dependent on a free market. You can be a capitalist in a very restricted market, cf state capitalist, war economy etc. So, why are YOU calling other people dumdums?
The only time, that I am aware, that capitalism has been somewhat positive historically, in the U.S, is during the time from ruffly 1945 to the early 1970's. in which during that time line workers had the ability to buy stocks from the businesses that they worked at and/or for; Therefore, giving them much more power over that company then with what we have now. Other then that Yes I totally agree with what was said in this video.
Democracy at work is good and in my view a value in itself, but doesn't this explanation also lead to the conclusion that exchanging corporation by cooperatives does not fundamentally change the market? Whether a corporation or a cooperative digs up the coal it will make climate change worse. The incentives for the workers at the cooperative to dig up coal are the same as those of workers at a corporation. They produce a good for which there is market demand to sustain their lives.
@Dirk Knight That is completely not related to my comment and the dumbest possible claim given that cooperatives already exist and have no trouble competing. Do go back to your fundamentalist troll hell hole.
@Dirk Knight You are very much showing off that you did not work for or know anything of cooperatives. Maybe before you make ignorant comments at a channel on cooperatives inform yourself on how they work successfully.
@Dirk Knight Just stop making a fool out of yourself and inform yourself. Here in Europe there are many cooperatives that run banks, insurances, supermarkets. Many high tech companies are cooperatives. Doesn't Google work on your machine?
Dr. Wolff, is it so that the worker(s) intentionally sells his/her labor energy for a price per period of time and in so doing becomes just another owned instrument in the total capitalist's (owner's) machine of production? Now, if so, do you think that during the workday the laborer has legal rights outside the scope of his or her self-subjugation to the owner(s) machine of production? Can the worker claim ownership of the product of his or her labor or only the wages paid to them for their labor energy? Either way, can you please explain to me then, what are the workers' contractual rights within the scope of his or her self-subjugation for a period of time?
This needs to be heard
Why?
@john Cenna No, he doesn't really, because economics is a human construct, not an empirical
one, and all of what exists now is enabled and maintained by "governments" that have been
corrupted and do the bidding of "their masters" assuming one is capable penetrating their
rhetoric. (and this is not capitalism no matter how much mental gymnastics Wolff invests in
attempting to present it as such.)
Wolff ultimately is a distraction from the systemic change he claims to be seeking since it contains
no actual understanding of the system he is seeking to change and the hierarchical component that
is the driving force behind it, has been the dominant one since the agricultural revolution of the late
neolithic which presents a bit of irony in that he references all of them, but fails to recognize that there is
no distinctive difference between what has existed and what has evolved from them.
Our present dilemma has been compounded by the industrial revolution which has destroyed the
ecological system on which we depend, as well as exposing our dependence on continual growth
regardless of what economic "ism" may be in place. It is a function of human nature to seek to
gain control over those elements of our existence to gain advantage and improve this condition
to whatever level we are capable of and this includes overcoming natural impediments and threats
as well as those posed by our fellow humans.
We have essentially not evolved very much in this sense and the conditions which fostered the
co-operative behavior and reciprocal altruism and provided checks against selfishness in
exchange for inclusion are long gone, for there is no way to isolate competing groups from
one another and nowhere to run to prevent external imposition by forces greater than those
we can marshall in our own defense.
The appeal of Wolff's message and that of many others is the simplistic naivete with which it
is presented, with the suggested moral implications of "can't we all just get along" and the answer
to that question at the moment and for quite some time has clearly been no. ( as in all of human history )
His solutions alter nothing in the present paradigm since they are essentially a redistribution scheme
which is cosmetic only, and would actually exacerbate our present path and accelerate it, while
continuing to rely on the exploitation upon which developed nations depend and this would have to
continue to support the standard of living we have grown accustomed to and are even now
clamoring for its return.
Being unable to penetrate this ( Wolff's ) rhetoric, ensures that the rhetoric of those in control
remains even further out of reach and even though it states that one has the RIGHT to redress
grievances, this has little impact, when one is directing one's appeal to the actual source of
that grievance and it will take far more effort than that being expended by those whose contributions
amount to a litany of worsening symptoms while being totally clueless as to the underlying cause.
The following articles will help explain that capitalism is NOT the problem for THIS is NOT capitalism.
www.city-journal.org/html/fake-capitalism-14790.html
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/10/how-corruption-is-becoming-americas-operating-system.html?Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29
As for the real solutions, they are far more complex than anything Wolff will ever be capable of...
The following is the "introductory observation" that is offered in the final chapter of "Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update."
"Can we move nations and people in the direction of sustainability? Such a move
would be a modification of society comparable in scale to the only two other
changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution
of the past two centuries, Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and
largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation,
guided by the best foresight science can provide......If we actually do it, the
undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity's stay on the earth."
William D. Ruckelshaus, 1989
@@jgalt308 it seems to me it's you who's not understanding things here. I tried looking for better answers in the links and yeah... There's your problem.
@@EdwardSkihands Wow, what a detailed examination and illustration of my problem...so much so much
that I'm sure it is known and shared by all your fellow cult members.
We should all be grateful that you were willing to generously share your seemingly effortlessly expressed certainty.
@@jgalt308 thanks and you're welcome.
Seriously, there's so much wrong a vague criticism is all that I'm going to give. It's all based on made up facts that are invented in defense of the increasing wealth inequality
Brilliantly said. I shall henceforth remove the phrase "free market" from my lexicon unless it is prefaced with "the so-called."
Why? That term was not used...but I guess you missed that.., here, try again.
Wolff Responds: Why Capitalism is NOT a Market System
@@jgalt308 defenders of capitalism often cite the "free market" as the redeeming quality of capitalism.
OP probably wrote what he did in the context of an argument with such a person.
@@holleey Well, I guess he can clear that up if he wants to...but the effort of precise language
and clear definitions do not seem to be the point of most discussions that take place in
the democracy that is the internet...but rather the exact opposite with as little effort invested as
possible.
@@jgalt308 "The free market" is a phrase that used synonymously with capitalism. Since markets are not actually the defining characteristic of capitalism, nor are markets really "free" under capitalism, referring to capitalism as a "free market system" is actually misleading in more ways than one. Get my meaning now?
@@keving5564 Which would be to say that it is an element of capitalism and since this is NOT capitalism
and markets are also NOT free, your use of either as a description of what exists is simply incorrect.
Of course, you seem to be crediting Wolff for this understanding, and I would agree with you, this
makes him incorrect also, but he has always been so...and his understanding rests an alteration of
what capitalism is and distorting it beyond all recognition.
His error is his continued failure to recognize that whatever economic system he is talking about,
how it operates and who it serves has always been determined by those who are in control of it
since they are the authority and exercise the "force" in maintaining it...what is different about the
present iteration is that in the past the corruption of government came from within the system
( the central authority ) where the wealth and advantage was concentrated, whereas with the
emergence of banks, beginning with the Medici's in Italy in the 13th century, the accumulation of
wealth became possible from outside this authority, and began to compete directly with it, while
the advent of "industrialization" expanded the possibility of this accumulation of wealth to more
outsiders, each of whose interests required the continued corruption of "this authority" to protect
their advantage.
One might therefore contrast the "rhetoric of capitalism" with the "rhetoric of government"
and recognize that what exists is no more capitalistic than our government is one "of, by and
for the people with liberty and justice for all." So whether the problem rests with "government"
or "corrupted government" it is with the "state" that the problems lie, and it is here that one's efforts,
understanding and energy must be focused. In this, Wolff is simply misdirection and distraction
and one of many factions whose disparate interests, serve to maintain what already exists and
ironically do most of the work in maintaining those divisions, essentially self-sabotaging their own
efforts in the process.
It really is funny how the enthusiasts of capitalism will say this is the best system that humanity has created, however the universities are not allowed to teach about alternatives. How is it that the best system possible cannot stand under any type of scrutiny?
@adam riddle look at the uk friend...they are banning it. How long will it be before they do it here too? If they hadn't already they probably will eventually once the initial brainwashing wears off
At the time I wrote this there are two replies, one from adam riddle and the other from Kasadoll. One of them is polite and adds to the conversation, the other uses an insult "retards". For me personally, if I have something to say that I would like to be taken seriously, the LAST thing I would do is insult my audience. I hope this helps one of you.
@@tomholy nicely said.
an argument is lost the moment someone resorts to insults.
adam did not even made it past his initial comment...
adam riddle
Imagine if you had two opportunities for employment:
1. A corporate enterprise where you make $10 per hour snd no other benefits and have no vote in what the enterprise does.
Or
2. A democratic cooperative where you had a vote in the enterprise and you made $30 an hour plus benefits because you do not have corporate shareholders taking the majority of the profits.
Which employment do you choose and why?
Other systems are against their agendas.
I would also remark on the gigantic maze of "Free Trade" deals involving almost every country on the planet. The purpose of the deals is to restrict markets available to the consumers. The word *Free* is a complete misnomer.
Good point.
Where can I read more about this specific feature of "free" trade?
@@Dsonsee Hi. I'm going to post some links. (it's a lot of reading, and I recommend a whiteboard to keep track).
ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#:~:text=The%20Transatlantic%20Trade%20and%20Investment,trade%20and%20multilateral%20economic%20growth.&text=Negotiations%20were%20halted%20by%20president,trade%20conflict%20with%20the%20EU.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership (This is in effect now.)
@@Dsonsee You can also just go to each country and search their equivalent of the USTR. If you want to see what a "Free Trade" arrangement does, look up the old NAFTA, and then the "new" USMCA.
@@milesobrien2694 Is there any piece that touches on the specifics of free trade restricting market availability for the consumer?
The solution to the described problem is Worker Owned Cooperatives and Community Banks.
Here on peronia, we think the same.
Definitely agree, but a revolution (or some form of disruption) has to take place first, I think, to remove the current system because, sadly, I don't see a 'seamless' transition.
@@cosmicviewer477 Nothing is ever seamless. You gotta break a few eggs, etc. But... I am hoping for some evolution instead. Peace, Love & Groovy Things has been around a LONG time. We will see.
Government regulators n politicians will veto what you suggest. They are all well oiled with campaign donners's money.
Worker Co Ops and community banks also exist. No one is stopping them in a capitalist environment. Please check Amul in India. Very successful and very good quality but even they have a structure and they are also kind of a monopoly. But if you see even in a capitalist society such things work. You do not have to force it.
This video is gonna sting avid defenders of capitalism...
Kobe mop, about freakin' time the stinging began.
kobe mop Only the stupid ones. not the ones smart enough to understand that the correct term is "FREE market economy", NOT " market economy".
@@clarestucki5151 The problem is free market is a myth. That is just the song they sing as they each try to own the monopoly. The award goes to the corporation that has enough power to control how "government intrusion" hurts the competition.
Then we have segments of the economy where competition does not occur. Look at the insurance industry, or the petroleum industry. They clearly do not try to compete. There is too much concert in their actions. The consumer has to pay for it.
@@clarestucki5151 You refer to the 'free money markets' where the barrier to entry is that only the hyper wealthy or banks or similar can play. Try to enforce transaction taxes on the free money markets and see where that gets you. Everyone else pays direct tax on income. Only the hyper wealthy pay negative tax. In nature there's no free lunch no matter how wealthy you think you are. Check out the dinosaurs, Rome, Greece, Britain... I could go on.
@@brianwheeldon4643 What the hell are you talking about? I did NOT refer to the "free money markets". What does that term even mean?
Professor Richard D. Wolff is the best America has. Please share his truths widely!
No he isn't. He can't even debate an economist with economics and resorts to psychology which even he doesn't know either.
You know, you're doing something amazing and I value you for it. I watched your 1h30 talk at google and I was blown away at everything you said and couldn't stop watching. If only Noam Chomsky was younger, we'd have another great mind on TH-cam.
The world needs more people like you.
"the kings we got rid off in political society 500 yrs ago they still live inside inside the enterprises but they're called CEOs"
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
You are wrong capitalism and feudalism are the same .Also in my opinion capitalism started a lest from the time of ancient Phoenicia .i am ready to
Debate you on this topics
I shared this video cause it speaks truth. Thank you so much for sharing. 🙏🏻
"Illusion".
Perfect descriptive word for so very much.
A pathway from what I'm fed by the media,
to how the electricity and chemicals work my brain,
to my actions, opinions, likes, dislikes,
To what I think I am.
A science used by the few to control the many.
Thanks for the good think.
Free markets equal invisible, pink unicorns.
I knew about market socialism, mutualism, etc., but it's so enlightening to hear the distinction phrased like: "capitalism is not a system of distribution (e.g. a market), it's a system of production". Thanks Prof Wolff! Great stuff as always
It is a system of distribution. How are you going to distribute if things are not produced. It is FREE market system. He deceptively left that because he had to misguide you. Capitalist serve the market not the people in the organisation. This is not good stuff from this man. In socialist or communist country they don't serve the market at all and that's why people end up poor. Every country knows Capitalism is a money generator and it is the best. Please try and understand and not be misguided
Capitalism is the generalization of commodity production. Production for selling. Labor power is also a commodity. That's what defines capitalism. It is a system based on production to sell on the market, it's a market system.
Merci Professeur Wolff, c'est une excellente explication concernant cette question fondamentale qui prête, souvent, à confusion.
Awesome perspective Richard! Thank You!
Wow, this is indeed really insightful.
Owner vs worker is also not unique to capitalism. It's just change of name (master/slave to employer/employee).
The real unique quality of capitalism is the special role of capital -- the belief that capital gain should be hard for those who don't have it, but can grow freely for those who already have lots.
Errr, I still don’t understand. It’s too complicated. The Owners who pay to write my books, report the news, & buy my politics have told me different and I believe the because they’re good people who want the best for everyone, even if it’s not the best for them personally. 🤑😉
Ken Semotiuk ?
The last time I was this early, the US still had functioning Labor Unions.
Nobody remembers
The internet has not been around that long.
algorithms sealed our fate
adjusted perceptions
removed the right Hemisphere
empathy is not profitable
The longer this goes on, the more brainwashed the people get.
@@feriafyre
It is by design
The book
PYSCOPATHIC EPIDEMIC
..gives the who, what, and more importantly the why u s. we are falling.
Wonderful last few minutes.
If being controlled my whole life is the only option... I'd rather be dead.
Thank you for doing these videos Richard, these are the modern rallies. We need a campaign for democracy at work!!!!
Can't wait to see you on the Gravel Institute!!
100% correct and its exactly what I have been pointing out also
AUTHORITARIAN PRODUCTION SYSTEM that has outlived its usefulness. Brilliant!! Perfect. Almost everyone can relate to that. Who has not felt that on the skin???
Call it what you want. Capitalism is freedom. Socialism is FORCE. The incentive to work in capitalism is profit and/or fear of failure. The incentive to work in socialism is the whip. Capitalism is not just a market. It is a free market. It is not just a system of production. It is freedom to choose your system of production.
There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone from starting a company and setting up production in a socialist way. If you think that is the best way to produce goods, by all means go for it. You can take a vote every morning on what to do that day, and see if you can get anyone to put their full effort into the process. Those that are lazy? Well you know, share and share alike, equality and all that. Democracy at work. It is so wonderful. Then if you ever get anything made, you can vote on who gets to go sell it. I don't know if anyone gets paid or not or if you just distribute what's left of the money. Everyone can sign checks right? Of course there is no real way to start up such a company, because every employee would have to put in an equal amount of investment capital to get it started. I guess only rich people could work here? If someone tries to leave, do you take a vote on what to give them as value for what their initial investment was?
What about the guy who is clearly more talented and works harder than those around him? You know, the guy with the ideas. Think Steve Jobs vs the guy who cleans the toilets. I guess 51% can force him to stay. Equal shares of non-existent profits for all. He will be so happy. Equality. Democracy at work.
The reason no one does this in a free society is because a company like this would get crushed by their capitalist competitors, the way the USSR got crushed by the United States. No, the only way to have true socialism, is to have communism. Total government control of production and distribution. 51% wants it? Sounds great. Equality. Force. Central planning. Zero freedom. Lovely. I think this has been tried. Democracy at work.
Centrist here - I like Wolff. I find him clear and educational. Good material for forming more nuanced opinions. When I've defended capitalism in the past I've really just been defending markets, so I'll be sure to correct myself here.
Employer and employee is necessary in Capitalism. Why ? Because without them money can not exist. Same as buyers and sellers. Money is master of both employee and employers.
Money doesn't need to exist in a country where everybody works for each other. There is a group in America that do just that to a certain degree.
A summary. Capitalism is not a market system but, rather, an authoritarian production system that is a drag on the human race. Indeed. Let's work to change that system everywhere it exists. We can transform society into something much better.
I like this guy straight to the point no BS...
Thanks for covering this
Zeitgeist Addendum talks about the fractional federal reserve banking system, modern money mechanics/ theory, and the debt based monetary system. We need to strive for a debt free moneyless system based on abundance for everyone, the preservation of the environment, technological automation, efficiency, economic localization/ decentralization, efficient resource allocation, etc
Yeah, the problem is how do we get there from here. The Capitalists will fight to the death to stop it
@@KznnyL then death it shall be 😁
Yes, Squirrels don't pay rent and the experts are baffled.
@@KznnyL just like they're doing in Belarus.
You are a national treasure. Take good care of yourself!!
Ditto for jobs that require any creativity and specialized knowledge that greatly multiple the value (profits) for the end product.
Salary is weakly, or not linked to the employer's profits, i never witnessed a fair salary evaluation process. Yearly Merit reviews
were crushing, the manager typically had no clues as to what the worker was contributing. Project teams converged to
one man bands. Middle managers became extinct, secretaries not required, HR online. No career growth or advancement.
Critical necessary (skills) engineers were just laid off. To keep the body count low. Contractors and Consultants became the
valuable players. good successful companies were acquired and gutted. My solution was change jobs when the
employer/employee arrangement was no longer a bargain for me, but great for them. Mention COLA and get a big laugh.
Employee satisfaction was not on the table, it became employee engagement. LOL done & retired
And nearly every company operates in this fashion. There's very few decent companies left to work for and then ts only getting worse.
Glad you're retired. The Manifesto has this passage I think about a lot.
"The lower strata of the middle class - the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants - all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population."
And this one
"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."
@adam riddle why are you here? I mean, it's great that you're listening to an intelligent man like Professor Wolff, but you haven't seemed to learn anything. Or perhaps you're in the comments to feel better about yourself and didn't actually watch the video? Sad, either way.
@adam riddle U R a swiss army knife ! You need no support. No, no, i am not a cog in the corporate gear. Team, what team ?
divide and control. forget feedback, managers do not want it
@@dogeyes7261 Resonates for me. Here check this out:
SEPTEMBER 21, 2020
The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.”
hint hint, two class system, neoliberal (capitalist) KILLED the middle class
rich / poor
Employer / employee
Bourgeois / labor
Lord / serf
Master / slave
In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital
to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society.
CAPITALISM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC
AND IT IS BROKEN as in:
you are labor babe, sorry
ARE YOU THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE
ARE YOU THE BOURGEOISIE OR LABOR
ARE YOU THE LORD OR A SERF
ARE YOU THE MASTER OR A SLAVE
Can you quit your job ? retire ?
No, then you are labor, make that a slave. LOL
when can you retire ?
$10B AT 3.65% = $1M PER DAY $365M PER YEAR
$1B AT 3.65% = $100K PER DAY $36.5M PER YEAR
$100M AT 3.65% = $10K PER DAY $3.65M PER YEAR
$10M AT 3.65% = $1K PER DAY $365K PER YEAR
$1M AT 3.65% = $100 PER DAY $36.5K PER YEAR
$100K AT 3.65% = $10 PER DAY $3.65K PER YEAR
What is wrong ? well punk, are you a slave ?
That's right the Capital brings the relationship of power, class division if you understand it as so. Capital is not only that described by prof. Wolff but also political power that is needed to maintain it, the superstructure. So for example, in 2008 the Gov. could have instead of giving the billions bailout "almost free money" to the financial system, actually financed(bought) part of the debt of the people who bought the houses or whatever. Even if the price was too high, the effect would be exactly the same(maybe better for the bubble) for the economy except that the power would go to save the people and no the rich capitalists who made a lot on the financial system. The money would come exactly from the same place, but without people have lose their homes, etc. Unfortunately, that irelative power. Capital is power,as much any previous class system we had. The only difference is that the previous systems used a form of violent dominance over the lower class, while Capitalists uses their Capital and power to create their ideology, including that fake story that says everyone can be rich is just a matter of hard working or good entrepreneurship.
got your rice and beans ?
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
I absolutely love your explanation Mr Richard is so simple and understandable only and ignorant won't understand. Thank you. Keep up the good work
Too many people conflate capitalism with markets and talk about them as one and the same when they are not. Capitalism describes a system where the dominant mode of production is one where private capital inputs are transformed through wage labour into commodities with higher value and then sold for profit for the capital holder. The market merely is the method through which commodities are exchanged, and while capitalism necessarily needs markets in some form to function, markets are not exclusive to commodities produced by the capitalist mode of production, and are perfectly fine with commodities produced by a mode of production where the capital holder and the labourer are one and the same as in a worker coop.
I'm pretty sure nobody said capitalism=markets.
Capitalism is a system based on market trade of products and private ownership of capital.
Markets can exist in a small form even under Communism, markets by themselves are not Capitalism lol.
I have seen more left-wing ideologues conflate capitalism with markets when they were trying to prove the USSR is capitalist because 4% of its economy had international trade.
Too many people conflate capitalism with employment. Being employed has nothing to do with capitalism, you can be employed in a Communist country.
W
what's your notion is, BUT... too bad, the Capitalism and it's capitalists capture and got control over the presumably free market?
A million dollar question, should a system encourage and works for the people OR should the people work for the system to benefit those who presumably controls the market???
Then again, to consider the short n long term effects/benefits of the systems to the people as a whole(in parity)....... if not, where's the free market n it's purpose???
The strong/rich survive while the weak/poor dies in the present free-market? Than obviously, the system failed in a whole as presumably believed?/!.
Great material, thanks from Ukraine!
Excellent, Very informative .. Thanks ...
We need free market, not capitalism.
Markets are used for price discovery.
Prof. Wolff, please come here in Asia and do lectures if you have time.. Lots of love from The Philippines. You're the best.
Much respect to Prof. W ! Love it!
Thank You Professor Wolf you are a great teacher and with your simple explanation make all students like myself educated. Most of all I want to come to your classes for a breath of fresh air
I bought Richard Wolff's newest book today
Why wasn't it free?
@@catvideos9956 Ask Richard Wolff not me
I appreciate the distinction, but i'm a little unnerved by the implements of torture on the wall...
Gertcha I think those are tools, the item on the far left looks like a wrench to me (albeit, a very large one). The third one looks very similar to a dipstick. The middle one, though, doesn’t really resemble a tool I am familiar with.
Great observation. I was unnerved by the snarling and myopic presentation.
Thats wild... he was gettibg worked up a bit too..
Hi Richard, your ideas are sound and well-presented. What I was hoping for is for you to offer alternatives to the current system, or at least ideas on how to make it better. Although properly identifying and naming the problem is essential, and on that, you have done an excellent job, but we need specific ideas for reform. If you have none, that is fine. You can't be expected to do everything, but say that, and enlist all of us in the quest to help find improvements.
Thank you for the free extended education.
Mr. Wolf always on point.
Honest question...
So does this mean that the definition of capitalism isn't true? It being "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." ?
If I'm understanding you correctly, capitalism only exist in situations where there are huge companies with board members, and CEOs with a large number of less fortunate workers underneath them. But it doesn't exist among smaller businesses or individuals doing business with one another?
The vast majority of the world population don’t create their own employment so it’s a facile argument. People are free to become self employed and take on risk, employees are sheltered from risk by taking employment offered.
That is a false argument because A The majority of the work force need the capital to begin, and B they may not have the natural talents. That is why a true Socialist country looks after everybody and uses their natural talents for the good of everyone else.
Capitalism was conceived as a market economy. Indeed, Smith said: If you get up early in the morning to make your dough, you can sell your bread for profit at the market -marché in French, meaning places to which you can walk and where "invisible hands" control the capitalist merchants.
However, modern Capitalism is its fallacy.
Today's capitalists, - backed by Friedman's thesis that enterprises' only responsibility is to make profits for their shareholders- say: we make profits (the antecedent) we are good for our shareholders (the consequent).
That is the perfect example of the fallacy of affirming the consequent since, in essence, what Smith said is, "If capitalist individuals are good for society (the antecedent), they can make profits (the consequent).
Profit was supposed to be the "means" to have entrepreneurs get up and work for others; now, it is what allows them to live on yachts lavishly. Capitalism has thus become a Radical Monopoly which takes the means for the goals. Because of that, it is recreating what it was supposed to abolish, the ruling aristocracy. Because of this unrecognized fallacy, many more live like kings, supported by the fees and the taxes that price inflation provides.
It's a very selective stance to focus exclusively on the production side of the system since both production and distribution are inextricably linked together.
Markets may not be an exclusive feature of capitalism but I don't see why it should to be a important part of it; capital goods, source materials and "job-worthy" skills, which are all required on the production side, have markets in which people can engage in trade... thus making Markets as integral as Production for capitalism.
Very, very good.
capitalism iss not an employer-employee system... it's a ruling system. that's why there's oligarch
cap·i·tal·ism
/ˈkapədlˌizəm/
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Yup, nothing in there about it being a market (goods DISTRIBUTION). Also nothing in there defining private owners. You can have as many owners as you'd like.
What drives the amount of owners/workers is the efficacy derived from division of labor efforts. Those starting a business and those tasked with maintaining a business routinely manage that ratio. This happens in all business, in all socio-economic models.
You amaze me as usual
Impressive analysis, eye opening facts, magnetic economic philosophy!!!
WHAT? How is a family dinner not a market? Someone had to need the food and therefore someone had to produce it. And how is slavery a market? Slavery is one person or group saying you have to produce. A market even by your definition is needed being met by another who can produce it.
As far as your minority (owner. manager, CEO) what about their minority of knowledge? Does the guy that can weld a car part know why he is welding that part? Does he know the codes and strength that relates to the entire vehical?
Also whats your deal with slavery and employment? Did slaves apply to be slaves like employees applied for a job?
I guess my overall question for you is do you know how to run a landscape company? Do you know the rates, how to lay irrigation pipe, when to and not to mow a lawn, how to place sprinklers, and what demographic can pay more then others? And if given the choice would you wake up at 5am and stay till 9pm vs showing up at 7am and leaving at 5pm? Or do you want to stay up the extra hours to figure out all the details on every dession?
So well said
In essence CAPITALISMS greatest achievement has been the marketing of the perception of itself.
Class
Ok you have made the issues very clear. There are those of us out here that have also known this. Now how to change it. What are some of the solutions that the average person can do to start this change. People that don’t have the start up money for a business. People with trashed credit not because they didn’t want to pay their bills but because the system dragged them under do to medical bills a lost job having to spend 11 years taking of a disabled parent. We understand the issues now we need a starting point????
Capitalism isn't a system. It's what people do when you leave them alone.
Can we get transcriptions of these bits?
No problem....
truthout.org/articles/capitalism-is-not-the-market-system/
But the problem is, it's all bullshit, and neither capitalism nor the free market required by it.
So you might want to consider these bits also.
www.city-journal.org/html/fake-capitalism-14790.html
Dear Mr. Richard Wolff, question, with regards to employer, employee system where people/employees have no and in some cases have had no say/decision making powers for generations, is it possible to then make a change and give them the say and have it work as a viable system. I think what im saying is are people then conditioned to be unable to make proper choices for themselves?
@@beno1658 thanks, that's something to chew on, interesting ideas, kinda like what a democracy should be!
@@beno1658 Your living in fantasy land. As a capitalist I'm going as much automation as possible! Forget employees, they have no value. They do nothing but cause inefficiency and if a decision needs to be made, then I can do that.
Thanks professor Wolff for showing how badly our systems work
Dirk Knight having a system that works for you does not make it a good system, why would I want to use a bad system?
Capitalists can buy politicians and with them control the market to a great extent. They can also monopolize markets. But they're still markets, even to a basic extent free markets, rather than command markets. Capitalist competition doesn't exist without markets. Capitalist production wouldn't make sense without markets. In Marx's analysis, capitalist production is determined by the market it serves with its products, the point at which it realizes the profit that was created by surplus labor value. When capitalism erects barriers to its markets, it finds ways to jump those barriers, for example by exporting capital abroad. You can say capitalism isn't a market system; but, when you do so, you're abandoning Marxism. In Marx's description of capitalism, the inclusion of a market mechanism wasn't a distraction.
So, if " the point at which it realizes the profit that was created by surplus labor value. " then if a production system
is entirely automated, from whence comes the "surplus value."? For this example, the system created is due to the
labor and intellect of a single person. Is there no profit? Or is the man guilty of exploiting himself?
@@jgalt308 If the production process is 99.99% automated, the productivity of labor has increased to the point at which fixed costs (of automating devices and methods) are determinant for investment and variable costs (labor) are negligible in comparison.
This is the situation that's approached when someone buys electric machinery to produce the goods for themselves, for instance a sewing machine, or better a hypothetical computerized, robotized sewing machine that runs itself. Production with the sewing machine is entirely for use value, not for profit. There's no return on investment with the sewing machine that could be assigned a monetary value.
Unlike the sewing-machine owner, the owner of the commercial production process uses the investment in input costs in order to secure a return that will cover those costs and, in addition, an expected surplus-- not one in extra product, but a surplus in return on investment in the form of fluid capital (money). A capitalist doesn't break ground on a new auto plant and then sink millions into it every time he needs a new personal automobile.
Capitalist production has one purpose, and that's to turn initial capital (M) into augmented capital (M') through the use of commodity inputs (C). Such commodity inputs have no use value for the capitalist: their only value is as the means to augment his investment. The process was indicated by Marx as M-C-M'.
If, as with the sewing machine, production is turned to producing goods for use value, it's the inputs that are augmented rather than capital, as C-M-C'. Capital investment remains fixed (M).
This can be the case only when the fixed costs of automating devices and methods have completely replaced the variable cost of labor. There's no payment to labor power, so there's no labor surplus.
Note two things: (1) commodity inputs are still turned into commodities that have use value and (2) there's no need for human labor. The production process provides commodity wealth to the society without the need for society to reward labor (with wages) or capital (with profits).
How does the producing enterprise purchase commodity inputs? It doesn't, because they're cost-free since the enterprises that provide the inputs have no variable costs of their own.
Where does management come from? Isn't there a cost of management? Management is fully automated, which is facilitated by not having humans to deal with in the process. You lead people, you manage things. People are free to decide on the logistics of the social process, by which they're assisted with computer automation.
The social process has a servo mechanism (feedback loop), because periodically the cybernetics generates reports (eventually in the form of documentaries) which the people can use to sharpen their decision-making. One of the facets of the reporting process is that the social-logistical machinery gauges the level of democracy shown in the decision-making: Is it effective in achieving goals? Is it efficient in protecting what people value?
The entire social process will increase constantly in productivity according to how much the social productive processes are satisfying needs-- with physical recreation, personal educational enhancement, entertainment, free travel and tourism, and the like. People will exploit their own mental-labor power to keep society providing an ever more enriching life, but the exploitation will decrease as the automated social process increases in productivity.
In such a society, the democracy of the profit-makers will increasingly seem alien and a relic of the barbaric past. Workers' democracy will guide its implementation, and class distinctions will rapidly be assigned to the ash heap of history. Human nature will finally be free to evolve until coöperation will be the norm: no longer senseless competition and sociopathic sub-optimization. In such a society, individualism will be valued as a measure of health to the degree that it promotes coöperation and the enhancement of the lives of others.
Is there something mystical in the vision of such a social process? Well, is there something mystical about your personal computer?
@@AtlantaBill How did society get to own the means of production?
The only labor here is that of the owner, who built the production line whose production he sells
to society, which he does at a profit. If there is no surplus labor ( and there is because the machines are doing it ) then
there would be no profit. ( which there is. )
So it seems you have invested a great deal of effort in avoiding the question because the labor
still exists, it is just being done by the machinery, whose costs are met ( according to their need )
and produce a profit. ( according to their ability. ) And this is both precise and accountable for all
aspects of need and ability as they apply to the machines.
The production which is the end result still has value, so where did the value come from? There is
no surplus labor, for the needs of labor in this instance are precisely met...so the labor is not being exploited.
This would suggest rather starkly that what profit is, it is not due to the surplus value of labor but rather
from the transformation of the materials used from a less useful form to a more useful one. ( and
none of the labor here contributed anything to the intellectual process of devising that transformation, )
It also challenges directly the idea that when machines replace humans, any increase in productivity
is due to the human, when it is clearly due to the machine. It might even be argued, and rather strongly
that the contribution of human labor to the end result has actually decreased since the energy expended
by what humans remain is empirically less. ( as determined by the empirical calculation of work )
Now it's not that I don't appreciate your utopian view of the future where all of
societies' needs are met...the problem is, whose surplus-value of labor are you
going to exploit to meet them? In the above example the only exploitation that occurs
is that of the owner, who also receives all of the profits from the production. ( if there
are any. )
It had been hoped that the initial example given would have been sufficient to avoid
requiring further explanation but that was obviously overly optimistic. Now that the
detritus has been cleared away I would appreciate it if you would present any argument
you may wish to make in response to the points made directly as they have been expressed
simply enough that even Marx would be able to comprehend them. ( or maybe not. )
@@jgalt308 I misunderstood you. I'm not going to waste time arguing with a Jacobin. There's no absolute right of property that the working people are obliged to respect. But I didn't waste my own time because people with a modern understanding of economics, free of feudal illusions grounded in Idealism and Philosophical Impressionism, are going to read it.
@@AtlantaBill Seems like a lot of rhetoric to avoid answering the simple questions the example provokes,
and since it essentially destroys all of Wolff's arguments whether they are congruent with Marx or not,
your failure to respond is duly noted. ( and I accept your concession even though you can not bring yourself
to admit your failure directly. )
Your use of the label is interesting and entirely nonsensical, and you are sadly mistaken if you think
anyone here is going to bother to read your initial response...since most here can't, don't and won't read
and even your latest avoidance is probably beyond their attention span and makes even less sense
than your initial one.
But thanks for sharing ( although mostly not sharing ) even though the task was made as simple as possible for you.
"It has been the acknowledged right of every Marxist scholar to read into Marx the particular meaning that he himself prefers and to treat all others with indignation.
"
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
"
"Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true.
"
"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.
"
"The great dialectic in our time is not, as anciently and by some still supposed, between capital and labor; it is between economic enterprise and the state.
"
“The problem is not economics; it goes back to a far deeper part of human nature. As people become fortunate in their personal well-being, and as countries become similarly fortunate, there is a common tendency to ignore the poor. Or to develop some rationalization for the good fortune of the fortunate. Responsibility is assigned to the poor themselves. Given their personal disposition and moral tone, they are meant to be poor. Poverty is both inevitable and in some measure deserved. The fortunate individuals and fortunate countries enjoy their well-being without the burden of conscience, without a troublesome sense of responsibility.”
John Kenneth Galbraith ( all of the above )
I have been talking about the same views - that US capitalism is not a market economy for some time on Facebook, Twitter, and my blog.
He’s right! what he fails to say is, the goods that are produced go into a free market!
Is it free, though? You can only take part if you provide labour to the (emphasis here) capitalist production process.
our present Corporate share and shareholder based system is called a market system in reference to the "stock market"...in which the vast majority of us serve as cannon fodder...
@Dirk Knight my point exactly...now days the federal reserve is buying corporate debt...now we all have shares... regardless...the fact people have been drafted to serve in, undeclared wars...such as Vietnam...for which I had a number briefly... benefiting only arms manufacturers, serving essentially as cannon fodder ... shouldn't be seen as part and parcel of our so called nation...No one should force anyone to buy shares in corporate stocks...none should exist to begin with..without national public approval and national public ownership...The best working relationship a Corporately shared entity could have with its workers is one of outright ownership/slavery...the way they are constructed ensures this if and whenever possible...you can now invest in a growing for profit prison industry which does take advantage of the clause contained in the Thirteenth amendment allowing "slavery" for incarcerated people...of course this Privatization of a public institution "jails and prisons" only extends the slavery the state has up till now...since the end of original "private" slavery...back to the new Lords of us all... corporate entities owned in majority shares by a tiny handful of ultra wealthy flesh and blood individuals...to the detriment of everyone else....my opinion...nothing more..."we" can do better
@Dirk Knight are you being disingenuous or are you actually as ignorant as you presently are presenting yourself to be...the federal reserve has bought or bailed out bank debt...it churns out money to banks to ensure short term lending between banks which otherwise don't trust each other...for good reasons...and has now...just recently...for the first time in my lifetime...and I do believe ever...begun to buy Corporate debt...instead of letting dead corporate entities die...they are able to now sell their debt to the federal reserve..."us all"... socialism for them...and nothing for flesh and blood...my point about Vietnam is absolutely valid...you are unable though...for reasons unknown...to grasp my points...I suggest don't want too... I was clear and concise enough for most to grasp my meanings...
@Dirk Knight you know what love...I am self employed...self sustaining...and have equity up the ass...your dismissing of me...with suggestions you know me simply demonstrate the level of ignorance and assumption you are presently drowning in...I won't waste anymore time in responding to your obvious ignorance...live long and sink or swim...
@Dirk Knight financially illiterate or opposed to the system...
@Dirk Knight I am an essential ...I always have work...do you???...I charge 75 dollars an hour for my time...it should be more...often I take pity on poor rich people in over their heads...with property in Aspen...with a roof...and a roof leak...I am needed..are you?...if the water was coming into your home...ruining it...would you get up there all seasons and fix it???...could you??? Or would you call someone...perhaps me...fully ensured at the cost of 5000 dollars a year...as a roofer...to come to your aid...even if you got up there and found the problem...you would...as most homeowners...have me...or another above board roofer come to your aid...and you would pay me...how essential are you?... I bet I could live my whole life...and never need you...or anyone like you...tell me if I am wrong...and then...get on with your life and leave me out of it...you know...eat the unavoidable shit that comes in all processed packaged foods ...if you eat them...and die... eventually...as we all do... capiche?
Another point: markets are based upon the economic principle of the creditor/debtor relationship, that is one party owes something to another. In a domestic economy, like a household or a commune, no one owes anyone anything in a currency of exchange; you're not paying Billy or Suzy to take out the trash by cooking them dinner or getting them new video games (though, I'm sure plenty of families like to treat their kids, there is no debt involved in it). Markets require this relationship to function as markets, or else they become simply a locus of distribution, like a warehouse (no judgement here, since I'm a communist and find the idea of a collective distribution warehouse as being ideal). Capitalism most certainly takes this principle and runs with it, as with the social actor roles from my previous post, expanding upon the principle to such a sophisticated and complex degree as to be very cumbersome to unpack.
Okay well those "decision makers" often do not really make the decisions they just take the credit from the people below them who did all the work and made the decision that this was something that would work and the CEO just goes: "ok". And for that they are paid much more handsomely than the people who did the work and made the real decision.
2:40 Wolff completely misunderstood the driving force of the market, supply and demand. What of toad of a mad.
There's been markets since the dawn of time. Capitalism didn't add market to the equation, it created a nondemocratic, hugely destructive arrangement of production.
And how is "supply and demand" capitalism?
Wolff is either a moron, or a grifter. He thinks companies can be run successfully by the workers. What he fails to understand or understands and doesn’t want you to know, is that human beings don’t think the same way, especially in groups. They have their own agendas, belief systems and morality. There is no company or group in the world that can function efficiently and effectively if their is a collective in charge.
Same thing in State socialism. I'm looking for the people t
Have you experienced socialism?
At 65 as I knew my father's father his job title was "Head of Maintenance" for the "Kewanee Technical Corporation" and my Dad was a "Fixer of Fixers" in the textile mills for "Burlington Industries" ... Bred born and raised in an area where the "Southern Screw Company" once existed that way of life didn't interest me. But like the ring of Martin Luther King Jr's voice would say, somewhere I have read, somewhere I have heard of a man who ask the question, "When is the optomin time to trade my vehicle?" Who began applying the principles an technics used in the "PRODUCTION" of them to one unit re-asking the question, to which his answer was never! On his death bed my Daddy said, "People got to much stuff." Via duh way George Carlin with his "STUFF" is a vey good perspective of reality!
when do we start afresh; l'm sick of this world as it is?we need more wolffs.
Man, I wish I was taught this when I was a teenager.
The absolute state of this guys arguments. Capitalism Ho! ✊🏻
Capitalism is pretty distinct/unique for it's tendency to blame the victim... in feudalism, lords rule by birthright. In slave economies, the slavery is justified through property rights, or some other ham rationalization. In capitalism, well, if you're still poor after working hard, 200 hours a week, for 40 years, well, you should have tried harder... put your back into it. It's your fault, not your employers.
Since it is the private ownership of the means of production and it doesn't blame anyone for anything.
If you are not a slave, then you are entitled to the fruits of your labor...if all your labor represents is
the equivalent of an energy input that can be replaced by a cheaper energy input, then you will be replaced.
This would be true even if you are working for yourself. Now that argument would be interesting to observe
as you argue with yourself, about the benefits of working harder rather than smarter. I wonder who will win?
Sheeple are most comfortable being FOLLOWERS. What about the remainder of us WILLING to make decisions and take responsibility for our personal lives?
It's good to here the truth.
Of the 35 million businesses in the US, who is being exploited from the 25 million that are owner-operated with no employees? Can they be decision makers and victims at the same time?
From an economic perspective, what is the difference between an employee and an owner-operator? How is the owner-operator able to refuse a job or quit and not end up having to find someone else to employ him or risk starvation?
If an owner-operator is working as a general contractor, is he exploiting the value of an owner-operator of a subcontractor that is hired to handle a specific portion of a project?
What changes if the owner operator decides to hire the subcontractor as an employee? Is he now a wage slave whose only option after quitting is to find another employer or die of starvation?
If so, couldn't this be addressed by making employees illegal? No employees, no exploited victims.
The relation of markets and capitalism is deeply explained is Ellen Wood's The Origin of Capitalism. Everyone interested in this debate should read it.
From my point of view that sounds very interesting to me. The idea of production cooperatives is not new, but it is well rethought.
What I only find interesting is that in my home region (Thuringia) there are a lot of agricultural cooperatives that work on huge areas of land as a collective and then share the profits.
That is still a souvenir of the GDR era.
I would be interested in what you think of it.
socialist greetings from Germany
"Free market" is a bait and switch term. This market system we have is not freer than previous ones, as there are exploited and exploiters. It is not free, if the term was stolen to mean descriptively something else, namely consumerism which gives us the inevitable paralysis of choice and then the inevitable crisis of meaning. A socialist market system or even market anarchism of some formulation would be a truly free economic system due to its collectivist nature and probably also its inherently ecological nature.
A short but great piece of work. I thank you on behalf of the world. I just wish they would listen. lol.
Great video, thanks, one quibble: at 2:52 you seem to depict slavery and capitalism as two different things. Actually, the slave trade was arguably the first instance of capitalism. The Chinese had much better ships in 1400 -- why didn't they they conquer the world? Because the Chinese captains took orders from above, and there was no order to conquer the world. Columbus's men and other after him were all their own entrepreneurs. The benefited personally from their own actions. Later, the slave trade fueled capitalism in the UK; British textile factories needed amounts of cotton etc. that could (apparently) only be produced by slaves.
So massive global modern slavery gave birth to modern capitalism. The two went hand in hand.
Like Wolff, you require a better understanding of history.
Okay, Mr. Wolff... The majority of people working in a given line of work have no idea what is required to make their work possible. If those people did understand what make their work possible, they would be creating their own work and hearing people that have no ideas what is required to make their work possible. This is the nature of the strong and the weak of the intellect. It is what it is Mr. Wolff, and you can't change it by wishing.
Amen!!!👏👏👏🙌🙌🙌
Yep!
it's correct, but there's an important deatil: in capitalism the work it self it's transformed in a "service" in the "market". work and salary works in a logic of market place, where if there is a lot of people that need to work and fewer workplaces, the salarys go down and more and more abuses are considerate "normal". in this context, it is a market system. the human are transformed in a object in the market shelter.
There has always been capital ie. Money. And it was created for exchange in commerce. Capitalism is a political system for the benefit mainly for the greedy people at the top. Especially in a Republic they make the rules to favor them and their financial donors.
A wage is not nothing. Many people today are entrepreneurs they work for themselves and are successful. Capital is not the problem its greedy vulture capitalism in cahoots with congress that is the problem and i can tell you the solution.
Just think if Howard Schultz would of asked me for free as his Presidential campaign advisor instead of grossly overpaid Steve Schmidt, Howard would be sitting very strong between the 2 party establishment criminal bullshiters. Believe me i conveyed my intentions to him many times. All I was asking was to get a small space in Austin Texas hang a shingle out as Independent headquarters. No party, no arduous subservient rules just a massive national networking voluntary mass participation. Politics done right "we the people". Our nation could have supported many many Independent candidates running for Congressional seats that could break the back of the 2 party hyperpartisan self serving corrupt politicians. Between the insanity of it all.
th-cam.com/video/FDqexh3pdiA/w-d-xo.html
I hear you, but how does this relate to the debt-/loanbased economy of banking and growth? Is not that an exclusionary aspect of capitalism, even if all enterprises were democratic?
Wrong Mr. Wolff, Capitalism isn't called the "Market System" that would be inaccurate, Capitalism is rightfully identified as, the "Free Market System". Totally a different thing, but why would I imagine your powers of differentiation would bring you to this conclusion... I wouldn't.
Capitalism isn't connected or dependent on a free market. You can be a capitalist in a very restricted market, cf state capitalist, war economy etc.
So, why are YOU calling other people dumdums?
Please discuss a resource-based economy.
The only time, that I am aware, that capitalism has been somewhat positive historically, in the U.S, is during the time from ruffly 1945 to the early 1970's. in which during that time line workers had the ability to buy stocks from the businesses that they worked at and/or for; Therefore, giving them much more power over that company then with what we have now. Other then that Yes I totally agree with what was said in this video.
Democracy at work is good and in my view a value in itself, but doesn't this explanation also lead to the conclusion that exchanging corporation by cooperatives does not fundamentally change the market? Whether a corporation or a cooperative digs up the coal it will make climate change worse. The incentives for the workers at the cooperative to dig up coal are the same as those of workers at a corporation. They produce a good for which there is market demand to sustain their lives.
@Dirk Knight That is completely not related to my comment and the dumbest possible claim given that cooperatives already exist and have no trouble competing.
Do go back to your fundamentalist troll hell hole.
@Dirk Knight You are very much showing off that you did not work for or know anything of cooperatives. Maybe before you make ignorant comments at a channel on cooperatives inform yourself on how they work successfully.
@Dirk Knight Just stop making a fool out of yourself and inform yourself. Here in Europe there are many cooperatives that run banks, insurances, supermarkets. Many high tech companies are cooperatives. Doesn't Google work on your machine?
@Dirk Knight BS
@Dirk Knight BS
What is that scary hook thing hanging in the background?
Karl Marx will never die.
Dr. Wolff, is it so that the worker(s) intentionally sells his/her labor energy for a price per period of time and in so doing becomes just another owned instrument in the total capitalist's (owner's) machine of production? Now, if so, do you think that during the workday the laborer has legal rights outside the scope of his or her self-subjugation to the owner(s) machine of production? Can the worker claim ownership of the product of his or her labor or only the wages paid to them for their labor energy? Either way, can you please explain to me then, what are the workers' contractual rights within the scope of his or her self-subjugation for a period of time?