We need David Harvey to take on JP. Wolff may be unreliable in pursuing the excoriation of the uninformed, knee-jerk capitalism booster. Certainly, Harvey wouldn't be.
Dr Wolff is an excellent teacher, unusual for a such brilliant mind to communicate to the rest of us :) There is so much misinformation in US, please share this video. Why doesn't this have 500K subscribers?
If you have not taken a “Social Theory “ class while you were attending a University you might never have been introduced to Marx and his social theory. Like Dr wolf explained, it is very difficult to find a course on Marx at any University. This is way he does not 500 k subscribers. Wolf is actually giving the course on Marx that is hard to acquire at most Universities.
I haven't realized that the debate had been hijacked from the start to give us two colors of the same flavor. I really learned something today, thanks for this video.
Yes, of course it is. We were all born into this system and it will take lots of soul searching and study to keep our awareness at a high level. Thank you for listening and being willing to do research!
There is no deeper level.....but then can YOU actually explain WHAT you believe you were "informed" about? And if you truly understand THAT, you will see that what has been imparted is not unique, nor specific to this subject, but is quite general and applicable to every subject....." he who controls the present controls the past; he who controls the past, controls the future."
@@jgalt308 Thanks for your feedback. Sounds like an attempt at a Meta-narrative of control. We are all separate realities, so in that sense we are all unique.
@@stevesayewich8594 You seem to have found the problem, while missing both the specific and general lesson here so the feedback wasn't much help....but the question remains, so all is not lost.
Its hard to find a Capitalist that even know enough about socialism in order to be critical of it. Where as most socialists have a laundry list of Capitalist critique.
@@frankscott1708 it doesnt take anything. You voluntarily choose to sell your labor for less than you think its worth. If i sell my car for 40% less than i know its worth, thats not theft. that means im a idiot. You are an idiot.
@Jamie if you are in a position of "work for us or starve" then it is your own fault. You should have a means of survival outside of a "job". If you dont, then it is no one elses fault that you were too stupid to invest in a means of survival. That is really the fault of your socialsit government which taught you to be dependant on them like a good little slave. Now you want what others have produced on their own. Shame on you!!
I think it’s about time to be completely honest! Capitalism has never been the system that was gonna equally spread out resources! It was unequal to begin with! The ideal that markets would regulate them selves was never really true!
rational people see this. brainwashed propagandized fools on the other hand do not i.e. most of the american population. those of us that take the bible as a science book also swallow the myths of capitalism hook line and sinker.
Effort is not equal, why should the rewards be? If you choose to drop out of school with a 6th grade education, and have a couple three kids before you get married that should be on you, not on society.
Years of engaging with and sometimes in this debate, never came across such clarity of what “is” the debate about. Brilliant work.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +26
I get so sick of authoritarians claiming socialism as their own and ruining it for the socialists that are not for central planning. The black and the red won't unite. Because the red won't allow the black to exist.
Solidarity, my friend. thank you for saying this. We just have to work to organize a better society in the shadows. Whether the liberals fuck it all up, the fascists win, or the tankies blow it all to hell, or nature takes a dark course, it will be left to us to rebuild. "We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old"
One thing we fail to take into account when analyzing the development of the Soviet Union, is the enmity that it had to deal with. It failed to reach what many call Full Communism due to the immediate hostilities that threatened it - invasions, both in 1919 and in 1941, as well as the isolation thrust upon it by the Western Powers and their campaigns of sabotage, subterfuge, propaganda et cetera. The USSR needed a strong central government in order to raise armies, protect its borders, weed out potential saboteurs and to counteract the relentless and idiotic propaganda directed at it, which all of us who lived through any part of the Cold War, have been exposed to. Under ideal circumstances, in spite of the miraculous changes that it achieved, the Soviet Union may have very well developed into a truly communal society devoid of strong state control.
I doubt most fail to take any of that into account. You might have that impression due to the emotional charge some words carry, especially in politics, where words carry the ethics and morals of it's ideological spokesman. Whoever claims the USSR willfully sabotaged it's own course is a sheep. Lenin wasn't at odds only with the western capitalist establishment, it was at odds with the science of communism itself. Marx said, and rightfully so, that the (successful, or genuine) proletariat revolution will begin in the most developed country, which at the time was the US, not agrarian Russia. The revisions made, mainly by Stalin's rule to the theory is too, justifiable, but unfortunately, it created another type of propaganda, which now burdens our time.
The USSR did need a strong central government considering its backwards nature at the time and its vast geographical size. And the West DID attack it because of the threat it posed to the ruling class's in other various countries. However, it must be said, that a degeneration took place after Lenin's death, in particular the policy of "Socialism in one country" policy of 1927. That , and the backing away from international socialism coupled with the purges of the original Bolsheviks through the Moscow Trials. This has to be aid at the feet of Stalin...
Even without the full hostilities that threatened it in the USSR, communism always fails, no matter what, and the reason for that is quite simple: communism always think that everybody will work and cooperate to achieve it's goal and since people don't always do those things, you have to use force and in the end, you're always left with dead bodies all over the place! If you think about it, this is not rocket science!
Yeah, God junior, so how capitalism or slavery makes people cooperate? I certainly don't go to work with goal to make business owner rich, but I cooperate to make it happen. Maybe be we need to rethink incentive.
I'll give you an insider view of why Soviet Union collapsed. I don't hear anyone mentioning one fact that Russia annexed many countries around it and made them lose independence. Anti-Soviet movement did not start as anti- communist movement- it was movement for independence in Poland, Czech Republic, Baltics and Caucasian nations. Then movement for independence was hijacked by business right who saw a lot of opportunities with privatization of whole countries. Now majority of population in these countries is left holding bag while ex- communist leaders turned into new oligarchs are promoting libertarian paradise.
Clare Stucki That’s not true. The surplus of labor that prisoners have always represented has been exploited shamelessly in recent decades in America. They sew uniforms for the US military, fight fires in California, and make license plates for automobiles. That’s just what they make for the state; private companies like McDonald’s and JC Penny exploit prison labor to make commodities. Usually they’re paid pennies on the hours, and in some cases, for nothing at all - the literal definition of slavery, permitted as a punishment for criminals under the thirteenth amendment of the US constitution.
@@clarestucki5151 apparently you have NO idea of what your talking about! EVERY prisoner is required to work. Some up to 12hrs a day. Manufacturing didn't move over seas! Not only do companies get slave labor, they charge those prisoners 3× the price. For basic needs!
@@lovetoall1429 I don't know who she is, but every week she/he/it has some kind of reactionary and idiotic comment to make. Apparently she's never heard of prison labor and the plethora of companies who contract out their production to workers inside the prisons, who they can pay $0.08 an hour to. Capital is taking potential well-paying jobs from American workers, and exploiting prisoners instead. Prisoners are their ideal workforce.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +4
Marsha Benson that's not the only slaves. Wage slaves are slaves that are forced to feed and house themselves. Instead of the slavemaster doing that part.
Excellent work Prof, keep it coming! One idea, if I may, for propelling these lectures: why not work with a person to put together graphics to accompany your words? It would require more preparation but would help most folks to truly grasp and internalize the ideas you present here. Even a simple graphic presentation, it seems to me, would make your chats immensely more accessible. That's my superficial critique, thanks again for your work!
wow I have to say Dr Richard Wolff you are incredible!!!!! thank you so much for teaching and educating us. I am a big fan learned so much with you. Ive learned more in 1 year of following you than years of schooling. Incredibly talented to teach, hands down one of the best professors in this life time. THANK YOU. LEO BROOKLYN
I was horrified a year ago when I got a tour of my local landfill site. I was taking some brush to there for my employer when his car broke down. One of the landfill workers offered to drive me back but I had to go out with him to the dump site to drop off a bottle of water for his coworker. What I saw was shocking. About 10 acres of land filled with layers of garbage, man made stuff that was discarded either because it was outdated or broken. They were driving machines over it and burying it. I live in a small community and I couldn't believe we were producing that much garbage, all stuff not classified as "kitchen waste." It is really difficult for me to agree with Pro-Capitalism arguments after seeing this. Most of the stuff I saw will never break down. It seems like too much time and energy spent producing stuff, that ultimately just ends up in landfill.
If Peterson was capable of learning anything, there would be some evidence available of it and there is none. But he already understands what has been "taught" here......which is why we find ourselves where we are, and why Peterson has managed to sell his bullshit to those predisposed to believe it. Of course the actual lesson will be beyond most, it may even be beyond Wolff, with the exception of this specific instance, since it has a general application and is not limited to this subset of A vs B. Now exploited and exploiter works well, but the subject is the history of civilization in its entirety....whose final enlightenment may dawn, just before the lights go out, but probably won't.
The key to socialism's putative (and in my opinion actual) preferability might be that it facilitates the diffusion of power and wealth throughout the society. It seems that any system that allows concentration of both tends to be a toxic one.
Thanks to the existence of the Soviet Union until 1991, the capitalist-controlled world had *competition* from an alternative system. Well, according to official capitalist ideology, competition is good.
Thank you Prof Wolff! You are such a wonderful teacher and a true humanitarian. This episode brought tears to my eyes and I thank you for that. We in the USA have a lot of grieving to do and that is so unfortunate. All we need to do is to talk about things in an honest way really. I am a retired psychologist and am deeply aware of the extreme negative impact of hiding our contradictions. Thank you and thank Dr. Fraad!
Remember the Golden Rule: the ones who have all the gold make all the rules. Therefore, the amount of gold or capital a given person has determines the effect of the rules on that person.
Well, my first boss only cared about using my body for extracting profits from my labors, he didn't give a shit about anything else to do with me. But my new boss... is the same :O is that what Pete was getting at?
What I don’t understand about people nowadays is that they are against something they don’t even understand. At least learn about the thing you claim to hate and really understand what it is so you can make an informed decision on whether or not you’ll continue to disagree with it.
I try to explain to people on the internet that there is a difference in these definitions. Some have understood it (at least to some degree) while others have ignored it and continued in the cold war type way of thinking. A couple of individuals have even continued to debate the free market versus state run enterprises even after I've explained that's not what I'm talking about and that's not what Wolff and other socialists are talking about. I've also heard a complaint that no socialist country has ever worked after I talked about running businesses in a socialist way. Sigh.
BTW, everyone look at Clare Stucki's comment. Apparently this person, whoever they are, missed the entire point of the talk. Something tells me they never watched the video and just reacted with the usual nonsense as soon as they saw the title of the video. This person does this EVERY SINGLE WEEK!!
I haven't had the chance to be your student at an educational institution and I surely won't get to be one, sadly. However, Dr. Wolff, you have been the best teacher and teacher role-model I've ever had or could ever have. Thank you so much for your work, for taking the time to do what you do. You are an inspiration.
Here are the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism. *Explains the pros of socialism and the cons of capitalism. Scandinavia is not a socialist country. So far the "Danish Prime Minister felt the need to clarify to all those in the system including Scandinavia. "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy". We can talk about the cons of capitalism. But don't pretend that socialist history is any better. Socialism has never worked anywhere.
Wow your show is an awaited beam of ligfth in the first 30 min of putting it on youtube you have more than 400 views wowI like the consiousness and interest people are showing.
Full respect to Prof. Wolff for explaining these terms in a clear way. However, I'd like the good professor to take a look at the situation of firms. True that the structure is hierarchical however when you see the numbers you see in 2015 enterprises employing fewer than 250 persons represented 99 % of all enterprises in the EU and most were independent. These small firms are often actual or close to cooperatives - with a few owner/managers - and people who work in fairly flat organisations. But! When you look at the number employed these SMEs take up two thirds of private sector jobs. When you look at the amount of investment, over 90% goes to the one percent, publicly traded corporations! To replace capitalism you need to change the operating rules that allow this skewing of ownership! These 1% of firms are allowed to dominate industries, politics and markets. I'd really like the good professor to take a look in this direction.
I lived for 33 yrs in Poland, in socialism. Gvt ruled everything, corrupted gvt institutions/and officials where ruling over everything, including what your pay was...As a hospital nurse, I was earning so little, I could not sustain myself independently w/ one child (rent, food...) in a big city, it was too expensive. My uncle (a physician) was subsidizing me and my daughter. Same was for teachers, the two lowest payed working groups (!), before janitors, who were the last. The only good thing was that there was a job guarantee, every body had a right to have a job.
I also lived under purported socialism in Bulgaria for 15 years. However , what they claimed to be socialism was brutal state imposed authoritarian economy. The state owned all the companies. Minimal private property was allowed. That reality had nothing to do with social democracy and socialism. What people don’t apprehended is,that democratic socialism can only thrive in pluralistic, open and humane society. I.e. , society that emphasizes collective good before extreme accumulation of wealth. Democratic Socialism doesn’t negate private enterprise but looks to channel private gain for the common good before all else. All the Eastern Europe countries nowadays are more miserable than ever.
professor wolff is doing his duty by speaking truth in a way we can all hear, and i’m so grateful for it. he’s helped me clarify my my understanding of the world around us.
Amazing as always. One law needed: when a biz owner sells, if he chooses to sell to the employees it's tax free. Use their greed against them. One by one capital moves to the workers = democracy at the workplace.
No employers has an obligation to provide a job for a worker. If you are low skilled and your job is slated to be automated, you had better step up your game. No one owes you anything.
@@psychicspy I'm suggesting an incentive not a mandate. I own a company who codes said automation every day, (which I couldn't do without my employees). Software and AI are replacing white collar jobs not blue collar ones as mechanical robots are expensive and "skilled" labor costs more. I would say "learn to code" but Google's GPT-3 AI is almost doing that now. When 60+% of "skilled labor", like coders and managers, is automated in a decade what do you plan to do with the surplus people?
= My company gets paid to code people out of the jobs they "stepped up their game" to get. And we'll soon be replaced by the automation\AI we're coding.
@@_AutoCoder Moral of your story? Don't step up your game without first exercising a little forethought. There are plenty of articles, plenty of websites that track and report on job trends and automation. Have a plan if you plan to have.
@@_AutoCoder If you were a rancher and you had a surplus of cattle, the market price for those cattle might start to fall below the cost of housing and feeding them. You could "liquidate " some of your inventory, but you aren't a monster, so then the best option would be to keep the bulls away from the cows until such time that you needed more cattle. You might even decide that raising plain old cattle just wasn't productive anymore so you'd switch to raising fewer but higher quality heads of cattle. Maybe breed only the really healthy, really intelligent ones. Remember, "You are what you eat". The worse thing that could happen is for the government to subsidize a bunch of cattle that will just stand around all day consuming valuable resources. Worse yet, the government might neglect the fencing on its property and allow stray cattle to wander onto your land. Imagine the burden on resources that would impose. Who would be responsible for the vet bills? Oh, and don't even try to separate the bulls from the cows. Oh no. Someone is sure to find that immoral. Gotta let nature take its course. No, you would just have to keep on feeding that cattle as you watched that herd grow in numbers year by year while at the same time the market value of plain old cattle dropped lower and lower. Whew! Glad I'm not a cattle rancher.
I think we can all see the allure of Socialism. As a concept It has its Pros and Cons just like Capitalism. For those of us living in America, we have seen and felt the shortcomings of Capitalism first hand. We only understand Socialism as a concept. We have never seen it in practice first hand. I encourage everyone to do their own research on every Country that ever instituted Socialism so you can see what it looks like in practice. Think for yourself.
Well said. Those who have a lot of money or who make their living out of manipulating the money system are terrified of the idea that you just espoused
Socialism doesn't work without capitalism to move society forward and Capitalism doesn't work without a social safety net (good schools,hospitals and infrastucture etc)
No, socialism can work alone just fine take soviet union and China as an example they displayed levels of growth that are unimaginable for any capitalist state.
Hey Dr. Wolff, can you please give us a detailed explanation as to why the Berlin Wall and hence the Iron Curtain collapsed back in 1989? Was that because the "happy'" inhabitants of the Socialist/Communist Paradise wanted to share their wellness with us, poor victims of the Capitalism system? If I also were you I would try to find a logic explanation about the 100.000.000 dead people caused by 100 years of communism in several countries of the world.
Don't be a jackass,.. before you post stupid comments pls read.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes You will find all sort of information. Don't try to bring communism to the United States,.. move to North Korea
I would say there are two different senses in which “socialism” can be used: first, as several different systems which entail common ownership of the means of production; second, in the Marxist sense of the historical struggle against and process of transition away from capitalism. In terms of socialist systems, there is/were “the commons” as a sort of proto-socialism, public state ownership, and worker-owned enterprises. Publicly owned / nationalized industries are less internally democratic (for workers), but are still socialist in principle insofar as they are subject to democratic control and are not run with the ends of wealth extraction or generating private profits. We need immediate movement to a mixed economy focused on building these socialist institutions and pushing (a highly regulated) capitalism to the periphery.
Have you ever heard of Paul Cockshott or his book "Toward a new Socialism "? He outlines how at the time the book was written (the late 90's), computer technology had advanced to the point where not only could the economy be planned without the Soviet and Chinese army of beauracrats that later would dismantle socialism in their countries. Not only that but we could have direct democracy through internet voting, thus everyone could participate in the economic planning. I think something like this in addition to state owned but worker controlled co-ops might be the solution to the problems of political economy and even climate change.
Thank you SO MUCH Professor Wolff!!! So many people don't even understand what Socialism is. And I absolutely love the way you have explained capitalism. And how we need to think about the employer / employee relationship which is to me capitalism. And Co-Operatives, or worker owned AND operated businesses represents true Socialism to me. Not a government owning and/or operating businesses. Moerover, I appreciate your including the definition of democratic socialist. Which is what our beloved Bernie Sanders is. Much better than our current economic system, but not quite the best. Thank you SO much Professor Wolff, you have truly taught me SO much!!!
Definitely disagree about many points in this video. Technology has been a driver regardless of any system. But for socialism the USSR won the space race, created cell phones. All capitalist do is take government/public funded money then put a patent on it acting as if they made the product chiefly by themselves. Secondly, China has brought millions of people in there country out of poverty. It is definitely good to those in poverty and who are poor
Are worker cooperatives an updated version of the merchant guilds of the mercantile era of the Middle Ages? Can we learn things from the rise, persistence, and decline of the merchant guilds?
I'm down as far as social democracy or what people are calling "democratic socialism", but still trying to understand how Power would be diffuse under socialism (Real Existing Socialism). Who will watch the watchers? How will it not lead to more auditing and bureaucracy? The Conversation between me and a socialist always ends the argument that under social democracy (which is still capitalism with regulation) Will fall back into corporate control. whereas RES socialism will somehow be magically immune to being reverted back into some form of authoritarian rule either under Stalinist State Capitalism, or just plain old vanilla Capitalism. As far as I can guess it is because people will just be happier under the new system of co-ops and strong public involvement. Can anyone explain this argument more in depth?
@@walden6272 I'm a sort of Leftist Libertarian Utilitarian Bernie Bro. or close to a rule Utilitarian. I am open to changing my mind on politics. I was arguing on behalf of Regulated capitalism (Sweden, Spain, Canada) and the argument I hear from people arguing in favor of "real socialism" is that if we somehow reach that point it will be the end of capitalism for good, and the implicit argument is that this will be a good thing for human freedom and wellbeing. This is all projecting so far out into the future that you and I won't likely be alive. I just wanted some feedback, some ideas as to why they think this would be the case. If you are a Socialist, or just have ideas or links about this subject please share them. Thanks.
@@anabelcamacho6584 The cause of conflict is not who is boss, but property rights, because under this kind of system( considering the fact that earth is the finite size) someone will end eventually end owning everything while the rest will be left with nothing. and one who owns nothing becomes a slave of the one who owns evrything
@@deltaxcd So it is about usury of humans? Capitalism is just fun beginning of monopoly game , during which, wealth will be redistributed from poor to wealthy. In order to be rich one need a lots of poor people , where else one can get all wealth from? www.bitchute.com/video/XGSwnCqd6sgC/ www.bitchute.com/video/Rsy2MlHXVE3y/
Professor Wolff, you made great points but I have some questions to ask. 1 Let people make decisions for themselves is a good idea but in state level it's complicated. Say common people do not understand much about economics finance new techs and so on, if they do not understand very well how can they make good decisions? And good for whom? We need something to balance the shortcoming of our nature. 2 State capitalism is not socialism, but when capital owned by the state or public that means no single person can legally claim it as his own property. If this does not kill employers, it kills capitalist as a person. Nowadays it makes sense when talking about state-owned finance medicare natural resources and so on. Should I argue that this kind of public ownership is at least some steps towards socialism? If not, how do we manage it?
1. The same way that people who don't have a degree in medicine make medical decisions: they go to experts and ask them for their professional opinion. 2. Even if state owns it, someone (actual human beings) have to do the work (such as providing healthcare or extracting resources). It only brings us closer to socialism if these people are in charge of their own work. The state already owns a lot of land and resources and it doesn't bring us an inch closer to socialism on its own.
Dear Prof Wolff. You probably don't read the comments section. It's too big. I was just wondering what Hedge Funds are, and the influence they have in the creation of wealth without any useful production of Services. It's worry a try.
I value what Prof. Richard Wolff says, because when I was growing up in the fifty's it was all about how horrible Communism WAS ( and, OH YEAH, I agreed[!] ), but then, one grows up and looks at the WHOLE situation in our Capitalism system , and who and how it benefits just the very FEW, especially AFTER Reagan.! We American Citizens should open our eyes on what's really going on in our American Nation, and what are the Politicians' motives behind their actions! You can just bet that they are NOT for the betterment of the average U.S. Citizens!
Capitalist checking in. Ive read as much socialist literature as you can without cosigning the economic theory but Dr Wolff made great points about crony/state capitalism. Really good video.
We already have socialism in the usa. Under a true capitalist system like we had before 1913 we didnt even have income tax. Today we are taxed at about 50% or more when you factor in all hidden taxes. What we have today is a hybrid between the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism to be more exact.
Socialism isn’t “the government is doing something.” In fact, in marxist analysis, taxes are like profits: money we make that we don’t get to keep. Taxes are exploitation. Most socialist countries didn’t tax income. What we say is, by cooperation as equals, we can equitably exchange goods and services as we are promised under capitalism, which fails to deliver because workers can’t really be equal to capitalists who control the property we need to survive and the politicians that they buy off. Also in our analysis, the State isn’t something neutral, it’s ultimately the expression of the most economically powerful and organized class. Over time the State gets more powerful and more alienated from society, because people get tired of being told one thing and experiencing another and so the State has to start pushing them around, it goes into crisis mode, but it is indelibly marked with the needs of the economically superior class-capitalists, in our case, so it responds to their needs over anyones. Need a bigger police and army to protect your multinational conglomerates? Need a bailout because you’re too big for your own britches? That’s the real job of the capitalist state, not this “life liberty and property” stuff, unless you’re part of the 1% that owns 60% of the stocks and is on a first name basis with state and federal politicians This began in Marx’s day. Socialism originated as criticism of liberal capitalist republics in the 19th century, long before central banking etc., because they failed to represent most people and catered to wealthy interests. Democratic reforms like universal suffrage failed to fix this, which is why we need to change not just regulations, or even the whole government, but the economics that creates this government There isn’t a form of capitalism that’s more true than another-systems are dynamic and change over time. Capitalism cannot live up to its promises to the majority of people, so from our perspective it’s just this big repressive and exploitative thing, and in public corporations and wealthy people often invoke libertarian and anti-statist ideas, but they do this cynically and opportunistically Capitalism didn’t start fully formed. It started small, had problems, and fixed some while creating others. Socialism is going thru the same developmental process. To our credit, the problems of socialism, like iraqi wmds, are overblown. Wolff even misrepresents them. Socialism, as a new system based on the changes to our society caused by capitalism, has much more flexibility to grow and develop, just like capitalism did when it smashed the rotten old feudal society and ushered in more advanced economic, scientific, and political concepts.
@@dogeyes7261 socialism will never live up to its promises because eventually the taxes will rise to a point were the economy is no longer sustainable. I truly think that what you described was corruption which is not exclusive to capitalism. Corruption needs to be fought not capitalism. And socialism also suffers from corruption, we as a people need to know our true enemy its corruption.
I’m a big fan of Economic Update most of the time, but it is just plain wrong to define socialism as “worker control of enterprise/production” and then describe European-style welfare capitalism as socialist. It might have been spawned from the socialist labor movement of the 20th century, and the phrase “social democracy” might have been used at this time to refer to a socialist society, but the ideology the term describes today is divorced from any of that history and is a mitigation, rather than negation, of capitalism’s worst impulses. And it doesn’t even do that particularly well (see Finland’s recent, massive cuts to the public healthcare system for an example of why we need to overcome capitalism, not just dress it up nicely and make it a friendly monster.) And to use the terms “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” interchangeably is ahistorical and ignorant, at best, and dishonest, at worst. Gotta put the positive spin on “compassionate” capitalism to win over the AOC/Bernie types, I suppose.
He was just saying that these are the definitions people throw around (in the USA at least). He said explicitly which one is historically and logically acurate and, according to it, capitalist welfare states are not socialist. I'm not sure why you got the impression that this was a "positive spin on social democracy".
Apple Pie Around the 22 minute mark, he explicitly states that “you have 2 kinds of socialism which have emerged over the past 150 years.” The first kind of “socialism” he describes is social democracy.
Democracy>Representative Democracy>Oligarchy>Autocracy Should be the true left v right debate. Economic system doesn't matter if the government is an Oligarchy or Dictatorship.
If you Think that you did not understand the Video the problem is that capitalism is a flawed System to Begin with a bit more government Regulation wont fix that
Thats not the position i'm taking First of all there would never ever be a socialist system under trump and even if it would happen trump would have no power anymore of course you need to implement the right political system since an economic system alone can't hold a country but if you implement a democratic system with socialism as the economical system i'll tell you humanity could finally begin to prosper while a democratic capatilist system well it doesn't yield the results i'm striving for quite the opposite actually
@@RealDSY sure...corruption and greed will be abolished from the human "heart". Lol. Look, I don't disagree with you, ideally. I just think that utopic outlook is as unlikely as Trump socialism. But to think it's protected from a leader like Trump, or a military dictatorship, is naive I think. Bernie/Tulsi 2020
One correction: capitalism stared in Northern Italy. That's where the first economies in Europe transformed from feudalism to capital-controlled markets.
The fundamental production,. as per from Marx's Capital is commodity production for an "exchange value" instead of it's "use value." I would like to see him merger the concepts he is talking about with the change of production for use instead of profit. To clarify - replacing typical business with worker cooperatives, but maintaining production for exchange value will simply create a worker co-op capitalism where groups of different worker co-ops compete against each other. Still capitalism unless you change the fundamental purpose of work. I is it for exchange value or use?
Yes, exactly as you say, most megacorporations started as coops as well like for example Apple was a cooperative of 2 people in the beginning. Many other corporations even started as an individual business. with only one person
Chris Martenson's TH-cam channel Peak Prosperity has a new video out titled "Living with Integrity." In the video Chris says Humans have a unique trait when it comes to change. We have neurons that allow us to change our behavior and our reality through conceptualization. For three centuries the one feature of Capitalism has been its instability and the concepts of ownership, exploitation, accumulation and compounding growth have caused that instability. Capitalism is in crisis; the erratic behavior of the climate will not support Capitalism. An economy that creates the degree of inequality we have now will not support Capitalism and our present dependence upon Carbon based energy has caused the energy to decline to the point it can not support Capitalism. Since we can't conceptualize a change and act on it we will have to accept change on its own terms.
In my experience it took both economic theories to get where we are today. Most things would not have happen without the other. But what we are going through now is one trying to take over the other by saying I did it all so I get it all. That is not true...
I disagree with your "The USSR was State Capitalism, not socialism." The surplus value of the labourer, at least before Khrushchev, was returned in way of social programs and defending the state from the constant outside capitalist aggression, not hoarded by private individuals or the government. Instead of just reading Chomsky, I'd recommend Paterni's works, such as "Brown Shirts and Reds."
I get what you're saying but I don't think it gets at the heart of the kind of socialism Wolff (and arguably Marx) is talking about. After all, the surplus value of the laborer is returned in the way of social programs in all social democratic states. The point - if I understand Wolff correctly - is not that it gets returned, but that the laborers have control over it from the beginning.
@@GodlessPhilosopher The labour value cannot be returned to the labourer unless they own the means of production, and this is the case in a worker ran state, ie. The USSR, as much as direct worker control. You may argue that all democratic states return the surplus value to the worker, but that is not necessarily so in a capitalist democracy. Sometimes governments in capitalist democracies try to return some of the surplus value to the worker, in an effort to resolve a contradiction within that society and "save capitalism" but this is NOT something that lasts long and, as can be seen around the world today, gets eroded over time. Also, this paltry return of the surplus value to workers in capitalist democracies can only result from super exploitation of the third world via imperialism. All because in capitalist democracies workers, by and large, don't own the means of production. In the USSR the means of production was primarily owned by the workers either through the worker ran state and, yes, even cooperatives. So yes, I think I addressed the heart of Dr. Wolff's statement.
I'm with you and, like you, I tend to be more sympathetic to the USSR than Wolff. I just wanted to point out that return of surplus value to the workers *per se* isn't sufficient (or necessary) for socialism for Wolff. What matters for him is that the workers get to decide where the surplus value goes.
"First mention of pure Socialism is recorded in the new Testament in Acts 4 verses 32-37! Although known for the fate of Annanias and his wife Sapphira, the verses describe pure unadulterated communism of the highest order!"
Wish we could get people like Richard Wolff to teach in schools and then people like Thomas Sowell to teach the opposite viewpoint so people come to their own opinions.
I’m so thankful we have people like Richard Wolff to provide substantive content like this for free. This is free education. As always, intellectuals don’t have the following they deserve. Pewdiepie has hundreds of millions of subscribers and creates nonsense. Prof Wolff provides nothing but facts. Why is our society so backwards?
Wolff, you gotta take on Jordan Peterson... Zizek was soft on him
The Servermonitor I was just going to make a similar comment when I saw your text. Dr. Wolff would take the piss out of Jordan Peterson for sure.
peterson will never do it. wolff is a serious scientist and peterson is a neohobbesian clown peddling facile justifications for the status quo.
Zizek made Peterson look like the chump that he is.
We need David Harvey to take on JP. Wolff may be unreliable in pursuing the excoriation of the uninformed, knee-jerk capitalism booster. Certainly, Harvey wouldn't be.
"Where are the Marxists!!!"
Dr Wolff is an excellent teacher, unusual for a such brilliant mind to communicate to the rest of us :) There is so much misinformation in US, please share this video. Why doesn't this have 500K subscribers?
That, AND why do I NEVER see ads on his posts....?
...TH-cam, we’re looking at you...
👀👁👁👁👁👁👁👁👁👀
If you have not taken a “Social Theory “ class while you were attending a University you might never have been introduced to Marx and his social theory. Like Dr wolf explained, it is very difficult to find a course on Marx at any University. This is way he does not 500 k subscribers. Wolf is actually giving the course on Marx that is hard to acquire at most Universities.
Sandy They will soon have many more subscribers, the message is spreading
Solidarity ✊🏼
no he is a communist exhort
@@johngergen4871 yea right. I was inroduced to marx in a psychology 101 class in community college. They are promoting this garbage widely.
I haven't realized that the debate had been hijacked from the start to give us two colors of the same flavor. I really learned something today, thanks for this video.
Very informative. I will listen to this again to understand it at a deeper level. This is a new way for me to think about the debate.
Thank you.
Yes, of course it is. We were all born into this system and it will take lots of soul searching and study to keep our awareness at a high level. Thank you for listening and being willing to do research!
There is no deeper level.....but then can YOU actually explain WHAT you believe you were "informed" about? And
if you truly understand THAT, you will see that what has been imparted is not unique, nor specific to this subject,
but is quite general and applicable to every subject....." he who controls the present controls the past; he who controls
the past, controls the future."
@@jgalt308 Thanks for your feedback. Sounds like an attempt at a Meta-narrative of control. We are all separate realities, so in that sense we are all unique.
@@stevesayewich8594 You seem to have found the problem, while missing both the specific and general lesson here
so the feedback wasn't much help....but the question remains, so all is not lost.
There is nothing to understand at a deeper level. Wolff has never demonstrated, in reality, a single thing he preaches.
Its hard to find a Capitalist that even know enough about socialism in order to be critical of it. Where as most socialists have a laundry list of Capitalist critique.
socialism is theft. Taking from one, and giving to another. End of story.
Literally proved his point mate. You might want to add a /s next time.
@@MrHigherplane Capitalism is theft. It takes from many and gives to the few. End of story.
@@frankscott1708 it doesnt take anything. You voluntarily choose to sell your labor for less than you think its worth. If i sell my car for 40% less than i know its worth, thats not theft. that means im a idiot. You are an idiot.
@Jamie if you are in a position of "work for us or starve" then it is your own fault. You should have a means of survival outside of a "job". If you dont, then it is no one elses fault that you were too stupid to invest in a means of survival. That is really the fault of your socialsit government which taught you to be dependant on them like a good little slave. Now you want what others have produced on their own. Shame on you!!
I think it’s about time to be completely honest! Capitalism has never been the system that was gonna equally spread out resources! It was unequal to begin with! The ideal that markets would regulate them selves was never really true!
Only if you have money will you get everything and the have-nots suffer.
rational people see this. brainwashed propagandized fools on the other hand do not i.e. most of the american population. those of us that take the bible as a science book also swallow the myths of capitalism hook line and sinker.
Effort is not equal, why should the rewards be? If you choose to drop out of school with a 6th grade education, and have a couple three kids before you get married that should be on you, not on society.
Years of engaging with and sometimes in this debate, never came across such clarity of what “is” the debate about. Brilliant work.
I get so sick of authoritarians claiming socialism as their own and ruining it for the socialists that are not for central planning. The black and the red won't unite. Because the red won't allow the black to exist.
Solidarity, my friend. thank you for saying this. We just have to work to organize a better society in the shadows. Whether the liberals fuck it all up, the fascists win, or the tankies blow it all to hell, or nature takes a dark course, it will be left to us to rebuild. "We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old"
Tankies love working with anarchists because it makes it much easier to stab them in the back
One thing we fail to take into account when analyzing the development of the Soviet Union, is the enmity that it had to deal with. It failed to reach what many call Full Communism due to the immediate hostilities that threatened it - invasions, both in 1919 and in 1941, as well as the isolation thrust upon it by the Western Powers and their campaigns of sabotage, subterfuge, propaganda et cetera. The USSR needed a strong central government in order to raise armies, protect its borders, weed out potential saboteurs and to counteract the relentless and idiotic propaganda directed at it, which all of us who lived through any part of the Cold War, have been exposed to. Under ideal circumstances, in spite of the miraculous changes that it achieved, the Soviet Union may have very well developed into a truly communal society devoid of strong state control.
I doubt most fail to take any of that into account. You might have that impression due to the emotional charge some words carry, especially in politics, where words carry the ethics and morals of it's ideological spokesman.
Whoever claims the USSR willfully sabotaged it's own course is a sheep. Lenin wasn't at odds only with the western capitalist establishment, it was at odds with the science of communism itself. Marx said, and rightfully so, that the (successful, or genuine) proletariat revolution will begin in the most developed country, which at the time was the US, not agrarian Russia. The revisions made, mainly by Stalin's rule to the theory is too, justifiable, but unfortunately, it created another type of propaganda, which now burdens our time.
The USSR did need a strong central government considering its backwards nature at the time and its vast geographical size. And the West DID attack it because of the threat it posed to the ruling class's in other various countries. However, it must be said, that a degeneration took place after Lenin's death, in particular the policy of "Socialism in one country" policy of 1927. That , and the backing away from international socialism coupled with the purges of the original Bolsheviks through the Moscow Trials. This has to be aid at the feet of Stalin...
Even without the full hostilities that threatened it in the USSR, communism always fails, no matter what, and the reason for that is quite simple: communism always think that everybody will work and cooperate to achieve it's goal and since people don't always do those things, you have to use force and in the end, you're always left with dead bodies all over the place! If you think about it, this is not rocket science!
Yeah, God junior, so how capitalism or slavery makes people cooperate? I certainly don't go to work with goal to make business owner rich, but I cooperate to make it happen. Maybe be we need to rethink incentive.
I'll give you an insider view of why Soviet Union collapsed. I don't hear anyone mentioning one fact that Russia annexed many countries around it and made them lose independence. Anti-Soviet movement did not start as anti- communist movement- it was movement for independence in Poland, Czech Republic, Baltics and Caucasian nations. Then movement for independence was hijacked by business right who saw a lot of opportunities with privatization of whole countries. Now majority of population in these countries is left holding bag while ex- communist leaders turned into new oligarchs are promoting libertarian paradise.
I wish I had had a teacher like this, he makes this subject,economics, more interesting than ever I thought it could be.
Please point out, slavery is alive and well. I this country we have three times the slaves today! There called prisoners!!
Marsha Benson That's true, but unlike the slaves, the prisoners don't produce anything. The taxpayers have to support them.
Clare Stucki
That’s not true. The surplus of labor that prisoners have always represented has been exploited shamelessly in recent decades in America. They sew uniforms for the US military, fight fires in California, and make license plates for automobiles. That’s just what they make for the state; private companies like McDonald’s and JC Penny exploit prison labor to make commodities. Usually they’re paid pennies on the hours, and in some cases, for nothing at all - the literal definition of slavery, permitted as a punishment for criminals under the thirteenth amendment of the US constitution.
@@clarestucki5151 apparently you have NO idea of what your talking about! EVERY prisoner is required to work. Some up to 12hrs a day. Manufacturing didn't move over seas! Not only do companies get slave labor, they charge those prisoners 3× the price. For basic needs!
@@lovetoall1429 I don't know who she is, but every week she/he/it has some kind of reactionary and idiotic comment to make. Apparently she's never heard of prison labor and the plethora of companies who contract out their production to workers inside the prisons, who they can pay $0.08 an hour to. Capital is taking potential well-paying jobs from American workers, and exploiting prisoners instead. Prisoners are their ideal workforce.
Marsha Benson that's not the only slaves. Wage slaves are slaves that are forced to feed and house themselves. Instead of the slavemaster doing that part.
Excellent work Prof, keep it coming! One idea, if I may, for propelling these lectures: why not work with a person to put together graphics to accompany your words? It would require more preparation but would help most folks to truly grasp and internalize the ideas you present here. Even a simple graphic presentation, it seems to me, would make your chats immensely more accessible. That's my superficial critique, thanks again for your work!
wow I have to say Dr Richard Wolff you are incredible!!!!! thank you so much for teaching and educating us.
I am a big fan learned so much with you. Ive learned more in 1 year of following you than years of schooling.
Incredibly talented to teach, hands down one of the best professors in this life time.
THANK YOU.
LEO BROOKLYN
This is an invaluable program. Thanks you so much for producing this Dr. Wolff!
I was horrified a year ago when I got a tour of my local landfill site. I was taking some brush to there for my employer when his car broke down. One of the landfill workers offered to drive me back but I had to go out with him to the dump site to drop off a bottle of water for his coworker. What I saw was shocking. About 10 acres of land filled with layers of garbage, man made stuff that was discarded either because it was outdated or broken. They were driving machines over it and burying it. I live in a small community and I couldn't believe we were producing that much garbage, all stuff not classified as "kitchen waste." It is really difficult for me to agree with Pro-Capitalism arguments after seeing this. Most of the stuff I saw will never break down. It seems like too much time and energy spent producing stuff, that ultimately just ends up in landfill.
Maybe Jordan Petersen will watch your video since he’s too afraid to debate you! He may learn something
If Peterson was capable of learning anything, there would be some evidence available of it and there is none.
But he already understands what has been "taught" here......which is why we find ourselves where we are, and
why Peterson has managed to sell his bullshit to those predisposed to believe it. Of course the actual lesson
will be beyond most, it may even be beyond Wolff, with the exception of this specific instance, since it has
a general application and is not limited to this subset of A vs B. Now exploited and exploiter works well, but
the subject is the history of civilization in its entirety....whose final enlightenment may dawn, just before the lights
go out, but probably won't.
sharing vs hoarding
The key to socialism's putative (and in my opinion actual) preferability might be that it facilitates the diffusion of power and wealth throughout the society. It seems that any system that allows concentration of both tends to be a toxic one.
That concentration is kinda the main motivating factor which drives everything forward. Take it away and everything will fail.
Thanks to the existence of the Soviet Union until 1991, the capitalist-controlled world had *competition* from an alternative system.
Well, according to official capitalist ideology, competition is good.
Yep and now that they don't we've seen what has happened to the American worker since the 80s. It's no coincidence people!
If the GJ get their way capitalism may very well have to deal with competition from a Commune of France
Thank you Prof Wolff! You are such a wonderful teacher and a true humanitarian. This episode brought tears to my eyes and I thank you for that. We in the USA have a lot of grieving to do and that is so unfortunate. All we need to do is to talk about things in an honest way really. I am a retired psychologist and am deeply aware of the extreme negative impact of hiding our contradictions. Thank you and thank Dr. Fraad!
We need a town hall with this man
Remember the Golden Rule: the ones who have all the gold make all the rules. Therefore, the amount of gold or capital a given person has determines the effect of the rules on that person.
DEMOCRACY IS A MAGIC WORD IN THE MOUTH OF THE POWERFUL WHO CAN DETERMINE AT WILL WHAT IS DEMOCRATIC AND WHAT IS NOT.
If you belong to the democratic minority you are fucked just as much as living under tyranny or even worse
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
- Pete Townshend
Well, my first boss only cared about using my body for extracting profits from my labors, he didn't give a shit about anything else to do with me. But my new boss... is the same :O is that what Pete was getting at?
What I don’t understand about people nowadays is that they are against something they don’t even understand. At least learn about the thing you claim to hate and really understand what it is so you can make an informed decision on whether or not you’ll continue to disagree with it.
I try to explain to people on the internet that there is a difference in these definitions. Some have understood it (at least to some degree) while others have ignored it and continued in the cold war type way of thinking. A couple of individuals have even continued to debate the free market versus state run enterprises even after I've explained that's not what I'm talking about and that's not what Wolff and other socialists are talking about. I've also heard a complaint that no socialist country has ever worked after I talked about running businesses in a socialist way. Sigh.
BTW, everyone look at Clare Stucki's comment. Apparently this person, whoever they are, missed the entire point of the talk. Something tells me they never watched the video and just reacted with the usual nonsense as soon as they saw the title of the video. This person does this EVERY SINGLE WEEK!!
God forbid they learn anything. Then they might learn they were wrong.
Prof. Wolff is very good at explaining this so EVERYONE can understand. This is the mark of a great Teacher.
I haven't had the chance to be your student at an educational institution and I surely won't get to be one, sadly. However, Dr. Wolff, you have been the best teacher and teacher role-model I've ever had or could ever have. Thank you so much for your work, for taking the time to do what you do. You are an inspiration.
He certainly keeps it nice and simple and easy to digest, if you'd like to look for the opposite viewpoint look to thomas sowell!
Here are the pros and cons of socialism and capitalism. *Explains the pros of socialism and the cons of capitalism.
Scandinavia is not a socialist country. So far the "Danish Prime Minister felt the need to clarify to all those in the system including Scandinavia. "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy".
We can talk about the cons of capitalism. But don't pretend that socialist history is any better. Socialism has never worked anywhere.
Wow your show is an awaited beam of ligfth in the first 30 min of putting it on youtube you have more than 400 views wowI like the consiousness and interest people are showing.
Full respect to Prof. Wolff for explaining these terms in a clear way. However, I'd like the good professor to take a look at the situation of firms. True that the structure is hierarchical however when you see the numbers you see in 2015 enterprises employing fewer than 250 persons represented 99 % of all enterprises in the EU and most were independent. These small firms are often actual or close to cooperatives - with a few owner/managers - and people who work in fairly flat organisations. But! When you look at the number employed these SMEs take up two thirds of private sector jobs. When you look at the amount of investment, over 90% goes to the one percent, publicly traded corporations! To replace capitalism you need to change the operating rules that allow this skewing of ownership! These 1% of firms are allowed to dominate industries, politics and markets. I'd really like the good professor to take a look in this direction.
I lived for 33 yrs in Poland, in socialism. Gvt ruled everything, corrupted gvt institutions/and officials where ruling over everything, including what your pay was...As a hospital nurse, I was earning so little, I could not sustain myself independently w/ one child (rent, food...) in a big city, it was too expensive. My uncle (a physician) was subsidizing me and my daughter. Same was for teachers, the two lowest payed working groups (!), before janitors, who were the last. The only good thing was that there was a job guarantee, every body had a right to have a job.
Equally poor in Australia , that's Democratic socialism
I also lived under purported socialism in Bulgaria for 15 years. However , what they claimed to be socialism was brutal state imposed authoritarian economy. The state owned all the companies. Minimal private property was allowed. That reality had nothing to do with social democracy and socialism. What people don’t apprehended is,that democratic socialism can only thrive in pluralistic, open and humane society. I.e. , society that emphasizes collective good before extreme accumulation of wealth. Democratic Socialism doesn’t negate private enterprise but looks to channel private gain for the common good before all else. All the Eastern Europe countries nowadays are more miserable than ever.
Thank you, professor. That is a masterpiece, all the most important pieces put together.
If I would have had Richard Wolff as an economics teacher in school, I might have stayed awake for it. Sorry Mr. Ehrlich...
Excellent Class. Thank you Dr. Wolff.
No More Nuclear Weapons. No More War.
Democratic Socialism is my personal favorite. We need this discussion.
Yeah but unfortunately the term is now hijacked by social democrats
Great vid. Well informed host & well articulated content by that host. Well done.
professor wolff is doing his duty by speaking truth in a way we can all hear, and i’m so grateful for it. he’s helped me clarify my my understanding of the world around us.
Amazing as always. One law needed: when a biz owner sells, if he chooses to sell to the employees it's tax free. Use their greed against them. One by one capital moves to the workers = democracy at the workplace.
No employers has an obligation to provide a job for a worker. If you are low skilled and your job is slated to be automated, you had better step up your game. No one owes you anything.
@@psychicspy I'm suggesting an incentive not a mandate. I own a company who codes said automation every day, (which I couldn't do without my employees). Software and AI are replacing white collar jobs not blue collar ones as mechanical robots are expensive and "skilled" labor costs more. I would say "learn to code" but Google's GPT-3 AI is almost doing that now. When 60+% of "skilled labor", like coders and managers, is automated in a decade what do you plan to do with the surplus people?
= My company gets paid to code people out of the jobs they "stepped up their game" to get. And we'll soon be replaced by the automation\AI we're coding.
@@_AutoCoder
Moral of your story? Don't step up your game without first exercising a little forethought. There are plenty of articles, plenty of websites that track and report on job trends and automation.
Have a plan if you plan to have.
@@_AutoCoder
If you were a rancher and you had a surplus of cattle, the market price for those cattle might start to fall below the cost of housing and feeding them. You could "liquidate " some of your inventory, but you aren't a monster, so then the best option would be to keep the bulls away from the cows until such time that you needed more cattle. You might even decide that raising plain old cattle just wasn't productive anymore so you'd switch to raising fewer but higher quality heads of cattle. Maybe breed only the really healthy, really intelligent ones. Remember, "You are what you eat". The worse thing that could happen is for the government to subsidize a bunch of cattle that will just stand around all day consuming valuable resources. Worse yet, the government might neglect the fencing on its property and allow stray cattle to wander onto your land. Imagine the burden on resources that would impose. Who would be responsible for the vet bills? Oh, and don't even try to separate the bulls from the cows. Oh no. Someone is sure to find that immoral. Gotta let nature take its course. No, you would just have to keep on feeding that cattle as you watched that herd grow in numbers year by year while at the same time the market value of plain old cattle dropped lower and lower. Whew! Glad I'm not a cattle rancher.
I so look forward to these!
New Professor Wolff d@w video = class is in session
Thank you Richard!😊
This is very simplistic. Where can I find a deep dive? I want real arguments not just high school information.
I think we can all see the allure of Socialism. As a concept It has its Pros and Cons just like Capitalism.
For those of us living in America, we have seen and felt the shortcomings of Capitalism first hand.
We only understand Socialism as a concept. We have never seen it in practice first hand.
I encourage everyone to do their own research on every Country that ever instituted Socialism so you can see what it looks like in practice. Think for yourself.
For the first time, I understand what Socialism is. Thanks professor. All along people had been mislabeling State-capitalism as socialism.
He is wrong on his definitions he is confusing socialism with communism
@@deltaxcd your a troll that likes to spread misinformation
Dr. Wolff is one of the most consistently rational voices anywhere
big business struggling with big government struggling with big labor = big life = big market.....excellent thinking mr wolff
Well said. Those who have a lot of money or who make their living out of manipulating the money system are terrified of the idea that you just espoused
Small and medium business owners aren't corrupt left wanker
Ben Chesterman Small and medium business owners are not the problem
I'd love to hear Prof Wolff discuss the ideas of Friedrich List, their influence and if he thinks socialists can take anything from them today?
Socialism doesn't work without capitalism to move society forward and Capitalism doesn't work without a social safety net (good schools,hospitals and infrastucture etc)
No, socialism can work alone just fine
take soviet union and China as an example they displayed levels of growth that are unimaginable for any capitalist state.
Hey Dr. Wolff, can you please give us a detailed explanation as to why the Berlin Wall and hence the Iron Curtain collapsed back in 1989? Was that because the "happy'" inhabitants of the Socialist/Communist Paradise wanted to share their wellness with us, poor victims of the Capitalism system? If I also were you I would try to find a logic explanation about the 100.000.000 dead people caused by 100 years of communism in several countries of the world.
100 million dead because of Communism? LOL Then if you use the same logic, then over 2 Billions have died under Capitalist Countries.
Don't be a jackass,.. before you post stupid comments pls read.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes You will find all sort of information. Don't try to bring communism to the United States,.. move to North Korea
Sorry, wrong address, it is:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes
I would say there are two different senses in which “socialism” can be used: first, as several different systems which entail common ownership of the means of production; second, in the Marxist sense of the historical struggle against and process of transition away from capitalism.
In terms of socialist systems, there is/were “the commons” as a sort of proto-socialism, public state ownership, and worker-owned enterprises.
Publicly owned / nationalized industries are less internally democratic (for workers), but are still socialist in principle insofar as they are subject to democratic control and are not run with the ends of wealth extraction or generating private profits.
We need immediate movement to a mixed economy focused on building these socialist institutions and pushing (a highly regulated) capitalism to the periphery.
Try mutualism. www.mutualist.org/id47.html
It would be easier for everyone if you moved to North Korea instead. They have everything you are looking for.
Thank you Prof Wolff for keeping it real 👍
Thanks Richard. That was a very clear way of classifying the systems and setting up the debate.
I can't wait. I got the beach choosen. Beer and sun baby. That's the future!
Have you ever heard of Paul Cockshott or his book "Toward a new Socialism "? He outlines how at the time the book was written (the late 90's), computer technology had advanced to the point where not only could the economy be planned without the Soviet and Chinese army of beauracrats that later would dismantle socialism in their countries. Not only that but we could have direct democracy through internet voting, thus everyone could participate in the economic planning. I think something like this in addition to state owned but worker controlled co-ops might be the solution to the problems of political economy and even climate change.
I'd be interested to see what Dr Wolff thinks about the work of Michael Parenti.
Thank you Democracy at Work!
Did you always have such a good camera / lighting?! It looks GREAT!
Thank you SO MUCH Professor Wolff!!! So many people don't even understand what Socialism is. And I absolutely love the way you have explained capitalism. And how we need to think about the employer / employee relationship which is to me capitalism. And Co-Operatives, or worker owned AND operated businesses represents true Socialism to me. Not a government owning and/or operating businesses. Moerover, I appreciate your including the definition of democratic socialist. Which is what our beloved Bernie Sanders is. Much better than our current economic system, but not quite the best. Thank you SO much Professor Wolff, you have truly taught me SO much!!!
Base on the comments most people don't even get what real socialism is = end of Employer/Employee relationship (*cough economic slavery*).
I like to call Bernie Sanders a regulated-capitalist. Calling him a democratic socialist distort the real meaning of socialism (end of the employer).
Definitely disagree about many points in this video. Technology has been a driver regardless of any system. But for socialism the USSR won the space race, created cell phones. All capitalist do is take government/public funded money then put a patent on it acting as if they made the product chiefly by themselves.
Secondly, China has brought millions of people in there country out of poverty. It is definitely good to those in poverty and who are poor
And even in a capitalist state the economy runs on tax funded infrastructure, education, roads etc.
Are worker cooperatives an updated version of the merchant guilds of the mercantile era of the Middle Ages? Can we learn things from the rise, persistence, and decline of the merchant guilds?
Good point.
Does it make sense to start thinking and planning for an economy that is focused on automating ALL jobs, and a non-labor society?
I definatly prefer these longer form videos
I'm down as far as social democracy or what people are calling "democratic socialism", but still trying to understand how Power would be diffuse under socialism (Real Existing Socialism). Who will watch the watchers? How will it not lead to more auditing and bureaucracy?
The Conversation between me and a socialist always ends the argument that under social democracy (which is still capitalism with regulation) Will fall back into corporate control. whereas RES socialism will somehow be magically immune to being reverted back into some form of authoritarian rule either under Stalinist State Capitalism, or just plain old vanilla Capitalism. As far as I can guess it is because people will just be happier under the new system of co-ops and strong public involvement. Can anyone explain this argument more in depth?
Do you want real socialism or just State-Capitalism (China) or Regulated Capitalism (Sweden)?
@@walden6272 I'm a sort of Leftist Libertarian Utilitarian Bernie Bro. or close to a rule Utilitarian. I am open to changing my mind on politics. I was arguing on behalf of Regulated capitalism (Sweden, Spain, Canada) and the argument I hear from people arguing in favor of "real socialism" is that if we somehow reach that point it will be the end of capitalism for good, and the implicit argument is that this will be a good thing for human freedom and wellbeing.
This is all projecting so far out into the future that you and I won't likely be alive. I just wanted some feedback, some ideas as to why they think this would be the case.
If you are a Socialist, or just have ideas or links about this subject please share them. Thanks.
thank you for clarifying main cause of conflict that we always get distracted from
Unfortunately, he is wrong.
@@deltaxcd How is that?
@@anabelcamacho6584
The cause of conflict is not who is boss, but property rights, because under this kind of system( considering the fact that earth is the finite size) someone will end eventually end owning everything while the rest will be left with nothing. and one who owns nothing becomes a slave of the one who owns evrything
@@deltaxcd So it is about usury of humans?
Capitalism is just fun beginning of monopoly game , during which, wealth will be redistributed from poor to wealthy.
In order to be rich one need a lots of poor people , where else one can get all wealth from?
www.bitchute.com/video/XGSwnCqd6sgC/
www.bitchute.com/video/Rsy2MlHXVE3y/
Professor Wolff, you made great points but I have some questions to ask.
1 Let people make decisions for themselves is a good idea but in state level it's complicated. Say common people do not understand much about economics finance new techs and so on, if they do not understand very well how can they make good decisions? And good for whom? We need something to balance the shortcoming of our nature.
2 State capitalism is not socialism, but when capital owned by the state or public that means no single person can legally claim it as his own property. If this does not kill employers, it kills capitalist as a person. Nowadays it makes sense when talking about state-owned finance medicare natural resources and so on. Should I argue that this kind of public ownership is at least some steps towards socialism? If not, how do we manage it?
1. The same way that people who don't have a degree in medicine make medical decisions: they go to experts and ask them for their professional opinion.
2. Even if state owns it, someone (actual human beings) have to do the work (such as providing healthcare or extracting resources). It only brings us closer to socialism if these people are in charge of their own work. The state already owns a lot of land and resources and it doesn't bring us an inch closer to socialism on its own.
@@Ronni3no2 Thanks for your answer, it makes me more clear about what to do next in China.
I bought your book and I’m on chapter two... I’ve highlighted so much lol.
"bought" seems like you love capitalism as does wolfe. And for good reason
@@MrHigherplane Do you think bying stuff is exclusive to capitalism?
As usual.... I send my thanks and appreciation to the good professor and everyone on the D@W team.
Great discussion.
Again. ;)
Dear Prof Wolff. You probably don't read the comments section. It's too big.
I was just wondering what Hedge Funds are, and the influence they have in the creation of wealth without any useful production of Services.
It's worry a try.
I value what Prof. Richard Wolff says, because when I was growing up in the fifty's it was all about how horrible Communism WAS ( and, OH YEAH, I agreed[!] ), but then, one grows up and looks at the WHOLE situation in our Capitalism system , and who and how it benefits just the very FEW, especially AFTER Reagan.! We American Citizens should open our eyes on what's really going on in our American Nation, and what are the Politicians' motives behind their actions! You can just bet that they are NOT for the betterment of the average U.S. Citizens!
Capitalist checking in. Ive read as much socialist literature as you can without cosigning the economic theory but Dr Wolff made great points about crony/state capitalism. Really good video.
socialism is theft
Big government the biggest crooks
We already have socialism in the usa. Under a true capitalist system like we had before 1913 we didnt even have income tax. Today we are taxed at about 50% or more when you factor in all hidden taxes. What we have today is a hybrid between the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism to be more exact.
Socialism isn’t “the government is doing something.” In fact, in marxist analysis, taxes are like profits: money we make that we don’t get to keep. Taxes are exploitation. Most socialist countries didn’t tax income. What we say is, by cooperation as equals, we can equitably exchange goods and services as we are promised under capitalism, which fails to deliver because workers can’t really be equal to capitalists who control the property we need to survive and the politicians that they buy off.
Also in our analysis, the State isn’t something neutral, it’s ultimately the expression of the most economically powerful and organized class. Over time the State gets more powerful and more alienated from society, because people get tired of being told one thing and experiencing another and so the State has to start pushing them around, it goes into crisis mode, but it is indelibly marked with the needs of the economically superior class-capitalists, in our case, so it responds to their needs over anyones. Need a bigger police and army to protect your multinational conglomerates? Need a bailout because you’re too big for your own britches? That’s the real job of the capitalist state, not this “life liberty and property” stuff, unless you’re part of the 1% that owns 60% of the stocks and is on a first name basis with state and federal politicians
This began in Marx’s day. Socialism originated as criticism of liberal capitalist republics in the 19th century, long before central banking etc., because they failed to represent most people and catered to wealthy interests. Democratic reforms like universal suffrage failed to fix this, which is why we need to change not just regulations, or even the whole government, but the economics that creates this government
There isn’t a form of capitalism that’s more true than another-systems are dynamic and change over time. Capitalism cannot live up to its promises to the majority of people, so from our perspective it’s just this big repressive and exploitative thing, and in public corporations and wealthy people often invoke libertarian and anti-statist ideas, but they do this cynically and opportunistically
Capitalism didn’t start fully formed. It started small, had problems, and fixed some while creating others. Socialism is going thru the same developmental process. To our credit, the problems of socialism, like iraqi wmds, are overblown. Wolff even misrepresents them.
Socialism, as a new system based on the changes to our society caused by capitalism, has much more flexibility to grow and develop, just like capitalism did when it smashed the rotten old feudal society and ushered in more advanced economic, scientific, and political concepts.
@@dogeyes7261 socialism will never live up to its promises because eventually the taxes will rise to a point were the economy is no longer sustainable. I truly think that what you described was corruption which is not exclusive to capitalism. Corruption needs to be fought not capitalism. And socialism also suffers from corruption, we as a people need to know our true enemy its corruption.
please forgive the rushed attempt at responcesecesses ing ...
I’m a big fan of Economic Update most of the time, but it is just plain wrong to define socialism as “worker control of enterprise/production” and then describe European-style welfare capitalism as socialist. It might have been spawned from the socialist labor movement of the 20th century, and the phrase “social democracy” might have been used at this time to refer to a socialist society, but the ideology the term describes today is divorced from any of that history and is a mitigation, rather than negation, of capitalism’s worst impulses. And it doesn’t even do that particularly well (see Finland’s recent, massive cuts to the public healthcare system for an example of why we need to overcome capitalism, not just dress it up nicely and make it a friendly monster.) And to use the terms “social democracy” and “democratic socialism” interchangeably is ahistorical and ignorant, at best, and dishonest, at worst. Gotta put the positive spin on “compassionate” capitalism to win over the AOC/Bernie types, I suppose.
He was just saying that these are the definitions people throw around (in the USA at least). He said explicitly which one is historically and logically acurate and, according to it, capitalist welfare states are not socialist. I'm not sure why you got the impression that this was a "positive spin on social democracy".
Apple Pie Around the 22 minute mark, he explicitly states that “you have 2 kinds of socialism which have emerged over the past 150 years.” The first kind of “socialism” he describes is social democracy.
This guy is wrong. Do not be deceived.
paid shill or just a moron?
@brien i know you are
i love how, as much as people bitch about have a reasonable discourse, its still and always will not happen on the internet
Thanks Dr. Rick...You rock sir!
Democracy>Representative Democracy>Oligarchy>Autocracy
Should be the true left v right debate. Economic system doesn't matter if the government is an Oligarchy or Dictatorship.
If you Think that you did not understand the Video the problem is that capitalism is a flawed System to Begin with a bit more government Regulation wont fix that
@@RealDSY I understand that. All systems are flawed because they're run by humans.
A socialist state of Trump is not a system I'm willing to support.
Thats not the position i'm taking First of all there would never ever be a socialist system under trump and even if it would happen trump would have no power anymore of course you need to implement the right political system since an economic system alone can't hold a country but if you implement a democratic system with socialism as the economical system i'll tell you humanity could finally begin to prosper while a democratic capatilist system well it doesn't yield the results i'm striving for quite the opposite actually
@@RealDSY sure...corruption and greed will be abolished from the human "heart". Lol.
Look, I don't disagree with you, ideally. I just think that utopic outlook is as unlikely as Trump socialism. But to think it's protected from a leader like Trump, or a military dictatorship, is naive I think.
Bernie/Tulsi 2020
Thank you so very much for an excellent lecture.
One correction: capitalism stared in Northern Italy. That's where the first economies in Europe transformed from feudalism to capital-controlled markets.
doesn't socialism guarantee basic right of food and health facility and also free education?
The fundamental production,. as per from Marx's Capital is commodity production for an "exchange value" instead of it's "use value." I would like to see him merger the concepts he is talking about with the change of production for use instead of profit.
To clarify - replacing typical business with worker cooperatives, but maintaining production for exchange value will simply create a worker co-op capitalism where groups of different worker co-ops compete against each other. Still capitalism unless you change the fundamental purpose of work. I is it for exchange value or use?
Yes, exactly as you say, most megacorporations started as coops as well
like for example Apple was a cooperative of 2 people in the beginning. Many other corporations even started as an individual business. with only one person
Do you need to name it as either socialism or capitalism for a community or to that matter the world to prosper?
A most informative tutorial. Thank you professor 💋
As a student of economics, I have been telling other leftist the same thing. I think we might just get it right this time.
Chris Martenson's TH-cam channel Peak Prosperity has a new video out titled "Living with Integrity." In the video Chris says Humans have a unique trait when it comes to change. We have neurons that allow us to change our behavior and our reality through conceptualization. For three centuries the one feature of Capitalism has been its instability and the concepts of ownership, exploitation, accumulation and compounding growth have caused that instability. Capitalism is in crisis; the erratic behavior of the climate will not support Capitalism. An economy that creates the degree of inequality we have now will not support Capitalism and our present dependence upon Carbon based energy has caused the energy to decline to the point it can not support Capitalism. Since we can't conceptualize a change and act on it we will have to accept change on its own terms.
Outstanding! Thank you.
In my experience it took both economic theories to get where we are today. Most things would not have happen without the other. But what we are going through now is one trying to take over the other by saying I did it all so I get it all. That is not true...
Really, really interesting topic. Thank you.
Excellent presentation.
I disagree with your "The USSR was State Capitalism, not socialism." The surplus value of the labourer, at least before Khrushchev, was returned in way of social programs and defending the state from the constant outside capitalist aggression, not hoarded by private individuals or the government. Instead of just reading Chomsky, I'd recommend Paterni's works, such as "Brown Shirts and Reds."
I get what you're saying but I don't think it gets at the heart of the kind of socialism Wolff (and arguably Marx) is talking about. After all, the surplus value of the laborer is returned in the way of social programs in all social democratic states. The point - if I understand Wolff correctly - is not that it gets returned, but that the laborers have control over it from the beginning.
@@GodlessPhilosopher The labour value cannot be returned to the labourer unless they own the means of production, and this is the case in a worker ran state, ie. The USSR, as much as direct worker control. You may argue that all democratic states return the surplus value to the worker, but that is not necessarily so in a capitalist democracy. Sometimes governments in capitalist democracies try to return some of the surplus value to the worker, in an effort to resolve a contradiction within that society and "save capitalism" but this is NOT something that lasts long and, as can be seen around the world today, gets eroded over time. Also, this paltry return of the surplus value to workers in capitalist democracies can only result from super exploitation of the third world via imperialism. All because in capitalist democracies workers, by and large, don't own the means of production. In the USSR the means of production was primarily owned by the workers either through the worker ran state and, yes, even cooperatives.
So yes, I think I addressed the heart of Dr. Wolff's statement.
I'm with you and, like you, I tend to be more sympathetic to the USSR than Wolff. I just wanted to point out that return of surplus value to the workers *per se* isn't sufficient (or necessary) for socialism for Wolff. What matters for him is that the workers get to decide where the surplus value goes.
Love this channel. It is very informative, and exposes people to economic theory. It is a pity humans mostly learn after a bad tragedy.
Intro is over at 7:40
Go Dr Wolff
No More War
Incentives is the driving force behind human advancement; prove me wrong.
you are right
so?
"First mention of pure Socialism is recorded in the new Testament in Acts 4 verses 32-37! Although known for the fate of Annanias and his wife Sapphira, the verses describe pure unadulterated communism of the highest order!"
Wish we could get people like Richard Wolff to teach in schools and then people like Thomas Sowell to teach the opposite viewpoint so people come to their own opinions.
I’m so thankful we have people like Richard Wolff to provide substantive content like this for free. This is free education.
As always, intellectuals don’t have the following they deserve. Pewdiepie has hundreds of millions of subscribers and creates nonsense. Prof Wolff provides nothing but facts.
Why is our society so backwards?
Excellent.
Thank you 🌎 ✊️ 🌹 🗽