The people who are requesting these questions and Prof. Wolff’s responses are always on point. Nuanced, enlightening, and exactly what the world (especially the US) needs. I’m so grateful for this program!
@@jgalt308 , in this video I guess he didn’t offer as much of a decisive clear answer to the question as other videos. But to be fair, it’s not entirely clear how monopolies would behave under a market socialist economy anyway. He gave as about of a clear answer as one could, which is that competition and cooperation in market socialism would behave differently because the goals of worker cooperatives are different than capitalist business. And while there may or may not be similar tendencies for monopolization under market socialism, there are some potential ways of dealing with it (he lists some options, namely restricting my size of cooperative or % of market share). But I think what I’m impressed about the most about the question handling monopolies under socialism is that it is a question/critique commonly made by socialists who do not favor markets. It’s nice to hear someone take on their question/critique head on.
@@johnlewis1333 Actually the real problem is that all economic isms require continued growth on a planet where the limits have already been exceeded so there are no solutions that can be derived from attempting to advance the idea that one system is a solution to the ills of another and such efforts are both a misdirection and a distraction from the real work that must be done. If this continues nature will provide the solution and those in control will seek the most expedient remedy to extend for themselves what minimal time remains. This is already taking place and appropriately disguised as necessary protection...so the only question that remains is how long the masses will remain oblivious to this reality, and in what direction will they vent their desperation.
@@JoeSims1776 P.S. This was the actual question! A Patron of Economic Update asks: "How do you prevent monopolies without the use of government? Furthermore, how does a socialist mode of production prevent monopolies from forming? Or would government intervention still be a necessary function? Is this because socialism is usually predicated on the idea of cooperation instead of competition, or would this require a shift in the paradigm of how we conduct our business?"
@@jgalt308 Do you really go around the internet searching to debate topics you don't really understand? (Edit: Richard Wolf is very precise in his language. When he talks about socialism he talks about a capitalist economy owned by cooperatives. Companies owned by their employees. Abolishing the goverment is a future follow up that leads to communism.
No, that is not brutal and abusive enough. We need homelessness, bankruptcies, slums, food banks, uneducated, prisons instead of helping, charities to justify religion. If you take all of that away, it will be utter chaos.
@@benjaminrao3274 Kind of a mix. Good stuff like: no unemployment, cheap housing, sense of community etc. Bad stuff like: centralisation of power, pollution. I would love to live in a system like the paris commune, bavarian "Räterepublik" or what the left had in the spanish civil war.
Thank you, very good explanation. I was however wondering how the possibly low amount of employees would prevent a monopoly. If we look at online services, such as Facebook, a relatively small number of employees could conceivably take over a whole market. Also, if we look beyond the enterprise, and agreed as a society to guarantee certain goods and services "for free", running the whole thing centrally, but in a democratized way, it would become a monopoly of our own making... But would it be bad?
It would only be bad under a pure capitalist or crony capitalist state system. If the agreed upon monopoly is regulated by the people for the people's interest in a real democratic fashion I don't see how the monopoly could be a self serving entity. The issues with monopoly in a capitalist system is that a capitalist system is completely fine with private tyranny, which is what a corporation or monopoly in this day and age is.
I agree that it seems a small company might take over a whole market. Also, when you essentially say "we'll put rules in place to stop the bad thing from happening" a problem is always that companies with a lot of money, even if small, can use it to change the rules. Even with democratically run companies it might happen that employees vote to do things that benefit their company vs. other companies just like a single owner or board of directors would do. But I don't have any better answers for these sorts of issues.
One thing to note is I feel like monopolies would be far less likely to occur under socialism, or at least the socialism you describe (so not including "socialist" State Capitalist monopolies), simply because of the way scaling works differently: under capitalism, since profit is revenue minus expenses, if you open up a second factory or store or what have you, and double the revenue while doubling labor and other costs, you double profit, incentivizing expansion and acquisition under capitalism. Under socialism, the pay of a worker would be (revenue - expenses - retained assets ect)/# workers (for simplicity I'm assuming each worker gets an equal share, but it applies the same if this isn't the case), so if you double revenue, double expenses and double the number of workers the pay of a worker would be roughly the same, so there'd be less incentive for expansion and acquisition. There'd still probably be some economy of scale, but I think you'd be less likely to see monopolies, in favor of probably federations that pool knowledge, technical standards and/or brand iconography, akin to something like a democratically managed franchising operation.
What I find intriguing is people criticise Socialism but use the practices and Assets of Socialism such as Parks or Public Buildings or facilities to climb up the social ladder.
Prof. Wolff, I have a question. In your Democratic socialist world, who would be insentivived to START a business? Government? An entrepreneur? A co-op? I am legitimately asking.
I fear your words fall on ears that don't comprehend more than struggle and entertainment, professor. But at least somebody attempts to explain and educate in these concepts. So winning I suppose.
I have thought about this.. In a socialist economy, to enhance competition, a dominant "company" which produces a higher quality product (or service)or a less costly product (or service) of similar quality would be tasked with educating and enhancing or "bringing up to speed" the less competitive "companies" and be rewarded financially for it. In other wards the institutions of research and education would be staffed by representatives of the more competitive sectors, and receive higher compensation so "companies" competing remain competitive.
In a Socialist Society, would we get rid of the concept of Patents? I had a Libertarian friend who argued we need to get rid of Patents. I told him it was politically impossible in our Capitalist Society.
@@jgalt308 what is nonsensical? Having patents? Or suggesting it was politically impossible to get rid of patents in our Capitalist Society? My Libertarian friend explained to me the importance of everything being privately owned in his anarcho-capitalist society. It made sense Capitalists would want to own ideas. The Capitalist argument, for patents, is to recover the research and development costs. His argument was, one wasn't stealing something when one made a copy of it so patents should not exist. My question is subtly different. Patents are a way to create artificial scarcity by restricting the use of an idea. My anarcho-capitalist friend saw ownership as having the right to use something; he didn't like the Patent idea of restricting the use of something, namely an idea. In a Socialist Society, for the good of the Socialist Society, would we want to create artificial scarcity? I also feel any research that is government funded should belong to society as a whole and should not be patentable, but that is a separate issue.
@@RichardSewill So between the two of you that's the best you got as a solution to the potential problems that might arise? First off, for funding government research, what is the motivation to complete the task? Secondly patents have a limited life, unlike copyrights which have been extended several generations and there are abuses and loopholes there also. ( also I am not clear on how you "patent" an idea ) And once again the problem arises with government. So to prevent both problems, you simply calculate the actual costs of research, which doesn't exist if the government funded it, and grant recovery fees, plus a small licensing fee to the inventor for each unit produced...for a specified period of time...this prevents any attempted scarcity and invites competition from anyone who wants to produce the product. "" as well as improve upon it." Also for government funded research once the funding has been used up, all research, notes, records and experiments, become government property and can be made part of the public record, so that anyone can take a look and learn what doesn't work...and maybe pursue the idea on their own. Of course there are already huge problems connected to all research, papers and the like, along with journals and peer review...and that is the failure to re-produce the claimed results, because nobody gets paid to perform this function. But then government isn't very good at doing anything it's supposed to do and has become a criminal entity in its own right as well as aiding and abetting the criminal activity of corporations...which is a whole nother conversation.
@@jgalt308 yes, the problem arises with government. Capitalism creates the government we have. Capitalism didn't like the feudal form of government. Try and get rid of government, and Capitalism will create its own Hanseatic League to protect trade and protect its interests and property. Anarcho-capitalists will use euphemistic words like private defense agencies. The biggest private defense agencies will be capitalist owned militias. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is another name for government. Scarcity is not prevented. For others to use the patent, they must license the patent. Whatever happened to the commercialization of large NiMH batteries? What did the U. S. Auto Battery Consortium do? What did Texaco Chevron do with Toyota and the RAV E4? We are fortunate Lithium batteries came along. Who says government isn't very good at doing anything it's supposed to do? Richard Wolff already had a video explaining government does what people controlling government want government to do. Government is a tool. We don't have government worry about the profit motive when government spends huge sums on the military. Who wants the military we have, anyway? I don't. I would design a smaller military able to defend us, but not attack others. Instead, our government has hundreds (a thousand or more?) military bases spread all over the world because the wealthy want those military bases to defend their interests. Yes, government has become a criminal entity because of who controls it. You think you would do better should you come to power? First, you wouldn't stay in power long. Some greedy cuss would create the biggest, meanest private defense agency to protect his interests and ride rough-shod over anyone who disagrees with him or might potentially threaten him. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, it is government the greedy cuss will create. You, and Richard Wolff, appeal to the good side of human nature. There is also a frightened, acquisitive side of human nature waiting. It's why I applaud the idea of co-ops, but don't see co-ops as a perfect solution. A co-op, to me, is like politics. We start with one person, one vote. We get to political parties and representative democracy. We end with a minority seizing control of the political party with the majority of the political party following along like lemmings. I can't see what prevents what happens with political parties not happening to co-ops. Look what happened to the Republican Party. It is not the Republican Party any more. It is Trump's Party. Look what happened to the Democratic Party. It is a neo-liberal party shaped by Clinton and the establishment Democrats.
@@RichardSewill That is a convenient and false understanding of both the past and the present, and capitalism wasn't available to create this government for when it was formed the country was largely agrarian and the constitution was inconvenient for both the centralising inclininations of government and what existed of the elite upper classes as well as the forces of industrialization, which inspired the rise of the corporation, it's evolution and the transformation of the country and government itself...but the cause has always been the same, and originates with those who control the credit and or money system and this influence was largely resisted here, beginning with Jackson who thwarted Rothschild's efforts in the 30" and Lincoln who also resisted them when faced with financing the war. But the war itself was a major step toward a far stronger federal government and the fourteenth amendment laid the foundation for corporate rights and the game was on and FDR would end it on March 9, 1933...with gold confiscation and de facto fiat which produced constant inflation followed by making the constitution irrelevant in 1939 when the inevitable slide to the present began. The thing is the constitution is still there because actually changing it would require "amendments" which would not have prevailed so a fraudulent deception was devised to circumvent it and was subtle enough and gradual enough that it escaped the attention of the only force capable of confronting it, the people and they remain completely ignorant, even though the effects are obvious and getting worse. As for your attempted comparison of me to Wolff that is hilarious for I have no such expectation of my fellow humans who are acting as they always did and will no doubt continue for it is a built in function of human nature and exists across the spectrum of all humans, and the only difference is between those in control and those who are not and the numbers of those who benefit versus those who are excluded....compounded by the numerous factions of us and them, upon which maintaining the status quo depends. Unfortunately those in control are not a monolithic entity for there are numerous factions there as well...and this, however one chooses to describe it is not capitalism, for the private ownership of the means of production allowed wealth to gained by individuals who were not part of the ruling class producing the only alternative to a central authority other than overthrowing it by force. But the government writes the rules and enforces them so they are the central problem and the reality is they no longer have claim to legitimate authority and as soon as the effort is directed at exposing this the sooner government can be re-directed to performing its legitimate function...all else is distraction and a waste of time, and there is little time left.
In our capitalist society, we have regulated monopolies such as the the utility company. We don't want multiple companies digging up the streets, each laying their own pipes. Would we have regulated monopolies in a socialist society?
@ prof Wolff: How would you judge Yugoslavian socialism and the constitutional right of self government from bottoms up (Kardelj's 74 consitution)? As an economist and historian.
How does one implement democracy in a company, if leadership decides who is part of the company? What would stop a majority opinion group getting rid of all workers in a minority opinion group in a company? Would you give voting right perpetually to people having worked in this company? In that case, could they become toxic voters that try to cause harm to the company they aren't part of? I see that many unions"solve" this issue with a "last-in-first-out" clause, but this discourages effort in my experience. I would not want to save workers from rapacious slave drivers to push them into the arms of laziness and apathy.
Great video Professor Wolff!! On another note: I wonder if Socialism has INFLATION or does their system naturally get rid of it? .. And if inflation does exist, how would it handle it??
you can govern a nation through democracy. but not a corporation. a corporation has a single purpose , to trade goods or service for money. it regards its share-holders as people, all others as prey. democracy in the nation is necessary, for rule by elite is never just, and usually oppressive, a commercial enterprise can be and usually is, run to make a profit for the owners. co-ops are possible, and exist in the current 'capitalist' economy, but they do not flourish. they do not have access to capital, so can not grow quickly. they are therefore liable to be suffocated by the most competent organizations from the 'publicly owned' competition. co-ops are not political organizations, they can never defend their members from the state. they can flourish in a democracy by nourishing citizenship in the people. get democracy first, use initiative to shape the nation, probably into some kind of socialism.
Is it illegal to start a workers owned company now? In a workers owned company is everyone’s salary equal? How would one transfer from a capitalist society to a socialist society (is it phased in or do create a deadline for all capitalist companies to become socialist)? For a company like amazon is every decision the company make have to be voted on? Do you think a company that large could successfully function when every time a decision needs to be made you have to get thousands of people to vote on it? For a company like Microsoft do you think Bill gates vote on what direction the company should go be equal to the janitors vote?
GOOGLE = constant change, not constant improvement. Offer a bunch of non-portable "features" that lock you into using Google even more. Kills the competion. *.doc, *.txt *.pdf
Many people in latinoamerica talks about "positive monopoly", which to me sounds insane. I found in internet some neoliberal propaganda that goes that way. What can you tell us about that propaganda?
What is the maximum number of employees a co-op should have to be democratically managed? I'm not thrilled with the idea of a co-op turning into a representative democracy. I'm not happy with the direction the representative democracy that is the United States is trending. We divide ourselves into political parties. Some of our leaders convince us it's us verses them. It becomes a disaster. We follow leaders like sheep, or is it, we follow leaders like lemmings.
What's your solution? Also, anything that can be explained in 6 minutes isn't really that complicated. Also, society is complicated. The ways in which cooperation and competition interact with each other that Wolff alluded to are complicated. Creating a system that works properly in conjunction with these things is likely to be complicated. Even more complicated is rationalizing the notion that in our work lives, we should be told what to do by the owners/board of directors in a dictatorial way but in political/public life, we espouse that democracy is the greatest form of organization. Reconciling those two facts is much more complicated than "X company with >Y% market share is too big and needs to be reduced."
@@_trbr fair points, fair question. Assuming g youagree that a middle-path approach saves times by not visiting e teemed. A middle-path approach between micro and macro should be tried
@@_trbr one of the ideas mentioned in the video seems weird to me. if when a company is outcompeted in a socialist economy, it is redesigned to reenter the market better than it did before, wouldn't that require infinite improvement so that businesses don't fail?
That’s the problem with socialism, It’s society ends up having very few providers servers. Those companies that provide a service and thus there is no competition. You can have a capitalist system in which some people are more rich than others or you can have a socialistic system in which everyone is poor.I guess it’s your choice. Wouldn’t be my choice.
Or yk, everyone gets their basic needs and get to actually do things they want to do. Explore passions, find joy in competition without unnecessary economic suffering and even innovating because of equal opportunity.
Trump is a Corporate Socialist....Welfare for the wealthy. All of his tax cuts benefit the top 1% in the country A vote for trump and the republicans and their fascism is a vote for Putin and the Russians and their communism
There is also an important distinction to make between capitalistic monopoly and democratically standardized planned systems. Even if there is only one overarching system in use in a capitalist system (say, a search engine company, like Google or their parent company) it should be radically democratized if it is to stay as the standard for national and international internet searching. (let's face it, Google is THE search engine everything is based on, practically globally). In the democratized way, if part ownership, and one vote, is given to ALL users of this service, with optional group voting proxies, it cannot be called a monopoly, because basically everyone interested in using that service has a stake, and has a say, and it therefore becomes "public property". Socially owned.
democracy works for some really really big organiizations. Some have $billlion revenues. Flippancy has no place in philosophy. Do not reply to this please, just use your head and think who reads this> No one is going to break the DS coops, as you forget. When you got numbers to back it up.... Wolff has those. what do you got? Do not reply
Any of the systems will achieve the same disastrous results as long as there are no filters to prevent individuals with certain personality deviations such as psychopathy from occupying decision-making positions that have an impact on the quality of life of living beings. This therefore becomes an unavoidable first step. If not, history will repeat itself, as usual.
With and without this, redistributing the power decision over the large number and the revocatory capacity of the rulers could help for sure. Vive la forme légale coopérative !
This is a question that seems rather absurd to anyone who is a well-studied Marxist. There is no monolithic "socialism" first of all. Different countries have their own interpretations that are fitted to their specific material needs. Under a proletarian government, the socialized productive means that have led to monopoly would be seized by the worker state and put to use producing the necessary goods that society needs. There would be no "monopoly." Monopoly Capital is a developed phase attributable to the natural trajectory of capitalism. Monopolies, cartels, trusts, et cetera, are all centralized under the ascendency of finance capital, and the interested parties, having a prominent place in society, and hence control of the governments of the mother countries in which they are based, utilize the power of the government to preserve their high position. This phase of capitalism, first reached in the late 1800s, was described as "Imperialism" by Vladimir Lenin. If people want to learn this stuff, the reading is out there. Read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, William Z. Foster, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci and the wide array of Marxist thinkers whose readings can still be easily purchased.
Wolff is so ridiculous, he always talk about Capitalism as though there is some one or some group in charge of the economy. That is exactly opposite of Capitalism, no one or group is in charge of the economy, the ideas of laissez faire means hands off by anyone or any group associated with the Government or any regulating body. The second boon and common theme of Wolff is that he never makes a distinction between a Coercive Monopoly and one that forms as a result of being the best at doing the job formed without Coercion, the Non Coercive Monopoly. Mr. Wolff appears to not understand that Coercive Monopolies only form as a result of Government intervention. Non Coercive Monopolies form by just being the best at something, but have no power to hold the Non Coercive Monopoly accept by the support of the Individuals that voluntarily buy or trade with them. And this the is fraudulent nature of Mr. Wolff's mindset. If Mr. Wolff was a honest man, he would have stated this in the video, but instead all he talks about is giving permission or punishing businesses if they get too big, as if the size of a business makes it inherently bad. Mr. Wolff, you are a joke of an economist, it's actually ridiculous to even refer to you as an economist, referring to you as a hack would be more fitting.
"one that forms as a result of being the best at doing the job formed without Coercion" = being the best at abusing other people's time and energy and taking all the profit.
![Global Capitalism: The U.S. Election and Trump 2.0 in Historical Perspective [November 2024]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0-WR6Zq7Qec/mqdefault.jpg)
Good on all of you watching 👍
False.
Good morning to you, good sir.
I concur deeply. I post the professor's videos regularly on social sites and wish that more people would watch them.
Borat, is that you?
The people who are requesting these questions and Prof. Wolff’s responses are always on point. Nuanced, enlightening, and exactly what the world (especially the US) needs. I’m so grateful for this program!
Really? What was the question and did Wolff really answer it?
@@jgalt308 , in this video I guess he didn’t offer as much of a decisive clear answer to the question as other videos. But to be fair, it’s not entirely clear how monopolies would behave under a market socialist economy anyway. He gave as about of a clear answer as one could, which is that competition and cooperation in market socialism would behave differently because the goals of worker cooperatives are different than capitalist business. And while there may or may not be similar tendencies for monopolization under market socialism, there are some potential ways of dealing with it (he lists some options, namely restricting my size of cooperative or % of market share).
But I think what I’m impressed about the most about the question handling monopolies under socialism is that it is a question/critique commonly made by socialists who do not favor markets. It’s nice to hear someone take on their question/critique head on.
@@johnlewis1333 Actually the real problem is that all economic isms require continued growth on
a planet where the limits have already been exceeded so there are no solutions that can be derived
from attempting to advance the idea that one system is a solution to the ills of another and such
efforts are both a misdirection and a distraction from the real work that must be done.
If this continues nature will provide the solution and those in control will seek the most expedient remedy
to extend for themselves what minimal time remains. This is already taking place and appropriately disguised
as necessary protection...so the only question that remains is how long the masses will remain oblivious to
this reality, and in what direction will they vent their desperation.
@@jgalt308 Could you elaborate?
@@voxomnes9537 About anything in particular????
Thanks for sharing your knowledge and sharp reasoning, Professor Wolff!
Thank you professor
I deal with Monopoly by never upgrading my houses to hotels, creating a shortage of houses so that my opponents can't develop THEIR property.
Well played
A very interesting question indeed. Great video as always!
What was the question?
@@jgalt308 It’s in the title
@@JoeSims1776 Really? You thought that was the question? Too bad you're wrong.
@@JoeSims1776 P.S. This was the actual question!
A Patron of Economic Update asks: "How do you prevent monopolies without the use of government? Furthermore, how does a socialist mode of production prevent monopolies from forming? Or would government intervention still be a necessary function? Is this because socialism is usually predicated on the idea of cooperation instead of competition, or would this require a shift in the paradigm of how we conduct our business?"
@@jgalt308 Do you really go around the internet searching to debate topics you don't really understand?
(Edit: Richard Wolf is very precise in his language. When he talks about socialism he talks about a capitalist economy owned by cooperatives. Companies owned by their employees. Abolishing the goverment is a future follow up that leads to communism.
This answer makes me happy.
The world will be collaborative and not competitive or it will not be.
It's not mutually exclusive.
Great vid!
No, that is not brutal and abusive enough. We need homelessness, bankruptcies, slums, food banks, uneducated, prisons instead of helping, charities to justify religion. If you take all of that away, it will be utter chaos.
In Germany we call it "Räterepublik".
@@benjaminrao3274 Kind of a mix. Good stuff like: no unemployment, cheap housing, sense of community etc.
Bad stuff like: centralisation of power, pollution.
I would love to live in a system like the paris commune, bavarian "Räterepublik" or what the left had in the spanish civil war.
@@benjaminrao3274 Negatively!
@@benjaminrao3274 It is sad. They had the chance to discover all the dis/advantages of the Räterepublik, but couln't, because - well, you said it.
Thank you, very good explanation.
I was however wondering how the possibly low amount of employees would prevent a monopoly. If we look at online services, such as Facebook, a relatively small number of employees could conceivably take over a whole market.
Also, if we look beyond the enterprise, and agreed as a society to guarantee certain goods and services "for free", running the whole thing centrally, but in a democratized way, it would become a monopoly of our own making... But would it be bad?
It would only be bad under a pure capitalist or crony capitalist state system. If the agreed upon monopoly is regulated by the people for the people's interest in a real democratic fashion I don't see how the monopoly could be a self serving entity. The issues with monopoly in a capitalist system is that a capitalist system is completely fine with private tyranny, which is what a corporation or monopoly in this day and age is.
I agree that it seems a small company might take over a whole market. Also, when you essentially say "we'll put rules in place to stop the bad thing from happening" a problem is always that companies with a lot of money, even if small, can use it to change the rules. Even with democratically run companies it might happen that employees vote to do things that benefit their company vs. other companies just like a single owner or board of directors would do. But I don't have any better answers for these sorts of issues.
One thing to note is I feel like monopolies would be far less likely to occur under socialism, or at least the socialism you describe (so not including "socialist" State Capitalist monopolies), simply because of the way scaling works differently: under capitalism, since profit is revenue minus expenses, if you open up a second factory or store or what have you, and double the revenue while doubling labor and other costs, you double profit, incentivizing expansion and acquisition under capitalism. Under socialism, the pay of a worker would be (revenue - expenses - retained assets ect)/# workers (for simplicity I'm assuming each worker gets an equal share, but it applies the same if this isn't the case), so if you double revenue, double expenses and double the number of workers the pay of a worker would be roughly the same, so there'd be less incentive for expansion and acquisition. There'd still probably be some economy of scale, but I think you'd be less likely to see monopolies, in favor of probably federations that pool knowledge, technical standards and/or brand iconography, akin to something like a democratically managed franchising operation.
What I find intriguing is people criticise Socialism but use the practices and Assets of Socialism such as Parks or Public Buildings or facilities to climb up the social ladder.
Prof. Wolff, I have a question.
In your Democratic socialist world, who would be insentivived to START a business? Government? An entrepreneur? A co-op?
I am legitimately asking.
I fear your words fall on ears that don't comprehend more than struggle and entertainment, professor. But at least somebody attempts to explain and educate in these concepts. So winning I suppose.
I have thought about this.. In a socialist economy, to enhance competition, a dominant "company" which produces a higher quality product (or service)or a less costly product (or service) of similar quality would be tasked with educating and enhancing or "bringing up to speed" the less competitive "companies" and be rewarded financially for it. In other wards the institutions of research and education would be staffed by representatives of the more competitive sectors, and receive higher compensation so "companies" competing remain competitive.
all for one and one for all.
In a Socialist Society, would we get rid of the concept of Patents? I had a Libertarian friend who argued we need to get rid of Patents. I told him it was politically impossible in our Capitalist Society.
Which says nothing and is nonsensical in any sane society...
@@jgalt308 what is nonsensical? Having patents? Or suggesting it was politically impossible to get rid of patents in our Capitalist Society?
My Libertarian friend explained to me the importance of everything being privately owned in his anarcho-capitalist society.
It made sense Capitalists would want to own ideas. The Capitalist argument, for patents, is to recover the research and development costs.
His argument was, one wasn't stealing something when one made a copy of it so patents should not exist.
My question is subtly different. Patents are a way to create artificial scarcity by restricting the use of an idea.
My anarcho-capitalist friend saw ownership as having the right to use something; he didn't like the Patent idea of restricting the use of something, namely an idea.
In a Socialist Society, for the good of the Socialist Society, would we want to create artificial scarcity?
I also feel any research that is government funded should belong to society as a whole and should not be patentable, but that is a separate issue.
@@RichardSewill So between the two of you that's the best you got as a solution to the potential problems that might arise?
First off, for funding government research, what is the motivation to complete the task?
Secondly patents have a limited life, unlike copyrights which have been extended several generations and there are
abuses and loopholes there also. ( also I am not clear on how you "patent" an idea )
And once again the problem arises with government.
So to prevent both problems, you simply calculate the actual costs of research, which doesn't exist if
the government funded it, and grant recovery fees, plus a small licensing fee to the inventor for each
unit produced...for a specified period of time...this prevents any attempted scarcity and invites competition
from anyone who wants to produce the product. "" as well as improve upon it."
Also for government funded research once the funding has been used up, all research, notes, records and
experiments, become government property and can be made part of the public record, so that anyone
can take a look and learn what doesn't work...and maybe pursue the idea on their own.
Of course there are already huge problems connected to all research, papers and the like, along with
journals and peer review...and that is the failure to re-produce the claimed results, because nobody gets paid to
perform this function.
But then government isn't very good at doing anything it's supposed to do and has become a criminal entity
in its own right as well as aiding and abetting the criminal activity of corporations...which is a whole nother
conversation.
@@jgalt308 yes, the problem arises with government. Capitalism creates the government we have. Capitalism didn't like the feudal form of government.
Try and get rid of government, and Capitalism will create its own Hanseatic League to protect trade and protect its interests and property.
Anarcho-capitalists will use euphemistic words like private defense agencies. The biggest private defense agencies will be capitalist owned militias.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. It is another name for government.
Scarcity is not prevented. For others to use the patent, they must license the patent. Whatever happened to the commercialization of large NiMH batteries?
What did the U. S. Auto Battery Consortium do? What did Texaco Chevron do with Toyota and the RAV E4? We are fortunate Lithium batteries came along.
Who says government isn't very good at doing anything it's supposed to do? Richard Wolff already had a video explaining government does what people controlling government want government to do. Government is a tool. We don't have government worry about the profit motive when government spends huge sums on the military. Who wants the military we have, anyway? I don't. I would design a smaller military able to defend us, but not attack others. Instead, our government has hundreds (a thousand or more?) military bases spread all over the world because the wealthy want those military bases to defend their interests.
Yes, government has become a criminal entity because of who controls it. You think you would do better should you come to power? First, you wouldn't stay in power long. Some greedy cuss would create the biggest, meanest private defense agency to protect his interests and ride rough-shod over anyone who disagrees with him or might potentially threaten him. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck, it is government the greedy cuss will create.
You, and Richard Wolff, appeal to the good side of human nature. There is also a frightened, acquisitive side of human nature waiting. It's why I applaud the idea of co-ops, but don't see co-ops as a perfect solution. A co-op, to me, is like politics. We start with one person, one vote. We get to political parties and representative democracy. We end with a minority seizing control of the political party with the majority of the political party following along like lemmings. I can't see what prevents what happens with political parties not happening to co-ops.
Look what happened to the Republican Party. It is not the Republican Party any more. It is Trump's Party.
Look what happened to the Democratic Party. It is a neo-liberal party shaped by Clinton and the establishment Democrats.
@@RichardSewill That is a convenient and false understanding of both the past and the present, and capitalism
wasn't available to create this government for when it was formed the country was largely agrarian and the constitution
was inconvenient for both the centralising inclininations of government and what existed of the elite upper classes as well
as the forces of industrialization, which inspired the rise of the corporation, it's evolution and the transformation of the country and
government itself...but the cause has always been the same, and originates with those who control the credit and or money
system and this influence was largely resisted here, beginning with Jackson who thwarted Rothschild's efforts in the 30"
and Lincoln who also resisted them when faced with financing the war.
But the war itself was a major step toward a far stronger federal government and the fourteenth amendment
laid the foundation for corporate rights and the game was on and FDR would end it on March 9, 1933...with gold
confiscation and de facto fiat which produced constant inflation followed by making the constitution irrelevant in 1939
when the inevitable slide to the present began.
The thing is the constitution is still there because actually changing it would require "amendments" which
would not have prevailed so a fraudulent deception was devised to circumvent it and was subtle enough and
gradual enough that it escaped the attention of the only force capable of confronting it, the people and they
remain completely ignorant, even though the effects are obvious and getting worse.
As for your attempted comparison of me to Wolff that is hilarious for I have no such expectation of
my fellow humans who are acting as they always did and will no doubt continue for it is a built in
function of human nature and exists across the spectrum of all humans, and the only difference
is between those in control and those who are not and the numbers of those who benefit versus
those who are excluded....compounded by the numerous factions of us and them, upon which
maintaining the status quo depends.
Unfortunately those in control are not a monolithic entity for there are numerous factions there as
well...and this, however one chooses to describe it is not capitalism, for the private ownership
of the means of production allowed wealth to gained by individuals who were not part of the ruling
class producing the only alternative to a central authority other than overthrowing it by force.
But the government writes the rules and enforces them so they are the central problem and the reality is
they no longer have claim to legitimate authority and as soon as the effort is directed at exposing this
the sooner government can be re-directed to performing its legitimate function...all else is distraction
and a waste of time, and there is little time left.
What's the bases of value of product? As in monetary value.. does it base on measurements of energy and matter?
So, a worker cooperative would be limited to around 150 people based on Anthropologist Robin Dunbar's work?
In our capitalist society, we have regulated monopolies such as the the utility company. We don't want multiple companies digging up the streets, each laying their own pipes.
Would we have regulated monopolies in a socialist society?
Wolf 2024 on #PeoplesParty ticket would be my dream!
Prof Wolff is not a politician but he can be a very useful independent consultant to the new coming administration
@@yu-jd5jg in which administration? surely neither trump not biden would hire someone as truthfull as Wolff...
@ prof Wolff: How would you judge Yugoslavian socialism and the constitutional right of self government from bottoms up (Kardelj's 74 consitution)? As an economist and historian.
Yes - interesting to know 'who' gets to choose 'the arrangers' of competition. Bureaucrats are prone to interfere and power can reach them.
How does one implement democracy in a company, if leadership decides who is part of the company? What would stop a majority opinion group getting rid of all workers in a minority opinion group in a company? Would you give voting right perpetually to people having worked in this company? In that case, could they become toxic voters that try to cause harm to the company they aren't part of?
I see that many unions"solve" this issue with a "last-in-first-out" clause, but this discourages effort in my experience. I would not want to save workers from rapacious slave drivers to push them into the arms of laziness and apathy.
Great video Professor Wolff!! On another note: I wonder if Socialism has INFLATION or does their system naturally get rid of it? .. And if inflation does exist, how would it handle it??
you can govern a nation through democracy. but not a corporation. a corporation has a single purpose , to trade goods or service for money. it regards its share-holders as people, all others as prey.
democracy in the nation is necessary, for rule by elite is never just, and usually oppressive, a commercial enterprise can be and usually is, run to make a profit for the owners. co-ops are possible, and exist in the current 'capitalist' economy, but they do not flourish. they do not have access to capital, so can not grow quickly. they are therefore liable to be suffocated by the most competent organizations from the 'publicly owned' competition.
co-ops are not political organizations, they can never defend their members from the state. they can flourish in a democracy by nourishing citizenship in the people.
get democracy first, use initiative to shape the nation, probably into some kind of socialism.
What?
9 people thought he was talking about a board game.
Is it illegal to start a workers owned company now? In a workers owned company is everyone’s salary equal? How would one transfer from a capitalist society to a socialist society (is it phased in or do create a deadline for all capitalist companies to become socialist)? For a company like amazon is every decision the company make have to be voted on? Do you think a company that large could successfully function when every time a decision needs to be made you have to get thousands of people to vote on it? For a company like Microsoft do you think Bill gates vote on what direction the company should go be equal to the janitors vote?
GOOGLE = constant change, not constant improvement.
Offer a bunch of non-portable "features" that lock you into using Google even more.
Kills the competion. *.doc, *.txt *.pdf
The rustic Wolff.
Wouldn't a solution be to forbid companies to buy other companies ?
Well question is - How socialism deals with corruption of Govt. Itself?
Sounds good to have until we transition to non market socialism. I think state capitalism would work better.
Many people in latinoamerica talks about "positive monopoly", which to me sounds insane. I found in internet some neoliberal propaganda that goes that way. What can you tell us about that propaganda?
What is the maximum number of employees a co-op should have to be democratically managed? I'm not thrilled with the idea of a co-op turning into a representative democracy.
I'm not happy with the direction the representative democracy that is the United States is trending. We divide ourselves into political parties. Some of our leaders convince us it's us verses them. It becomes a disaster. We follow leaders like sheep, or is it, we follow leaders like lemmings.
Hogwash : too complicated. He is trying to balance a seed on a needle
What's your solution? Also, anything that can be explained in 6 minutes isn't really that complicated. Also, society is complicated. The ways in which cooperation and competition interact with each other that Wolff alluded to are complicated. Creating a system that works properly in conjunction with these things is likely to be complicated.
Even more complicated is rationalizing the notion that in our work lives, we should be told what to do by the owners/board of directors in a dictatorial way but in political/public life, we espouse that democracy is the greatest form of organization. Reconciling those two facts is much more complicated than "X company with >Y% market share is too big and needs to be reduced."
@@_trbr fair points, fair question. Assuming g youagree that a middle-path approach saves times by not visiting e teemed. A middle-path approach between micro and macro should be tried
@@_trbr one of the ideas mentioned in the video seems weird to me. if when a company is outcompeted in a socialist economy, it is redesigned to reenter the market better than it did before, wouldn't that require infinite improvement so that businesses don't fail?
That’s the problem with socialism, It’s society ends up having very few providers servers. Those companies that provide a service and thus there is no competition. You can have a capitalist system in which some people are more rich than others or you can have a socialistic system in which everyone is poor.I guess it’s your choice. Wouldn’t be my choice.
Or yk, everyone gets their basic needs and get to actually do things they want to do. Explore passions, find joy in competition without unnecessary economic suffering and even innovating because of equal opportunity.
Is Prof Wolff a market socialist?
Trump is a Corporate Socialist....Welfare for the wealthy. All of his tax cuts benefit the top 1% in the country
A vote for trump and the republicans and their fascism is a vote for Putin and the Russians and their communism
@@LVVMCMLV You have a very strong belief. Do you have strong evidence to support your claims? Fascism? Communism?
There is also an important distinction to make between capitalistic monopoly and democratically standardized planned systems. Even if there is only one overarching system in use in a capitalist system (say, a search engine company, like Google or their parent company) it should be radically democratized if it is to stay as the standard for national and international internet searching. (let's face it, Google is THE search engine everything is based on, practically globally). In the democratized way, if part ownership, and one vote, is given to ALL users of this service, with optional group voting proxies, it cannot be called a monopoly, because basically everyone interested in using that service has a stake, and has a say, and it therefore becomes "public property". Socially owned.
The people run the economy, so would monopoly be a bad thing?
I guess instead of breaking them up, sometimes you nationalize.
Leave TH-cam , Fix the System
good on the way UP, BAD on the way down.
sustainability ? no, decline for sure
democracy works for some really really big organiizations. Some have $billlion revenues. Flippancy has no place in philosophy. Do not reply to this please, just use your head and think who reads this> No one is going to break the DS coops, as you forget. When you got numbers to back it up.... Wolff has those. what do you got? Do not reply
@@slyhorse1 What do you got ? Do not reply. Bite me.
Any of the systems will achieve the same disastrous results as long as there are no filters to prevent individuals with certain personality deviations such as psychopathy from occupying decision-making positions that have an impact on the quality of life of living beings.
This therefore becomes an unavoidable first step. If not, history will repeat itself, as usual.
With and without this, redistributing the power decision over the large number and the revocatory capacity of the rulers could help for sure. Vive la forme légale coopérative !
This is a question that seems rather absurd to anyone who is a well-studied Marxist. There is no monolithic "socialism" first of all. Different countries have their own interpretations that are fitted to their specific material needs. Under a proletarian government, the socialized productive means that have led to monopoly would be seized by the worker state and put to use producing the necessary goods that society needs. There would be no "monopoly." Monopoly Capital is a developed phase attributable to the natural trajectory of capitalism. Monopolies, cartels, trusts, et cetera, are all centralized under the ascendency of finance capital, and the interested parties, having a prominent place in society, and hence control of the governments of the mother countries in which they are based, utilize the power of the government to preserve their high position. This phase of capitalism, first reached in the late 1800s, was described as "Imperialism" by Vladimir Lenin.
If people want to learn this stuff, the reading is out there. Read Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, William Z. Foster, Karl Kautsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Antonio Gramsci and the wide array of Marxist thinkers whose readings can still be easily purchased.
🌹👍✌️
3 dislikes. Jeff bezos, elon musk , tim cook?
I'm always amused at the clowns that vote down to this gentlemen
What a load of waffle
Wolff is so ridiculous, he always talk about Capitalism as though there is some one or some group in charge of the economy. That is exactly opposite of Capitalism, no one or group is in charge of the economy, the ideas of laissez faire means hands off by anyone or any group associated with the Government or any regulating body.
The second boon and common theme of Wolff is that he never makes a distinction between a Coercive Monopoly and one that forms as a result of being the best at doing the job formed without Coercion, the Non Coercive Monopoly. Mr. Wolff appears to not understand that Coercive Monopolies only form as a result of Government intervention. Non Coercive Monopolies form by just being the best at something, but have no power to hold the Non Coercive Monopoly accept by the support of the Individuals that voluntarily buy or trade with them.
And this the is fraudulent nature of Mr. Wolff's mindset. If Mr. Wolff was a honest man, he would have stated this in the video, but instead all he talks about is giving permission or punishing businesses if they get too big, as if the size of a business makes it inherently bad.
Mr. Wolff, you are a joke of an economist, it's actually ridiculous to even refer to you as an economist, referring to you as a hack would be more fitting.
"one that forms as a result of being the best at doing the job formed without Coercion" = being the best at abusing other people's time and energy and taking all the profit.
What world do you live in??
@@itzenormous I live in reality, the place you evade at every chance you get.
You're convoluted with the theoretical meaning of capitalism, as oppose to its realization.
When you are the size of amazon they absolutely do have control of a significant portion of the economy