Thanks, Professor Wolff. Much food for thought. Over a century simmered down to an easy-to-digest half hour. Simplified, but not simplistic-a tough row to hoe. Keep up your excellent work, because you've been a huge part of my middle-aged rethinking of politics and economics.
We Chinese, at least the recent generations from 1980s, when we were in school, we were literally taught that China wasn't and still isn't a communist country. And specifically, It was very clear to us that, China was far from a matured socialist country. It was called the "primary state" of the socialism and the main focus has been lifting people out of poor by economic growth. This primary state was and still is on-going and the final objective for this state is to turn the country into an advanced country where people enjoy (more or less) economic equality (this is the most important equality). Only then, the primary state will be over and the country can move on to the next phase of the socialism where the path towards a better future will hopefully be clearer. It seems, we didn't put the transform of the workplace (and it is NOT fair to say the school, among many other things, has not been transformed by CPC. In fact, it's been going through improvements) in the first place as we were all very poor until the recent decade, but if you pay attention to the changes happening in the recent years, the government has been addressing some of the workplace issues. It is never easy, in fact, doing that is much harder than talking. The thing is, also since several years ago, USA has been super hostile to us and waged economic war. The timing couldn't be worse for wanted improvments so naturally the objective is more about secure the economy to avoid any collapse when dealing with USA and its allies, not that we don't want social transform and improvements. A better workplace is more like the result of the whole progress, not the reason. You will never be able to secure better workplace if the country fails to function economically and politically.
Just to put the whole thing into a better perspective. Why USA (the most capitalist country) hates China this much? If you think that's just because we are more capitalism & anti-democracy, then you don't see the real problem. The real problem is USA sees that deep down we are a socialist country and share totally different opinions on democracy & what economy growth means for people, which is, in the long run, anti-capitalism!!. USA would like to overthrow CPC and make us its buddy capitalist country where people fight to express whatever gender they what to be in a jungle society.
Thanks for your insight from a Chinese perspective. Most US socialists and communists want to critique existing socialist struggles rather than building and struggling with our own contradictions. Even without having to deal with US threats and economic warfare it would be a difficult project to both develop productive forces and fight counter revolutionary tendencies encouraged by western powers. I admire China’s struggle and rapid development, I think we worry sometimes wether the people are still taught and struggle for socialism.
So what about the extreme centralization of power in China under one ruler - what steps are outlined to do something about that, seems off from your description of progress to desire outcome?
@@maxwellj7049 wrong criticism I see what ur tryna say tho, China is nowhere near socialist as wolf said recently they haven’t gotten past Lenin’s steps with dtop
We are a village. We used to do Communism without thinking about it. Today, it must be internationalized to work. That's the rub. It must be for people's needs. This is a good video.
The focus on 'communes' reminds me of 'Down and Rising' and how precious a commune is after the collapse of civilization. It takes a key human understanding and basic rule-set for a commune to succeed. Great Economic Update as always!
I think one company that could serve as a model very easily and works better as a monopoly is google. Unlike most of America's megacorps I think google should remain intact, though with it's subsidiaries cut off but it should maintain a monopoly on search engines. However it should be democratized. I think we need to throw out rigid ideas of what socialism must be exactly and define it not by a specific set of rules but by a general ideal. I think a big mistakes the communists made was being very strict in it's definition and also being very anti-religious as well. This alienated a lot of communities rather than involve them. Almost all religions of the world are completely compatible with communism. On top of that we also need to keep in mind different cultures and histories so we should allow different regions to come to different conclusions rather than forcing the specific system onto them.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is an organ-harvesting, virus-spreading, terrorist regime that promotes genocide, torture, and global terrorism. Like the slaughterhouse Khmer Rouge regime, CCP is set out to erase all human rights and freedom, kill off innocent lives to bring the entire world under its totalitarian control.
Better don't swallow the bait of communism, unless you are ready to give up any & all freedom & ready to become & underling in PEOPLE'S PRISON. The system is incapable benefitting society and the individual on any level. It is a rigid, ideology based system incapable of bringing other than anger & tears. Today, N. Korea has something like this, enough said.
One thing i believe he left out was that socialism in the leninist sense is a transitionl stage from capitalism. The party takes over industry. The party is voted on and elected by workers and they appoint managers to the enterprises. Its different and nothing like capitalism. And one thing i wish professor wolff would touch more on is why these countries have organized them that way. There is still an international market, goods still need to come into the country. Nationalization and economic planning allows for countries to go into a direction forthe people.
@@sungod1384 he did characterize the USSR as a "transition," more than once - the crux of his exposition comes about at the end when he talks over the "critique" on what fundamentally hampered the transition: that it was, after all, really just another form of capitalism.
@@Perisemiotics Socialism is multiple things. Materially, it is both a stage of development of productive forces and of society generally, and a mode of production. But also, it refers generally, to an ideal about the economy being organized for accommodating human need. Philosophically, it is a critique of Capitalism. I think that when Lenin used the terms "state capitalism" or "low socialism," he was referring to a set of material circumstances unique to Russia at that place and time. At the time that the Russian Revolution had occurred, Capitalism didn't really exist in Russia for that long, having just recently come out of an era of Feudalism. Serfdom, specifically, had rather recently ended. Russia at the time of the revolution was most agrarian, and the first World War had pretty much devastated what little Capitalist development that had been achieved. Because Socialism generally arises out of Capitalism, what Russia post-revolution initially did was develop state capitalism. It was a temporary revision. The plan was to develop productive forces long enough to create the basic groundwork for which socialism could be built. I think it is reasonable to state that a socialist revolution in the United States would likely not require the development of state capitalism because we already have a mature development of capitalism. Hell, we don't have just capitalism but imperialism, the highest stage of development of capitalism. Depending on who you ask, we are in a new material stage called communicative capitalism.
It's also fundamentally wrong. I guess the irony is that even someone who excels at understanding the "bigger picture" of socialism / communism still doesn't comprehend the central tenet of why said nations failed. It isn't because of the so-called "transitional phase" as Wolff puts it. It's because those attempts occurred in places completely alien to the concept of democracy. Social contract theory, which is the seminal philosophy of contemporary democracy, is pre-Marxist communism since its author, Rousseau, believed private ownership was the root of all evil. Thus, social contract and Marxism are inseparable, and yet Stalin, Mao, etc. somehow believed the two could be divorced. Keynes, who called himself a socialist, correctly fused social contract with Marxism in his General Theory which became the New Deal of 1933. Marx never discussed how governments should be organized. So, it's always been up to interpretation. Some failed. In the US and Scandanavian nations it fared better.
@@tuberific454as long as a colonial empire exists, socialism/communism will feel the imperial boot on the back of its neck. Autocratic auhoritarianism is antisocial_ist therefore, antithetical to well being of Society. You are welcome.
Ask people, who lived in the system. N. Korea, anyone? The ex-soviet system behind the iron curtain that everyone endeavored to escape? 1956? 1968? 1990-91? Why you think the name 'iron curtain' was forged? People had to be kept there BY FORCE. It was a brutal dictatorship, nothing more, nothing less. There was hunger, no adequate accommodation, spying on citizens & horrible thought police, rampant nepotism, imprisonment, torture to describe a few features. It was anti-people & anti-life. So called elections, equality, lack of poverty, lack of discrimination were nothing short of a laugh. Why do you think everyone wanted out.
This is exactly what we were told when I was growing up in the USSR, that we are not communists and it was the ultimate goal. Completely spot on about the problem of ownership being the main destructive force. I think that the USSR was well ahead of its time attempting to plan for everything even though computers were not even invented. I also remember one of the slogans "Economy must be economical" meaning that the purpose was not extracting as much profit from results of your labour but use as little resources as possible to deliver the same result. The system will need to change as capitalism will eventually extract the last drop of water and log the last tree to sell it for the highest bidder. Unfortunately the transition like many before will only happen due to some enormous shock to the existing system. There is no such thing as a bloodless transition, not at least what history tells us.
This is such a good examination of the history of these ideas. To me, I would love to live in a world like Star Trek, where all the basic needs are taken care of and the profit motive barely exists.
@@Ethan-ox4ck You could have said the same thing about nuclear fission in 1000 AD. Also, if you look at many hunter gatherer societies or communal agricultural societies, it proves that we humans are capable of acting with the greater good in mind. One more thing: capitalism is only a few hundred years old. To think we've arrived at the end of history is a mistake.
Don’t Confuse Capitalism with Corporatism It is an easy argument to make: the rich were made rich by a rotten capitalist system that oppresses those noble, hardworking innocents who do the actual labor. They want the system to be more fair-i.e. slanted their way- and even to cap earnings and opportunities. They witness a capitalist system that controls their lives, is in bed with government, can buy all the influence it wants, randomly destroys communities and cold-bloodedly lays off thousands of workers, simply to save money or increase stock prices. Capitalism, however, is not the culprit though. It is corporatism, the collective mentality of the corporation that views workers as interchangeable and customers as lacking options. We do not live in a free market: we live in a market controlled by the interrelation between monolithic corporations, Wall Street and the Government. These three entities are what control our economic and professional opportunities, not capitalism. Capitalism, specifically small business/entrepreneurial capitalism, is the antidote to this. SB/E Capitalism is a structure that allows anyone to achieve their goals inside the system or outside of it. It’s a system that is not rigged to the highest bidder. If the United States operated in a pure free market system, then the bailouts to Wall Street, the auto unions and the auto industry would not have happened. Those who engaged in reckless business practices would have been eaten up by the market & the void created by these organizations would have been filled with new entrants. It is corporatism that has created the pathway for GE, Goldman Sachs, Hollywood and GM among others to have incredible access to the White House and Congress, not to mention access to bailout money. It is corporatism that has allowed tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft to partner with the NSA, providing data on millions of their users to the shadowy gov’t agency. They are able to act with impudence because there is no real structure for new organizations to challenge them. Government works to protect its friends and prevent new entrants from becoming major players in any industry. The system in play now is designed to provide the illusion of opportunity, when in reality the opportunity is there only for a selected few. Corporatism is the economic partner of communism and totalitarianism, seeking to decrease opportunity and force allegiance and servitude. It is corporatism that creates the rules of industry and barriers to entry and it is corporations that purchase votes in their favor and prevent start-ups from challenging them. It is corporations that control the media, determining what we hear, see and how our opinions are formed. No one in power is willing to give it up. It is far easier to buy the protection needed from the government or simply buy those businesses that could challenge it-looking at you, Microsoft. A pure small business/entrepreneurial capitalist system is the antidote to this rigged structure. Opening up the fields to innovation and market access would create greater wealth and opportunities for millions across the country and the world. This system would also create access to greater education and freedom. A true capitalist system would put the burden of responsibility and accountability on the individual and force people to work harder, take chances and own their success or failure. With the control structure that is in place now, there is an incredible de-emphasis on personal responsibility or initiative. It is small business and entrepreneurial capitalism that will solve the problems of poverty and corruption around the world. For decades, we have seen government and corporate actions yield no progress yet fools think the answer is more of this, not less. This is why corporations and government oppose a true capitalist system. It challenges their power. Oligarchs are not needed; that is what they fear the most.
Bravo! Excellent presentation. I've been a subscriber for many years and was wondering when you were going to do a deep dive into the third rail of economic theory... "What is Communism?" Viewers learn more about communism in your 30 minute lecture that they can ever learn in any university econ course. Your have the gift of distilling complicated facts & theory into layman's terms and creating presentations that are remarkable. Namaste
“We live in a community of people not so that we can suppress and dominate each other or make each other miserable but so that we can better and more reliably satisfy all life's healthy needs.” ― Wilhelm Reich
There was an attempt of worker's council in socialist Yugoslavia. It had some benefits but in the end nacionalism associated with capitalism brake all that apart. My humble opinion is that the biggest problem with the worker's co ops, cauncil, any type of organization lies in will to activli participate and possession of necessary knowledge to make important decisions.
Again, that is true, but that is the spirit of socialism. The working class must be allowed to choose whatever they want to do. You can educate them with socialist ideas, through grassroots organisations, to make sure they co operate (to the level which they feel like that is). If running an economy is done by the state, workers get alienated again. Its not as much about efficiency as it is about enjoying work and living a democratic life. If you think too hard about efficiency, youll roll back into capitalism
Thank you! I do often use the term communism, or libertarian communism (to emphasize that it is a voluntary system based on what makes the most sense for people, rather than a forced system), but I also often describe the ideal I am talking about as "a world where no one is required to work for their survival". I always have to emphasize that people will still work, but it won't be compulsory. People just like to work. But if we really want a world where work is not compulsory, I think at this point it makes sense to center automation of important parts of production along side community ownership. So I use the phrase community ownership of the means of production, since not everyone would need to be a worker but they matter just as much. It was back in 2014 or 2015 that I first discovered your work, and you have helped me understand the value of all this. I appreciate the directness of this video title, and I do agree I think this kind of thinking is seeing a resurgence. The pandemic has squeezed everyone far too much, and they are motivated to push for more significant change.
There is no such thing as libertarian "communism." The very idea of communism gives power and concentrates wealth to the state and only the state. It allows the state to finesse you as they see fit. You don't have any private ownership of anything. You will be made a permanent serf for the rest of your life and be made to do manual labor upon assignment by the government, such is what my ancestors had to deal with in the Cultural Revolution. All your politicians are rich and fat, while everyone else is equally poor and destitute. Kind of like North Korea today if you think about it. You should visit sometime.
Libertarianism means less government control over anything, it is quite the opposite of communism. And I disagree, people do not like to work. If you make it so that work is unnecessary people will simply lose productivity until AI/automation does their job for them, in which case everyone would lose their jobs and thus lose their homes and be homeless because without a job how would you pay for the ever increasing property taxes (what did you actually think the government would let you live rent free? property taxes are the rent lmfao). Unfortunately there is no true capitalism like there is no true communism. America is a corporatist government where corporations can lobby for YOUR TAXPAYER $. In a true free market, you wouldn't have government dictating who to fund often in favor of political benefits and who to let sink. Meanwhile you can't have true communism because humans are fucking selfish and if you think letting the government control you works out better, think again. Who makes up that government? Humans. What happens if you give humans too much power? Corruption. What you really want is for less centralized government and more individual governance because I doubt you want to see your taxpayer $ go straight to funding hamster fight clubs and a 1 million dollar single toilet.
Thank you for this professor Wolf. I will direct all my friends who ask me what Communism is to this video in the future. I hope we as a species can continue to strive for and eventually achieve the Communism that Marx first envisioned.
were sure that you were provided with a job, a salary, a free apartment and free land. You were sure that your children would get a free education, a job, a career, an apartment and a lot of good things. That's why Gorbachev is hated in Russia. He destroyed everything.
@@arthurgimov Of course he destroyed, but not all. For example, I see the advantages of the capitalist system. In my store there are 100 varieties of sausage for every desire. I don't need to save 5 years to buy an old Moskvich or Lada 7th model. Even Soviet medicine, which many communists praise, simply does not remember what hospitals in the USSR looked like. In my city, at least all the hospitals have been repaired and these hospitals have new equipment, I didn’t pay either when I got to the hospital with a stomach disease, or after a stab wound, or after a broken arm (when the gopniks beat me near the bar), we don’t paid neither for my wife's pregnancy, nor for my wife's operation, and so on. In fact, in Russia now too - free medicine, only a little better than in the USSR. Of course, there are a lot of disadvantages, for example, the degradation of education, the destruction of industry, and so on ... But I unfortunately remember the disadvantages of life in the USSR. Well, some communists in Russia still have not changed, they believe that the murder of a disabled child because he is a royal son, this is ok.... I don’t know what to say about such communists.
I had heard all the bits and pieces (some even from Prof. Wolff himself) but this concise summary was very nice. It might be a good starting point/foundation to come back to when getting lost in details and discussions with even likeminded people.
Bravo! This lecture simplifies the complex rivalry on the left. This is Professor Wolff's genius. He reduces the complex to understandable. For me, WORKER OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION is everything. That and democracy that is necessary to make worker ownership functional. Worker ownership of the means of production doesn't solve infighting within an enterprise or within government itself. (I have trouble conceiving of a complex society without the structure of government and law.) For that, we must deliberately teach cooperation and practical ways to overcome the urge to control and dominate within organizations. That is the hardest part, the most difficult task. We cannot look to strong leaders. We must work together to move forward. Think about how human beings tend to follow charismatic leaders in any organization. We are primates and that is built into our species. But we are more than apes. We can and must learn a new attitude as we construct a better society. We must learn cooperation and stop idolizing competition. We must adjust to a new way of thinking. Hard to do, but worth the effort.
Helen, I agree that USAmericans look for a leader to solve everything, a Messiah in fact. Each US president is hailed as the One who will save us from the mess the last Savior got us in. I don't think the rest of the world necessarily thinks this way. Certainly not here in France. Fortunately!
Dear Professor Wolff, Thank You! May this spiritual ghost bless and help you enlighten billions across the globe.Kindly share your vast knowledge, as deemed fit, through multiple capsules on the topic, the economic model advocated by Communism including its call and efforts made on internationalism.
By the way, those who call themselves “socialists” had different names given them by real revolutionary social-democrats (later called communists). Communists (russian bolsheviks and their comrades around the globe) called those so called “socialists” 1) opportunists, because they betrayed fight for liberation of the working class for comfortable positions in bourgeois establishment, for their own personal safety and prosperity; 2) social-chauvinists, because they betrayed proletarian internationalism and supported their governments in the terrific imperialistic war in 1914, as well as many more military conflicts, interventions and coups provoked and initiated by imperialism, right up to these days. That success that those reformists so called socialists governments of Western Europe gained during the XX century was possible only because of existing of USSR, there working class had rights and power, there most of problems of capitalist system was solved. The ruling class of capitalist countries just had to compete with Soviet Union and other socialist states, and treat their workers better for their (capitalists) own safety, to keep their power. Yes, say thanks to USSR for “golden age” of capitalism. Since USSR collapsed we see we can see how ruling class is playing back, and don’t see any significant results of social democrats in making workers’ lives better.
@@rsavage-r2v another understanding as a premise is the fact that no social democracy if we accept there is one erodes by itself. There are political forces at play that do what is possible to assert their idea of social organization in the economic activity. The concept of class warfare must be taken into account when studying and trying to understand The evolution of capitalism and how it matures giving place to its contradictions showing its product and failures . transformation is inevitable. And innovative propositions to improve social organization demands change. That is the nature of society as any living organism. It changes. There are resistance of the established system but change is inevitable.
Again thank you Professor Wolff for your expertise and intelligence for helping us to understand economics. Thank you. ❤️ Socialism, communism, Capitalism.
Thank you prof. Wolff, very inspiring and educational explanation of these concepts and where they come from. Now we only need to figure a way to organize and bring it about, and I mean PRONTO: we must stop, not only the exploitation of humans of their work for the enrichment of the few powerful lords, but also the mindless exploitation and exhaustion of resources of Earth, heal the irrational hate and fear and loath of the "others" and stop the all-destructive wars that all are quickly leading this beautiful planet to destruction and mass death, and stop the greed and the limitless self-indulgence that drives our consumerist-based economies in the rich countries. We must fight and once and for all dismantle the big corporations who behind the scenes are leading this world to destruction for their own profit. 🌈🌈🌈🌈
You know of degrowth economics? Look up Jason Hickel if not.. we have surplus problem in developed worlds now, not lack. Degrowth would reduce working week and give us more time for community/friends/family. We are against the wall with climate issues, IPCC said we must slam on the brakes, not only must we embrace green industry but we must reduce growth of whatever we can to save civilization, to save our environment/ecosystems from the death spiral of the greenhouse effect we have amplified.
@@nightoftheworld degrowth while it may be accurate in a macro sense is a horrible term to use to propagate an idea of a future people want to live into. We can actually build a more thriving human future if we do it right. So let’s find better terms that more accurately represent what we want for people. Because if we are telling fellow working class people of this country that feel like they are being robbed of a future that they just need to consume less we are going to lose. Better public infrastructure, urban planning, guaranteed employment, housing, healthy food and healthcare can drastically improve living standards while still having macro degrowth. So let’s be wise and understand how the average person hears degrowth and find better words. Something like building strong healthy vibrant communities.
@@MarvinRoman don’t be scared of the word, look up Jason Hickel and listen to his ideas on it. Degrowth is necessitated by IPCC reports whether we like it or not, as most developed western countries consume the equivalent of about 4 planets worth of resources.. leaving the global south behind to suffer what it may. The degrowth idea is that we reduce wasteful/harmful production while simultaneously embracing green tech and automation to reduce working hours and free people to have more time for communities/family life. It would be a plus for workers of the world, for all people quite honestly considering what we face otherwise. Also in the idea is the discernment that the biggest polluters/consumers are those at the very tip of society (top 1/.01%) and that they should be held most accountable since their contribution is hugely disproportionate to the average individual/family. Additionally, degrowth confronts neocolonialism, at the level of toxic externalities and dirty trade policy. If we want to be truly ethical, to those alive now and those to come in the future, I seriously believe degrowth in this nature is integral, especially in light of the fact that even if we went net zero tomorrow the planet will still heat for the rest of the century. We are in an existential moment of history, literally in the midst of a new and silent great extinction of animals/insects, an acidification and potential death of the oceans. These times are surreal, truly apocalyptic (in the sense of revelatory for our civilization)-so alarming that it is essentially unbelievable the mess we are in.. and that makes us doubly apt to tune out and disavow the global damage we are currently creating. The biggest problem I feel is relying too naively on tech to magically pull us out of this, to reclaim unbelievably vast amounts of green house gas from our atmosphere. Most sequestration technologies are not developed, they are still speculative tech fantasy, yet those dreams are actually used to model our futures and inform policy. If those sci-fi predictions don’t pan out, then the future of civilization goes up in flames quite literally. So it seems most prudent to cut back/slow down while we still have a chance to limit warming to 1.5C. I am a pessimist though given the geopolitical climate/pandemics/mass migration/populism/cynicism/war/worker burnout/mass depression/looming recession.. we are great at indulging when they feel bad, eating more ice cream, procrastinating. And you know, the sky is blue and that is all most people need to disregard the climate threat that hundreds of thousands of scientist across the world are confirming through interdisciplinary research. I hope we can turn it around, but we will need to give some things up most realistically. Nature doesn’t care that we prefer to have our cake and eat it too.
@@nightoftheworld we agree on degrowth. But my frustration is we think logic and rationality will carry the day and we have no responsibility to communicate our ideas in ways that will engage people instead of put them off.
@@MarvinRoman ya I understand what you mean, like how “defund the police” was a more harmful slogan to the cause than helpful. However I think degrowth is most candid/honest since the zealous “logic” of growth is what brought us to the edge of this cliff. Not to say growth is all bad, not at all, but that the level that we have taken the logic of growth to is clearly out of control-thus the solution being a giving up of some excess. What/when/where/how are the questions which should follow the fright. Degrowth is startling for sure (especially given our economic history) but it makes deep sense as most everyone in the developed world secretly knows that they have it made-proving it negatively with remarks like, “at least you don’t live in [insert underdeveloped country]!” Hopefully the initial scare turns into a new pragmatic hope more than it turns into hate/fear, but ya who knows how things will go. Glad we agree on the direction. Do you think there is a better notion/word that could maybe better encapsulate the contents of the logic of degrowth?
The following are my observations on China’s economic development. I hope it will help people to gain a deeper understanding of China’s economic development model and initiate in-depth research in the field of China’s economic development model. 1. China’s economic development model integrates socialism and capitalism to form an economic development model with Chinese characteristics, that is, the supply side adopts a planned economy and reforms to pursue efficiency, the demand side adopts a market economy and gradually opens up and pursues diversification, and the communist party CPC replaces the role of capitalists to guide technological innovation to complete the transformation of the underlying economic structure, and then drive the professionalization of the upper political structure. 2. China is currently a dual-engine economy. It can work on the supply side to drive economic growth through the Belt and Road Initiative, and it can also work on the demand side to drive economic growth through exports and consumption, integrating the planned economy with the market economy. It has become a systematic engineering economic development model, which is completely incomprehensible to traditional Western economists. This Chinese systematic engineering economic development model will definitely subvert the existing Western economic theory and become a prominent science. 3. If Western economists want to understand China's economic development model, they must make up for Marxism. China's economic development model is based on Marxism as its guiding principles: (1) Science and technology is the primary productive force, (2) Materialism Dialectics is the core concept of scientific and technological innovation. (3) The historical materialism that the underlying economic structure determines the upper political structure points out that the results of scientific and technological innovation must be shared by all people, and ultimately achieve a society of common prosperity.
Thank you so much I'm 70tyanmymomis88 ,an she was an educator for over 45yrs an no on ever explain in such detail references the socialist ,, communist,an democratic systems on you highly effective an experience level peace be with you 🙏
Muy educativo este episodio como siempre AMIGO me hizo recordar un Semestre en la Universidad 1982 UNAN en Sociologia la manera como se utilizo en esos dias COMUNISMO les van a quitar a sus hijos, les van a quitar sus viviendas etcetera
As always, I am educated. Thanks so much for devoting pt. 1 to clarifying all this. In the U.S. too many people assume that communism -- in any form and in any country -- means Stalinist Russia.
were sure that you were provided with a job, a salary, a free apartment and free land. You were sure that your children would get a free education, a job, a career, an apartment and a lot of good things. That's why Gorbachev is hated in Russia. He destroyed everything.
@@arthurgimov Aah, really. My husband grew up there. There was housing shortage: often 8 people in one, not apartment, but room. The state paid the people just enough to get by for two weeks, most of the money it kept. Free land? What a joke: maybe for high commie functionaries, which elicited feelings of unfairness & thoughts of discriminatory practices based on other than merit from the rest. They hated their functionaries & commissars. True, that the state paid to unneeded workers, as it strived to show the west that there is no unemployment on their land. But it was all fake & artificial. Production & work ethics were abysmal, completely uncompetitive with the west, product shortages rampant. Lineups for common food items, like bread, often went around the whole block. Nepotistic university admittance was not based on knowledge, but who you knew & how big you were on the commie ideologie. My husband was born 2 months after Stalin got poisoned. His mother told him "I don't know how you even turned out the way you did, because when I was expecting you, we were so poor, there was almost nothing to eat, only potatoes. THE ONLY THING I WAS HAPPY ABOUT WAS that STALIN DIED BEFORE YOU WERE BORN." When the system suddenly changed, it surely upset the paradigm for awhile. Cannot even imagine the upheaval.
"Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff the government does, the more socialist it is. And when the government does a real lot of stuff, that's communism" - Richard D Wolff
Joking aside, what socialism is, actually, is a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals. Socialism is a fundamentally democratic ideology as well. The word democracy comes from the Greek "demos" (people) and "kratia" (power): Literally, "rule by the people". Capitalism, whilst a progressive step away from feudalism, is inherently undemocratic. The economy, which determines all manner of things ranging from the quality and availability of healthcare and education to if we sleep with a roof over our heads or out on the street, is not controlled by the people. Capitalism puts the rich in charge of running the economy, and thus in charge of our lives. Socialism on the other hand puts the people in charge of the economy, by making the economy democratically controlled. The manner in which this is done varies from tendency to tendency, but the principle is the same: The economy is too important to place in the hands of only a small fraction of the population.
And what is communism? Friedrich Engels, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto, wrote that "Communism is the doctrine of the prerequisites for the emancipation of the proletariat" - a theoretical toolbox that clearly maps out how to achieve complete liberation for all working people. And this isn't just by securing free healthcare or increasing the minimum wage. In 1845, Karl Marx wrote that "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". The aim is a fundamental transformation of society, which once and for all ends "the exploitation of man by man". And we call the people involved in this project "communists". But what's our end-goal? To take away everyone's toothbrush? No. You keep your personal property. Please. There is also significant difference between personal and private property. Private property refers to the means of production (factories, machinery, etc.), whereas personal property refers to the things you the common person own. Your house, your car, and other personal possessions are all personal property, these are things you have earned, so belong to you. Anyway, the goal of communism as a movement, simply put, is to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society - that is to say, a communist society. Now, how we get there is a matter of debate among various different sections of the political left: some, such as anarchists, believe we can have a revolution and establish this kind of society immediately thereafter. Others, including Marxists like myself, believe that we'll need a transitional stage between capitalism and communism - a transitional stage called socialism. But hang on a minute - what about Communist States? Don’t these communist states like the USSR and China contradict what's been said so far? Well, "Communist State" is a term used pretty much exclusively by those in the Western world. These countries never called themselves communist states. They called themselves "socialist states" - it's in the name: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The term "Communist State" is also an oxymoron, given that communism is, as mentioned earlier, a stateless, classless, moneyless society. And this doesn't happen overnight, it could potentially take many years, generations even, before transitioning from socialism to full communism.
The governments "doing stuff" & "micromanaging" everything is intrusive, overly bureaucratic, inefficient, counterproductive. impoverishing, unnecessary, unfair, humiliating, is misaligned with human psychology, completely loathsome & absolutely hateful. It takes life out of life.
@@seanpol9863 Obviously, you never lived in a commie, or soc. system. They are one & the same anyway. You know stuff from books, that someone wrote who similarly never lived in commie land. Democratic? That's the biggest laugh. Maybe in books & dreams, yes. Do you have an idea how they vote for politicians? It is 100% fake. Something doesn't become democratic, just because it's called that way. Do you really think, their system would have lasted 40 years if proper voting is allowed? Of course, not. Those politicians would have been out in 6 months, the most. It is not any community who regulates & runs things, but all is done from higher up, by the state. It is not ruled by the people, it is ruled by a few ideologue commissar types that are despised & hated by many, but the people are not allowed to express their displeasure, as their jobs, kids' future, or worse, can be on the line. That is the orwellian"freedom", that only a sadist is capable of imposing. If you think, that people control things there, you are mistaken. Maybe the books say so, but they lie. It is a top-down pyramid type control by strings. Their economy, housing, production quality & quantity, were a perpetual disaster, wholly uncompetitive w. the west, for one. Yes, there was homelessness, too. Socialism makes the people it put in charge rich by allowing them all forms of corruption. These same, sorry "leaders in charge" are generally completely ignorant of economy, industry, markets, human resources. Their only qualification & claim to fame is that they are self-proclaimed, rigid ideologues, & unquestioning, unconditional admirers of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or at least 3 of the above, as their favorite idols are subject to change. As you almost said, the economy is too important to place in the hands of only a small fraction of the population, who are nothing, but rabid ideologues.
A very good summary. I think another solution that needs to be discussed is what I've seen termed "community cooperatives", which aren't so much about a cooperative workplace as it is a community that receives the products from enterprises, usually farms. So collective farms which share out their produce with people, not just the ones who carried out the labour but those who financially supported. With the level of automation, we could have machines replace workers and produce a huge amount of what they produce. There's one (almost completely) automated vertical farm I saw that cost $10 million to build and it can grow food for 100 000 people. That's a huge amount of money for a single firm to come up with but if 100 000 people all pooled their money together, it would only cost $100 each. Then they could pay for it to be run, which would be maybe a tenth of that a year, if that. So I think the level of technology we have today, and what is being rapidly developed, could replace many of the workplace models we have today and create a new kind of socialism or communism.
I am seriously worried about these vertical farms, and I'm not just trying to dampen your optimism. Plants still need finite earth minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Where are all those extra elements going to come from as the world is already on course to run out of them in the next 100 years. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
@@marianhunt8899 If these minerals are running low, it'd be a problem for every farm, vertical or otherwise. So, we should worry about all of them. At least vertical farms and hydroponics use up less water than conventional farms. Also, I'm guessing since they're so efficient and produce huge yields, they could afford less minerals. The ones you listed are part of the recipe for fertilizer and the world was growing crops before then, just at a lower amount.
The astute, heartfelt, studied and relevant information you provide is a reflection of your own rare good heart. I always feel somewhat elevated and refreshed by the truisms of which you speak. UNTIL I see what "rational" human beings have done to the entire planet. The lunacy of our collective actions, the persistent degradation of our own "life support system", and the universal neglect for the "least of us" has lead me to believe that humanity is little more than a pernicious invasive species hell-bent on destroying itself and every thing around us.
There are a relative few who have the wealth and power to shape world events and thereby determine the conditions under which we live; the conditions that end up shaping our basic behavior. My observation is that those few tend to be greedy, narcissistic sociopaths who, by definition, couldn't care less about the well being of the "unwashed masses". So the negatives that you list are, in my mind, primarily the doing of a relatively small slice of humanity, not the collective actions of all humanity. Granted, we the people passively allowed the lunatics to take control. Then we passively allowed ourselves to fall prey to propaganda designed to keep the rich and powerful in control. We may be an invasive species in the sense that all living things procreate and compete for limited resources, but I don't think we're collectively hell-bent on destroy ourselves. In my opinion, the blind greed of those who rule are primarily responsible for that.
Thank you, Dr. Wolff. Your intellect harkens to my school days when learning was a pleasure. Behind every system of governance, be they socialist, communist, democracy and so on, the premise of serving the people is the main criterion. Alas, with any organisation comes the inevitable hierarchy of people which overseas the formulation of ideas and concepts right down to the planning and execution. Hence, society can never run away from ideals being hijacked and/or compromised in the long run. The utopia remains what it is...a dream.
This is awaking in me a new awareness. We have never been taught this. We as US citizens, are trained to be greedy capitalists. But now I understand the difference between private capitalists and government capitalists. Not much. It seems what you are saying, in a way, we need to have a new thought system. Where we might think of others and think fair and just And I’d add care and respect for the earth. We would be wired to default to compassion. That would just be the way we are. How do we switch the collective thinking to care vs I need to take as much as I possibly can and damn the rest?
That is the big question. How do we attain this evolution of human consciousness that takes us from being wired, conditioned, to be selfish and greedy to a state where we are wired to be generous and compassionate? It will take a massive spiritual awakening that draws upon the best resources of religious traditions, artistic traditions, philosophical and scientific knowledge. This kind of awakening is not inevitable. We may never attain it, which means we would probably go extinct, taking the rest of the biosphere with us, no doubt. But, I believe it is possible, and humanity has the resources within itself to achieve it. I also believe in a Divine Reality that is luring humanity, gently and patiently, toward such an evolution of consciousness that could finally bring us into a condition in which our default way of being would be compassion, generosity, and caring...
@@lidstrom-yd5pb We are selfish and greedy because it is a relic of our animal instincts. All people are afraid of the future. In fact, why do you need millions or a five-story building with 10 toilets and 20 bedrooms. People are afraid to die of hunger, they are afraid that they will be thrown out of their own home, they are afraid that their children will need something, that is why people are greedy, well, either people want power, although in reality those who want power are few . For example, if you have very cheap and convenient public transport, then you don't need a car, because a car is a pain in the ass. If you have a stable and secure life and you are sure that this will always be the case, you will not worry about losing a couple of cents.. It's not easy to change, but it's possible.
@@lidstrom-yd5pb Men, for example, often want to become rich in order to buy women's love and attention. And women just want to be sure that this male can provide for both her and her children. Women are simply closer to nature and instincts.
As a former Peterson fan, seek criticisms of his rhetoric there‘s a good reason he ran away from the debate. He probably learned his lesson in his debate with Slavoj Zizek in which he was humiliated terribly.
Thank you Professor for this thought provoking video. My thoughts are as follows: Going back thousands of years the human race were hunter gatherers. They lived in a community & they worked together and shared whatever they produced. The men went out hunting, brought back whatever they caught & shared them with the community. Similarly, they farmed grains etc & shared whatever they harvested. This was possible because the community was small & may have a population of a few hundred people. As communities grew they became nations of thousands or millions of people it would be difficult & unwieldy to do what the hunter-gatherers did. So now we have organised governments to look after the people. Greed is the greatest destructive element of any society. Those in government & controls the society may be greedy & steals some of the wealth of the nation. Then individuals who worked hard & saved money may start a small business & make it grow. These individuals’ businesses are not non profit organisation. They do it to make money for the individuals (capitalism). Countries with state-run businesses is not all bad, as long as the state-run business profits are ploughed back into the nation for the benefit of the people. China is a good example of this. Before China embraced capitalism the country was poor. Then when president Deng Xiaoping made international travel to other nations he saw what capitalism can do. Upon his return to China he opened up China & embraced capitalism, resulting in in many state-owned enterprises & trades with the world. Over the past 70 years China became the world’s factory. China became rich & lifted 800 million people out of poverty. This has not stopped- China will continue to lift its people out of poverty. Also educating the people is important. Over this period many Chinese studied overseas where many earned doctorate degrees & returned to China to work for the country as well as to improve the country’s education system. Today China is the 2nd largest economy in the world & soon will be number 1. One may call China’s system socialism or communism, but it doesn’t matter because the important thing is the people of China benefited from the country’s success. Many nations should learn from China’s success & make their nations successful. Unfortunately the US & its allies see China’s success as a threat & take actions to contain China. This is negative & doesn’t contribute to world peace & prosperity. The creation of the BRICS group is a positive step in the right direction, where 5 nations are working towards shared prosperity. This group will grow as many nations are now applying to join BRICS. China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is also helping developing nations to improve their economies. In a system like democratic capitalism, where the rich & powerful controls the masses of people, for the rich people, is not sustainable. The wealth gap between the rich & poor get bigger & bigger. Sooner or later there will be civil war. The US is supposed to be the richest country in the world, yet there are millions of Americans living in poverty & thousands are homeless. The US government needs to look after its citizens, instead of wasting money on wars & maintaining military bases around the world. The US will collapse as a nation if the government doesn’t look after its citizens.
You overlook Wolf's main point: democratic control of the workplace is the crucial. This absolutely does not describe China, nor any othet country today fir that matter. Beside, China's embrace of capitalism included THE CREATION OF CAPITALISTS. It's now a country with billionaires. Their profits are NOT ploughed back into social goods (only in the most indirect way if at all). So no, I do not look to China as the way to liberation. Nor should any other real socialist.
China is not a good example, its economy is in a banking crisis as we speak and are occupying Tibet. Its an empire like Russia and the US, as an indigenous person all three have horrible histories, face it Communism and capitalism are both dead time for a new way of thinking.
@@edwardanderson1053 please do research on Tibet. You will find it was a horrendous Theocracy ruled by overlords with the power to do as they pleased with anyone who displeased them. They had virtually no infrastructure, were poorly educated with no health care. China did not occupy Tibet but brought it into the 20th century. Very soon most business transactions will be done in Yuan and Rouble
I suddenly thought of an idea of how to explain communism and why it is better than capitalism. I was explaining it along the terms of communism and community having the same root word for a reason. What I just realized now is that there is a concept in biology describing the various interactions between different species but these interactions also play out within communities of the same species. This concept is symbiosis and there are different sorts of symbiosis, the one most resembling the ideal of proper communism is called mutualism, which is a relationship in which both parties to the relationship benefit from being a part of said relationship. Here's the Wikipedia page that better explains all the different forms of symbiosis: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis
Thanks, Prof Wolff! More clarity for sure-its great to have someone who can lay it out in easy to understand concepts. I am encouraged by the current labor movement and also know workers demanding and getting more power will face immense resistance. Only together over an extended period of time can anything like equity begin to overcome the power of greed. What can be the levers of keeping natural leaders of such a movement from holding too much power? I hope you can offer ideas on that. This was one of my favorite episodes!
@@kennyegor7503 thank you, I can see that would diminish individual power. In addition it would still require a strong community to regulate charismatic, stronger personalities-which would be manageable without capital. Basically, a cooperative, yes?
Thank you sir for the informative explanation. We are indeed in a transition atm. I hope we make it but not all will survive. Whilst against this notion for years I have eduacated myself to the realisation that the world does not function for the many. Workers rights must now be a focus globally however i expect chaos before we can expect change and that is indeed what is happening. We live in fearfull times but "when the going gets tough,the tough get going.
That word is virtually one of the largest dog whistles in the West I can't believe the animals that I live with in my country they have no intelligence they live on Greed and lust instinct nobody will ever trust anybody in this country ever there are no friendships there's no love under capitalism
The mainstream media never discuss this, they always seem to use the word "communism" as some sort of slur and the public are conditioned to believe it is associated with suffering, lack of personal possessions and some sort of modern day slavery like in old USSR.
Because they are owned by . . . yep, of course. That's why we have to look to Richard Wolff, Amy Goodman, Paul Jay and others who refuse corporate sponsorship.
Class ideological warfare is real. In marxist understanding of capitalism is a fundamental component to explain the nature of capitalism and of any class society. The dominant class once established in position of power made the social contract accepting the new arrangement a constitutional codified written form of domination. The class in possession of the reins of the state then made law it's power and secured its perpetuation. The superstructure of Capitalism is formed by many reinforcing ways to do such continuation; legalities, a security force, education, ideological instruments like media, etc. Ideological warfare is the demonization of all those that threaten the power of the dominant class and will continue with others forms of class warfare including the decision to impose fascism and deny a democratic game of deceit since democracy is a threat to their control of the state.
They are still stuck with the mentality of 1950s Cold War era fear-mongering, because they cannot accept a future where the US is no longer the number one superpower in the world.
@@winns.x yes. Lies are part of ideological class warfare. Those repeating or better say parroting those lies when they don't have an accurate understanding of the Soviet experience with the imperialist assault on those people is precisely the problem. And since there are few people to challenge the lies , is taken for granted that socialism and communists are the guys in the movie Red Dawn. Stupid and ignorant.
Marx himself never really had a clear idea of the difference between liberalism and communism. His definition of communism bears no resemblance to the original definition of communism. Marx’s vision is radically liberal, in which the economy is fully automated and individuals are liberated and free to pursue their own interests however they see fit. In Marx’s vision, people are free from each other, their interdependence, their interconnectedness, and the division of labor. This is a liberal ideal not a communist ideal. The goal of liberalism is a quest for liberation and autonomy. It’s really more of a science-fiction fantasy than anything else. Under traditional communism, the goal was to become more interconnected and interdependent, living collectively, working together, and sharing living spaces and belongings. Interdependence is inevitable. The goal of socialism and communism is to make interdependence more socially harmonious. Libertarian goals are the opposite of socialist goals.
Under capitalism, the profit motive, competition, the capitalist class, decentralization, and ethnic identities are adversarial and get in the way of making interdependence more socially harmonious. Fighting for autonomy from our interdependence is an impossible goal. Interdependence is inevitable. Socialism is the solution not freedom.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 no marx was not "radically liberal" unless you mean young marx. He moved away from liberal philosophy like idealism to develop his dialectical materialism. Morality, identities, the idea of the "soul" come from the material social relations, not that they were transcendent unchanging categories that is suggested in liberalism. developing a class, material, philosophy is what departs him from liberalism.
Capital ism didn't happened automatically for one day to another. Yesterday was feudalism or whatever the previous system and tomorrow wasn't another. It is a long historic process of struggle of one system inertia of evolutionary process into another. It took many efforts and struggles until one day an insurrection or revolution changed the political balance radically. But it wasn't a few days event. Every change provokes a resistance and feudalism resisted the same way capitalism today resist and try to perpetuate. But change is going to come. It is already happening . Gradually but change is happening. Like it or not.
Estimated four centuries for capitalism to beat feudalism and establish to whole globe. Then few decades to turn from its liberal competition and free market (if it eve existed) to imperialistic stage. Hundred year now since first imperialistic war. Another century full of wars and crisis. How many centuries do people need to understand that capitalism outlived his progressive role in history of humanity way long ago? I afraid we don’t have even a one century, regarding problems and challenges we are facing. They can’t be solved within capitalism. No way.
Yes physics/nature don’t care about ideology or rhetoric-concerning climate change, the IPCC said we have our back against the wall objectively. Superstorms, mega-droughts, mass species extinction, all consequences of our industrial activity-if we don’t enact limits now, if we don’t decelerate/regulate the surplus economies (especially the wealthy private hoarders and corporate zealots in them) then we are doomed to overshoot scientific boundaries for green house gas levels and will doom future life (plants, animals, humans) to deeper dystopian struggle.
At my Union it clear among us workers that our Union is only for the interest of the Union and NOT the employees. It's so bad at my job that there is a division between the workers, the ones who get a pension and the ones who don't. The ones who don't get a pension get a 401/457 plan, like myself. Before, every worker at my job used to get a pension. Our union was responsible for that change and division because they are in cahoots with staff. We don't even have a strike fund! Where is my money going and what is the purpose of our union? Our union says they are insurance/protection for in case you get in trouble with staff. Isn't that the same thing the Mob would tell their victims, you need protection? People who opted out the union get in trouble all the time at my job yet they are still here! The union is a scam! I started this job paying 60 bucks a month in union dues and now it's almost 100 bucks a month! Non-pension holders at my job are starting to opt out the union and eventually that's what staff wants so we can be at their mercy but we are already at the mercy of staff. So many people are fed up yet people I think are scared to say or do anything. The way the union talks to us, I literally can't tell the difference between them or staff. How are we going to pay our bills if we go on strike? I'm down to go on strike, I don't have kids plus I have enough savings for rent and food for a whole year but I don't know about everyone else.
This is a perfect example of what frequently happens to unions and the reason the unions were divided among the trades in the very beginning. The owner class has always understood that they must stick together to survive, and they have always worked together to divide and sabotage any organization that brings working class people together. It's a variation on the old joke about a meeting between the owner and 2 workers.
@@rickb3650 Indeed, the owner class along with their goons (staff/management) have a very strong unity, unlike I have never seen before. Why can't the workers have this type of unity??
@@GnosticCushite I wish I knew the answer to that. It's almost enough to make you think the owners have a point. They all believe that the working class are too stupid to ever understand how they're being screwed and when I see us make the same mistakes over and over and over...
@Seventh Anubis My suggestion is the elimination of Money as the tool that enables those who have large piles of money to purchase Governments. The ability to accomplish that without shooting and bloody power struggles seems to be a bloodless method of Revolution? The use of Capitalism over the Centuries, since the Sumerians invented coins seems to be difficult to overcome?
I think you need to mention the element of an educated society and how the participation of an educated people will benefit every aspect of society vs. a society filled with state propaganda and violent patriotism - education was a key factor in Marx theory...
This is a great explainer and I found it very helpful. My question is: in a system where the employee is the owner and gets a vote on how the profits are distributed, how is the workplace created in the first place? Who provides the money to buy the equipment and develop the products/services? And as the company grows, how is equity passed to each new employee brought onboard? Do the initial investors in the company just give away their equity in this case?
@@SocialCreditScore Bots which never respond and never prove that they are not paid because otherwise they would just be masochistic because they get respons
I really appreciate your effort for us, Regardless of the economic situation, you keep doing more 💯. I feel for our country 🇱🇷high income, people now suffering to survive, I will forever appreciate you Max Cole! Imagine investing $2000 & receiving profit of $11,600 within few days, investing is indeed a great opportunity.
So blissful seeing my broker being talked about on TH-cam, this was exactly how I got recommendations about him, though i was a bit skeptical but eventually gave him a trial with my little investment, so surprised when I got vast profits.
with lot of bills to pay and earnings little from my place of work. I was forced to venture into digital currency market some months ago today am driving my dream car and living a comfortable life.
No wonder so many of you are confused, Professor Wolff is excellent at critiquing capitalism and less great about anything else. The rotting capitalist system can not be reformed. It must be dismantled. The first step is educating the masses, hardcore progressive taxes, eliminating privatization, and collective ownership of industry and distribution. And well, based on the comments, enjoy your decaying capitalist/fascist future for the next 100 years. ❤
This was great, illuminating the historical continuity that so often (I would argue quite uncoincidentally) goes conveniently ignored or dismissed, especially in regards to the socialist split over war credits during WWI. And in that regard I think it's illuminating to take a macro look at the trajectory we find ourselves currently on and reconcile with the reality we are faced with honestly, as expressed at the end here. It's no coincidence that our bipartisan blackhole "defense" budget passes with ease to implicitly/explicitly enforce this now global financial "order" through the 1,000+ military bases worldwide and toward the perpetual benefit of US corporate/finance capital at the zero-sum cost of the working class (not to mention the planet that we're consciously destroying at this point...), meanwhile a modest domestic spending bill or god forbid even the most basic of healthcare for the people that actually make this world produce any sort of life worth living is callously thrown at the wayside. The empire feeds off the republic, hollowing out all social meaning and trust to be sold for profit and leading to an ouroboros of resentment and a headlong thanatos embrace toward the "common ruin of the contending classes." To echo Rosa Luxemburg from 1918 Germany, before of course being executed by the freikorps paramilitary (later becoming the SS, shocker) at the behest of Ebert's ostensibly _social democratic_ SPD party, almost immediately resonating the truth of such a succinct political dichotomy to this day; juxtaposing that specter haunting the modern world with its only alternative: *_Socialism or_* [continued] *_barbarism._*
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-WR6Zq7Qec/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks, Professor Wolff. Much food for thought. Over a century simmered down to an easy-to-digest half hour. Simplified, but not simplistic-a tough row to hoe. Keep up your excellent work, because you've been a huge part of my middle-aged rethinking of politics and economics.
We Chinese, at least the recent generations from 1980s, when we were in school, we were literally taught that China wasn't and still isn't a communist country. And specifically, It was very clear to us that, China was far from a matured socialist country. It was called the "primary state" of the socialism and the main focus has been lifting people out of poor by economic growth. This primary state was and still is on-going and the final objective for this state is to turn the country into an advanced country where people enjoy (more or less) economic equality (this is the most important equality). Only then, the primary state will be over and the country can move on to the next phase of the socialism where the path towards a better future will hopefully be clearer. It seems, we didn't put the transform of the workplace (and it is NOT fair to say the school, among many other things, has not been transformed by CPC. In fact, it's been going through improvements) in the first place as we were all very poor until the recent decade, but if you pay attention to the changes happening in the recent years, the government has been addressing some of the workplace issues. It is never easy, in fact, doing that is much harder than talking. The thing is, also since several years ago, USA has been super hostile to us and waged economic war. The timing couldn't be worse for wanted improvments so naturally the objective is more about secure the economy to avoid any collapse when dealing with USA and its allies, not that we don't want social transform and improvements.
A better workplace is more like the result of the whole progress, not the reason. You will never be able to secure better workplace if the country fails to function economically and politically.
Just to put the whole thing into a better perspective. Why USA (the most capitalist country) hates China this much? If you think that's just because we are more capitalism & anti-democracy, then you don't see the real problem. The real problem is USA sees that deep down we are a socialist country and share totally different opinions on democracy & what economy growth means for people, which is, in the long run, anti-capitalism!!. USA would like to overthrow CPC and make us its buddy capitalist country where people fight to express whatever gender they what to be in a jungle society.
@@chongleebnw
Thank you for your very enlightening comments ☮️❤️🌻✊✊✊
Thanks for your insight from a Chinese perspective. Most US socialists and communists want to critique existing socialist struggles rather than building and struggling with our own contradictions. Even without having to deal with US threats and economic warfare it would be a difficult project to both develop productive forces and fight counter revolutionary tendencies encouraged by western powers. I admire China’s struggle and rapid development, I think we worry sometimes wether the people are still taught and struggle for socialism.
So what about the extreme centralization of power in China under one ruler - what steps are outlined to do something about that, seems off from your description of progress to desire outcome?
@@maxwellj7049 wrong criticism I see what ur tryna say tho, China is nowhere near socialist as wolf said recently they haven’t gotten past Lenin’s steps with dtop
We are a village. We used to do Communism without thinking about it. Today, it must be internationalized to work. That's the rub. It must be for people's needs. This is a good video.
The focus on 'communes' reminds me of 'Down and Rising' and how precious a commune is after the collapse of civilization. It takes a key human understanding and basic rule-set for a commune to succeed. Great Economic Update as always!
Good reference and a good book.
I think one company that could serve as a model very easily and works better as a monopoly is google. Unlike most of America's megacorps I think google should remain intact, though with it's subsidiaries cut off but it should maintain a monopoly on search engines. However it should be democratized.
I think we need to throw out rigid ideas of what socialism must be exactly and define it not by a specific set of rules but by a general ideal. I think a big mistakes the communists made was being very strict in it's definition and also being very anti-religious as well. This alienated a lot of communities rather than involve them. Almost all religions of the world are completely compatible with communism. On top of that we also need to keep in mind different cultures and histories so we should allow different regions to come to different conclusions rather than forcing the specific system onto them.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is an organ-harvesting, virus-spreading, terrorist regime that promotes genocide, torture, and global terrorism. Like the slaughterhouse Khmer Rouge regime, CCP is set out to erase all human rights and freedom, kill off innocent lives to bring the entire world under its totalitarian control.
It is always an enlightening and thought provoking experience to hear the extent of Professor Wolff's vast knowledge.
Thank you! This was the best explanation of Communism and Socislism I’ve ever heard!
Oh, goody...now you can explain what you think was explained?
Right
My words exactly!
Well he is a professor
Richard Wolff grandfather Marx's best friend,marx dedicated capital to wolff
I'm going to listen to this again!
That was the most brilliant explanation I have ever heard.
I had to listen 3 times‼️
@@Jraymiami
Yeah man, I going to listen again.
Don't start a business start a co operative. ✌️
Yeah but a capitalistic economic system fulfilling my greeds and power better.. hmmmm.. because I am an ultra male and always hunger for more... 😊
@tabularasa7775 😑....hmmmm.. it was a sarcasm .
@@tabularasa7775 so let make it clear.. are you going to be my subject for the experiment..? 😁
Better don't swallow the bait of communism, unless you are ready to give up any & all freedom & ready to become & underling in PEOPLE'S PRISON. The system is incapable benefitting society and the individual on any level. It is a rigid, ideology based system incapable of bringing other than anger & tears. Today, N. Korea has something like this, enough said.
Syndicalists listening to this like: "that's literally what we said from the start".
Haha! Yes, didn't take the collapse of USSR to come to that conclusion!
Thank u professor for explaining it clearly to us! Very helpful. Still confusing but helpful! Eloquent & profound!
It's confusing because he omitted the horrific massacres of communists and the atrocities against them, all with the help of the USA capitalists.
One thing i believe he left out was that socialism in the leninist sense is a transitionl stage from capitalism. The party takes over industry. The party is voted on and elected by workers and they appoint managers to the enterprises. Its different and nothing like capitalism. And one thing i wish professor wolff would touch more on is why these countries have organized them that way. There is still an international market, goods still need to come into the country. Nationalization and economic planning allows for countries to go into a direction forthe people.
@@sungod1384 he did characterize the USSR as a "transition," more than once - the crux of his exposition comes about at the end when he talks over the "critique" on what fundamentally hampered the transition: that it was, after all, really just another form of capitalism.
@@Perisemiotics Socialism is multiple things. Materially, it is both a stage of development of productive forces and of society generally, and a mode of production. But also, it refers generally, to an ideal about the economy being organized for accommodating human need. Philosophically, it is a critique of Capitalism. I think that when Lenin used the terms "state capitalism" or "low socialism," he was referring to a set of material circumstances unique to Russia at that place and time. At the time that the Russian Revolution had occurred, Capitalism didn't really exist in Russia for that long, having just recently come out of an era of Feudalism. Serfdom, specifically, had rather recently ended. Russia at the time of the revolution was most agrarian, and the first World War had pretty much devastated what little Capitalist development that had been achieved. Because Socialism generally arises out of Capitalism, what Russia post-revolution initially did was develop state capitalism. It was a temporary revision. The plan was to develop productive forces long enough to create the basic groundwork for which socialism could be built. I think it is reasonable to state that a socialist revolution in the United States would likely not require the development of state capitalism because we already have a mature development of capitalism. Hell, we don't have just capitalism but imperialism, the highest stage of development of capitalism. Depending on who you ask, we are in a new material stage called communicative capitalism.
This is the most informative and clear overview of communism I’ve ever watched. thanks as always dr. Wolff!
It's also fundamentally wrong. I guess the irony is that even someone who excels at understanding the "bigger picture" of socialism / communism still doesn't comprehend the central tenet of why said nations failed. It isn't because of the so-called "transitional phase" as Wolff puts it. It's because those attempts occurred in places completely alien to the concept of democracy. Social contract theory, which is the seminal philosophy of contemporary democracy, is pre-Marxist communism since its author, Rousseau, believed private ownership was the root of all evil. Thus, social contract and Marxism are inseparable, and yet Stalin, Mao, etc. somehow believed the two could be divorced. Keynes, who called himself a socialist, correctly fused social contract with Marxism in his General Theory which became the New Deal of 1933. Marx never discussed how governments should be organized. So, it's always been up to interpretation. Some failed. In the US and Scandanavian nations it fared better.
@@tuberific454 You mix things up. unfortunately. Upply simple logic, then dialectical logic -- this is the way make sense of your insights.
@@margaritaorlova6697 Maybe you can provide an example of where things got mixed up.
@@tuberific454as long as a colonial empire exists, socialism/communism will feel the imperial boot on the back of its neck. Autocratic auhoritarianism is antisocial_ist therefore, antithetical to well being of Society. You are welcome.
Amazing insights on socialism & communism by Professor Wolfe
Are you kidding? He's lying to you!
Ask people, who lived in the system.
N. Korea, anyone? The ex-soviet system behind the iron curtain that everyone endeavored to escape? 1956? 1968? 1990-91? Why you think the name 'iron curtain' was forged? People had to be kept there BY FORCE. It was a brutal dictatorship, nothing more, nothing less. There was hunger, no adequate accommodation, spying on citizens & horrible thought police, rampant nepotism, imprisonment, torture to describe a few features. It was anti-people & anti-life. So called elections, equality, lack of poverty, lack of discrimination were nothing short of a laugh.
Why do you think everyone wanted out.
This is exactly what we were told when I was growing up in the USSR, that we are not communists and it was the ultimate goal. Completely spot on about the problem of ownership being the main destructive force. I think that the USSR was well ahead of its time attempting to plan for everything even though computers were not even invented. I also remember one of the slogans "Economy must be economical" meaning that the purpose was not extracting as much profit from results of your labour but use as little resources as possible to deliver the same result. The system will need to change as capitalism will eventually extract the last drop of water and log the last tree to sell it for the highest bidder. Unfortunately the transition like many before will only happen due to some enormous shock to the existing system. There is no such thing as a bloodless transition, not at least what history tells us.
In reality, self proclaimed communist partes, in their own views, arereally PRE- or PROTO- communist.
This is such a good examination of the history of these ideas. To me, I would love to live in a world like Star Trek, where all the basic needs are taken care of and the profit motive barely exists.
You nailed it NO MOTIVE to produce, improve your education, start you own business etc. That's why communism and socialism fail 100%
That just is not possible. History proves it.
@@Ethan-ox4ck You could have said the same thing about nuclear fission in 1000 AD. Also, if you look at many hunter gatherer societies or communal agricultural societies, it proves that we humans are capable of acting with the greater good in mind. One more thing: capitalism is only a few hundred years old. To think we've arrived at the end of history is a mistake.
@@Ethan-ox4ck wrong for most history that is how we live
@@lot110 ☑️
As we become more globalized and finance led, the whisper of a democratic workplace becomes more revolutionary
Don’t Confuse Capitalism with Corporatism
It is an easy argument to make: the rich were made rich by a rotten capitalist system that oppresses those noble, hardworking innocents who do the actual labor. They want the system to be more fair-i.e. slanted their way- and even to cap earnings and opportunities. They witness a capitalist system that controls their lives, is in bed with government, can buy all the influence it wants, randomly destroys communities and cold-bloodedly lays off thousands of workers, simply to save money or increase stock prices.
Capitalism, however, is not the culprit though. It is corporatism, the collective mentality of the corporation that views workers as interchangeable and customers as lacking options. We do not live in a free market: we live in a market controlled by the interrelation between monolithic corporations, Wall Street and the Government. These three entities are what control our economic and professional opportunities, not capitalism.
Capitalism, specifically small business/entrepreneurial capitalism, is the antidote to this. SB/E Capitalism is a structure that allows anyone to achieve their goals inside the system or outside of it. It’s a system that is not rigged to the highest bidder. If the United States operated in a pure free market system, then the bailouts to Wall Street, the auto unions and the auto industry would not have happened. Those who engaged in reckless business practices would have been eaten up by the market & the void created by these organizations would have been filled with new entrants.
It is corporatism that has created the pathway for GE, Goldman Sachs, Hollywood and GM among others to have incredible access to the White House and Congress, not to mention access to bailout money. It is corporatism that has allowed tech companies such as Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft to partner with the NSA, providing data on millions of their users to the shadowy gov’t agency. They are able to act with impudence because there is no real structure for new organizations to challenge them. Government works to protect its friends and prevent new entrants from becoming major players in any industry.
The system in play now is designed to provide the illusion of opportunity, when in reality the opportunity is there only for a selected few. Corporatism is the economic partner of communism and totalitarianism, seeking to decrease opportunity and force allegiance and servitude. It is corporatism that creates the rules of industry and barriers to entry and it is corporations that purchase votes in their favor and prevent start-ups from challenging them. It is corporations that control the media, determining what we hear, see and how our opinions are formed.
No one in power is willing to give it up. It is far easier to buy the protection needed from the government or simply buy those businesses that could challenge it-looking at you, Microsoft. A pure small business/entrepreneurial capitalist system is the antidote to this rigged structure.
Opening up the fields to innovation and market access would create greater wealth and opportunities for millions across the country and the world. This system would also create access to greater education and freedom. A true capitalist system would put the burden of responsibility and accountability on the individual and force people to work harder, take chances and own their success or failure. With the control structure that is in place now, there is an incredible de-emphasis on personal responsibility or initiative.
It is small business and entrepreneurial capitalism that will solve the problems of poverty and corruption around the world. For decades, we have seen government and corporate actions yield no progress yet fools think the answer is more of this, not less. This is why corporations and government oppose a true capitalist system. It challenges their power. Oligarchs are not needed; that is what they fear the most.
Don't hold your breath. Communism has zero democracy. It is 200% brutal dictatorship, you haven't seen.
In France: Commune is always used as synonyms for city or town, and commune is usually the word used in official documents.
Bravo! Excellent presentation. I've been a subscriber for many years and was wondering when you were going to do a deep dive into the third rail of economic theory... "What is Communism?" Viewers learn more about communism in your 30 minute lecture that they can ever learn in any university econ course. Your have the gift of distilling complicated facts & theory into layman's terms and creating presentations that are remarkable. Namaste
Keep open our eyes Professor wolff. Thank you.
Great segment Mr. Wolff! Love the topic!
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Prof Wolff - you nailed it.
“We live in a community of people not so that we can suppress and dominate each other or make each other miserable but so that we can better and more reliably satisfy all life's healthy needs.”
― Wilhelm Reich
that can happen in capitalism
Prof. Wolff, going absolutely strong at 80. Keep up Prof! 🤗
Damn!
Being a curmudgeon has it's rewards.
What an incredible historical analysis by Professor Wolff. Thank you once more for your efforts.
This is my new favorite TH-cam channel. Thank you for these life lessons.
There was an attempt of worker's council in socialist Yugoslavia. It had some benefits but in the end nacionalism associated with capitalism brake all that apart.
My humble opinion is that the biggest problem with the worker's co ops, cauncil, any type of organization lies in will to activli participate and possession of necessary knowledge to make important decisions.
Malo ti je gramatika razmasena, ali poenta nije. Bravo, druze!
Again, that is true, but that is the spirit of socialism. The working class must be allowed to choose whatever they want to do. You can educate them with socialist ideas, through grassroots organisations, to make sure they co operate (to the level which they feel like that is). If running an economy is done by the state, workers get alienated again. Its not as much about efficiency as it is about enjoying work and living a democratic life. If you think too hard about efficiency, youll roll back into capitalism
Thank you! I do often use the term communism, or libertarian communism (to emphasize that it is a voluntary system based on what makes the most sense for people, rather than a forced system), but I also often describe the ideal I am talking about as "a world where no one is required to work for their survival". I always have to emphasize that people will still work, but it won't be compulsory. People just like to work. But if we really want a world where work is not compulsory, I think at this point it makes sense to center automation of important parts of production along side community ownership. So I use the phrase community ownership of the means of production, since not everyone would need to be a worker but they matter just as much. It was back in 2014 or 2015 that I first discovered your work, and you have helped me understand the value of all this. I appreciate the directness of this video title, and I do agree I think this kind of thinking is seeing a resurgence. The pandemic has squeezed everyone far too much, and they are motivated to push for more significant change.
There is no such thing as libertarian "communism." The very idea of communism gives power and concentrates wealth to the state and only the state. It allows the state to finesse you as they see fit. You don't have any private ownership of anything. You will be made a permanent serf for the rest of your life and be made to do manual labor upon assignment by the government, such is what my ancestors had to deal with in the Cultural Revolution. All your politicians are rich and fat, while everyone else is equally poor and destitute. Kind of like North Korea today if you think about it. You should visit sometime.
Libertarianism means less government control over anything, it is quite the opposite of communism.
And I disagree, people do not like to work. If you make it so that work is unnecessary people will simply lose productivity until AI/automation does their job for them, in which case everyone would lose their jobs and thus lose their homes and be homeless because without a job how would you pay for the ever increasing property taxes (what did you actually think the government would let you live rent free? property taxes are the rent lmfao).
Unfortunately there is no true capitalism like there is no true communism.
America is a corporatist government where corporations can lobby for YOUR TAXPAYER $. In a true free market, you wouldn't have government dictating who to fund often in favor of political benefits and who to let sink.
Meanwhile you can't have true communism because humans are fucking selfish and if you think letting the government control you works out better, think again. Who makes up that government? Humans. What happens if you give humans too much power? Corruption. What you really want is for less centralized government and more individual governance because I doubt you want to see your taxpayer $ go straight to funding hamster fight clubs and a 1 million dollar single toilet.
You think communism isn't a "forced system"? Don't you know anything about history? It's literally the single most authoritarian system ever devised.
You think it isn't a "forced system"? Don't you know anything about history? It's literally the single most authoritarian system ever devised.
You like authoritarainism.
Thank you for this professor Wolf. I will direct all my friends who ask me what Communism is to this video in the future. I hope we as a species can continue to strive for and eventually achieve the Communism that Marx first envisioned.
were sure that you were provided with a job, a salary, a free apartment and free land. You were sure that your children would get a free education, a job, a career, an apartment and a lot of good things. That's why Gorbachev is hated in Russia. He destroyed everything.
Fucking disgusting.
@@arthurgimov lol enjoy your sanctions you commie and Slava Ukraine 🇺🇦
✊
@@arthurgimov Of course he destroyed, but not all. For example, I see the advantages of the capitalist system. In my store there are 100 varieties of sausage for every desire. I don't need to save 5 years to buy an old Moskvich or Lada 7th model. Even Soviet medicine, which many communists praise, simply does not remember what hospitals in the USSR looked like. In my city, at least all the hospitals have been repaired and these hospitals have new equipment, I didn’t pay either when I got to the hospital with a stomach disease, or after a stab wound, or after a broken arm (when the gopniks beat me near the bar), we don’t paid neither for my wife's pregnancy, nor for my wife's operation, and so on.
In fact, in Russia now too - free medicine, only a little better than in the USSR.
Of course, there are a lot of disadvantages, for example, the degradation of education, the destruction of industry, and so on ...
But I unfortunately remember the disadvantages of life in the USSR.
Well, some communists in Russia still have not changed, they believe that the murder of a disabled child because he is a royal son, this is ok.... I don’t know what to say about such communists.
I learn so much from Richard Wolff. He explains everything in a way that none of my teachers ever could.
Informative piece, well presented .
I am able to understand in this Richard Wolff socialism with qualities on capitalism beyond them. Thank you
Outstanding presentation as usual. Thanks for cutting through a lot of misconceptions.
I had heard all the bits and pieces (some even from Prof. Wolff himself) but this concise summary was very nice. It might be a good starting point/foundation to come back to when getting lost in details and discussions with even likeminded people.
Bravo! This lecture simplifies the complex rivalry on the left. This is Professor Wolff's genius. He reduces the complex to understandable.
For me, WORKER OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION is everything. That and democracy that is necessary to make worker ownership functional.
Worker ownership of the means of production doesn't solve infighting within an enterprise or within government itself. (I have trouble conceiving of a complex society without the structure of government and law.) For that, we must deliberately teach cooperation and practical ways to overcome the urge to control and dominate within organizations. That is the hardest part, the most difficult task. We cannot look to strong leaders. We must work together to move forward. Think about how human beings tend to follow charismatic leaders in any organization. We are primates and that is built into our species. But we are more than apes. We can and must learn a new attitude as we construct a better society. We must learn cooperation and stop idolizing competition. We must adjust to a new way of thinking. Hard to do, but worth the effort.
Helen, I agree that USAmericans look for a leader to solve everything, a Messiah in fact. Each US president is hailed as the One who will save us from the mess the last Savior got us in. I don't think the rest of the world necessarily thinks this way. Certainly not here in France. Fortunately!
Dear Professor Wolff, Thank You! May this spiritual ghost bless and help you enlighten billions across the globe.Kindly share your vast knowledge, as deemed fit, through multiple capsules on the topic, the economic model advocated by Communism including its call and efforts made on internationalism.
✊ internationale
By the way, those who call themselves “socialists” had different names given them by real revolutionary social-democrats (later called communists). Communists (russian bolsheviks and their comrades around the globe) called those so called “socialists” 1) opportunists, because they betrayed fight for liberation of the working class for comfortable positions in bourgeois establishment, for their own personal safety and prosperity; 2) social-chauvinists, because they betrayed proletarian internationalism and supported their governments in the terrific imperialistic war in 1914, as well as many more military conflicts, interventions and coups provoked and initiated by imperialism, right up to these days.
That success that those reformists so called socialists governments of Western Europe gained during the XX century was possible only because of existing of USSR, there working class had rights and power, there most of problems of capitalist system was solved. The ruling class of capitalist countries just had to compete with Soviet Union and other socialist states, and treat their workers better for their (capitalists) own safety, to keep their power. Yes, say thanks to USSR for “golden age” of capitalism.
Since USSR collapsed we see we can see how ruling class is playing back, and don’t see any significant results of social democrats in making workers’ lives better.
I challenge anyone to find me examples where Social Democracy is "accumulating", as they assert is the way forward, instead of being eroded.
@@rsavage-r2v what do you understand for accumulating?? Just to start the proposed conversation.
@@rsavage-r2v another understanding as a premise is the fact that no social democracy if we accept there is one erodes by itself. There are political forces at play that do what is possible to assert their idea of social organization in the economic activity. The concept of class warfare must be taken into account when studying and trying to understand The evolution of capitalism and how it matures giving place to its contradictions showing its product and failures . transformation is inevitable. And innovative propositions to improve social organization demands change. That is the nature of society as any living organism. It changes. There are resistance of the established system but change is inevitable.
Great explanation. I love it. Thanks
Again thank you Professor Wolff for your expertise and intelligence for helping us to understand economics. Thank you. ❤️ Socialism, communism, Capitalism.
Impressive description in all its simplicity, an art in itself that not everyone can master but Mr. Wolff is an eminent specialist in his field🌞🥇
Thank you prof. Wolff, very inspiring and educational explanation of these concepts and where they come from. Now we only need to figure a way to organize and bring it about, and I mean PRONTO: we must stop, not only the exploitation of humans of their work for the enrichment of the few powerful lords, but also the mindless exploitation and exhaustion of resources of Earth, heal the irrational hate and fear and loath of the "others" and stop the all-destructive wars that all are quickly leading this beautiful planet to destruction and mass death, and stop the greed and the limitless self-indulgence that drives our consumerist-based economies in the rich countries. We must fight and once and for all dismantle the big corporations who behind the scenes are leading this world to destruction for their own profit. 🌈🌈🌈🌈
You know of degrowth economics? Look up Jason Hickel if not.. we have surplus problem in developed worlds now, not lack. Degrowth would reduce working week and give us more time for community/friends/family. We are against the wall with climate issues, IPCC said we must slam on the brakes, not only must we embrace green industry but we must reduce growth of whatever we can to save civilization, to save our environment/ecosystems from the death spiral of the greenhouse effect we have amplified.
@@nightoftheworld degrowth while it may be accurate in a macro sense is a horrible term to use to propagate an idea of a future people want to live into. We can actually build a more thriving human future if we do it right. So let’s find better terms that more accurately represent what we want for people. Because if we are telling fellow working class people of this country that feel like they are being robbed of a future that they just need to consume less we are going to lose. Better public infrastructure, urban planning, guaranteed employment, housing, healthy food and healthcare can drastically improve living standards while still having macro degrowth. So let’s be wise and understand how the average person hears degrowth and find better words. Something like building strong healthy vibrant communities.
@@MarvinRoman don’t be scared of the word, look up Jason Hickel and listen to his ideas on it. Degrowth is necessitated by IPCC reports whether we like it or not, as most developed western countries consume the equivalent of about 4 planets worth of resources.. leaving the global south behind to suffer what it may.
The degrowth idea is that we reduce wasteful/harmful production while simultaneously embracing green tech and automation to reduce working hours and free people to have more time for communities/family life. It would be a plus for workers of the world, for all people quite honestly considering what we face otherwise.
Also in the idea is the discernment that the biggest polluters/consumers are those at the very tip of society (top 1/.01%) and that they should be held most accountable since their contribution is hugely disproportionate to the average individual/family.
Additionally, degrowth confronts neocolonialism, at the level of toxic externalities and dirty trade policy. If we want to be truly ethical, to those alive now and those to come in the future, I seriously believe degrowth in this nature is integral, especially in light of the fact that even if we went net zero tomorrow the planet will still heat for the rest of the century.
We are in an existential moment of history, literally in the midst of a new and silent great extinction of animals/insects, an acidification and potential death of the oceans. These times are surreal, truly apocalyptic (in the sense of revelatory for our civilization)-so alarming that it is essentially unbelievable the mess we are in.. and that makes us doubly apt to tune out and disavow the global damage we are currently creating.
The biggest problem I feel is relying too naively on tech to magically pull us out of this, to reclaim unbelievably vast amounts of green house gas from our atmosphere. Most sequestration technologies are not developed, they are still speculative tech fantasy, yet those dreams are actually used to model our futures and inform policy. If those sci-fi predictions don’t pan out, then the future of civilization goes up in flames quite literally. So it seems most prudent to cut back/slow down while we still have a chance to limit warming to 1.5C.
I am a pessimist though given the geopolitical climate/pandemics/mass migration/populism/cynicism/war/worker burnout/mass depression/looming recession.. we are great at indulging when they feel bad, eating more ice cream, procrastinating. And you know, the sky is blue and that is all most people need to disregard the climate threat that hundreds of thousands of scientist across the world are confirming through interdisciplinary research. I hope we can turn it around, but we will need to give some things up most realistically. Nature doesn’t care that we prefer to have our cake and eat it too.
@@nightoftheworld we agree on degrowth. But my frustration is we think logic and rationality will carry the day and we have no responsibility to communicate our ideas in ways that will engage people instead of put them off.
@@MarvinRoman ya I understand what you mean, like how “defund the police” was a more harmful slogan to the cause than helpful. However I think degrowth is most candid/honest since the zealous “logic” of growth is what brought us to the edge of this cliff. Not to say growth is all bad, not at all, but that the level that we have taken the logic of growth to is clearly out of control-thus the solution being a giving up of some excess. What/when/where/how are the questions which should follow the fright.
Degrowth is startling for sure (especially given our economic history) but it makes deep sense as most everyone in the developed world secretly knows that they have it made-proving it negatively with remarks like, “at least you don’t live in [insert underdeveloped country]!” Hopefully the initial scare turns into a new pragmatic hope more than it turns into hate/fear, but ya who knows how things will go. Glad we agree on the direction. Do you think there is a better notion/word that could maybe better encapsulate the contents of the logic of degrowth?
Very good learning. Thank you professor Wolff.
So helpful. Thanks!
The following are my observations on China’s economic development. I hope it will help people to gain a deeper understanding of China’s economic development model and initiate in-depth research in the field of China’s economic development model.
1. China’s economic development model integrates socialism and capitalism to form an economic development model with Chinese characteristics, that is, the supply side adopts a planned economy and reforms to pursue efficiency, the demand side adopts a market economy and gradually opens up and pursues diversification, and the communist party CPC replaces the role of capitalists to guide technological innovation to complete the transformation of the underlying economic structure, and then drive the professionalization of the upper political structure.
2. China is currently a dual-engine economy. It can work on the supply side to drive economic growth through the Belt and Road Initiative, and it can also work on the demand side to drive economic growth through exports and consumption, integrating the planned economy with the market economy. It has become a systematic engineering economic development model, which is completely incomprehensible to traditional Western economists. This Chinese systematic engineering economic development model will definitely subvert the existing Western economic theory and become a prominent science.
3. If Western economists want to understand China's economic development model, they must make up for Marxism. China's economic development model is based on Marxism as its guiding principles: (1) Science and technology is the primary productive force, (2) Materialism Dialectics is the core concept of scientific and technological innovation. (3) The historical materialism that the underlying economic structure determines the upper political structure points out that the results of scientific and technological innovation must be shared by all people, and ultimately achieve a society of common prosperity.
Dear Mr. Wolf. It would be splendid to include anarcho-syndicalism as 3rd option :)
This was a really good episode professor
Thank you for the info! The subject used to seem so mysterious, but now I understand the differences between communism and socialism.✌️✊
Thank you so much I'm 70tyanmymomis88 ,an she was an educator for over 45yrs an no on ever explain in such detail references the socialist ,, communist,an democratic systems on you highly effective an experience level peace be with you 🙏
Muy educativo este episodio como siempre AMIGO me hizo recordar un Semestre en la Universidad 1982 UNAN en Sociologia la manera como se utilizo en esos dias COMUNISMO les van a quitar a sus hijos, les van a quitar sus viviendas etcetera
Great explanation and presentation of you class , Thank you
As always, I am educated. Thanks so much for devoting pt. 1 to clarifying all this. In the U.S. too many people assume that communism -- in any form and in any country -- means Stalinist Russia.
were sure that you were provided with a job, a salary, a free apartment and free land. You were sure that your children would get a free education, a job, a career, an apartment and a lot of good things. That's why Gorbachev is hated in Russia. He destroyed everything.
As if Stalinist Russia is anything bad and these people know much truth on it to begin with
I cannot think of anything more despicable than one time stalinism.
@@arthurgimov Aah, really. My husband grew up there. There was housing shortage: often 8 people in one, not apartment, but room. The state paid the people just enough to get by for two weeks, most of the money it kept. Free land? What a joke: maybe for high commie functionaries, which elicited feelings of unfairness & thoughts of discriminatory practices based on other than merit from the rest. They hated their functionaries & commissars. True, that the state paid to unneeded workers, as it strived to show the west that there is no unemployment on their land. But it was all fake & artificial. Production & work ethics were abysmal, completely uncompetitive with the west, product shortages rampant. Lineups for common food items, like bread, often went around the whole block. Nepotistic university admittance was not based on knowledge, but who you knew & how big you were on the commie ideologie.
My husband was born 2 months after Stalin got poisoned. His mother told him "I don't know how you even turned out the way you did, because when I was expecting you, we were so poor, there was almost nothing to eat, only potatoes. THE ONLY THING I WAS HAPPY ABOUT WAS that STALIN DIED BEFORE YOU WERE BORN."
When the system suddenly changed, it surely upset the paradigm for awhile. Cannot even imagine the upheaval.
Thank you so much Prof. Richard Wolff for your educative and enlightening presentation on Socialism and Communism. Great work! well done!
Very enlightening. Thank you Dr. Wolff.
Well done. Learned a lot.
it seems as if capitalism is reversing anything that benefits community.
That's true. It seems, there is this drive to inconvenience people every which way as much as possible.
Hello Professor Wolff🤗…I just want to tell you that I love listening to your beautiful, heart felt messages! 🥰🌺 Robin
"To me that which is generally called the ultimate aim of socialism is nothing, but the movement is everything"
- Eduard Bernstein
Really enjoyed this. Exactly what I was looking for. Love the way you tell the stories too!
"Socialism is when the government does stuff. The more stuff the government does, the more socialist it is. And when the government does a real lot of stuff, that's communism" - Richard D Wolff
Joking aside, what socialism is, actually, is a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals. Socialism is a fundamentally democratic ideology as well. The word democracy comes from the Greek "demos" (people) and "kratia" (power): Literally, "rule by the people". Capitalism, whilst a progressive step away from feudalism, is inherently undemocratic. The economy, which determines all manner of things ranging from the quality and availability of healthcare and education to if we sleep with a roof over our heads or out on the street, is not controlled by the people. Capitalism puts the rich in charge of running the economy, and thus in charge of our lives. Socialism on the other hand puts the people in charge of the economy, by making the economy democratically controlled. The manner in which this is done varies from tendency to tendency, but the principle is the same: The economy is too important to place in the hands of only a small fraction of the population.
And what is communism?
Friedrich Engels, the co-author of The Communist Manifesto, wrote that "Communism is the doctrine of the prerequisites for the emancipation of the proletariat" - a theoretical toolbox that clearly maps out how to achieve complete liberation for all working people. And this isn't just by securing free healthcare or increasing the minimum wage.
In 1845, Karl Marx wrote that "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things". The aim is a fundamental transformation of society, which once and for all ends "the exploitation of man by man". And we call the people involved in this project "communists".
But what's our end-goal? To take away everyone's toothbrush? No. You keep your personal property. Please. There is also significant difference between personal and private property. Private property refers to the means of production (factories, machinery, etc.), whereas personal property refers to the things you the common person own. Your house, your car, and other personal possessions are all personal property, these are things you have earned, so belong to you.
Anyway, the goal of communism as a movement, simply put, is to create a stateless, classless, moneyless society - that is to say, a communist society. Now, how we get there is a matter of debate among various different sections of the political left: some, such as anarchists, believe we can have a revolution and establish this kind of society immediately thereafter. Others, including Marxists like myself, believe that we'll need a transitional stage between capitalism and communism - a transitional stage called socialism.
But hang on a minute - what about Communist States? Don’t these communist states like the USSR and China contradict what's been said so far? Well, "Communist State" is a term used pretty much exclusively by those in the Western world. These countries never called themselves communist states. They called themselves "socialist states" - it's in the name: Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The term "Communist State" is also an oxymoron, given that communism is, as mentioned earlier, a stateless, classless, moneyless society.
And this doesn't happen overnight, it could potentially take many years, generations even, before transitioning from socialism to full communism.
@@seanpol9863 great reply I enjoyed reading it…even if the original comment was sarcasm.
The governments "doing stuff" & "micromanaging" everything is intrusive, overly bureaucratic, inefficient, counterproductive. impoverishing, unnecessary, unfair, humiliating, is misaligned with human psychology, completely loathsome & absolutely hateful. It takes life out of life.
@@seanpol9863 Obviously, you never lived in a commie, or soc. system. They are one & the same anyway. You know stuff from books, that someone wrote who similarly never lived in commie land. Democratic? That's the biggest laugh. Maybe in books & dreams, yes. Do you have an idea how they vote for politicians? It is 100% fake. Something doesn't become democratic, just because it's called that way. Do you really think, their system would have lasted 40 years if proper voting is allowed? Of course, not. Those politicians would have been out in 6 months, the most. It is not any community who regulates & runs things, but all is done from higher up, by the state. It is not ruled by the people, it is ruled by a few ideologue commissar types that are despised & hated by many, but the people are not allowed to express their displeasure, as their jobs, kids' future, or worse, can be on the line. That is the orwellian"freedom", that only a sadist is capable of imposing. If you think, that people control things there, you are mistaken. Maybe the books say so, but they lie. It is a top-down pyramid type control by strings. Their economy, housing, production quality & quantity, were a perpetual disaster, wholly uncompetitive w. the west, for one. Yes, there was homelessness, too. Socialism makes the people it put in charge rich by allowing them all forms of corruption. These same, sorry "leaders in charge" are generally completely ignorant of economy, industry, markets, human resources. Their only qualification & claim to fame is that they are self-proclaimed, rigid ideologues, & unquestioning, unconditional admirers of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, or at least 3 of the above, as their favorite idols are subject to change. As you almost said, the economy is too important to place in the hands of only a small fraction of the population, who are nothing, but rabid ideologues.
Thank You Professor Wolff & Happy New Year!👍🙏🙂
Bravo! I wish everyone could hear this! Thank you
This was a great video and expresses why I have been a communist since I understood the concept in my early twenties
Great video, thanks Professor Wolff.
How do you solve the problem of private greed ?
We could all support co-ops, I for one will try to buy directly from co-ops as much as possible from now on, opposed to buying from capitalist.
fuck yeah !!
Brilliant description of what is needed to run a stable society.
A very good summary. I think another solution that needs to be discussed is what I've seen termed "community cooperatives", which aren't so much about a cooperative workplace as it is a community that receives the products from enterprises, usually farms. So collective farms which share out their produce with people, not just the ones who carried out the labour but those who financially supported.
With the level of automation, we could have machines replace workers and produce a huge amount of what they produce. There's one (almost completely) automated vertical farm I saw that cost $10 million to build and it can grow food for 100 000 people. That's a huge amount of money for a single firm to come up with but if 100 000 people all pooled their money together, it would only cost $100 each. Then they could pay for it to be run, which would be maybe a tenth of that a year, if that.
So I think the level of technology we have today, and what is being rapidly developed, could replace many of the workplace models we have today and create a new kind of socialism or communism.
Beau touched on this on a livestream, he started to say gay space lux... and then just said Star Trek.
I am seriously worried about these vertical farms, and I'm not just trying to dampen your optimism. Plants still need finite earth minerals such as nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Where are all those extra elements going to come from as the world is already on course to run out of them in the next 100 years. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
@@marianhunt8899 If these minerals are running low, it'd be a problem for every farm, vertical or otherwise. So, we should worry about all of them. At least vertical farms and hydroponics use up less water than conventional farms. Also, I'm guessing since they're so efficient and produce huge yields, they could afford less minerals. The ones you listed are part of the recipe for fertilizer and the world was growing crops before then, just at a lower amount.
This is a great introduction to our history.
The astute, heartfelt, studied and relevant information you provide is a reflection of your own rare good heart. I always feel somewhat elevated and refreshed by the truisms of which you speak. UNTIL I see what "rational" human beings have done to the entire planet. The lunacy of our collective actions, the persistent degradation of our own "life support system", and the universal neglect for the "least of us" has lead me to believe that humanity is little more than a pernicious invasive species hell-bent on destroying itself and every thing around us.
There are a relative few who have the wealth and power to shape world events and thereby determine the conditions under which we live; the conditions that end up shaping our basic behavior. My observation is that those few tend to be greedy, narcissistic sociopaths who, by definition, couldn't care less about the well being of the "unwashed masses".
So the negatives that you list are, in my mind, primarily the doing of a relatively small slice of humanity, not the collective actions of all humanity. Granted, we the people passively allowed the lunatics to take control. Then we passively allowed ourselves to fall prey to propaganda designed to keep the rich and powerful in control.
We may be an invasive species in the sense that all living things procreate and compete for limited resources, but I don't think we're collectively hell-bent on destroy ourselves. In my opinion, the blind greed of those who rule are primarily responsible for that.
There have been experiments done and it has shown that 70-90% of people return wallets. The more money it has, the more likely they are to return it.
@@StopCopCity1312 And that proves? What does this prove?
Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative--even when acting against their own better judgment and desires. Milgram�s classic yet controversial experiment illustrates people's reluctance to confront those who abuse power. It is my opinion that Milgram's book should be required reading (see References below) for anyone in supervisory or management positions.
Milgram recruited subjects for his experiments from various walks in life. Respondents were told the experiment would study the effects of punishment on learning ability. They were offered a token cash award for participating. Although respondents thought they had an equal chance of playing the role of a student or of a teacher, the process was rigged so all respondents ended up playing the teacher. The learner was an actor working as a cohort of the experimenter.
"Teachers" were asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the "learner" when questions were answered incorrectly. In reality, the only electric shocks delivered in the experiment were single 45-volt shock samples given to each teacher. This was done to give teachers a feeling for the jolts they thought they would be discharging.
Shock levels were labeled from 15 to 450 volts. Besides the numerical scale, verbal anchors added to the frightful appearance of the instrument. Beginning from the lower end, jolt levels were labeled: "slight shock," "moderate shock," "strong shock," "very strong shock," "intense shock," and "extreme intensity shock." The next two anchors were "Danger: Severe Shock," and, past that, a simple but ghastly "XXX."
In response to the supposed jolts, the "learner" (actor) would begin to grunt at 75 volts; complain at 120 volts; ask to be released at 150 volts; plead with increasing vigor, next; and let out agonized screams at 285 volts. Eventually, in desperation, the learner was to yell loudly and complain of heart pain.
At some point the actor would refuse to answer any more questions. Finally, at 330 volts the actor would be totally silent-that is, if any of the teacher participants got so far without rebelling first.
Teachers were instructed to treat silence as an incorrect answer and apply the next shock level to the student.
If at any point the innocent teacher hesitated to inflict the shocks, the experimenter would pressure him to proceed. Such demands would take the form of increasingly severe statements, such as "The experiment requires that you continue."
What do you think was the average voltage given by teachers before they refused to administer further shocks? What percentage of teachers, if any, do you think went up to the maximum voltage of 450?
Results from the experiment. Some teachers refused to continue with the shocks early on, despite urging from the experimenter. This is the type of response Milgram expected as the norm. But Milgram was shocked to find those who questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level.
Participants demonstrated a range of negative emotions about continuing. Some pleaded with the learner, asking the actor to answer questions carefully. Others started to laugh nervously and act strangely in diverse ways. Some subjects appeared cold, hopeless, somber, or arrogant. Some thought they had killed the learner. Nevertheless, participants continued to obey, discharging the full shock to learners. One man who wanted to abandon the experiment was told the experiment must continue. Instead of challenging the decision of the experimenter, he proceeded, repeating to himself, "It�s got to go on, it�s got to go on."
Milgram�s experiment included a number of variations. In one, the learner was not only visible but teachers were asked to force the learner�s hand to the shock plate so they could deliver the punishment. Less obedience was extracted from subjects in this case. In another variation, teachers were instructed to apply whatever voltage they desired to incorrect answers. Teachers averaged 83 volts, and only 2.5 percent of participants used the full 450 volts available. This shows most participants were good, average people, not evil individuals. They obeyed only under coercion.
In general, more submission was elicited from "teachers" when (1) the authority figure was in close proximity; (2) teachers felt they could pass on responsibility to others; and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected organization.
Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at finding they had not harmed the student. One cried from emotion when he saw the student alive, and explained that he thought he had killed him. But what was different about those who obeyed and those who rebelled? Milgram divided participants into three categories:
Obeyed but justified themselves. Some obedient participants gave up responsibility for their actions, blaming the experimenter. If anything had happened to the learner, they reasoned, it would have been the experimenter�s fault. Others had transferred the blame to the learner: "He was so stupid and stubborn he deserved to be shocked."
Obeyed but blamed themselves. Others felt badly about what they had done and were quite harsh on themselves. Members of this group would, perhaps, be more likely to challenge authority if confronted with a similar situation in the future.
Rebelled. Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they were accountable to a higher authority.
Why were those who challenged authority in the minority? So entrenched is obedience it may void personal codes of conduct.
References
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper and Row. An excellent presentation of Milgram�s work is also found in Brown, R. (1986). Social Forces in Obedience and Rebellion. Social Psychology: The Second Edition. New York: The Free Press.
© 2014 by The Regents of the University of California. Printing this electronic Web page is permitted for personal, non-commercial use as long as the author and the University of California are credited.
Thank you, Dr. Wolff. Your intellect harkens to my school days when learning was a pleasure. Behind every system of governance, be they socialist, communist, democracy and so on, the premise of serving the people is the main criterion. Alas, with any organisation comes the inevitable hierarchy of people which overseas the formulation of ideas and concepts right down to the planning and execution. Hence, society can never run away from ideals being hijacked and/or compromised in the long run. The utopia remains what it is...a dream.
This is awaking in me a new awareness. We have never been taught this. We as US citizens, are trained to be greedy capitalists. But now I understand the difference between private capitalists and government capitalists. Not much. It seems what you are saying, in a way, we need to have a new thought system. Where we might think of others and think fair and just And I’d add care and respect for the earth. We would be wired to default to compassion. That would just be the way we are. How do we switch the collective thinking to care vs I need to take as much as I possibly can and damn the rest?
You’re feeling it right now! Try and light as many of your loved ones up as possible too and them to theirs etc, we can fix stuff
That is the big question. How do we attain this evolution of human consciousness that takes us from being wired, conditioned, to be selfish and greedy to a state where we are wired to be generous and compassionate? It will take a massive spiritual awakening that draws upon the best resources of religious traditions, artistic traditions, philosophical and scientific knowledge. This kind of awakening is not inevitable. We may never attain it, which means we would probably go extinct, taking the rest of the biosphere with us, no doubt. But, I believe it is possible, and humanity has the resources within itself to achieve it. I also believe in a Divine Reality that is luring humanity, gently and patiently, toward such an evolution of consciousness that could finally bring us into a condition in which our default way of being would be compassion, generosity, and caring...
@@lidstrom-yd5pb We are selfish and greedy because it is a relic of our animal instincts. All people are afraid of the future. In fact, why do you need millions or a five-story building with 10 toilets and 20 bedrooms. People are afraid to die of hunger, they are afraid that they will be thrown out of their own home, they are afraid that their children will need something, that is why people are greedy, well, either people want power, although in reality those who want power are few .
For example, if you have very cheap and convenient public transport, then you don't need a car, because a car is a pain in the ass. If you have a stable and secure life and you are sure that this will always be the case, you will not worry about losing a couple of cents..
It's not easy to change, but it's possible.
@@lidstrom-yd5pb Men, for example, often want to become rich in order to buy women's love and attention.
And women just want to be sure that this male can provide for both her and her children.
Women are simply closer to nature and instincts.
@@lidstrom-yd5pb profound I agree
Clear exposition. Thanks
Professor Wolff taught me so much. I wish Jordan Peterson agreed to debate him instead of running away
As a former Peterson fan, seek criticisms of his rhetoric there‘s a good reason he ran away from the debate.
He probably learned his lesson in his debate with Slavoj Zizek in which he was humiliated terribly.
Peterson would flop around like a fish out of water, he’s a luddite and a fascist.
Excellent historical discussion and analysis of socialism and communism...
Thank you Professor for this thought provoking video. My thoughts are as follows:
Going back thousands of years the human race were hunter gatherers. They lived in a community & they worked together and shared whatever they produced. The men went out hunting, brought back whatever they caught & shared them with the community. Similarly, they farmed grains etc & shared whatever they harvested. This was possible because the community was small & may have a population of a few hundred people. As communities grew they became nations of thousands or millions of people it would be difficult & unwieldy to do what the hunter-gatherers did. So now we have organised governments to look after the people. Greed is the greatest destructive element of any society. Those in government & controls the society may be greedy & steals some of the wealth of the nation. Then individuals who worked hard & saved money may start a small business & make it grow. These individuals’ businesses are not non profit organisation. They do it to make money for the individuals (capitalism). Countries with state-run businesses is not all bad, as long as the state-run business profits are ploughed back into the nation for the benefit of the people. China is a good example of this. Before China embraced capitalism the country was poor. Then when president Deng Xiaoping made international travel to other nations he saw what capitalism can do. Upon his return to China he opened up China & embraced capitalism, resulting in in many state-owned enterprises & trades with the world. Over the past 70 years China became the world’s factory. China became rich & lifted 800 million people out of poverty. This has not stopped- China will continue to lift its people out of poverty. Also educating the people is important. Over this period many Chinese studied overseas where many earned doctorate degrees & returned to China to work for the country as well as to improve the country’s education system. Today China is the 2nd largest economy in the world & soon will be number 1. One may call China’s system socialism or communism, but it doesn’t matter because the important thing is the people of China benefited from the country’s success.
Many nations should learn from China’s success & make their nations successful. Unfortunately the US & its allies see China’s success as a threat & take actions to contain China. This is negative & doesn’t contribute to world peace & prosperity.
The creation of the BRICS group is a positive step in the right direction, where 5 nations are working towards shared prosperity. This group will grow as many nations are now applying to join BRICS.
China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is also helping developing nations to improve their economies.
In a system like democratic capitalism, where the rich & powerful controls the masses of people, for the rich people, is not sustainable. The wealth gap between the rich & poor get bigger & bigger. Sooner or later there will be civil war. The US is supposed to be the richest country in the world, yet there are millions of Americans living in poverty & thousands are homeless. The US government needs to look after its citizens, instead of wasting money on wars & maintaining military bases around the world. The US will collapse as a nation if the government doesn’t look after its citizens.
You overlook Wolf's main point: democratic control of the workplace is the crucial. This absolutely does not describe China, nor any othet country today fir that matter. Beside, China's embrace of capitalism included THE CREATION OF CAPITALISTS. It's now a country with billionaires. Their profits are NOT ploughed back into social goods (only in the most indirect way if at all). So no, I do not look to China as the way to liberation. Nor should any other real socialist.
China is not a good example, its economy is in a banking crisis as we speak and are occupying Tibet. Its an empire like Russia and the US, as an indigenous person all three have horrible histories, face it Communism and capitalism are both dead time for a new way of thinking.
uhum
@@edwardanderson1053 please do research on Tibet. You will find it was a horrendous Theocracy ruled by overlords with the power to do as they pleased with anyone who displeased them. They had virtually no infrastructure, were poorly educated with no health care. China did not occupy Tibet but brought it into the 20th century. Very soon most business transactions will be done in Yuan and Rouble
The fact is that modern China's chassis was layed during the 1960s and 70s.
Brilliant!
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
~ Karl Marx
I suddenly thought of an idea of how to explain communism and why it is better than capitalism. I was explaining it along the terms of communism and community having the same root word for a reason. What I just realized now is that there is a concept in biology describing the various interactions between different species but these interactions also play out within communities of the same species. This concept is symbiosis and there are different sorts of symbiosis, the one most resembling the ideal of proper communism is called mutualism, which is a relationship in which both parties to the relationship benefit from being a part of said relationship. Here's the Wikipedia page that better explains all the different forms of symbiosis:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis
Your analogy is correct and could practically helpful.
@@sayunts That's the only reason I made a comment. Nice guitar in your profile pic, by the way.
Sure, but symbiosis in nature is voluntary and communism among human beings is enforced at gunpoint...
What the hell did you just say lol
@@juniorgod321 Or so say American junior high school textbooks.
Thanks, Prof Wolff! More clarity for sure-its great to have someone who can lay it out in easy to understand concepts. I am encouraged by the current labor movement and also know workers demanding and getting more power will face immense resistance. Only together over an extended period of time can anything like equity begin to overcome the power of greed. What can be the levers of keeping natural leaders of such a movement from holding too much power? I hope you can offer ideas on that. This was one of my favorite episodes!
The answer is to eliminate capital. Capital is that which gives people power over others in this economy. It is the barrier to our social evolution.
@@kennyegor7503 thank you, I can see that would diminish individual power. In addition it would still require a strong community to regulate charismatic, stronger personalities-which would be manageable without capital. Basically, a cooperative, yes?
Thank you sir for the informative explanation. We are indeed in a transition atm. I hope we make it but not all will survive. Whilst against this notion for years I have eduacated myself to the realisation that the world does not function for the many. Workers rights must now be a focus globally however i expect chaos before we can expect change and that is indeed what is happening. We live in fearfull times but "when the going gets tough,the tough get going.
Excellent beautiful Excellent Programs as Always thankful Dear !! Im Learning!!!!
"Communism" being in the video title really brought out the best and brightest in these comments.
That word is virtually one of the largest dog whistles in the West I can't believe the animals that I live with in my country they have no intelligence they live on Greed and lust instinct nobody will ever trust anybody in this country ever there are no friendships there's no love under capitalism
Thank you for educating us on this important subject.
The mainstream media never discuss this, they always seem to use the word "communism" as some sort of slur and the public are conditioned to believe it is associated with suffering, lack of personal possessions and some sort of modern day slavery like in old USSR.
Because they are owned by . . . yep, of course. That's why we have to look to Richard Wolff, Amy Goodman, Paul Jay and others who refuse corporate sponsorship.
Class ideological warfare is real. In marxist understanding of capitalism is a fundamental component to explain the nature of capitalism and of any class society. The dominant class once established in position of power made the social contract accepting the new arrangement a constitutional codified written form of domination. The class in possession of the reins of the state then made law it's power and secured its perpetuation. The superstructure of Capitalism is formed by many reinforcing ways to do such continuation; legalities, a security force, education, ideological instruments like media, etc. Ideological warfare is the demonization of all those that threaten the power of the dominant class and will continue with others forms of class warfare including the decision to impose fascism and deny a democratic game of deceit since democracy is a threat to their control of the state.
They are still stuck with the mentality of 1950s Cold War era fear-mongering, because they cannot accept a future where the US is no longer the number one superpower in the world.
"some sort of modern day slavery like in old USSR" is also product of capitalism ruled, mainstream, brainwash media.
@@winns.x yes. Lies are part of ideological class warfare. Those repeating or better say parroting those lies when they don't have an accurate understanding of the Soviet experience with the imperialist assault on those people is precisely the problem. And since there are few people to challenge the lies , is taken for granted that socialism and communists are the guys in the movie Red Dawn. Stupid and ignorant.
Very informative. Thank you professor.
Marx himself never really had a clear idea of the difference between liberalism and communism. His definition of communism bears no resemblance to the original definition of communism. Marx’s vision is radically liberal, in which the economy is fully automated and individuals are liberated and free to pursue their own interests however they see fit. In Marx’s vision, people are free from each other, their interdependence, their interconnectedness, and the division of labor. This is a liberal ideal not a communist ideal. The goal of liberalism is a quest for liberation and autonomy. It’s really more of a science-fiction fantasy than anything else. Under traditional communism, the goal was to become more interconnected and interdependent, living collectively, working together, and sharing living spaces and belongings. Interdependence is inevitable. The goal of socialism and communism is to make interdependence more socially harmonious. Libertarian goals are the opposite of socialist goals.
Joker punda otha marx ah olunga padi poitu
What is this nonsense?
Under capitalism, the profit motive, competition, the capitalist class, decentralization, and ethnic identities are adversarial and get in the way of making interdependence more socially harmonious. Fighting for autonomy from our interdependence is an impossible goal. Interdependence is inevitable. Socialism is the solution not freedom.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 no marx was not "radically liberal" unless you mean young marx. He moved away from liberal philosophy like idealism to develop his dialectical materialism. Morality, identities, the idea of the "soul" come from the material social relations, not that they were transcendent unchanging categories that is suggested in liberalism. developing a class, material, philosophy is what departs him from liberalism.
While I identify as a socialist I have always been unclear about the difference between socialism and communism. This was quite helpful.
Capital ism didn't happened automatically for one day to another. Yesterday was feudalism or whatever the previous system and tomorrow wasn't another. It is a long historic process of struggle of one system inertia of evolutionary process into another. It took many efforts and struggles until one day an insurrection or revolution changed the political balance radically. But it wasn't a few days event. Every change provokes a resistance and feudalism resisted the same way capitalism today resist and try to perpetuate. But change is going to come. It is already happening . Gradually but change is happening. Like it or not.
Estimated four centuries for capitalism to beat feudalism and establish to whole globe. Then few decades to turn from its liberal competition and free market (if it eve existed) to imperialistic stage. Hundred year now since first imperialistic war. Another century full of wars and crisis. How many centuries do people need to understand that capitalism outlived his progressive role in history of humanity way long ago? I afraid we don’t have even a one century, regarding problems and challenges we are facing. They can’t be solved within capitalism. No way.
@@DimitryCheniche indeed. Agreed completely.
Yes physics/nature don’t care about ideology or rhetoric-concerning climate change, the IPCC said we have our back against the wall objectively. Superstorms, mega-droughts, mass species extinction, all consequences of our industrial activity-if we don’t enact limits now, if we don’t decelerate/regulate the surplus economies (especially the wealthy private hoarders and corporate zealots in them) then we are doomed to overshoot scientific boundaries for green house gas levels and will doom future life (plants, animals, humans) to deeper dystopian struggle.
It sounds like you are alluding to the idea that centralized power, whether in the work place or government, is cancer to society, and I agree.
Alluding.
I've listened to this one a few times now. Thank you Professor Wolff!
At my Union it clear among us workers that our Union is only for the interest of the Union and NOT the employees. It's so bad at my job that there is a division between the workers, the ones who get a pension and the ones who don't. The ones who don't get a pension get a 401/457 plan, like myself. Before, every worker at my job used to get a pension.
Our union was responsible for that change and division because they are in cahoots with staff. We don't even have a strike fund!
Where is my money going and what is the purpose of our union? Our union says they are insurance/protection for in case you get in trouble with staff.
Isn't that the same thing the Mob would tell their victims, you need protection? People who opted out the union get in trouble all the time at my job yet they are still here! The union is a scam! I started this job paying 60 bucks a month in union dues and now it's almost 100 bucks a month!
Non-pension holders at my job are starting to opt out the union and eventually that's what staff wants so we can be at their mercy but we are already at the mercy of staff. So many people are fed up yet people I think are scared to say or do anything. The way the union talks to us, I literally can't tell the difference between them or staff.
How are we going to pay our bills if we go on strike?
I'm down to go on strike, I don't have kids plus I have enough savings for rent and food for a whole year but I don't know about everyone else.
You are the Union!, if you have a problem with the leadership organise and change it.
@@reddirtuk Incorrect. I am a worker and the Union should have the worker's interest in mind NOT the Union's interest.
This is a perfect example of what frequently happens to unions and the reason the unions were divided among the trades in the very beginning.
The owner class has always understood that they must stick together to survive, and they have always worked together to divide and sabotage any organization that brings working class people together.
It's a variation on the old joke about a meeting between the owner and 2 workers.
@@rickb3650 Indeed, the owner class along with their goons (staff/management) have a very strong unity, unlike I have never seen before. Why can't the workers have this type of unity??
@@GnosticCushite I wish I knew the answer to that. It's almost enough to make you think the owners have a point. They all believe that the working class are too stupid to ever understand how they're being screwed and when I see us make the same mistakes over and over and over...
Great vid
Even Communism used money.
If we abandon that use of coins
as a measure of value,
we might be able to eliminate
corruption?
12:30
@Seventh Anubis My suggestion is the elimination of Money as the tool that enables those who have large piles of money to purchase Governments.
The ability to accomplish that without shooting and bloody power struggles seems to be a bloodless method of Revolution?
The use of Capitalism over the Centuries, since the Sumerians invented coins seems to be difficult to overcome?
Thanks!
I think you need to mention the element of an educated society and how the participation of an educated people will benefit every aspect of society vs. a society filled with state propaganda and violent patriotism - education was a key factor in Marx theory...
Yeah man. This. 😊
Indoctrination. Education in Marxist doctrine was key.
This is a great explainer and I found it very helpful. My question is: in a system where the employee is the owner and gets a vote on how the profits are distributed, how is the workplace created in the first place? Who provides the money to buy the equipment and develop the products/services? And as the company grows, how is equity passed to each new employee brought onboard? Do the initial investors in the company just give away their equity in this case?
What did the communist use before candles?
Electricity 😊
This video really got the bots coming out of the woodwork. I'm assuming because of the words in the title
@@SocialCreditScore Bots which never respond and never prove that they are not paid because otherwise they would just be masochistic because they get respons
Thank you Professor Wolff. Best wishes. Carry on.
I really appreciate your effort for us, Regardless of the economic situation, you keep doing more 💯. I feel for our country 🇱🇷high income, people now suffering to survive, I will forever appreciate you Max Cole! Imagine investing $2000 & receiving profit of $11,600 within few days, investing is indeed a great opportunity.
美国 美国 美国 美国ကောင်းတယ်
➕𝟭6155524618 美国ကောင်းတယ်
So blissful seeing my broker being talked about on TH-cam, this was exactly how I got recommendations about him, though i was a bit skeptical but eventually gave him a trial with my little investment, so surprised when I got vast profits.
with lot of bills to pay and earnings little from my place of work. I was forced to venture into digital currency market some months ago today am driving my dream car and living a comfortable life.
No wonder so many of you are confused, Professor Wolff is excellent at critiquing capitalism and less great about anything else. The rotting capitalist system can not be reformed. It must be dismantled. The first step is educating the masses, hardcore progressive taxes, eliminating privatization, and collective ownership of industry and distribution. And well, based on the comments, enjoy your decaying capitalist/fascist future for the next 100 years. ❤
poltical class own the means of production under communsim
Thanks our lovely frofesor
This was great, illuminating the historical continuity that so often (I would argue quite uncoincidentally) goes conveniently ignored or dismissed, especially in regards to the socialist split over war credits during WWI. And in that regard I think it's illuminating to take a macro look at the trajectory we find ourselves currently on and reconcile with the reality we are faced with honestly, as expressed at the end here.
It's no coincidence that our bipartisan blackhole "defense" budget passes with ease to implicitly/explicitly enforce this now global financial "order" through the 1,000+ military bases worldwide and toward the perpetual benefit of US corporate/finance capital at the zero-sum cost of the working class (not to mention the planet that we're consciously destroying at this point...), meanwhile a modest domestic spending bill or god forbid even the most basic of healthcare for the people that actually make this world produce any sort of life worth living is callously thrown at the wayside.
The empire feeds off the republic, hollowing out all social meaning and trust to be sold for profit and leading to an ouroboros of resentment and a headlong thanatos embrace toward the "common ruin of the contending classes." To echo Rosa Luxemburg from 1918 Germany, before of course being executed by the freikorps paramilitary (later becoming the SS, shocker) at the behest of Ebert's ostensibly _social democratic_ SPD party, almost immediately resonating the truth of such a succinct political dichotomy to this day; juxtaposing that specter haunting the modern world with its only alternative:
*_Socialism or_* [continued] *_barbarism._*
Excellent discussion sir..you instruct and inform and enlighten...ty again for all you and your staff do.