Professor Wolff has done more to proslytize for worker cooperatives in this country than anyone else. The picture he paints of a democratic, egalitarian socialist society sounds truly wonderful with everyone being taken care of and everyone having a role or play in the society (unlike now where some people are discarded because they don't have "value" in the market). Let's hope his vision comes true someday. He's a hero and I hope he ends up working in the Sanders administration, either as a cabinet member or as an economic advisor. Keep it up Professor Wolff! You're doing the work those of us in the working class need you to do.
Excellent discussion . . . you balance the scales when it comes to Capitalist inequality. Your humanist approach to the work environment is outstanding.
Since I have been educating myself about worker co-ops, what seems to be a very logical transition area would be State Governments. What a great place to start! They are generally ran in the same dictatorial fashion as private corporations. All the "service organizations" operated by the state generally mimick private employer hierarchical structures. If one were to attempt to initiate a changeover to a co-op thinking at the State level, where to start?? Thoughts?
Norton that is a great idea. I work for a city government and you are correct it is a dictatorship with extreme incompetence and nepotism. Knowing how it works I think the only way to change to a worker co op would be tarring it down and firing everyone and starting with fresh blood from the bottom up. This city is owned and run by the oil oligarchs so its not like most cities.
my initial thoughts are the same. change over the public sector to a proper coop first as their product already is something that is inherently designed to support the community in which it resides, (at least that's the way it is supposed to work anyway). but how? i've worked in government offices and i currently work in a hospital in Canada. my experience is that, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to get them to change course; even when you finally get the majority to agree to the course change. take the fact that having a fully electronic health record has been in discussions and then planning stages and trials that went no where for the last 20-30some years in the maritime provinces alone. there has been progress of course and it continues uneveningly, but it is SLOOOOOOOOOW. not saying that the coop model isn't something worthy and beneficial to strive towards, but getting something so large as government offices, or public hospitals to move is a monumental task. even though their social stakeholder goals should already be in line with the larger social network of the community, a restructure of that magnitude would be excessively slow. and prone to interference and stoppage without other successful coop structures to point to for positive and tangible examples within the community. i think having a strong network of coops already in place in the community from a "private" sector perspective would be critical in developing enough social pressure on the government to make those kinds of changes. it would also need to be unionized into something already existing or at least connected to a sector with an already present and strong union force. if attached to something large that already exists, the message would spread faster to the general population that would then apply pressures on government to make structural changes within themselves. which would then spread to the wider private world as a whole, and make it easier for more coops to exist and the network to grow. i think getting existing and strong unions involved from the get go is where the real traction would be. the only other way i could figure to get something this big changed in the current cultural and political state of canada or america (if burnie doesn't become president), would be out and out revolution and toppling of the status quo. as Kevin Blanchard said above, "[...] the only way to change to a worker co op would be tarring it down and firing everyone and starting with fresh blood from the bottom up." (canada has whole provinces owned by the irvings, the local generational oil oligarchs here...)
How about like what Corbin suggested: Any company wishing to sell, move, go public would have to offer their labor first right of purchase as a CO_OP who would then be financed by government.
@@kevchard5214 I think that is a too radical approach to transforming public sector. Because the services still have to be delivered during the transition. And you cannot do that AND fire everyone at the same time. I think that a far better way would be to give the workers more decision making authority and real influence, better protection against getting fired for political and personal reasons, combined with actual scrutiny and transparency that shines a light on the actions of the administration. That way, the workers could hold city halls feet to the fire with no fear of getting fired or silenced.
In days of old there were guilds, stone masons and organ builders guilds etc etc, and they had considerable power because they were coops. We are turning the circle at last. What was will be again. We can almost perfectly predict the future by studying the past.
You are incredible!! Wolff has educated me more than any school I ever attended. Thank you so much for what you do. I have been speaking to all my friends and family about what you teach and it has been life changing.
@@dragoscoco2173 Do you really think that is a good enough critique or discussion point? It's the same as fucking saying oh your communist/anarchist then why are you working in a capitalist system then? Come on try a little harder now
This update helped to clear up a lot of things. The way the coop is described here shows that the spirit of the Enlightenment is not completely dead yet, it is only dead inside the oligarchic enterprise and the heads of its apologists. Socialisme ou Barbarie. Liberté, égalité, fraternité vs the Hobbesian hell on earth.
Good ideas by Mr. Wolf on worker coops. But he is forgetting that the ruling class and its military will not stand by idle without an aggressive military response where thousands of lives will be sacrificed. Its CIA,FBI, Homeland Security, city, county, state, and federal police agencies will defend with violence the super structure against all those who threaten the economic intetrsts of the capitalist ruling class. Workers' coops threaten the economic interes of the moneyed class of billionaires. Historical experience shows that the ruling powers will not allow any fundamental social change with out a fight to the death. The problem with acadamicians is that they want to bring fundamental change solely by theory and words forgetting that fundamental socialist change will not come about without the workers arming and preparing themselves for a fight against their enemies. Good intentions are not enough to bring about fundamental social change that threatens the eonomic interes of the ruling oligarchy. Lamentable to say in the end fight to the death will ensue between the oppressors and the oppresed. That is the lesson history has shown us when one lower class threatens another dominant class. It was Lenin who said, ."The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The is no denying that Richard Woff has good intentions.
@@ricardo9976 It only needs to get worse to a certain degree then there will be a groundswell of change or violence. Preferably change without violence i.e. when like in South Africa the reigns of power was handed over without a full-out war. However the ANC never had a clear plan as to how order society to bring about a better dispensation of government ; all that changed, is the color of govt but the format is the same : a small group of kleptocrats are in power still. But once the correct plan is formulated, a peaceful change is possible because people are tired of war and attrition. Such a plan was formulated by Dr. Rudolf Steiner by using the human body as a model for a balanced, fair and democratic society. This is not a glib model but based on Scripture as in Luke 17:21 and I'm NOT trying to smuggle in a religious angle into the mix. But from a scientific point of view that treats religion as a science NOT a system of beliefs, his views are gaining ground steadily and I dare say so far he's the ONLY scientist to come up with a blueprint based on both logic and reality : The Threefold Social Order. You probably know the saying that - nothing is stronger that the right idea whose time has come. It basically argues that culture, law = govt, and economy must be separated from one another to form three independent sovereign domains of which the cultural domain is the overarching one guiding the two smaller ones and note, NOT ruling but advising them coz the cultural domain would be the domain freed from politics and economic gain. It's the arena where science & wisdom dwells.
I am so happy that this program exists. Super happy that there are no commercials. Glad to support through Patreon. Worth my donation every single month!!!
Great show as always. Considering people are suffering from lead, PFAS, pesticides, mercury, herbicides, and other factory farm waste in the general water system and do worry if the water they drink is poisoning them, perhaps your solution will solve both the water and job problem ;)
I think that enterprise should only exist if it has a justified purpose. That is to say, an enterprise should exist to create goods and services that are needed or will be used by the community in which it serves. Enterprise should not exist for generating as much output as possible, for the purpose of seeking to capture as much revenue as possible. The current paradigm is that the enterprise makes good to sell, when they should be producing goods for the purpose of being used. We should also be striving to create goods that will last as long as possible to minimize the amount resources that are used up. This means higher quality construction, manufacturing them to be easily repaired/maintain, and making them easy to recycle when they do eventually wear out.
we used to have that mindset but then planned obsolesce took hold. look into the story about ladie's stocking hose for an excellent example of the mindset turning away from quality into quantity. they used to be able to tow trucks, now they tear if you sneeze with them on....
You got that right. 2 of the greatest evils that capitalism has pushed on us in terms of producing things, is 1) Planned obsolescence instead of building to last with higher quality and ability to be repaired; and 2) Trying to create a market for something or a desire for something that people don't even need, rather than to fill a need the people have. These companies try to convince me that I need their product or can't live without it or should be ashamed publicly if I don't use it or feel like I'm not cool enough if I don't use it. It's all B.S. brainwashing. And I'm so sick and tired of it.
As long as we have capitalism we will have cut throat competition. And a scarcity mentality. And thoughtless destruction of the environment. And on and on.
@@ECisvotersuppression As an example let's just take solar energy over its expected lifetime, including manufacturing. A 2011 report showed that solar's carbon footprint averaged at roughly 85 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per gigawatt-hour (GWh), while natural gas and coal came in at 499 CO2e/GWh and 888 CO2e/GWh, respectively.
@@RussCR5187 that's cute but i asked you what's the difference in the PROCESS of drilling for oil and digging up raw materials to make solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines i didn't ask you to tell me the energy numbers.
I think it needs to start with education. From a very young age we're taught to be competitive, we're told to work hard in school so we can get a good job and make lots of money. We're taught more to look out for ourselves than to be good members of the community. Most of the older ppl I know hate paying tax.
A co-op is 1 employee = 1 vote, not all the same salary. The co-op can very well setup a system similar to corporation, with less inequality (highest paid employee gets 25-50 X lowest salary, instead of 200+ nowadays).
I like the ideas/solutions being discussed here... addressing income inequality, worker rights and job security + freedom to fulfill our civil duty-to cast our votes in politics with our morals, ethics, humanity intact. To me, this kind of thinking is a direction towards the beginnings of what an advanced civilization might look like. Right now, we are shackled to this system designed to the detriment of our own best interest, to the detriment of our communities, our society, our planet. Capitalism’s ‘Profits First’ /Profits Above All Else makes monsters out of men. US is the prime example of Capitalism’s unhinged exploitation (of labor, resources, power, politics, etc.)-one that always trumps morality, humanity, compassion, and ethics. We need to reclaim our Democracy in this country starting with reclaiming the power of our vote and its ability to change the corrupt and broken system. Instead of trying to figure out how we can survive another year, month, day in this system (by which Corporations can pull the ground from under our feet at any time/*every time* they can find cheaper labor or replace us w/machines)... let’s get in the mindset of thinking what kind of system can we build that would help secure our Democracy and secure the wellbeing of our families, our community, our society, and our planet.
Democracy at Work Institute U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives Community-Wealth.org probably a bunch of others too... this list is also pretty U.S.-focused, maybe people from other countries can chime in?
SELC here on youtube, th-cam.com/users/theselctube based in California but still useful for others. Also look at your local corporative structures like B-corp or community interest corporation.
Thank you Professor Wolff. I am watching on 22nd March here in the UK on Mother's Day (or Mothering Sunday from my faith.) I would like to say Thank You to your dear Mother, for bringing you into our world. Thank you to her, for giving you the opportunity to share your great insights and discussions. Love from another Mum xxx
Great video! As usual! Professor Wolff your very informative and it has been very useful for me because I'm going to be part of a "Worker Cooperative" starting in April.
My God this man has done so much thinking on this subject he has left me behind. I can see how this works with small enterprises but some of the huge ones like cars, ship building, energy etc getting workers to understand this is going to be difficult. This man energizes my thought processes, and through these comments I would like to thank the Doctor.
"Getting workers to understand this is going to be difficult." I think getting younger workers on board shouldn't be too hard. Getting those of us who've had a lifetime of capitalist brainwashing switched over may be another matter entirely. Perhaps as physicist Max Planck said in reference to science, that level of progress will have to advance one funeral at a time.
Thanks to the critic for compelling mr Wolff to talk about this! I have heard many marxists say that they think Mr Wolff does not see socialism in the correct lense
I could see why some Marxists would dislike what he has to say, but that's because Marxist-Leninists still often believe in direct state-ownership of the means of production. Of course, this is the old way of thinking about socialism and we saw the results of giving that much economic power to the state. Professor Wolff's plans make sure that power is given to the people themselves, while preventing totalitarianism or the creation of a bureaucratic elite. Some Marxist-Leninists are stuck in the old way of thinking about socialism and they are making themselves quite frankly irrelevant by ignoring this new wave of true democratic socialism (which includes worker cooperatives as the backbone of the means of production). Regular people are finely realizing that socialism and state ownership of the means of production are not synonymous, and that what most modern socialists propose is a society with a state, but with direct worker ownership and this is a plan for a far more free society than the state capitalist societies of the past.
@@matthewmcree1992 couldnt have said it better! I fall slightly into the anarchist camp and i would prefer the market socialist aproach richard wolff proposes far over the state capitalist systems of the USSR and other "socialist" states. Markets have their flaws but that can be compensated for by the state.
@@benbrown8682 I fully agree with you. While it is still a question whether markets or democratic planning in the context of a socialist economy are better, this trend away from statist socialism is unfortunately a positive one, and the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialists of America seems far more likely to succeed anyway. Frankly, I'll happily take any form of non Soviet-style socialism over the hyper capitalism of the present, but the sort of solutions Professor Wolff has put forth seems by far the most likely to remain democratic and for that reason, I'm for pragmatic reasons on the side of this cooperative -based movement (even as I have a natural affinity for council communism, anarchocommunism, and syndicalism). The current form of socialism that DSA and Prof. Wolff are pushing seems to be more acceptable to average people, so I'll take it. Love and solidarity comrade!
Dear Prof Wolff, an excellent explanation of the situation. You once mentioned an area, in Italy, where worker co-ops were prevalent. An in-depth discussion of this would be most interesting,
thank you very much professor, every time you upload a video makes feel hopeful about the fact maybe people would understand this elemental things that even in the everyday life they does not, to laid the posibility to all this can be a real possible change.
I've been listening to Professor Wolff for a few months and it makes complete sense what I've learned from him in that time. If he is not already doing so, I believe the most powerful and effective way to show these capitalists the way it works is to develop and manage a Co-op company himself. I don't know if he's got the time and money to do it, but that would be really awesome.
Thank you Dr. Wolff for the informative elaboration on making sure that work co-ops are successful by supporting the ones that naturally could fail for a myriad of reasons, but even if we allow some co-ops like any other private venture to fail, the failure is normal part of doing business, and if big corporations could get bailouts out of taxpayer money, then why not also co-ops? In any event, failing co-ops in a comprehensive socialist system that even supports private business should benefit everyone including big corporations, something that big corporations would not admit or likes to keep indiscrete and exclusive to big corporations!
One thing I didn't see on this talk was how to square what people actually want to do with the needs of the community. For example, how does a TV show get made in a worker's co-op society? Or a TV show production studio? If I want to start one, what, does it need to be approved by the community and other co-ops? And then what? I get allocated some of the money from the fund made from successful co-ops profits, to use as I think is necessary with regards to growing the co-op, until I have a co-owner who would then share growth decision-making responsibilities as we grow? What if I think I have a cool idea for a show or a plan for a studio, but the community decides that it's not needed or that they just don't want one? For example, Medicare for all tends to be favored by the majority of voters, yet voters tend to support establishment candidates like Biden that are vehemently against the idea. What if I want to write a book? I ask because the sort of things people can have a passion for can vary pretty greatly, but I'm not sure that every society would be able to support that. Would there necessarily be at least some aspect of a very normal part of a capitalist society, where many people have jobs they don't like, but do for the money? What if nobody wants to work retail or fast food?
You are deluding yourself if you think that feudalism has ended. Capitalism is feudalism by any other name. We still have kings and queens and yes, they are still in control.
The only difference between the people of today and the people of 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, and so on, it’s technology. How long are we going to help Alexander the great build his bridge so he can control the port. The behavior is the same.
The only difference is the aristocracy is "elected" by capital in a market system instead of by birth in a feudalistic system. It's a step in the right direction.
The aristocracy always chooses who is in charge. Consider this: empire is the anvil and any name prefixed upon it, withers and fades just like the hammer. It is a behavioral problem. People come and go but, the behavior remains the same.
The larger structures, it would seem to me, run the risk of becoming bureaucratic, elitist, controlling, much like in the Soviet union. How would you propose to prevent that from happening. I guess what I'm saying is that what you propose sounds like it's susceptible to top controlled power structures.
@@guyoflife I think the state works rather poor in many cases but I think some of that is due to capitalism making it harder for the state. The good thing though is that capitalism means two separate systems that aren't dependant on each other exists. In the proposed system here the difference between government and work wouldn't really exist. And that's good, but it also means a single point of failure.
I would like to go through the actual process of a company shifting from a traditional infrastructure, to a workers Co-op, in an effort to become a consultant for helping more companies work through their own transitions...
Reading all the comments up to now I can not help but feel that change does not happen without motivation. One of the problem with this is that a majority and diversity windows of understanding and urgency need to be organized and enacted. The only common basis is a dedication to the democratic goal of actualizing "Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood". This has to become the focus of a majority of the people of any size of group or organization. Dr. Woolff suggest the workplace, but this is again composed of individuals who need to reach a level of understanding and integration necessary to motivate enough to invest cooperatively in planning, prioritizing and enacting the common goals and means in their pursuit of democracy. It is would become a life long and never wavering ideal and project.
Modrigon has had to deal with this given changes in consumer demand, etc. I have listend to a video of the school at Modrigon where they deal with how to upscale, downscale change products etc they have a lot of experience.
@@marktomasetti8642 It's been several years, but I think i had to find out through Modrign's website. I know they have a school that trains employee groups in ownership and management in a number of different countries, but I have not checked for a while.
i'm starting to understand why americans are afraid of socialism. because paying all that money into that "funds" requires an awful lot of trust in the state to handle the money in a competent way. and if the current corrupt politicians are any measure, what guarantees do we have that the socialist politicians will be any more trustworthy? what would thomas hobbes suggest if he were still around? maybe sousveillance is the way to go? plus each and everyone of us must become even more clever, aware and enlightened. it's go on a be tough as hell.
These talks are always really fascinating. It sounds extremely difficult, but these large scale things are always difficult. I really want to figure out how to start a worker co-op, but alleviate the risk of bankrupcy (which is always the highest risk of starting a company).
crowdsource the startup finances and incorporate the company (i think that is what its called when you legally separate the company from the people so that if the company fails or is sued or whatever, they can't reprocess your personal property or finances). don't put personal property up for colateral for loans and reinvest the profits heavily back into the company while maintaining a balance enough for everyone to still be paid enough to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. if the business fails, the workers shouldn't go bankrupt, even if the business does.
If you really wanted to know how to start one you could've simply just looked it up. www.fastcompany.com/3042716/watch-this-video-to-learn-how-to-start-a-worker-cooperative
At the moment I think some form of socialism would be a step in the right direction. Where we need to go however is completely get away from the need for money at all. We don't need it, we have all the resources we need, in fact we are extremely wasteful of our resources which, on a finite planet, are indeed limited. Instead we need to base our civilisation on a rescue based economy. Learn more: www.thevenusproject.com
There are interesting socialist ideas of how to get rid of money as well. The oldest and most developed idea is labour credits/vouchers. Paul Cockshott combines it with a democratic planned economy in "Towards A New Socialism" (free pdf online, just search for it)
@@LibertarianLeninistRants Labour credits would be the equivalent of money. No matter how you twist and turn it, with or without interest, with or without a basic income. It's all money or currency and would ultimately lead to some having much while many have little. Humanity has tried one system after the other and all thus far have failed to provide for all in an equitable way. All of them involved some kind of money or barter or currency. It's time to try something totally different.
@@StevenKHarrison _"Labour credits would be the equivalent of money. No matter how you twist and turn it, with or without interest, with or without a basic income. It's all money or currency and would ultimately lead to some having much while many have little. "_ They are significantly different from money. First of all - for one hour of work you get one hour voucher. Secondly, they are not or only limited transferrable. They have your name on it, so you can't just give it to someone else. This is a major difference to money. And thirdly, the things you can buy with labour vouchers in a socialist economy are only consumer goods. You can't invest them. So unless you show me how with all these three things you can end up with unjust inequality, I really don't know how you can say its the same. The only thing I can imagine is by saving up over the course of your life the labour credits you earned...but for what? I mean you can't buy something that big because everything that needs that much labor to produce would be under the control of the society already. Don't get me wrong, the labor voucher system is only the step towards abolishing money alltogether. But its a good intermediate step
@@LibertarianLeninistRants Labor vouchers sound good, but when we try to implement them, we bump into the glaring logical flaws of the Labor Theory of Value. How can anyone determine the value generated by drastically different activities? Or will one hour of brain surgery get the same amount of vouchers as one hour of coding or theatrical acting? Even the question of what activities constitute labor is blurry. It almost seems to me that abolishing money without transition is less of a hassle as long as careful attention is given to basic human necessities and a drastic reduction of the work day. Then people will have the time and energy to figure out what they want.
@@billyoldman9209 _"How can anyone determine the value generated by drastically different activities? Or will one hour of brain surgery get the same amount of vouchers as one hour of coding or theatrical acting?"_ We calculate in standard labor; so we take the overall productivity of the society per hour and divide it by the amount of people who worked in that hour. So yes, one hour of brain surgery is one hour of labor; one hour of coding is one hour of labour, etc. Does this mean that all of these different kinds of labor are worth the same? Yes, everyone performing one hour of labor gives up one hour of their life. Why should the individual be compensated for anything except what they put into the economy? In capitalism people make the argument that in order to become a doctor you need to pay a lot for education. In socialism that simply doesn't apply. The education is given to the people for free. A higher compensation of the individual should only be possible if the work is really more intensive than the average...and that could be done per workplace. Say for example in a bike factory there are 5 people, total work hours being 20 per week per person, but 1 of these 5 is doing better while 2 others are doing worse than the average. Then these 5 workers could divide up the total productivity that their workplace has contributed to the overall economy among themselves. So f.e. the person doing more than 10% better than the average gets 10% more compensation, the person doing 5% worse than the average gets 5% less. But the workers decide collectively about these smaller chances. All of this is explained better and in more detail in the book "Towards a New Socialism", which I highly highly highly recommend you to read. Seriously, this is the book I recommend everyone. It's available for free online. _"Even the question of what activities constitute labor is blurry."_ That is true. For example can the domestic economy (household and so on) be also counted as work. There are interesting discussions going on about this in marxist discourse. _"a drastic reduction of the work day."_ That is exactly what I think we should focus on as well. You know, expansion of the "realm of freedom" in the marxist sense (Capital Volume 3, in the chapter of the trinity formula). And its also touched upon in Towards a New Socialism
2 questions: 1. The example with the ice cream cones - 2 given to one child, then have to redistribute one of those cones to the other child who had none. Problem now is that there are "children" who have 100 cones and 100 "children" who have none. How do we get to the worker coop system when such extreme inequality exists without redistributing the wealth. 2. If one worker coop is highly successful and another is a failure, how do you maintain incentives for workers to work hard if they perceive that they work hard, but see most of the proceeds of their hard work going to subsidize the "slackers" in the other coop that is failing? This is core to Ayn Rand's arguments (which are imperfect, but are idolized) My Own thoughts: Maybe we institute a universal basic income to provide a subsistence level within society, to remove the fear of losing the job, losing the income. Then worker coops are implemented to replace capitalist businesses (do we nationalize them?) The coops are taxed at a high rate, with the taxes going to the governmental fund used for providing services (education, defense, highways, energy, telecommunications, Medical /Health care AND reserves for helping generate new coops, helping transition/rejuvenate/repurporse failing coops. The coop that is highly successful has some residual "profit" (but call it something else) that they then can divide amongst members of the successful coop as achievement bonus, providing incentive to workers to achieve and work hard instead of being slackers. This is not a perfect idea, but is this not on the right track?
12:36 That's the kind of thing that makes most people prefer capitalism. If you go around telling people what they should do for a living, they'll simply give you the finger and leave. It's not a matter of having a job (most people don't even like their jobs)... it's a matter of letting people follow their heart, their passion, their dream, etc. Individual freedom is the one thing capitalism got right... even if it's just an illusion sometimes. Any society that denies individual freedom is a failure in the eyes of its members.
Suppose that we have an economic crisis and 10% of the worker co-ops are in bankruptcy. What if the workers from the other 90% of the worker co-ops chose, democratically, not to help the 10% that are in trouble? The solution .... the need of a dictator. That was the reasoning of Lenin. He arrived in Russia with the slogan "Give the power to the soviets" and ended with the drowning of the Kronstadt sailors' uprising. And with Stalin that killed or deported millions of better of farmers for the crime of being a little more successful than others in the village. The only true socialist society that passed the test of time is the family.
Good debate on Democracy Now! Both positions have validity but I side with flicking the 'I don't give a switch' and educating Americans about European socialism vs. Venezuelan socialism.
I love the ideas about a society where we figure out how to share, but this theory doesn't take into account the greedy nature of human beings. Take the example of the two kids and the ice cream cones. Suppose the parent gave each one a cone from the beginning. Even though it's not true, one of the kids will claim the other got more ice cream on his/her cone. Or one will think that because they were older or male, or female, or blond, or whatever, that they deserved both cones in the first place. The theory all sounds great, but how do you account for with the greedy nature of people--people who will do everything they can to undermine the system because they believe they are entitled to more?
not "greedy" but id say more "survivalist" and about the kids all of that is created by the parents not. not human nature. if there is enough for everyone people won´t fight for their part.
Hello Mr. Wolff My name is David, Im good friend of Dante Dallaville and Mike Palmieri. Ive been really hoping somebody cant dive deep into a mechanics field look at how we get paid, Being Flate Rate and how its suppose to be used as a motivator when its really just an underpayer. I want to really work at opening a Co-op shop. But maybe you could look into Flate rate and do a video.I love to be involved are do any kind of footwork on this Ty
This is a great lecture. It answers many questions. It seems that work cop ups are too complicated and even risky to try everywhere at once. They seem to demand more knowledgeable and active workers. It may need experimentation to develop successful working models to be eventually injected into the larger economy.
canada already has a large scale tax system that is supposed to support the provinces as the economics change over time, like how prof wolff describes in his distribution between co ops section of the video. except people aren't happy about it or even see it as anything different then from taking one of their ice cream cones to give to a sibling. alberta right now has been gnashing about separatism over it recently in fact, ever since the oil isn't doing so well anymore they've gotten quite loud about it too. it certainly doesn't seem to be getting ahead of negative feelings about redistribution even though it is just taxes. is there something different about how canada spreads its ice cream cones around their provinces and territories? something they are doing wrong? is it some lack of education or effect of capitalist propaganda? is it because they've named that aspect of the tax system equalization payments and so the optics get skewed the problem? or am i not understanding the concept correctly here? genuinely confused about this aspect of the video here.
I get what you're saying about how governments shouldn't be redistributive, that profits al around communities should go all around the community in the first place. That's great, I agree. But the thing is that as of right now things are so unbalanced that redistribution's a thing that's going to need to happen so the community (locally and globally) can even have a chance to heal and start working right again. If this were your analogy, you have already given the first child two ice creams and stiffed the second child. Okay, we know what we SHOULD have done, but now it's too late. What do we do now?
We've determined that it is not socially acceptable to own people, but okay to rent them. When we make the decision that people engaging in an enterprise (including labor) are partners, then we can transition to a cooperative-based society. There are ways to transition capitalist enterprises legislatively via tax incentives and labor laws. Not all will transition, but they will not be taxed favorably. When tenure translates into equity, workers will essentially gain their "time" back via continued dividend income and the opportunity to liquidate shares, creating a capital infusion that can be used to do what they wish. There are many examples of people doing productive and amazing things for no compensation. Generally, these are folks who are retired, or are otherwise supported in order to accomplish these tasks. When more people have their time back, more people will do the same. Capitalist enterprises (and cooperatives) will have to compete with them. The long term social ramifications of guaranteeing workers equity based on tenure and democratic control of workplaces would be revolutionary. The dynamics of society as a whole would change. Exactly how is hard to predict, especially at the threshold of intense technological advancement. The discussion of command/control economy is a strawman/distraction. The real issue is capital/labor relations. It always has been.
Great. Glad to see Dr Wolf support state socialism. Just make all of the coops state owned but worker managed, and that will solve most issues. That way the state can control employment directly, and can decide if it needs to be a large coop for purposes of scale, or it can be broken up into smaller coops distributed across the nation more equally.
LOL Hilarious comment bro. It almost sound legit. But unfortunately you are the right wing troll not me and you are a bad one at that. Especially with all those completely unfounded assertions and claims. Sounds like you better start hitting the books rather than be on youtube kid. None of that shit has anything to do with facts.
If you are sincere then how about reading these books on state ownership (Hanna, 2018) Our Common Wealth: The Return of Public Ownership (Cumbers, 2012) Reclaiming Public Ownership: Making Space (Sawyer, 2002) A Future for Public Ownership
The failures in Eastern Europe had nothing to do with the ownership arrangement. Each country had their own unique issues and problems. For example, the problem in the USSR was central planning. Who owns the means of production is neutral on economic activity. And im also not for total state ownership that would be absurd. Of course small businesses should be able to be owned independently. Medium sized businesses can be owned by the workers as coops. All others should be state owned, especially the ones with huge profit margins, natural resources, natural monopolies, etc. The state needs more direct control over profits and employment rather than just having taxes.
Most of what you say is false. Even the Soviet Union had independent trades workers who were self employed. Ownership was not the problem input/output planning was. You can have state owned businesses and a market. You can state ownership and planning and centralized decision making, but you can also have state ownership and market competition and worker decision making. There are a variety of was to organize production
Always a pleasure to Like prof Wolff's insights! Into the algorithm my Like goes! Imma try and work things out on my own! Long story short: Willy Wonka with a coop brings the skills, Bill Gates with a hierarchy is stuck selling over priced ice cream with his monopoly. It's difficult to escape short term thinking. Even Govs seem to have trouble with this. Immediate benefits, such as roads/hospitals/schools being built, I can understand. A future guarantee of retraining if a job isn't needed I... sorta hope works? But let's consider the given example some more: sharing what we have is something I was taught growing up, as it avoided strife between siblings, but there was more to it than that. Single children don't have that experience... they always get two cones, so to speak. They would have to share with a stranger, which is a good way to make friends. So we must try and extend this example to cover coops that may produce the same product, and otherwise compete. I don't find congruence between these relationships: one is the producer of the ice cream, the other is the consumption of the ice cream. Naturally, we want the kids to get the best ice cream. So the 2nd place ice cream maker must lower his price to compete, makes less money; so some kids get less than best ice cream, as that is all they can afford. The poor, honest folk who always have a budget for soap, but not necessarily food, as Terry Pratchett put it. Meanwhile, the kid who can buy, or steal, ALL the best ice cream is busy making friends... (this seems familiar now). But what of the case of super production? The ice cream maker is suddenly making SO much ice cream, that the price can be free, or near that. They can't give it away fast enough. Maybe they take donations. He or she just wants friends, and doesn't care about the money too much. Doesn't need to. In fact, he only cares about having the best ice cream, as this is what allows him to make friends in the community! So we have abundance and quality at once. This is a special case, but one we are moving towards as we harness more and more energy and production grows. So, let's posit that Willy Wonka leads one such company as a coop, while Bill Gates controls another, as a hierarchical setup. Both have equally good ice cream. Which one opens the sluice gates and floods the world with free ice cream? Gates wishes to control prices, doesn't he? He needs to control the workers who produce the ice cream somehow. He even takes comfort in the mass of accumulated ice cream, as it guarantees there will always be a trickle he can sell! Like some hydro project gone wrong. Madness. Wonka on the other hand, what does he do? A lot of hungry, hot people, way too much ice cream, seems reasonable to conclude that Willy Wonka will do the sane thing and flood the world with ice cream. For friendship and maybe donations. Maybe if you want a personalized flavour, you can pay him, and he floods the world with it afterwards. No longer do we lack ice cream. It's solved, just like drinking water is available from the tap. Both Gates and Wonka then move on to other projects... which one would you rather support? Let's say it's curing cancer. Gates, the drop-out, will give you some of "his" ice cream from "his" dam if you solve it for him. It's good ice cream... but Gates has a LOT of reading to do before he knows what to do about cancer. So he sorta spreads "ice cream" around, wily nilly. He has a big media following. Wonka will try his bestest to solve it together with his friends: they'll put in the long hours and the chemistry know-how they already have. For... friendship...? Maybe they ask for donations? Maybe the profit motive fails before the benefit motive. I don't know. So, huh, it seems we come across the idea that coops DO support one another, once production reaches a critical point, so long as their are problems to solve and friendships to be made. Markets fail when super production enters the picture. Not just fail, but create artificial scarcity and dangerous "ice cream" dams when capitalism oversees production. Coops can deal with super production better than hierarchical companies can. They can flood a market with goods and ask for donations to meet possible costs. They also rely not just on other coops, not just on governments, but on the people themselves. Not only that, but Coops can apparently deal with MORE problems than a typical capitalist can, as it's expertise that ultimately runs the show, not money. Hmm, I'm not sure my tower of cards holds up. S'nice tho. There is another way to run the world. Wonka or Gates. Madness or sanity. Which is which? Sorry for the rough 1st paragraph. Anyway, have a nice day and... may your world be pure imagination. -- TH-cam should be a Coop! We all contribute Uploads, Likes, Reports and Analytics! One for all, all for one!
I agree with everything you say and the topic definitely need someone to put light on it but how is this "an economic UPDATE"? Nothing updated about that - it's the same every time since long time. Seems like I am watching the same video over and over again. Even now with such things happening in the world, I expected at least that something new will be added - how the Chineese economy would affect the global economy and the possible recession as a consecuence of the coronavirus but there is nothing about that - it's all the same since ever. This video might of been made a year ago, easily, and noone would know. Also we already get it's an unfair system and world, but what can we do now with that information? How can we change that since we are not the politicians who invent the rules? It would be nice to hear some offers and solutions, not just ¨everything is so bad and unfair¨. Greetings! I really admire you!
You have to look at his video logs. He has lot's of videos on what you are describing. Also on a wide range of topics with other speakers. I like Dr. Harriet to get a women's perspective on things you can start there then continue on. Prof. Wolff usually gives history lessons on other movements and what they did to get things done. You can adopt some of these tactics along with your own to help reach a goal. For example the yellow vest movement in France. You can see their tactics and adopt what works. There are many others as well. Pick what works best for you and your goals then fight.
@@clarestucki5151 Not only subsidize but not repeating the same strategies/systems that got them there in the first place. Transitioning the actual system not just reallocation of resources. Like every system in history there will be problems with those less productive. You don't destroy them by competition of who ever gains the most resources. Then in turn one usurps the other. You build them as a collective by having better distribution and production. Most likely of something that is required by societal needs.
My take here is that the basic needs will be covered by automatic entities (robots, automatic machines, etc) so, basic needs as food, shelter, transport, clothe, etc will be TOTALLY covered. the "Job" wil not NOT longer be a way to survive, but a way to improve the society and the individual. Some may thing that it's impossible, but in real, we are almost there, but since Capitalism induces a poor redistribution of the wealth seems to more complex that it is really. At the end, when Humanity has conquered the control of the matter, things as food or cloth SHOULD be trivial...
A robust Social Welfare/social investment set of programs is vital. Not as options but as Guarentees. Housing, Healthcare, Food, Higher Education, and Jobs Guarentee! Coincide that with Worker Co-operatives that have consumer and public input and oversight as well as Public Banking. On the Social front I think multi-racial, mixed income Co-housing is the way forward to rebuild capital 'C': Community.
will there be room for private business which does not follow the co-op model within the context that the government creates? if not, this sounds like an easy, I might even say inevitable, path to State socialism. also, I want to work at the co-op where they chill, have many long breaks and a ton of paid vacation every year; I like to take it easy, and I appreciate the coop down the road picking up the slack for me. Thanks.
Moving away from a profit driven economy will enable us to take it with easy many long breaks and a ton of paid vacation every year, while still being able to produce all the necessities for a comfortable life... no need for anyone to pick up the slack
@@johnbuckner2828 well we need to do something different than what we're doing now... maybe worker Co-ops aren't the solution and no system is flawless, but what we have isn't working so let's try something else. For the sake of all our kids
You have to have a marketable skill, and improve constantly. Your self esteem will be high enough at that point, that fear of losing a job is no big deal.
Bottom line of today's show is that the more successful (meaning more productive) enterprises, whether they be capitalist or co-op, need to subsidize the less productive enterprises, in order to achieve equality of income and wealth among all groups and all people. The obvious problem with that is, it produces equality at a much lower level than productive people are willing to tolerate.
That's probably true, for as long as equality is only measured in terms of income and wealth. That's one of my problems with capitalism. Pretty much everything gets valued in terms of dollars or euros or whatever.
I am a HUGE fan of Richard Wolf, but the ice cream redistribution analogy flat doesn't work for me. Taxation redistributes income. The question is in which direction. Currently the income is being sucked up. Additionally, the job opportunities that might be good for coops are being removed by automation and foreign competition. Andrew Yang's UBI may well become a necessity.
Hey Dr. Wolff, thank you for all you do! Worst week at the stocks since 2008 financial crisis. Wondering what it could mean, wondering what this could entail. Could you talk about it? Thank you!
The co-op structure may be the future form of state-owned coorporations in China. At least, I hope a more efficient way would be found to tax and distribute the tex properly among those co-ops or state-owned coorporation.
At 23:00. Why can't you tie it all together with MMT? With the authority to create money for the peoples prosperity and the right to tax businesses and individuals who are wasting or hording resources because they have too much. If you think spending is constricted by taxes you're undermining the entire case that co-ops are macroeconomically beneficial. You dont have to have coops responsible for failure, thats money people earned, why not create new money to help beneficial enterprises period. We dont need the rich ppls money.
It seems to me that education will be an important component in the making of worker co-ops. However, there will always be some individuals who will, for lack of a better way to put it, smarter than most. What should the brightest among us be entitled to? What should the most vulnerable expect? How do we allow everyone to live a dignified life?
The simplest form of taxation is sales tax. All other taxes will be scrapped and only sales tax will be implemented. And no article can be sold as secondhand and charged with vat again. About businesses ; they won't be sold as "a going concern" but transferred to the next most competent person to oversee the business. To manage a big concern is a considerable skill not to be underestimated. The democratization of the workplace is a misplacing of the legal domain's driver into the economic domain. The economy is driven by cooperation first then expertise & merit... not equality. We cannot escape the hierarchical nature of the economy. But that don't mean that we mistreat those on the lower rung of the economic ladder, NO ! We are all guided by the brotherly nature of the economy i.e. we help those that need help and Govt = the law, ensures that all workers are protected from exploitation.... THAT'S democracy's task. But inside the economy, only expertise and experience can guide matters of production. It's unthinkable to be different ; we simply cannot let an apprentice take charge of complicated production process. But nothing stops him from achieving that level of skill and even more - but he'll have to prove that to a jury of his peers.
It's important to see that because law depends on profit to survive, they most definitely would not want crime to stop. If you miss this point you'll b unable to picture future law practice.
your presentation should involve and showcase a community here in state of maharashtra there were co-operatives but our system the top administration the rbi and the the rulers at the center had different ideas and never came with all-out support to the co-operative ventures the result this isn't well-managed and corporates thrived
the problem with the Left today in general, is "change". you mister wolff and the left in general never discuss the coming of the job automation like never seen before. the AI and the emerging digital economy. give us anything about No Job paradigm not only forcing this "job" mentality by all means on us.
You really need to check out the work put out by British economist Aaron Bastani in his work "Fully automated luxury communism" where he addresses everything you just complained about
For the change to work from the work place, the co-op, a lot of personal changes have to be brought about through some form of educational agenda and process. Organized has voluntary, recommended, prerequisited, obligatory or recommended would have to be decided. Individuals within societies having a propensity to prioritize their own needs and wants before those of others would need to evolve from that drive. How can the work place bring this about? How can it encourage and promote such an evolution peacefully? Wouldn't Logic and Sentiment clash?
I wonder if one of the first steps toward a less selfish society should be to adopt a Federal Job Guarantee Program offering all unemployed people who are willing and able to work a job paying a minimum but living wage. The goal of the living wage would be to free people from having to scratch and claw to simply put food on the table, a roof over their heads, and so on. People whose basic comfort needs are satisfied can afford to be a bit more charitable in their outlook. The proponents of Modern Monetary Theory have proposed just such a system. For details, type "MMT job guarantee" into the TH-cam search box.
Let me guess you want "reeducation camps" (concentration camps) for those who don't comply with your demands and if they still reject your ideology use the firing squad?😁
@@RussCR5187 so to "help" ppl you want to pay them the least amout of money possible for their labor because that's what MINIMUM wage is by law and definition.
@@ECisvotersuppression You're jumping to conclusions without having researched the topic as I suggested. The Jobs Guarantee Program serves as a buffer stock of labor for the regular economy. It offers a minimum wage for those who cannot find a job. Training is also part of the deal. When the training is finished or the economy improves, the worker will then look for a regular job and move back into the workforce at competitive wages. One big advantage to this approach is that it addresses the fact that employers don't like to hire people who have been out of work for a while. With this program, they won't be out of work.
@@RussCR5187 did you just contradict yourself just now without even realizing it? What's that difference between that program and what we currently have at this very moment where ppl are currently working for minimum wage and can then choose to get training to find a job for competitive wages where they have job placement programs upon completion of said training?
Yeah... The job guarantee will get me a new job that is paid as good as the old one, but wait a minute! When I‘m an owner of a piece of my worker co-op and it goes bankrupt, what happens to that? Will I have to come up with the money the co-op owes some banking co-op? I think the discussion really needs to be about how to democratize banking and what to do about bankruptcy. The job guarantee is already accepted by wide parts of the left.
Professor Wolff has done more to proslytize for worker cooperatives in this country than anyone else. The picture he paints of a democratic, egalitarian socialist society sounds truly wonderful with everyone being taken care of and everyone having a role or play in the society (unlike now where some people are discarded because they don't have "value" in the market). Let's hope his vision comes true someday. He's a hero and I hope he ends up working in the Sanders administration, either as a cabinet member or as an economic advisor. Keep it up Professor Wolff! You're doing the work those of us in the working class need you to do.
Prof Wolff's vision must come true ASAP!
Excellent discussion . . . you balance the scales when it comes to Capitalist inequality. Your humanist approach to the work environment is outstanding.
Richard Wolff right on the mark as always! Thank you for these videos Professor Wolff!
Since I have been educating myself about worker co-ops, what seems to be a very logical transition area would be State Governments. What a great place to start! They are generally ran in the same dictatorial fashion as private corporations. All the "service organizations" operated by the state generally mimick private employer hierarchical structures. If one were to attempt to initiate a changeover to a co-op thinking at the State level, where to start?? Thoughts?
Upvoted so Dr Wolf sees this
Norton that is a great idea. I work for a city government and you are correct it is a dictatorship with extreme incompetence and nepotism. Knowing how it works I think the only way to change to a worker co op would be tarring it down and firing everyone and starting with fresh blood from the bottom up. This city is owned and run by the oil oligarchs so its not like most cities.
my initial thoughts are the same. change over the public sector to a proper coop first as their product already is something that is inherently designed to support the community in which it resides, (at least that's the way it is supposed to work anyway). but how? i've worked in government offices and i currently work in a hospital in Canada. my experience is that, the bigger the organization, the harder it is to get them to change course; even when you finally get the majority to agree to the course change. take the fact that having a fully electronic health record has been in discussions and then planning stages and trials that went no where for the last 20-30some years in the maritime provinces alone. there has been progress of course and it continues uneveningly, but it is SLOOOOOOOOOW. not saying that the coop model isn't something worthy and beneficial to strive towards, but getting something so large as government offices, or public hospitals to move is a monumental task. even though their social stakeholder goals should already be in line with the larger social network of the community, a restructure of that magnitude would be excessively slow. and prone to interference and stoppage without other successful coop structures to point to for positive and tangible examples within the community.
i think having a strong network of coops already in place in the community from a "private" sector perspective would be critical in developing enough social pressure on the government to make those kinds of changes. it would also need to be unionized into something already existing or at least connected to a sector with an already present and strong union force. if attached to something large that already exists, the message would spread faster to the general population that would then apply pressures on government to make structural changes within themselves. which would then spread to the wider private world as a whole, and make it easier for more coops to exist and the network to grow. i think getting existing and strong unions involved from the get go is where the real traction would be.
the only other way i could figure to get something this big changed in the current cultural and political state of canada or america (if burnie doesn't become president), would be out and out revolution and toppling of the status quo. as Kevin Blanchard said above, "[...] the only way to change to a worker co op would be tarring it down and firing everyone and starting with fresh blood from the bottom up." (canada has whole provinces owned by the irvings, the local generational oil oligarchs here...)
How about like what Corbin suggested: Any company wishing to sell, move, go public would have to offer their labor first right of purchase as a CO_OP who would then be financed by government.
@@kevchard5214 I think that is a too radical approach to transforming public sector. Because the services still have to be delivered during the transition. And you cannot do that AND fire everyone at the same time. I think that a far better way would be to give the workers more decision making authority and real influence, better protection against getting fired for political and personal reasons, combined with actual scrutiny and transparency that shines a light on the actions of the administration.
That way, the workers could hold city halls feet to the fire with no fear of getting fired or silenced.
In days of old there were guilds, stone masons and organ builders guilds etc etc, and they had considerable power because they were coops. We are turning the circle at last. What was will be again. We can almost perfectly predict the future by studying the past.
You are incredible!! Wolff has educated me more than any school I ever attended. Thank you so much for what you do. I have been speaking to all my friends and family about what you teach and it has been life changing.
I’ll second that, he is brilliant.
There is a bigger chance of communism being voted into power than the Prof putting his money where his mouth is and making a Coop happen.
Dragos Coco Co-ops are already happening.
@@davidwoolnough6511 Why does the Prof not make one? It would be an example and a learning occasion.
@@dragoscoco2173 Do you really think that is a good enough critique or discussion point? It's the same as fucking saying oh your communist/anarchist then why are you working in a capitalist system then?
Come on try a little harder now
This update helped to clear up a lot of things. The way the coop is described here shows that the spirit of the Enlightenment is not completely dead yet, it is only dead inside the oligarchic enterprise and the heads of its apologists. Socialisme ou Barbarie. Liberté, égalité, fraternité vs the Hobbesian hell on earth.
Well spoken man !
@SteppenWolff100 What was dead will come alive again
@SteppenWolff100 Thanks for filling me in ; my French is not so good !
Good ideas by Mr. Wolf on worker coops. But he is forgetting that the ruling class and its military will not stand by idle without an aggressive military response where thousands of lives will be sacrificed. Its CIA,FBI, Homeland Security, city, county, state, and federal police agencies will defend with violence the super structure against all those who threaten the economic intetrsts of the capitalist ruling class. Workers' coops threaten the economic interes of the moneyed class of billionaires.
Historical experience shows that the ruling powers will not allow any fundamental social change with out a fight to the death. The problem with acadamicians is that they want to bring fundamental change solely by theory and words forgetting that fundamental socialist change will not come about without the workers arming and preparing themselves for a fight against their enemies. Good intentions are not enough to bring about fundamental social change that threatens the eonomic interes of the ruling oligarchy. Lamentable to say in the end fight to the death will ensue between the oppressors and the oppresed. That is the lesson history has shown us when one lower class threatens another dominant class. It was Lenin who said, ."The road to hell is paved with good intentions." The is no denying that Richard Woff has good intentions.
@@ricardo9976 It only needs to get worse to a certain degree then there will be a groundswell of change or violence. Preferably change without violence i.e. when like in South Africa the reigns of power was handed over without a full-out war. However the ANC never had a clear plan as to how order society to bring about a better dispensation of government ; all that changed, is the color of govt but the format is the same : a small group of kleptocrats are in power still.
But once the correct plan is formulated, a peaceful change is possible because people are tired of war and attrition. Such a plan was formulated by Dr. Rudolf Steiner by using the human body as a model for a balanced, fair and democratic society. This is not a glib model but based on Scripture as in Luke 17:21 and I'm NOT trying to smuggle in a religious angle into the mix. But from a scientific point of view that treats religion as a science NOT a system of beliefs, his views are gaining ground steadily and I dare say so far he's the ONLY scientist to come up with a blueprint based on both logic and reality : The Threefold Social Order.
You probably know the saying that - nothing is stronger that the right idea whose time has come.
It basically argues that culture, law = govt, and economy must be separated from one another to form three independent sovereign domains of which the cultural domain is the overarching one guiding the two smaller ones and note, NOT ruling but advising them coz the cultural domain would be the domain freed from politics and economic gain. It's the arena where science & wisdom dwells.
I am so happy that this program exists. Super happy that there are no commercials. Glad to support through Patreon. Worth my donation every single month!!!
One of my favorite shows. Always insightful and educational 👍
Great show as always. Considering people are suffering from lead, PFAS, pesticides, mercury, herbicides, and other factory farm waste in the general water system and do worry if the water they drink is poisoning them, perhaps your solution will solve both the water and job problem ;)
That was pretty damn good Mr Wolff, thanks.
I think that enterprise should only exist if it has a justified purpose. That is to say, an enterprise should exist to create goods and services that are needed or will be used by the community in which it serves. Enterprise should not exist for generating as much output as possible, for the purpose of seeking to capture as much revenue as possible. The current paradigm is that the enterprise makes good to sell, when they should be producing goods for the purpose of being used. We should also be striving to create goods that will last as long as possible to minimize the amount resources that are used up. This means higher quality construction, manufacturing them to be easily repaired/maintain, and making them easy to recycle when they do eventually wear out.
we used to have that mindset but then planned obsolesce took hold. look into the story about ladie's stocking hose for an excellent example of the mindset turning away from quality into quantity. they used to be able to tow trucks, now they tear if you sneeze with them on....
You got that right. 2 of the greatest evils that capitalism has pushed on us in terms of producing things, is
1) Planned obsolescence instead of building to last with higher quality and ability to be repaired; and
2) Trying to create a market for something or a desire for something that people don't even need, rather than to fill a need the people have.
These companies try to convince me that I need their product or can't live without it or should be ashamed publicly if I don't use it or feel like I'm not cool enough if I don't use it. It's all B.S. brainwashing. And I'm so sick and tired of it.
Unfortunately, as long as we have cut throat competition, there will be suffering...
As long as we have Capitalism there will be suffering
As long as we have capitalism we will have cut throat competition. And a scarcity mentality. And thoughtless destruction of the environment. And on and on.
@@RussCR5187 what's the difference between drilling for oil and digging up raw materials to make solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines?
@@ECisvotersuppression As an example let's just take solar energy over its expected lifetime, including manufacturing. A 2011 report showed that solar's carbon footprint averaged at roughly 85 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per gigawatt-hour (GWh), while natural gas and coal came in at 499 CO2e/GWh and 888 CO2e/GWh, respectively.
@@RussCR5187 that's cute but i asked you what's the difference in the PROCESS of drilling for oil and digging up raw materials to make solar panels, batteries, and wind turbines i didn't ask you to tell me the energy numbers.
I think it needs to start with education. From a very young age we're taught to be competitive, we're told to work hard in school so we can get a good job and make lots of money. We're taught more to look out for ourselves than to be good members of the community. Most of the older ppl I know hate paying tax.
A co-op is 1 employee = 1 vote, not all the same salary. The co-op can very well setup a system similar to corporation, with less inequality (highest paid employee gets 25-50 X lowest salary, instead of 200+ nowadays).
I like the ideas/solutions being discussed here... addressing income inequality, worker rights and job security + freedom to fulfill our civil duty-to cast our votes in politics with our morals, ethics, humanity intact.
To me, this kind of thinking is a direction towards the beginnings of what an advanced civilization might look like.
Right now, we are shackled to this system designed to the detriment of our own best interest, to the detriment of our communities, our society, our planet.
Capitalism’s ‘Profits First’ /Profits Above All Else makes monsters out of men.
US is the prime example of Capitalism’s unhinged exploitation (of labor, resources, power, politics, etc.)-one that always trumps morality, humanity, compassion, and ethics.
We need to reclaim our Democracy in this country starting with reclaiming the power of our vote and its ability to change the corrupt and broken system.
Instead of trying to figure out how we can survive another year, month, day in this system (by which Corporations can pull the ground from under our feet at any time/*every time* they can find cheaper labor or replace us w/machines)... let’s get in the mindset of thinking what kind of system can we build that would help secure our Democracy and secure the wellbeing of our families, our community, our society, and our planet.
So if I wanted to start such a business, where could I get the info on worker cooperative business model?
Democracy at Work Institute
U.S. Federation of Worker Cooperatives
Community-Wealth.org
probably a bunch of others too...
this list is also pretty U.S.-focused, maybe people from other countries can chime in?
SELC here on youtube, th-cam.com/users/theselctube based in California but still useful for others. Also look at your local corporative structures like B-corp or community interest corporation.
there can be no real democracy without democracy in the workplace
Thank you Professor Wolff. I am watching on 22nd March here in the UK on Mother's Day (or Mothering Sunday from my faith.) I would like to say Thank You to your dear Mother, for bringing you into our world. Thank you to her, for giving you the opportunity to share your great insights and discussions. Love from another Mum xxx
Prof Wolff keeps getting better and better. This brought some of the pieces together beautifully.
Great video! As usual! Professor Wolff your very informative and it has been very useful for me because I'm going to be part of a "Worker Cooperative" starting in April.
This episode, especially the second half, was an excellent example of how to clearly explain the benefits of changing the system. Well done, Richard.
Absolutely great architecture for your grand design for the badly needed new democratic economic system, Sir! Thank you so much!
Where do we begin with the transition? How long would it take? How long should it take?
My God this man has done so much thinking on this subject he has left me behind. I can see how this works with small enterprises but some of the huge ones like cars, ship building, energy etc getting workers to understand this is going to be difficult.
This man energizes my thought processes, and through these comments I would like to thank the Doctor.
"Getting workers to understand this is going to be difficult." I think getting younger workers on board shouldn't be too hard. Getting those of us who've had a lifetime of capitalist brainwashing switched over may be another matter entirely. Perhaps as physicist Max Planck said in reference to science, that level of progress will have to advance one funeral at a time.
@@RussCR5187 you do understand that we're currently in the 4th industrial revolution right? The days of human labor are far gone in america.
@@ECisvotersuppression Human labor far gone? Where is everyone going during rush hour?
@@RussCR5187 it's not gone completely yet but it is quickly disappearing or haven't you been paying attention?
Thanks to the critic for compelling mr Wolff to talk about this! I have heard many marxists say that they think Mr Wolff does not see socialism in the correct lense
I could see why some Marxists would dislike what he has to say, but that's because Marxist-Leninists still often believe in direct state-ownership of the means of production. Of course, this is the old way of thinking about socialism and we saw the results of giving that much economic power to the state. Professor Wolff's plans make sure that power is given to the people themselves, while preventing totalitarianism or the creation of a bureaucratic elite. Some Marxist-Leninists are stuck in the old way of thinking about socialism and they are making themselves quite frankly irrelevant by ignoring this new wave of true democratic socialism (which includes worker cooperatives as the backbone of the means of production). Regular people are finely realizing that socialism and state ownership of the means of production are not synonymous, and that what most modern socialists propose is a society with a state, but with direct worker ownership and this is a plan for a far more free society than the state capitalist societies of the past.
@@matthewmcree1992 couldnt have said it better! I fall slightly into the anarchist camp and i would prefer the market socialist aproach richard wolff proposes far over the state capitalist systems of the USSR and other "socialist" states. Markets have their flaws but that can be compensated for by the state.
@@benbrown8682 I fully agree with you. While it is still a question whether markets or democratic planning in the context of a socialist economy are better, this trend away from statist socialism is unfortunately a positive one, and the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders and Democratic Socialists of America seems far more likely to succeed anyway. Frankly, I'll happily take any form of non Soviet-style socialism over the hyper capitalism of the present, but the sort of solutions Professor Wolff has put forth seems by far the most likely to remain democratic and for that reason, I'm for pragmatic reasons on the side of this cooperative
-based movement (even as I have a natural affinity for council communism, anarchocommunism, and syndicalism). The current form of socialism that DSA and Prof. Wolff are pushing seems to be more acceptable to average people, so I'll take it. Love and solidarity comrade!
@@matthewmcree1992 love someone who can have a good convorsation! Love and solidarity
Dear Prof Wolff, an excellent explanation of the situation. You once mentioned an area, in Italy, where worker co-ops were prevalent. An in-depth discussion of this would be most interesting,
thank you very much professor, every time you upload a video makes feel hopeful about the fact maybe people would understand this elemental things that even in the everyday life they does not, to laid the posibility to all this can be a real possible change.
I've been listening to Professor Wolff for a few months and it makes complete sense what I've learned from him in that time. If he is not already doing so, I believe the most powerful and effective way to show these capitalists the way it works is to develop and manage a Co-op company himself. I don't know if he's got the time and money to do it, but that would be really awesome.
Thank you Dr. Wolff for the informative elaboration on making sure that work co-ops are successful by supporting the ones that naturally could fail for a myriad of reasons, but even if we allow some co-ops like any other private venture to fail, the failure is normal part of doing business, and if big corporations could get bailouts out of taxpayer money, then why not also co-ops? In any event, failing co-ops in a comprehensive socialist system that even supports private business should benefit everyone including big corporations, something that big corporations would not admit or likes to keep indiscrete and exclusive to big corporations!
Highly Insightful.
Hello from Switzerland; allways a pleasure to follow your thaughts, thank you! Hope, one day America will have a president of your kind.
@zama202 How I hope for that! A real president instead of a horrorclown.
This episode was very helpful and easy to understand. I am always amazed by how a good educator Prof. Wolff is.
Great video but Flint, MI still worries about its water. There are areas in California that cant use local water either ....even water is unequal.
One thing I didn't see on this talk was how to square what people actually want to do with the needs of the community. For example, how does a TV show get made in a worker's co-op society? Or a TV show production studio? If I want to start one, what, does it need to be approved by the community and other co-ops? And then what? I get allocated some of the money from the fund made from successful co-ops profits, to use as I think is necessary with regards to growing the co-op, until I have a co-owner who would then share growth decision-making responsibilities as we grow?
What if I think I have a cool idea for a show or a plan for a studio, but the community decides that it's not needed or that they just don't want one? For example, Medicare for all tends to be favored by the majority of voters, yet voters tend to support establishment candidates like Biden that are vehemently against the idea.
What if I want to write a book? I ask because the sort of things people can have a passion for can vary pretty greatly, but I'm not sure that every society would be able to support that. Would there necessarily be at least some aspect of a very normal part of a capitalist society, where many people have jobs they don't like, but do for the money? What if nobody wants to work retail or fast food?
Interesting talk Professor. Thanks for exploring some of these changes
You are deluding yourself if you think that feudalism has ended. Capitalism is feudalism by any other name. We still have kings and queens and yes, they are still in control.
The only difference between the people of today and the people of 100 years ago, 1000 years ago, and so on, it’s technology. How long are we going to help Alexander the great build his bridge so he can control the port. The behavior is the same.
The only difference is the aristocracy is "elected" by capital in a market system instead of by birth in a feudalistic system. It's a step in the right direction.
The aristocracy always chooses who is in charge. Consider this: empire is the anvil and any name prefixed upon it, withers and fades just like the hammer. It is a behavioral problem. People come and go but, the behavior remains the same.
The larger structures, it would seem to me, run the risk of becoming bureaucratic, elitist, controlling, much like in the Soviet union. How would you propose to prevent that from happening. I guess what I'm saying is that what you propose sounds like it's susceptible to top controlled power structures.
How well do you think the state works in capitalism? Maybe we should have mutualism or something.
@@guyoflife I think the state works rather poor in many cases but I think some of that is due to capitalism making it harder for the state. The good thing though is that capitalism means two separate systems that aren't dependant on each other exists. In the proposed system here the difference between government and work wouldn't really exist. And that's good, but it also means a single point of failure.
Very good thanks 👍
I would like to go through the actual process of a company shifting from a traditional infrastructure, to a workers Co-op, in an effort to become a consultant for helping more companies work through their own transitions...
Reading all the comments up to now I can not help but feel that change does not happen without motivation. One of the problem with this is that a majority and diversity windows of understanding and urgency need to be organized and enacted. The only common basis is a dedication to the democratic goal of actualizing "Liberty, Equality and Brotherhood". This has to become the focus of a majority of the people of any size of group or organization. Dr. Woolff suggest the workplace, but this is again composed of individuals who need to reach a level of understanding and integration necessary to motivate enough to invest cooperatively in planning, prioritizing and enacting the common goals and means in their pursuit of democracy. It is would become a life long and never wavering ideal and project.
Modrigon has had to deal with this given changes in consumer demand, etc. I have listend to a video of the school at Modrigon where they deal with how to upscale, downscale change products etc they have a lot of experience.
Dennis Miller - Can you share a link?
@@marktomasetti8642 It's been several years, but I think i had to find out through Modrign's website. I know they have a school that trains employee groups in ownership and management in a number of different countries, but I have not checked for a while.
Dennis Miller - ok, thanks
Thank you for the episode, Professor Wolff
i'm starting to understand why americans are afraid of socialism.
because paying all that money into that "funds" requires an awful lot of trust in the state to handle the money in a competent way. and if the current corrupt politicians are any measure, what guarantees do we have that the socialist politicians will be any more trustworthy?
what would thomas hobbes suggest if he were still around?
maybe sousveillance is the way to go? plus each and everyone of us must become even more clever, aware and enlightened. it's go on a be tough as hell.
That's why we need to take back our corrupted courts to re establish the rule of law.
Thank you Dr.Wolf
These talks are always really fascinating. It sounds extremely difficult, but these large scale things are always difficult. I really want to figure out how to start a worker co-op, but alleviate the risk of bankrupcy (which is always the highest risk of starting a company).
Rule one of business take your feelings out of the equation.
crowdsource the startup finances and incorporate the company (i think that is what its called when you legally separate the company from the people so that if the company fails or is sued or whatever, they can't reprocess your personal property or finances). don't put personal property up for colateral for loans and reinvest the profits heavily back into the company while maintaining a balance enough for everyone to still be paid enough to keep food on the table and a roof over their head. if the business fails, the workers shouldn't go bankrupt, even if the business does.
If you really wanted to know how to start one you could've simply just looked it up.
www.fastcompany.com/3042716/watch-this-video-to-learn-how-to-start-a-worker-cooperative
Hello prof Wolff. Are you familiar with the work of Bernard Friot, french economist? He deals with how to manage a post employement society
Dr. Wolff! Could you please tell us whether or not yesterday's DOW plunge is indicative of a downturn to the broader economy?
I love these
I suggest to add the suppliers to the equation of the parties affected by a workers coop operation.
At the moment I think some form of socialism would be a step in the right direction. Where we need to go however is completely get away from the need for money at all. We don't need it, we have all the resources we need, in fact we are extremely wasteful of our resources which, on a finite planet, are indeed limited. Instead we need to base our civilisation on a rescue based economy. Learn more: www.thevenusproject.com
There are interesting socialist ideas of how to get rid of money as well. The oldest and most developed idea is labour credits/vouchers. Paul Cockshott combines it with a democratic planned economy in "Towards A New Socialism" (free pdf online, just search for it)
@@LibertarianLeninistRants Labour credits would be the equivalent of money. No matter how you twist and turn it, with or without interest, with or without a basic income. It's all money or currency and would ultimately lead to some having much while many have little.
Humanity has tried one system after the other and all thus far have failed to provide for all in an equitable way. All of them involved some kind of money or barter or currency. It's time to try something totally different.
@@StevenKHarrison _"Labour credits would be the equivalent of money. No matter how you twist and turn it, with or without interest, with or without a basic income. It's all money or currency and would ultimately lead to some having much while many have little. "_
They are significantly different from money. First of all - for one hour of work you get one hour voucher. Secondly, they are not or only limited transferrable. They have your name on it, so you can't just give it to someone else. This is a major difference to money.
And thirdly, the things you can buy with labour vouchers in a socialist economy are only consumer goods. You can't invest them.
So unless you show me how with all these three things you can end up with unjust inequality, I really don't know how you can say its the same. The only thing I can imagine is by saving up over the course of your life the labour credits you earned...but for what? I mean you can't buy something that big because everything that needs that much labor to produce would be under the control of the society already.
Don't get me wrong, the labor voucher system is only the step towards abolishing money alltogether. But its a good intermediate step
@@LibertarianLeninistRants Labor vouchers sound good, but when we try to implement them, we bump into the glaring logical flaws of the Labor Theory of Value. How can anyone determine the value generated by drastically different activities? Or will one hour of brain surgery get the same amount of vouchers as one hour of coding or theatrical acting? Even the question of what activities constitute labor is blurry.
It almost seems to me that abolishing money without transition is less of a hassle as long as careful attention is given to basic human necessities and a drastic reduction of the work day. Then people will have the time and energy to figure out what they want.
@@billyoldman9209 _"How can anyone determine the value generated by drastically different activities? Or will one hour of brain surgery get the same amount of vouchers as one hour of coding or theatrical acting?"_ We calculate in standard labor; so we take the overall productivity of the society per hour and divide it by the amount of people who worked in that hour. So yes, one hour of brain surgery is one hour of labor; one hour of coding is one hour of labour, etc.
Does this mean that all of these different kinds of labor are worth the same? Yes, everyone performing one hour of labor gives up one hour of their life. Why should the individual be compensated for anything except what they put into the economy? In capitalism people make the argument that in order to become a doctor you need to pay a lot for education. In socialism that simply doesn't apply. The education is given to the people for free. A higher compensation of the individual should only be possible if the work is really more intensive than the average...and that could be done per workplace. Say for example in a bike factory there are 5 people, total work hours being 20 per week per person, but 1 of these 5 is doing better while 2 others are doing worse than the average. Then these 5 workers could divide up the total productivity that their workplace has contributed to the overall economy among themselves. So f.e. the person doing more than 10% better than the average gets 10% more compensation, the person doing 5% worse than the average gets 5% less. But the workers decide collectively about these smaller chances. All of this is explained better and in more detail in the book "Towards a New Socialism", which I highly highly highly recommend you to read. Seriously, this is the book I recommend everyone. It's available for free online.
_"Even the question of what activities constitute labor is blurry."_ That is true. For example can the domestic economy (household and so on) be also counted as work. There are interesting discussions going on about this in marxist discourse.
_"a drastic reduction of the work day."_ That is exactly what I think we should focus on as well. You know, expansion of the "realm of freedom" in the marxist sense (Capital Volume 3, in the chapter of the trinity formula). And its also touched upon in Towards a New Socialism
2 questions: 1. The example with the ice cream cones - 2 given to one child, then have to redistribute one of those cones to the other child who had none. Problem now is that there are "children" who have 100 cones and 100 "children" who have none. How do we get to the worker coop system when such extreme inequality exists without redistributing the wealth.
2. If one worker coop is highly successful and another is a failure, how do you maintain incentives for workers to work hard if they perceive that they work hard, but see most of the proceeds of their hard work going to subsidize the "slackers" in the other coop that is failing? This is core to Ayn Rand's arguments (which are imperfect, but are idolized) My Own thoughts: Maybe we institute a universal basic income to provide a subsistence level within society, to remove the fear of losing the job, losing the income. Then worker coops are implemented to replace capitalist businesses (do we nationalize them?) The coops are taxed at a high rate, with the taxes going to the governmental fund used for providing services (education, defense, highways, energy, telecommunications, Medical /Health care AND reserves for helping generate new coops, helping transition/rejuvenate/repurporse failing coops. The coop that is highly successful has some residual "profit" (but call it something else) that they then can divide amongst members of the successful coop as achievement bonus, providing incentive to workers to achieve and work hard instead of being slackers. This is not a perfect idea, but is this not on the right track?
Professor Wolff for Secretary of Labor.
Thanks for covering this
12:36 That's the kind of thing that makes most people prefer capitalism.
If you go around telling people what they should do for a living, they'll simply give you the finger and leave.
It's not a matter of having a job (most people don't even like their jobs)... it's a matter of letting people follow their heart, their passion, their dream, etc.
Individual freedom is the one thing capitalism got right... even if it's just an illusion sometimes.
Any society that denies individual freedom is a failure in the eyes of its members.
Suppose that we have an economic crisis and 10% of the worker co-ops are in bankruptcy. What if the workers from the other 90% of the worker co-ops chose, democratically, not to help the 10% that are in trouble?
The solution .... the need of a dictator.
That was the reasoning of Lenin. He arrived in Russia with the slogan "Give the power to the soviets" and ended with the drowning of the Kronstadt sailors' uprising.
And with Stalin that killed or deported millions of better of farmers for the crime of being a little more successful than others in the village.
The only true socialist society that passed the test of time is the family.
Good debate on Democracy Now!
Both positions have validity but I side with flicking the 'I don't give a switch' and educating Americans about European socialism vs. Venezuelan socialism.
I love the ideas about a society where we figure out how to share, but this theory doesn't take into account the greedy nature of human beings. Take the example of the two kids and the ice cream cones. Suppose the parent gave each one a cone from the beginning. Even though it's not true, one of the kids will claim the other got more ice cream on his/her cone. Or one will think that because they were older or male, or female, or blond, or whatever, that they deserved both cones in the first place. The theory all sounds great, but how do you account for with the greedy nature of people--people who will do everything they can to undermine the system because they believe they are entitled to more?
not "greedy" but id say more "survivalist" and about the kids all of that is created by the parents not. not human nature. if there is enough for everyone people won´t fight for their part.
That's a fact and it'll create even more chaos.
Hello Mr. Wolff My name is David, Im good friend of Dante Dallaville and Mike Palmieri. Ive been really hoping somebody cant dive deep into a mechanics field look at how we get paid, Being Flate Rate and how its suppose to be used as a motivator when its really just an underpayer. I want to really work at opening a Co-op shop. But maybe you could look into Flate rate and do a video.I love to be involved are do any kind of footwork on this
Ty
Yes very useful ! Co ops are hope for us the majority ✊ but where to start?
I love your work, Mr. Wolff.
Fantastic episode.
Broadcast from a studio. What is the backgound? Profession help is good to hire coworkers.👍
This is a great lecture. It answers many questions.
It seems that work cop ups are too complicated and even risky to try everywhere at once. They seem to demand more knowledgeable and active workers.
It may need experimentation to develop successful working models to be eventually injected into the larger economy.
good to see you on democracy now trying to debate krugman recently
canada already has a large scale tax system that is supposed to support the provinces as the economics change over time, like how prof wolff describes in his distribution between co ops section of the video. except people aren't happy about it or even see it as anything different then from taking one of their ice cream cones to give to a sibling. alberta right now has been gnashing about separatism over it recently in fact, ever since the oil isn't doing so well anymore they've gotten quite loud about it too. it certainly doesn't seem to be getting ahead of negative feelings about redistribution even though it is just taxes. is there something different about how canada spreads its ice cream cones around their provinces and territories? something they are doing wrong? is it some lack of education or effect of capitalist propaganda? is it because they've named that aspect of the tax system equalization payments and so the optics get skewed the problem? or am i not understanding the concept correctly here? genuinely confused about this aspect of the video here.
I get what you're saying about how governments shouldn't be redistributive, that profits al around communities should go all around the community in the first place. That's great, I agree. But the thing is that as of right now things are so unbalanced that redistribution's a thing that's going to need to happen so the community (locally and globally) can even have a chance to heal and start working right again. If this were your analogy, you have already given the first child two ice creams and stiffed the second child. Okay, we know what we SHOULD have done, but now it's too late. What do we do now?
We've determined that it is not socially acceptable to own people, but okay to rent them. When we make the decision that people engaging in an enterprise (including labor) are partners, then we can transition to a cooperative-based society.
There are ways to transition capitalist enterprises legislatively via tax incentives and labor laws. Not all will transition, but they will not be taxed favorably.
When tenure translates into equity, workers will essentially gain their "time" back via continued dividend income and the opportunity to liquidate shares, creating a capital infusion that can be used to do what they wish.
There are many examples of people doing productive and amazing things for no compensation. Generally, these are folks who are retired, or are otherwise supported in order to accomplish these tasks. When more people have their time back, more people will do the same. Capitalist enterprises (and cooperatives) will have to compete with them.
The long term social ramifications of guaranteeing workers equity based on tenure and democratic control of workplaces would be revolutionary. The dynamics of society as a whole would change. Exactly how is hard to predict, especially at the threshold of intense technological advancement.
The discussion of command/control economy is a strawman/distraction. The real issue is capital/labor relations. It always has been.
Great. Glad to see Dr Wolf support state socialism. Just make all of the coops state owned but worker managed, and that will solve most issues. That way the state can control employment directly, and can decide if it needs to be a large coop for purposes of scale, or it can be broken up into smaller coops distributed across the nation more equally.
LOL Hilarious comment bro. It almost sound legit. But unfortunately you are the right wing troll not me and you are a bad one at that. Especially with all those completely unfounded assertions and claims. Sounds like you better start hitting the books rather than be on youtube kid. None of that shit has anything to do with facts.
If you are sincere then how about reading these books on state ownership
(Hanna, 2018) Our Common Wealth: The Return of Public Ownership
(Cumbers, 2012) Reclaiming Public Ownership: Making Space
(Sawyer, 2002) A Future for Public Ownership
The failures in Eastern Europe had nothing to do with the ownership arrangement. Each country had their own unique issues and problems. For example, the problem in the USSR was central planning. Who owns the means of production is neutral on economic activity. And im also not for total state ownership that would be absurd. Of course small businesses should be able to be owned independently. Medium sized businesses can be owned by the workers as coops. All others should be state owned, especially the ones with huge profit margins, natural resources, natural monopolies, etc. The state needs more direct control over profits and employment rather than just having taxes.
Most of what you say is false. Even the Soviet Union had independent trades workers who were self employed. Ownership was not the problem input/output planning was. You can have state owned businesses and a market. You can state ownership and planning and centralized decision making, but you can also have state ownership and market competition and worker decision making. There are a variety of was to organize production
False again. Boy you are full of falsehoods. There are plenty of examples of businesses owned by the state but have worker decision making.
Always a pleasure to Like prof Wolff's insights! Into the algorithm my Like goes!
Imma try and work things out on my own!
Long story short: Willy Wonka with a coop brings the skills, Bill Gates with a hierarchy is stuck selling over priced ice cream with his monopoly.
It's difficult to escape short term thinking. Even Govs seem to have trouble with this. Immediate benefits, such as roads/hospitals/schools being built, I can understand. A future guarantee of retraining if a job isn't needed I... sorta hope works? But let's consider the given example some more: sharing what we have is something I was taught growing up, as it avoided strife between siblings, but there was more to it than that. Single children don't have that experience... they always get two cones, so to speak. They would have to share with a stranger, which is a good way to make friends. So we must try and extend this example to cover coops that may produce the same product, and otherwise compete. I don't find congruence between these relationships: one is the producer of the ice cream, the other is the consumption of the ice cream. Naturally, we want the kids to get the best ice cream. So the 2nd place ice cream maker must lower his price to compete, makes less money; so some kids get less than best ice cream, as that is all they can afford. The poor, honest folk who always have a budget for soap, but not necessarily food, as Terry Pratchett put it. Meanwhile, the kid who can buy, or steal, ALL the best ice cream is busy making friends... (this seems familiar now).
But what of the case of super production? The ice cream maker is suddenly making SO much ice cream, that the price can be free, or near that. They can't give it away fast enough. Maybe they take donations. He or she just wants friends, and doesn't care about the money too much. Doesn't need to. In fact, he only cares about having the best ice cream, as this is what allows him to make friends in the community! So we have abundance and quality at once. This is a special case, but one we are moving towards as we harness more and more energy and production grows.
So, let's posit that Willy Wonka leads one such company as a coop, while Bill Gates controls another, as a hierarchical setup. Both have equally good ice cream. Which one opens the sluice gates and floods the world with free ice cream? Gates wishes to control prices, doesn't he? He needs to control the workers who produce the ice cream somehow. He even takes comfort in the mass of accumulated ice cream, as it guarantees there will always be a trickle he can sell! Like some hydro project gone wrong. Madness.
Wonka on the other hand, what does he do? A lot of hungry, hot people, way too much ice cream, seems reasonable to conclude that Willy Wonka will do the sane thing and flood the world with ice cream. For friendship and maybe donations. Maybe if you want a personalized flavour, you can pay him, and he floods the world with it afterwards. No longer do we lack ice cream. It's solved, just like drinking water is available from the tap.
Both Gates and Wonka then move on to other projects... which one would you rather support? Let's say it's curing cancer. Gates, the drop-out, will give you some of "his" ice cream from "his" dam if you solve it for him. It's good ice cream... but Gates has a LOT of reading to do before he knows what to do about cancer. So he sorta spreads "ice cream" around, wily nilly. He has a big media following. Wonka will try his bestest to solve it together with his friends: they'll put in the long hours and the chemistry know-how they already have. For... friendship...? Maybe they ask for donations? Maybe the profit motive fails before the benefit motive. I don't know.
So, huh, it seems we come across the idea that coops DO support one another, once production reaches a critical point, so long as their are problems to solve and friendships to be made. Markets fail when super production enters the picture. Not just fail, but create artificial scarcity and dangerous "ice cream" dams when capitalism oversees production. Coops can deal with super production better than hierarchical companies can. They can flood a market with goods and ask for donations to meet possible costs. They also rely not just on other coops, not just on governments, but on the people themselves. Not only that, but Coops can apparently deal with MORE problems than a typical capitalist can, as it's expertise that ultimately runs the show, not money.
Hmm, I'm not sure my tower of cards holds up. S'nice tho. There is another way to run the world. Wonka or Gates. Madness or sanity. Which is which?
Sorry for the rough 1st paragraph. Anyway, have a nice day and... may your world be pure imagination.
-- TH-cam should be a Coop! We all contribute Uploads, Likes, Reports and Analytics! One for all, all for one!
Isn't this just moving the resentment from the kids to the coop level?
I agree with everything you say and the topic definitely need someone to put light on it but how is this "an economic UPDATE"? Nothing updated about that - it's the same every time since long time. Seems like I am watching the same video over and over again. Even now with such things happening in the world, I expected at least that something new will be added - how the Chineese economy would affect the global economy and the possible recession as a consecuence of the coronavirus but there is nothing about that - it's all the same since ever. This video might of been made a year ago, easily, and noone would know.
Also we already get it's an unfair system and world, but what can we do now with that information? How can we change that since we are not the politicians who invent the rules? It would be nice to hear some offers and solutions, not just ¨everything is so bad and unfair¨.
Greetings! I really admire you!
You have to look at his video logs. He has lot's of videos on what you are describing. Also on a wide range of topics with other speakers. I like Dr. Harriet to get a women's perspective on things you can start there then continue on. Prof. Wolff usually gives history lessons on other movements and what they did to get things done. You can adopt some of these tactics along with your own to help reach a goal. For example the yellow vest movement in France. You can see their tactics and adopt what works. There are many others as well. Pick what works best for you and your goals then fight.
@@DragonflyJones-u6u But his 'bottom line' is invariably that the more productive people/companies/ventures need to subsidize the less productive.
@@clarestucki5151 Not only subsidize but not repeating the same strategies/systems that got them there in the first place. Transitioning the actual system not just reallocation of resources. Like every system in history there will be problems with those less productive. You don't destroy them by competition of who ever gains the most resources. Then in turn one usurps the other. You build them as a collective by having better distribution and production. Most likely of something that is required by societal needs.
Co ops are the key!
My take here is that the basic needs will be covered by automatic entities (robots, automatic machines, etc) so, basic needs as food, shelter, transport, clothe, etc will be TOTALLY covered. the "Job" wil not NOT longer be a way to survive, but a way to improve the society and the individual.
Some may thing that it's impossible, but in real, we are almost there, but since Capitalism induces a poor redistribution of the wealth seems to more complex that it is really.
At the end, when Humanity has conquered the control of the matter, things as food or cloth SHOULD be trivial...
Just love this example of capitalism and socialism.
A robust Social Welfare/social investment set of programs is vital. Not as options but as Guarentees.
Housing, Healthcare, Food, Higher Education, and Jobs Guarentee!
Coincide that with Worker Co-operatives that have consumer and public input and oversight as well as Public Banking.
On the Social front I think multi-racial, mixed income Co-housing is the way forward to rebuild capital 'C': Community.
will there be room for private business which does not follow the co-op model within the context that the government creates? if not, this sounds like an easy, I might even say inevitable, path to State socialism.
also, I want to work at the co-op where they chill, have many long breaks and a ton of paid vacation every year; I like to take it easy, and I appreciate the coop down the road picking up the slack for me. Thanks.
Moving away from a profit driven economy will enable us to take it with easy many long breaks and a ton of paid vacation every year, while still being able to produce all the necessities for a comfortable life... no need for anyone to pick up the slack
@@UDLXXL cool, I hope, for the sake of my kids, that it works.
@@johnbuckner2828 well we need to do something different than what we're doing now... maybe worker Co-ops aren't the solution and no system is flawless, but what we have isn't working so let's try something else. For the sake of all our kids
@@UDLXXL Yang had some pretty good solutions; maybe CNN will be a decent conduit for his ideas. We'll see.
This is exactly was FDR wanted to do during the depression.
You have to have a marketable skill, and improve constantly. Your self esteem will be high enough at that point, that fear of losing a job is no big deal.
Guys got big dreams, you can’t get 5 people to agree on one thing.
Thanks Doc
Bottom line of today's show is that the more successful (meaning more productive) enterprises, whether they be capitalist or co-op, need to subsidize the less productive enterprises, in order to achieve equality of income and wealth among all groups and all people. The obvious problem with that is, it produces equality at a much lower level than productive people are willing to tolerate.
That's probably true, for as long as equality is only measured in terms of income and wealth. That's one of my problems with capitalism. Pretty much everything gets valued in terms of dollars or euros or whatever.
I am a HUGE fan of Richard Wolf, but the ice cream redistribution analogy flat doesn't work for me. Taxation redistributes income. The question is in which direction. Currently the income is being sucked up.
Additionally, the job opportunities that might be good for coops are being removed by automation and foreign competition.
Andrew Yang's UBI may well become a necessity.
It's so simple. It's called knowledge of God and a loving spiritual philosophy ! love to all!
I want Richard to debate Destiny so badly
Hey Dr. Wolff, thank you for all you do! Worst week at the stocks since 2008 financial crisis. Wondering what it could mean, wondering what this could entail. Could you talk about it? Thank you!
Saying "poor to the rich" was totally a slip up, but he just played it off cool af hahaha
The co-op structure may be the future form of state-owned coorporations in China. At least, I hope a more efficient way would be found to tax and distribute the tex properly among those co-ops or state-owned coorporation.
Worker cooperatives as they are could compete better should government support for capitalist corporations simply stop.
At 23:00. Why can't you tie it all together with MMT? With the authority to create money for the peoples prosperity and the right to tax businesses and individuals who are wasting or hording resources because they have too much. If you think spending is constricted by taxes you're undermining the entire case that co-ops are macroeconomically beneficial. You dont have to have coops responsible for failure, thats money people earned, why not create new money to help beneficial enterprises period. We dont need the rich ppls money.
A job as a "human right"... lol Let just hope that the enchanted unicorns start producing those jobs!
It seems to me that education will be an important component in the making of worker co-ops. However, there will always be some individuals who will, for lack of a better way to put it, smarter than most. What should the brightest among us be entitled to? What should the most vulnerable expect? How do we allow everyone to live a dignified life?
The simplest form of taxation is sales tax. All other taxes will be scrapped and only sales tax will be implemented. And no article can be sold as secondhand and charged with vat again.
About businesses ; they won't be sold as "a going concern" but transferred to the next most competent person to oversee the business. To manage a big concern is a considerable skill not to be underestimated.
The democratization of the workplace is a misplacing of the legal domain's driver into the economic domain. The economy is driven by cooperation first then expertise & merit... not equality. We cannot escape the hierarchical nature of the economy. But that don't mean that we mistreat those on the lower rung of the economic ladder, NO ! We are all guided by the brotherly nature of the economy i.e. we help those that need help and Govt = the law, ensures that all workers are protected from exploitation.... THAT'S democracy's task. But inside the economy, only expertise and experience can guide matters of production. It's unthinkable to be different ; we simply cannot let an apprentice take charge of complicated production process. But nothing stops him from achieving that level of skill and even more - but he'll have to prove that to a jury of his peers.
It's important to see that because law depends on profit to survive, they most definitely would not want crime to stop. If you miss this point you'll b unable to picture future law practice.
your presentation should involve and showcase a community
here in state of maharashtra there were co-operatives but our system the top administration the rbi and the the rulers at the center had different ideas and never came with all-out support to the co-operative ventures
the result this isn't well-managed and corporates thrived
the problem with the Left today in general, is "change". you mister wolff and the left in general never discuss the coming of the job automation like never seen before. the AI and the emerging digital economy. give us anything about No Job paradigm not only forcing this "job" mentality by all means on us.
You really need to check out the work put out by British economist Aaron Bastani in his work "Fully automated luxury communism" where he addresses everything you just complained about
Problem solved ...what could possibly go wrong with this theory?
💥💪🏽👍🏼
For the change to work from the work place, the co-op, a lot of personal changes have to be brought about through some form of educational agenda and process. Organized has voluntary, recommended, prerequisited, obligatory or recommended would have to be decided. Individuals within societies having a propensity to prioritize their own needs and wants before those of others would need to evolve from that drive. How can the work place bring this about? How can it encourage and promote such an evolution peacefully? Wouldn't Logic and Sentiment clash?
I wonder if one of the first steps toward a less selfish society should be to adopt a Federal Job Guarantee Program offering all unemployed people who are willing and able to work a job paying a minimum but living wage. The goal of the living wage would be to free people from having to scratch and claw to simply put food on the table, a roof over their heads, and so on. People whose basic comfort needs are satisfied can afford to be a bit more charitable in their outlook. The proponents of Modern Monetary Theory have proposed just such a system. For details, type "MMT job guarantee" into the TH-cam search box.
Let me guess you want "reeducation camps" (concentration camps) for those who don't comply with your demands and if they still reject your ideology use the firing squad?😁
@@RussCR5187 so to "help" ppl you want to pay them the least amout of money possible for their labor because that's what MINIMUM wage is by law and definition.
@@ECisvotersuppression You're jumping to conclusions without having researched the topic as I suggested. The Jobs Guarantee Program serves as a buffer stock of labor for the regular economy. It offers a minimum wage for those who cannot find a job. Training is also part of the deal. When the training is finished or the economy improves, the worker will then look for a regular job and move back into the workforce at competitive wages. One big advantage to this approach is that it addresses the fact that employers don't like to hire people who have been out of work for a while. With this program, they won't be out of work.
@@RussCR5187 did you just contradict yourself just now without even realizing it? What's that difference between that program and what we currently have at this very moment where ppl are currently working for minimum wage and can then choose to get training to find a job for competitive wages where they have job placement programs upon completion of said training?
Большое спасибо.
Yeah... The job guarantee will get me a new job that is paid as good as the old one, but wait a minute! When I‘m an owner of a piece of my worker co-op and it goes bankrupt, what happens to that? Will I have to come up with the money the co-op owes some banking co-op?
I think the discussion really needs to be about how to democratize banking and what to do about bankruptcy. The job guarantee is already accepted by wide parts of the left.