Best talk to date (3 years later!) by Professor Wolff covers in a short 90 minutes Roosevelt's New Deal, the crisis of today's Capitalism, and the history behind Wolff's own Marxist ideology despite his education at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford.
It's refreshing to hear an economist who is also advocate. And what we need more from the educated elite is advocates for we the common people. thank you Rick Wolff. But of course, as Tariq Ali rightly points out always, that real change for the benefit of the people comes from all of us, coming together to force our leaders to change the system to benefit the common people. OWS and 99% has come together after realizing that real change occurs as did in the Arab Spring in mass protest.
Where do we go if the SHTF? Our system is broken Dr. Wolff explains economics in plain language, and what's more has a very good question: Why don't we have democracy at the enterprise organizational level. Democracy at work. It is a fundamental thing that we should have a say at work when decisions affect our lives. For most people, this is made 1000s of miles away in some high class boardroom, and the decisions there sometimes ruin entire lives or cities. I hope everyone will listen to THIS video. I think you will be pleasantly surprised, and maybe even a bit hopeful!
True enough, though I think where we start expressing and passing on the idea by strengthening the emphasis on water cooler conversations. Relaxing the culture of specialization is the first step in my view. When business implies to many people that "talk is cheap" by nature, it seems to become an excuse to say "I have better things to do than explain technical matters that only I have the authority to know the whole story about." Politicians and execs say this sorta thing by reflex.
Well said. Capitalism, when overdone like in America, can become corrupt beyond repair, but many say that capitalism delivers the goods. If a balance between capitalism and socialism is found, that will be the golden ratio where everyone is satisfied in some way.
Most groups such as economists/doctors/scientists develop their own unique words to describe complex ideas or even simple ideas.It's a form of self preservation.By using fancy/exotic words they protect the exclusivity of their profession and convey what they do as beyond the scope/understanding of the layman.It's a form of elitism.
That's not Rick's fault. He keeps saying we need to get past the tabu against the slightest criticism of capitalism. That alternatives need to be a part of the debate, at least - but he's having a hard time getting networks to invite him for real debates or discussions. Thank God for You Tube!!
Not as simple as it sounds. We've had "worker's ownership and self-management" of companies in Yugoslavia between 1952-1980 and it didn't really work (workers voted for very short-sighted decisions that didn't help the companies). Similarly Chine was very socialistic but also very poor until they allowed for private equity in the recent years. In addition, wasn't the strong syndicates the story of Detroit. If you asked workers, of course they wouldn't move the production to China. But in the end the whole company might close down because of inefficiency. On the other hand, I really like the idea of taxing company profits and high wages.
The structure of Mondragon coops is different from Yugoslavian self-managed firms. Workers councils don't have the same powers that they did in Yugoslavia. The comparison isn't valid.
In both capitalism and soviet communism, industry is run on an authoritarian basis. In capitalism, it's the capitalists, the CEOs, board of directors, etc. that make the decisions, in communism, it was the state and the bureaucrats running it. What wolff suggests is democratising production, having the labourers be in charge of the factory, something that hasn't genuinely been tried before.
FDR's 94% tax rate applied to income over $200,000 not $25,000. In implementing his plan, has Wolff ever explained how the employees would acquire the interests of the shareholders? What about the pensions of government employees' and teachers' unions?
Capitalists as well as Anticapitalists follow the golden Rule: Anticapitalist golden Rule: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated." Capitalist golden Rule: "The one who has the gold defines the Rules!"
Money is an idea, with a certian relation to our actions, and materialist world. We associate money with the exchange of other things. WE GIVE IT VALUE!!! There is not eternal value to money, outside of the value we give it.
In Washington WinCo and Bimart are worker owned. We have to get more businesses operating on the principle similar to a "communistic" Native American Tribe where decisions are jointly made and resources are shared by all of the tribal members. Currently we are in a "rich get richer and the poor get prison" society.
In “Occupying Chairlifts” a simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Here’s a fair way to transition forward to where we’re rewarded for cooperating and creating instead of competing and conquering. It's something specific we can demand. If this isnt the best answer, at least we’re thinking about what might be. Are we really just this close to having it work right? Oh yeah, it's a Ski movie! “Occupying Chairlifts” on TH-cam!
The Federal Reserve has been in force for only 90 years. Prior to that, there was no central bank. After the "Bankers Panic of 1907" and it's repercussions, the Federal Government authorized a study of efficacy of central banking under the Aldrich-Vreeland Act. The Aldrich plan was proposed that originally gave all power to the private banks, which was objected to by smaller banks from the west. The bottom line is that it was the bankers themselves that wanted the legislation
Exactly. Legal precedents may or may not change, and while there's definitely a lot that could be improved (open-sourcing all copyrights, legalizing drugs, and even offering a base minimum wage irrespective of occupation status), the whole legal system is compatible with different organizational/economic systems. You'll just never see this discussed on TV... we'll have to get there through social movements.
I haven't watched the video, technical and jargon terms are usually preferred by experts because the definitions are more specific and precise than laymen's terms so listeners can come to a sharper understanding of the information presented. More people understand laymen's terms, but the result of that generality is a foggier appreciation of the material.
The difference is with only a small central government protecting the rights of individuals by sticking to The Bill of Rights and nothing else there would be no role for large corporations to work with lobbyists to create an unfair market place, additionally the dollar would not be debased and thus it's strength & stability would guard against sudden inflation. It would end the Boom & Bust economic cycle and replace it with regular much smaller market corrections.
When a movie star makes $20 million a movie, the studio makes $200 million. When a star athlete makes $10 million a year on his contract, the team owner makes $100 million. When you get paid $8.50 an hour, your employer makes $85 an hour. The production of your sweaty labor goes to someone else who keeps the lion's share for himself.
All of you watching, and believing, this please realize that this video isn't arguing against capitalism it's arguing against corporatism or crony Capitalism and there is a huge difference! The huge inequality of wealth, the gap between rich and poor is also unfairly being blamed on Capitalism. To understand that issue you need to know the true reason for the Federal Reserve. I'd suggest reading "The Creature from Jeckll Island" also America is not a Democracy we are a democratic republic!
Employee and employer owned businesses can coexist under Capitalism. All employees can gather together and brainstorm an idea for a venture. They can contribute funds to start and continue their venture, equally. They can distribute all the labor that goes into starting and maintaining a business, equally. And after their labor has bore fruit, they can share in those fruits, equally. Why eliminate Capitalism? Strict, acquisitive for-profits can co-exist with cooperatives just fine.
Im glad you brought that up because that is my point. Such ventures can coexist nicely in a capitalist system. However Jefferson believed in a republic. This means that he sincerely believed that neither individuals nor the gov't should intrude on other individuals, businesses, or organizations. Was Jefferson somewhat utopian? I think there is no doubt. He believed in freedom though, both social and economic. His idea of limited gov't extended to ALL spheres of life, including economic.
It is a very interesting idea, the one he advocates; that is, a more extreme version of Employee-owned corporations. It could be workable provided a few problems are worked out; chief of which is how to coordinate global distribution networks in order to make international trade work (and we would all be alot worse off without THAT), since democracy is generally slow. Also, employee-owned companies will tend to overinvest in themselves and have perpetual excess capacity.
The problem with inequality, aside from the moral issues, is simply that it is unsustainable. Capitalism doesn't just allow inequality to arise, it fuels inequality by its very nature. It's a system that automatically (given time) leaves one with a third-world type of society: a vast population of paupers and a tiny group of wealthy elites who control the means of production.
Capitalism = The uncoerced exchange of goods or services between mutually consenting parties. Any other system = The forced exchange of goods or services between parties who may or may not consent. What is necessary for capitalism? Freedom, agreement, consent. What is necessary for any other system? Force, coersion, enslavement.
Capatalism is about freedom before it is about anything else, please do not let anyone else tell you different. The mathematical implications are completley secondary to the principle of freedom in the choices of individuals.Employer based/employee based comp. that is all fine from an economic point of view but capatalism is not foremost an economic system subject to the same scrutiny you would place on any other economic system, it is merley an economic consequence of the liberty at work.
The opposition to capitalism grows as jobs are destroyed, wages stagnate, and homelessness and poverty increase. There may be general apathy today but the overall suffering will soon enough reach a breaking point.
Mister Wolff talk about Yugoslav original project from 60' and 70'. Workers Self Management (Radničko samoupravljanje) If you want to find more about it try on Google.
You can't force a free market on anyone. You're free to not participate in voluntary exchange. That's why it's free as opposed to a planned command economy.
Adam Smith went to great lengths to explain capitalism through the lens of the enlightenment's belief in the power of reason, freedom and individualism. Without those 3 essentials, one is dealing with a "non-capitalism", which is what China is doing. Isn't it ironic that when one puts kool-aid powder in water, and it gains color, people are sensible enough to call it kool-aid, not water; but when a nation mixes tyranny with capitalism, people call it capitalism and not tyranny?
It means that your theories of self-interest are shattered. Our current economies are based on the amount of money is spent. Not on the happiness of the person, not any input from him, it's not based on the resources we have, nor on our ability to mine these resources. It is not based on the amount that are employed, the amount which are unemployed. Nor the state of other species on the planet. Its just based on consumer spending....
Best video ever - "the republican party went ballistic thats their normal condition - too good LMAO To fix things : 75% tax for the wealthy and we will have free health, dental, mental care, tuition free universities, fix our infrastructure and create jobs, legalize pot and tax it, we will end poverty, hunger and homelessness.
***** Exactly. Why let them keep all the loot and have to pay all them taxes. They ought give back what they stole. 1% of the 320 million, is 3.2 million Americans who have 34.6% of the country's total wealth. They pay 45% of fed income tax, but 20.5% of all taxes in the US. Yes socialism has never worked for the folks excluded from it. We have redistribution of income from everyone to the 1% who like it that way. Why change when it works for them. The other 316 million Americans should be happy we have the 1% to rape and pillage.
that is simply not true we would not be in debt if the trillions of dollars being hidden in the tax heavens would be returned to the US ...furthermore the big pharmaceutical companies along with insurance companies need to start paying back a large portion of those profits they have been making over the last 40 years this country has been robbed by oligarchs and greedy corporations long enough
The main reason we have a debt its because idiots like Regan and Bush have been giving tax cuts to the wealthy and the greedy corporations. So what ends up happening is that they don't tax the wealthy ...they borrow the money from them with large interest and then of corse the people end up paying for it!!! Nope its not their profit if they have cheated/ taken advantage of scammed and harmed / killed people in the process ... which all of them have done!
What if profit is low, and shareholders are dropping out due to lack of competition? the employees serving as board of directors may not want to shut down but market competition will force the company to shut down if profits are not attractive to investors. The solution proposed is attractive and possible, but the workers serving as board of directors would have had to face the facts and should to shut down when competition call for it.
If profits are low, the Worker-Owners of a co-op are still being paid fair wages, because the existence of profits means the business' operating costs are being met, employee wages are an operating cost. Co-ops are not quite "the workers are the board of directors", there is no board of directors and there are no non-employee shareholders, there are only worker-owners.
No socialist utopia just good old Democracy.The goals of the anti capitalist movement is to create a Democracy and to reclaim the ideas and ideals of the DOI
There were plenty of incentives for individual mortgage brokers to push risky loans as they got paid without taking on the risk themselves or paying in consequences for later loan failures.
Astronomy tell us, that all of the universe was created in the big bang. All the matter you see is what's left over from this colossal explosion. It also tells us that in our universe there exist an extraordinary amount of resources, just begging for us to tap into. Humans are vastly different from other species on earth, by their ABILITY TO WORK TOGETHER!!!!!! to solve complex problems. Humans are also SOCIAL creatures, meaning we have the desire to be ACCEPTED to be loved and to love.
I must emphasis IF PEOPLE DON’T CHANGE, worker co-ops notwithstanding, the systems you decry won’t change. I’m not against co-ops, they represents a worthy proletarian solution and can be at least a portion (if not all) of a better world. But the New Deal worked because Roosevelt recognized and accepted that austerity measures wouldn’t solve the problem of stagnation, they would indeed worsen it. So that’s what we have to recognize and accept. Stagnation is always caused by the people or person in power and a failure to embrace an effective solution. To that end of solving the people/persons in power conundrum we must redo Roosevelt’s solution and maintain it while the co-ops find their individual success or failure that is necessarily based on merit. Governments’ true function becomes distribution of surplus taxes across the populace as affordable medical care and universal educational opportunity based on a meritocracy system. Universal education is the means to changing the people, and those people will be the ones to change the system. The Cuban model wherein a limited government protects and insures fundamental needs for all the people shall be accepted and approved by everyone. Viva Fidel.
Employee owned businesses do not work. Usually they are just mechanisms for extracting labor at below market wages with the promise of a potential large future return or for some idealistic social cause. Even successful employee owned businesses such as law firms employ entry level lawyers below market. Most people do not have the fortitude to forgo wages for a potential future payout. The ones who do are called entrepreneurs.
The San of southern Africa were essentially communist in an economic sense, but good hunters and good arrow-makers and good storytellers got credit and recognition for their skills, even though the benefits from those skills were distributed evenly. I know this is a small-scale, 'primitive' example, but they are human and so are we. I don't think it's too far-fetched to think that certain aspects of 'primitive' society could be transferrable to high-tech, mass society.
In Marxism Theory this problem with investment risk, never was resolved, and this is why ineffectiveness is built-in in this system, because nobody is ready take a risk, if the prize is small.
All capitalism is, is a system of custom codified into law. The laws themselves don't have to be changed or can be changed a little; private property laws, bailments, contracts,etc, would essentially remain the same. All we would have to change is how we organize within the law and take over the places where we work and how we elect those who run our government. To that extent, Jeffersonian and Lenninst theory can be synthsized and utilitzed. Any thoughts on that?
Capitalism, like Communism, benefits only a small percentage of every society. A combination of capitalism and socialism is necessary to help most people live a decent life.
The problem in communism (and socialism) is very weak connection between productivity, efficiency and salary. This devastates work ethic, because people, trying to perform his job as well as they can, are consider to be a naive. Another problem is investment risk. The more innovative activity, the greater the investment risk is, and somebody must take this risk, and pay for a failures (failures are very common).
Fun fact, the Taxpayer (you) pay for most research and development, whether directly for military or other state purposes or indirectly in the form of government research grants to universities or companies. The costs of developing new technologies (for example the Internet, which corporations didn't want to touch until it became profitable) are socialized, but once the technology is developed the capitalist vultures swoop in and privatize the fruits of innovation (i.e. the iPhone, which had most of its components developed with public funding in other areas). In the age of the 3-D Printer we now have people making prosthetics for children who are missing limbs **BECAUSE THEY CAN** not because it is profitable. Inevitably some megacorp will buy the rights to produce them and sell them for a few grand each. Capitalism rewards vultures that wait for technology to be developed then take advantage of it to enrich themselves.
You have not read my previous posts. If you did you would find that I am opposed to the system we have. Free market capitalism is the only system that has never been tried. When you understand what I mean by that it's possible that you'd agree with me, but if you are still stuck on the many forms of tried Statist systems then you're destined to repeat the mistakes of history.
in order to promote stability in the currency and in the banking system as a whole. Something that had been lacking in the 80 years prior. While the system has not been perfect, it has carried out the function that it was intended to. Those who object today, are in essence saying that the previous situation was better, which demonstrably was not. Can it be improved? I believe so. Should it be eliminated? I disagree.
Fat chance on that happening. The corporate media will never allow that debate to be broadcast on the public airwaves, how ironic is that? So we win battles at the watercooler and at the one on one encounters with other people. We can win with casual conversations that the Koch brothers and their Madison Avenue friends can't win with just slogans and sound bytes. Remember, nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
People always discuss systems in black and white, Capitalism good , Communism Bad. Socialism Good, Capitalism Bad. These black and white systems are theoretical. People need to distinguish the realistic IMPLEMENTATION of those economic theories to the theories themselves. That's why I find the whole conversation frustrating. There are MAJOR problems with our current system and there were major problems with other countries' implementations of socialism or communism that made them fail.
Of course. It all comes down to me not knowing what the free market is, and that it has never been tried. Of course I am such a fool for not thinking the free market will solve any and every problem in our system ever to exist. You don't seem to know that money is power. The more money you have, the more people will bow down to you. The golden rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated. Free market advocates: the one with the gold decides the rules.
all political philosophies rely on consumption of resources. The world is changing and it seems for the better. Lets just see that the coming worker ownership doesn't turn into a bigger uglier consumption machine that is already present. There also needs to be a shift away from the ever present "economy" and "wealth". Redefining wealth must go hand in hand in order to move forward. A society that presently idolizes and worships unreachable lifestyles will hopefully in the future will be seen for the greed and excess and not valued. Spending a lifetime trying to reach a unattainable goal is nobodies quest.
So what is the difference between your end result of socialism and the end result of capitalism which is an oligarchy? What is there to protect people (workers) from the excesses of capitalism? If not the government than who or what? Without Fed Govt. support unions are powerless?
Around 15:00 there is a logical fallacy given. While looking at the direct cause of foreclosures and firings (private companies and private banks) the speaker ignores/fails to mention indirect causes (government subsidies and regulations which create an imbalanced economy and artificial prices which many companies cannot compete with and therefore must fire employees, government artificially covering interest rates on loans, etc) which have a far greater impact on these issues.
"It's still a capitalist company, since profits are still important to keep the coöperation running." It is not capitalist as it is socialist model. It is time to let capitalism die. It served well until advent of industrial revolution. "Mmm, Mondragon is criticized for the way it treats it's workers in Africa." Since when? "Democracy only exists when every individual has its fair amount of democratic rights." This is an obvoius statement.
I wouldn't say that one is more natural than the other and I can only talk from my own experience, but at least I like to get credit for the things I do and I expect so does most of the people and in pure communistic society this doesn't happen in any shape or form, while in capitalistic society you can "at least" gain some money/power from your work. I personally think that capitalism is far better as a whole than communism, but peoples greed makes it shitty and corrupt.
workers owning companies is not an unheard of idea and nor is it anti capitalism nor is it socialist. Worker owned enterprises are just that. The problem is how individuals define capitalism. Worker owned businesses should only happen in a free and organic way and not dictated by government. More government involvement in the financial and private sectors have distorted and empowered those who have the assets to support political campaigns. Crony capitalism and socialism take away liberty.
One of the trends of Marxism is the abolition of child labour, and the establishment of public education for all. Something every "civilized" nation now practices. Are you saying you are pro-child labour?
@ skilo1983: we do not live in a capitalist system, we live in a neo-feudal system. If you want to see a capitalist country that's pulling it off as you say. Google keyword: Iceland, recent history. Also find out they've capped their interest rates to slow down their success!???
Did you, or did you learn from your parents/parent before school even started for you? All you have to do look at the literacy rate in the US and see that government education isn't working. Look at literacy rates 120 years ago. For extra comparison look at the literacy rate in private school.
While that simile can be dismissed out of hand as an ignorant insult to workers everywhere, if does lead to an interesting insight: In capitalism, the worker is approximately as unwilling a participant in the production process as an inmate in an asylum is in his incarceration. Food for thought, certainly, but not quite the point you were trying to make...
How is that the speaker rejects the theory of natural unemployment yet encourages market simplicity? This would innately eliminate the entire upper echelon of jobs for economists and lawyers. This would then just create more unemployment on top of what we already have. Unemployment is unavoidable in the long-term.
Any company has a right to create a lawsuit..securing a successful prosecution is another matter, remember for large government subsidized companies any lawsuit can be publicity for their own propaganda. If America wasn't bogged down with red tape and taxation combined with a minimum wage perhaps the jobs would have been in the US today. China is just as bad, but I suspect their own government intervention has served Apple's interest on this occasion...it doesn't make it right.
As I said, you don't know what Laissez-faire Capitalism is as you have just shown. You say that money is power...then you don't know what money is..think about it, what exactly is money..in all it's forms, even if you are bartering in sheep (this could be money). The danger you miss is that it is Government that seeks power... money is an inanimate object but government are people with private agendas with the power to legislate. I agree with the golden rule. I disagree with the 2nd point.
1) If YOU think I am not providing a good conversation, then why are you writing to me. My mode will not change therefore you must conclude two things, first YOU will retain your conviction that I cannot provide a good conversation and secondly why you would want to continue to write to such a person. 2) As for evidence there is limited room here as well you know. Mine among many places can be found by searching "Austrian School Economics"; "Ayn Rand"; "F.A.Hayek"; "laissez faire" etc...
How can something be both a pathetic attempt and a nice try ? Money is an idea in that it's a person's idea of that money..not the money in it self. Money has no self. The focus is the person that attaches value to it. Just as in that an idea cannot have any power but the application of the idea has the power. Money is incapable of actually having an idea in itself. Governments spend their whole existence coming up with ideas for their own gain at the public's expense. It just requires lies.
Furthermore, in a capitalistic system, consider the motive a bank would have to giving a loan to someone they don't think can pay it back with interest? There is none... To assume banks naturally give loans to people recklessly is retarded, this guy needs to learn more about the housing crisis and understand government involvement in mortgages.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
Best talk to date (3 years later!) by Professor Wolff covers in a short 90 minutes Roosevelt's New Deal, the crisis of today's Capitalism, and the history behind Wolff's own Marxist ideology despite his education at Harvard, Princeton, and Stanford.
Wow Dr. Wolff is such a brilliant man, truly, truly brilliant
It's refreshing to hear an economist who is also advocate. And what we need more from the educated elite is advocates for we the common people. thank you Rick Wolff. But of course, as Tariq Ali rightly points out always, that real change for the benefit of the people comes from all of us, coming together to force our leaders to change the system to benefit the common people. OWS and 99% has come together after realizing that real change occurs as did in the Arab Spring in mass protest.
The Economist Richard Wolff what a learning experience - thanks for this talk.
The awful feeling you get when you get home from work is your realization "My employer is ripping me off!"
this is very good. Everyone on earth should watch this video.
Where do we go if the SHTF? Our system is broken Dr. Wolff explains economics in plain language, and what's more has a very good question: Why don't we have democracy at the enterprise organizational level. Democracy at work. It is a fundamental thing that we should have a say at work when decisions affect our lives. For most people, this is made 1000s of miles away in some high class boardroom, and the decisions there sometimes ruin entire lives or cities. I hope everyone will listen to THIS video. I think you will be pleasantly surprised, and maybe even a bit hopeful!
True enough, though I think where we start expressing and passing on the idea by strengthening the emphasis on water cooler conversations. Relaxing the culture of specialization is the first step in my view. When business implies to many people that "talk is cheap" by nature, it seems to become an excuse to say "I have better things to do than explain technical matters that only I have the authority to know the whole story about." Politicians and execs say this sorta thing by reflex.
Well said. Capitalism, when overdone like in America, can become corrupt beyond repair, but many say that capitalism delivers the goods. If a balance between capitalism and socialism is found, that will be the golden ratio where everyone is satisfied in some way.
Talk start at 06:42
Most groups such as economists/doctors/scientists develop their own unique words to describe complex ideas or even simple ideas.It's a form of self preservation.By using fancy/exotic words they protect the exclusivity of their profession and convey what they do as beyond the scope/understanding of the layman.It's a form of elitism.
Great presentation. Thank you.
That's not Rick's fault. He keeps saying we need to get past the tabu against the slightest criticism of capitalism. That alternatives need to be a part of the debate, at least - but he's having a hard time getting networks to invite him for real debates or discussions. Thank God for You Tube!!
OMG I love this guy! I could listen to him 24/7. Off to find more videos! Woop Woop!
Not as simple as it sounds.
We've had "worker's ownership and self-management" of companies in Yugoslavia between 1952-1980 and it didn't really work (workers voted for very short-sighted decisions that didn't help the companies).
Similarly Chine was very socialistic but also very poor until they allowed for private equity in the recent years.
In addition, wasn't the strong syndicates the story of Detroit.
If you asked workers, of course they wouldn't move the production to China. But in the end the whole company might close down because of inefficiency.
On the other hand, I really like the idea of taxing company profits and high wages.
The structure of Mondragon coops is different from Yugoslavian self-managed firms. Workers councils don't have the same powers that they did in Yugoslavia. The comparison isn't valid.
In both capitalism and soviet communism, industry is run on an authoritarian basis. In capitalism, it's the capitalists, the CEOs, board of directors, etc. that make the decisions, in communism, it was the state and the bureaucrats running it.
What wolff suggests is democratising production, having the labourers be in charge of the factory, something that hasn't genuinely been tried before.
FDR's 94% tax rate applied to income over $200,000 not $25,000. In implementing his plan, has Wolff ever explained how the employees would acquire the interests of the shareholders? What about the pensions of government employees' and teachers' unions?
Capitalists as well as Anticapitalists follow the golden Rule:
Anticapitalist golden Rule: "One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated."
Capitalist golden Rule: "The one who has the gold defines the Rules!"
Money is an idea, with a certian relation to our actions, and materialist world. We associate money with the exchange of other things. WE GIVE IT VALUE!!! There is not eternal value to money, outside of the value we give it.
In Washington WinCo and Bimart are worker owned. We have to get more businesses operating on the principle similar to a "communistic" Native American Tribe where decisions are jointly made and resources are shared by all of the tribal members. Currently we are in a "rich get richer and the poor get prison" society.
In “Occupying Chairlifts” a simple rule tweak on inheritance ends up changing the direction and purpose of modern human life! Here’s a fair way to transition forward to where we’re rewarded for cooperating and creating instead of competing and conquering.
It's something specific we can demand. If this isnt the best answer, at least we’re thinking about what might be. Are we really just this close to having it work right?
Oh yeah, it's a Ski movie! “Occupying Chairlifts” on TH-cam!
As much as I like Rick, I'm getting tired of hearing him preach to the choir. We need to have televised public debates about the state of capitalism.
The Federal Reserve has been in force for only 90 years. Prior to that, there was no central bank. After the "Bankers Panic of 1907" and it's repercussions, the Federal Government authorized a study of efficacy of central banking under the Aldrich-Vreeland Act. The Aldrich plan was proposed that originally gave all power to the private banks, which was objected to by smaller banks from the west. The bottom line is that it was the bankers themselves that wanted the legislation
Richard Wolff is brilliant.
I live with two people unstable as this system one of them happens to be myself I can't simply move out
Exactly. Legal precedents may or may not change, and while there's definitely a lot that could be improved (open-sourcing all copyrights, legalizing drugs, and even offering a base minimum wage irrespective of occupation status), the whole legal system is compatible with different organizational/economic systems. You'll just never see this discussed on TV... we'll have to get there through social movements.
I haven't watched the video, technical and jargon terms are usually preferred by experts because the definitions are more specific and precise than laymen's terms so listeners can come to a sharper understanding of the information presented. More people understand laymen's terms, but the result of that generality is a foggier appreciation of the material.
The difference is with only a small central government protecting the rights of individuals by sticking to The Bill of Rights and nothing else there would be no role for large corporations to work with lobbyists to create an unfair market place, additionally the dollar would not be debased and thus it's strength & stability would guard against sudden inflation. It would end the Boom & Bust economic cycle and replace it with regular much smaller market corrections.
When a movie star makes $20 million a movie, the studio makes $200 million. When a star athlete makes $10 million a year on his contract, the team owner makes $100 million. When you get paid $8.50 an hour, your employer makes $85 an hour. The production of your sweaty labor goes to someone else who keeps the lion's share for himself.
Go be a movie star, team owner or anything else you named...problem solved
All of you watching, and believing, this please realize that this video isn't arguing against capitalism it's arguing against corporatism or crony Capitalism and there is a huge difference! The huge inequality of wealth, the gap between rich and poor is also unfairly being blamed on Capitalism. To understand that issue you need to know the true reason for the Federal Reserve. I'd suggest reading "The Creature from Jeckll Island" also America is not a Democracy we are a democratic republic!
Employee and employer owned businesses can coexist under Capitalism. All employees can gather together and brainstorm an idea for a venture. They can contribute funds to start and continue their venture, equally. They can distribute all the labor that goes into starting and maintaining a business, equally. And after their labor has bore fruit, they can share in those fruits, equally. Why eliminate Capitalism? Strict, acquisitive for-profits can co-exist with cooperatives just fine.
Im glad you brought that up because that is my point. Such ventures can coexist nicely in a capitalist system. However Jefferson believed in a republic. This means that he sincerely believed that neither individuals nor the gov't should intrude on other individuals, businesses, or organizations. Was Jefferson somewhat utopian? I think there is no doubt. He believed in freedom though, both social and economic. His idea of limited gov't extended to ALL spheres of life, including economic.
It is a very interesting idea, the one he advocates; that is, a more extreme version of Employee-owned corporations. It could be workable provided a few problems are worked out; chief of which is how to coordinate global distribution networks in order to make international trade work (and we would all be alot worse off without THAT), since democracy is generally slow.
Also, employee-owned companies will tend to overinvest in themselves and have perpetual excess capacity.
The problem with inequality, aside from the moral issues, is simply that it is unsustainable. Capitalism doesn't just allow inequality to arise, it fuels inequality by its very nature. It's a system that automatically (given time) leaves one with a third-world type of society: a vast population of paupers and a tiny group of wealthy elites who control the means of production.
Laissez-faire Capitalism is when a unicorn rides a bicycle and throws it's own shit at a sheep. Its a relative term...
Capitalism = The uncoerced exchange of goods or services between mutually consenting parties. Any other system = The forced exchange of goods or services between parties who may or may not consent.
What is necessary for capitalism? Freedom, agreement, consent.
What is necessary for any other system? Force, coersion, enslavement.
Capatalism is about freedom before it is about anything else, please do not let anyone else tell you different. The mathematical implications are completley secondary to the principle of freedom in the choices of individuals.Employer based/employee based comp. that is all fine from an economic point of view but capatalism is not foremost an economic system subject to the same scrutiny you would place on any other economic system, it is merley an economic consequence of the liberty at work.
The opposition to capitalism grows as jobs are destroyed, wages stagnate, and homelessness and poverty increase. There may be general apathy today but the overall suffering will soon enough reach a breaking point.
Mister Wolff talk about Yugoslav original project from 60' and 70'. Workers Self Management (Radničko samoupravljanje) If you want to find more about it try on Google.
You can't force a free market on anyone. You're free to not participate in voluntary exchange. That's why it's free as opposed to a planned command economy.
yelling when you're close to the mike and whispering when you're not detracts from the rhetoric
Adam Smith went to great lengths to explain capitalism through the lens of the enlightenment's belief in the power of reason, freedom and individualism. Without those 3 essentials, one is dealing with a "non-capitalism", which is what China is doing. Isn't it ironic that when one puts kool-aid powder in water, and it gains color, people are sensible enough to call it kool-aid, not water; but when a nation mixes tyranny with capitalism, people call it capitalism and not tyranny?
What strikes me is that after opening an anti-capitalist meeting, they thank their sponsors.
What happens if a surplus isnt made?
It means that your theories of self-interest are shattered. Our current economies are based on the amount of money is spent. Not on the happiness of the person, not any input from him, it's not based on the resources we have, nor on our ability to mine these resources. It is not based on the amount that are employed, the amount which are unemployed. Nor the state of other species on the planet. Its just based on consumer spending....
Best video ever - "the republican party went ballistic thats their normal condition - too good LMAO To fix things : 75% tax for the wealthy and we will have free health, dental, mental care, tuition free universities, fix our infrastructure and create jobs, legalize pot and tax it, we will end poverty, hunger and homelessness.
R. Wolff for president 2016
***** Exactly. Why let them keep all the loot and have to pay all them taxes. They ought give back what they stole. 1% of the 320 million, is 3.2 million Americans who have 34.6% of the country's total wealth. They pay 45% of fed income tax, but 20.5% of all taxes in the US. Yes socialism has never worked for the folks excluded from it. We have redistribution of income from everyone to the 1% who like it that way. Why change when it works for them. The other 316 million Americans should be happy we have the 1% to rape and pillage.
that is simply not true we would not be in debt if the trillions of dollars being hidden in the tax heavens would be returned to the US
...furthermore the big pharmaceutical companies along with insurance companies need to start paying back a large portion of those profits they have been making over the last 40 years
this country has been robbed by oligarchs and greedy corporations long enough
The main reason we have a debt its because idiots like Regan and Bush have been giving tax cuts to the wealthy and the greedy corporations. So what ends up happening is that they don't tax the wealthy ...they borrow the money from them with large interest and then of corse the people end up paying for it!!! Nope its not their profit if they have cheated/ taken advantage of scammed and harmed / killed people in the process ... which all of them have done!
What if profit is low, and shareholders are dropping out due to lack of competition? the employees serving as board of directors may not want to shut down but market competition will force the company to shut down if profits are not attractive to investors. The solution proposed is attractive and possible, but the workers serving as board of directors would have had to face the facts and should to shut down when competition call for it.
If profits are low, the Worker-Owners of a co-op are still being paid fair wages, because the existence of profits means the business' operating costs are being met, employee wages are an operating cost. Co-ops are not quite "the workers are the board of directors", there is no board of directors and there are no non-employee shareholders, there are only worker-owners.
No socialist utopia just good old Democracy.The goals of the anti capitalist movement is to create a Democracy and to reclaim the ideas and ideals of the DOI
There were plenty of incentives for individual mortgage brokers to push risky loans as they got paid without taking on the risk themselves or paying in consequences for later loan failures.
You just posted a comment without making any reference to how I answered previously, in which case you have ceased to engage in conversation.
Everybody else is doing it, why not, right?
Astronomy tell us, that all of the universe was created in the big bang. All the matter you see is what's left over from this colossal explosion. It also tells us that in our universe there exist an extraordinary amount of resources, just begging for us to tap into. Humans are vastly different from other species on earth, by their ABILITY TO WORK TOGETHER!!!!!! to solve complex problems. Humans are also SOCIAL creatures, meaning we have the desire to be ACCEPTED to be loved and to love.
I must emphasis IF PEOPLE DON’T CHANGE, worker co-ops notwithstanding, the systems you decry won’t change. I’m not against co-ops, they represents a worthy proletarian solution and can be at least a portion (if not all) of a better world. But the New Deal worked because Roosevelt recognized and accepted that austerity measures wouldn’t solve the problem of stagnation, they would indeed worsen it. So that’s what we have to recognize and accept. Stagnation is always caused by the people or person in power and a failure to embrace an effective solution. To that end of solving the people/persons in power conundrum we must redo Roosevelt’s solution and maintain it while the co-ops find their individual success or failure that is necessarily based on merit. Governments’ true function becomes distribution of surplus taxes across the populace as affordable medical care and universal educational opportunity based on a meritocracy system. Universal education is the means to changing the people, and those people will be the ones to change the system. The Cuban model wherein a limited government protects and insures fundamental needs for all the people shall be accepted and approved by everyone. Viva Fidel.
Employee owned businesses do not work. Usually they are just mechanisms for extracting labor at below market wages with the promise of a potential large future return or for some idealistic social cause. Even successful employee owned businesses such as law firms employ entry level lawyers below market. Most people do not have the fortitude to forgo wages for a potential future payout. The ones who do are called entrepreneurs.
I recommend you search up the model for the worker co-op, the Mondragon Corporation in Spain.
The San of southern Africa were essentially communist in an economic sense, but good hunters and good arrow-makers and good storytellers got credit and recognition for their skills, even though the benefits from those skills were distributed evenly. I know this is a small-scale, 'primitive' example, but they are human and so are we. I don't think it's too far-fetched to think that certain aspects of 'primitive' society could be transferrable to high-tech, mass society.
He's also refuting a system (capitalism) to which we've never had.
In Marxism Theory this problem with investment risk, never was resolved, and this is why ineffectiveness is built-in in this system, because nobody is ready take a risk, if the prize is small.
What else would you use to denounce capitalism?
AWESOME!
All capitalism is, is a system of custom codified into law. The laws themselves don't have to be changed or can be changed a little; private property laws, bailments, contracts,etc, would essentially remain the same. All we would have to change is how we organize within the law and take over the places where we work and how we elect those who run our government. To that extent, Jeffersonian and Lenninst theory can be synthsized and utilitzed. Any thoughts on that?
Capitalism, like Communism, benefits only a small percentage of every society. A combination of capitalism and socialism is necessary to help most people live a decent life.
Work with what you've got.
How many times does she says "am... " in the introduction?
The problem in communism (and socialism) is very weak connection between productivity, efficiency and salary. This devastates work ethic, because people, trying to perform his job as well as they can, are consider to be a naive. Another problem is investment risk. The more innovative activity, the greater the investment risk is, and somebody must take this risk, and pay for a failures (failures are very common).
Fun fact, the Taxpayer (you) pay for most research and development, whether directly for military or other state purposes or indirectly in the form of government research grants to universities or companies. The costs of developing new technologies (for example the Internet, which corporations didn't want to touch until it became profitable) are socialized, but once the technology is developed the capitalist vultures swoop in and privatize the fruits of innovation (i.e. the iPhone, which had most of its components developed with public funding in other areas). In the age of the 3-D Printer we now have people making prosthetics for children who are missing limbs **BECAUSE THEY CAN** not because it is profitable. Inevitably some megacorp will buy the rights to produce them and sell them for a few grand each. Capitalism rewards vultures that wait for technology to be developed then take advantage of it to enrich themselves.
Education systems are not to blame here. It is simply that there is no cure for stupid.
Prosperity into what? What defines prosperity? More than money. When did I say I was a communist or a socialist?
You have not read my previous posts. If you did you would find that I am opposed to the system we have. Free market capitalism is the only system that has never been tried. When you understand what I mean by that it's possible that you'd agree with me, but if you are still stuck on the many forms of tried Statist systems then you're destined to repeat the mistakes of history.
in order to promote stability in the currency and in the banking system as a whole. Something that had been lacking in the 80 years prior. While the system has not been perfect, it has carried out the function that it was intended to. Those who object today, are in essence saying that the previous situation was better, which demonstrably was not. Can it be improved? I believe so. Should it be eliminated? I disagree.
Fat chance on that happening. The corporate media will never allow that debate to be broadcast on the public airwaves, how ironic is that? So we win battles at the watercooler and at the one on one encounters with other people. We can win with casual conversations that the Koch brothers and their Madison Avenue friends can't win with just slogans and sound bytes. Remember, nothing is as powerful as an idea whose time has come.
How times did she say um ?
People always discuss systems in black and white, Capitalism good , Communism Bad. Socialism Good, Capitalism Bad. These black and white systems are theoretical. People need to distinguish the realistic IMPLEMENTATION of those economic theories to the theories themselves. That's why I find the whole conversation frustrating. There are MAJOR problems with our current system and there were major problems with other countries' implementations of socialism or communism that made them fail.
Of course. It all comes down to me not knowing what the free market is, and that it has never been tried. Of course I am such a fool for not thinking the free market will solve any and every problem in our system ever to exist. You don't seem to know that money is power. The more money you have, the more people will bow down to you.
The golden rule: Treat others the way you want to be treated.
Free market advocates: the one with the gold decides the rules.
all political philosophies rely on consumption of resources.
The world is changing and it seems for the better. Lets just see that the coming worker ownership doesn't turn into a bigger uglier consumption machine that is already present.
There also needs to be a shift away from the ever present "economy" and "wealth". Redefining wealth must go hand in hand in order to move forward. A society that presently idolizes and worships unreachable lifestyles will hopefully in the future will be seen for the greed and excess and not valued.
Spending a lifetime trying to reach a unattainable goal is nobodies quest.
So what is the difference between your end result of socialism and the end result of capitalism which is an oligarchy? What is there to protect people (workers) from the excesses of capitalism? If not the government than who or what? Without Fed Govt. support unions are powerless?
Around 15:00 there is a logical fallacy given. While looking at the direct cause of foreclosures and firings (private companies and private banks) the speaker ignores/fails to mention indirect causes (government subsidies and regulations which create an imbalanced economy and artificial prices which many companies cannot compete with and therefore must fire employees, government artificially covering interest rates on loans, etc) which have a far greater impact on these issues.
Go to 9:30, where the real talking begins.
"It's still a capitalist company, since profits are still important to keep the coöperation running." It is not capitalist as it is socialist model. It is time to let capitalism die. It served well until advent of industrial revolution.
"Mmm, Mondragon is criticized for the way it treats it's workers in Africa." Since when?
"Democracy only exists when every individual has its fair amount of democratic rights." This is an obvoius statement.
Why not?
I wouldn't say that one is more natural than the other and I can only talk from my own experience, but at least I like to get credit for the things I do and I expect so does most of the people and in pure communistic society this doesn't happen in any shape or form, while in capitalistic society you can "at least" gain some money/power from your work.
I personally think that capitalism is far better as a whole than communism, but peoples greed makes it shitty and corrupt.
workers owning companies is not an unheard of idea and nor is it anti capitalism nor is it socialist. Worker owned enterprises are just that. The problem is how individuals define capitalism. Worker owned businesses should only happen in a free and organic way and not dictated by government. More government involvement in the financial and private sectors have distorted and empowered those who have the assets to support political campaigns. Crony capitalism and socialism take away liberty.
Capitalists - privatize profits, socialize risk!!!!
One of the trends of Marxism is the abolition of child labour, and the establishment of public education for all. Something every "civilized" nation now practices. Are you saying you are pro-child labour?
Dried chips are good to taste in the future.
Go to Mr. Wolff's website, go to his video on an introduction to Marxism, and you will understand what his goals are.
'ism's' have not worked out to well for me either.
@ skilo1983: we do not live in a capitalist system, we live in a neo-feudal system. If you want to see a capitalist country that's pulling it off as you say. Google keyword: Iceland, recent history. Also find out they've capped their interest rates to slow down their success!???
So you are arguing that there where public schools in western Europe in the 18th century?
Hey guys if we move our plant to china we all get the same wage but dont have to work....no cant do it because Mr Wolfe said we shouldn't
Like you.
Did you, or did you learn from your parents/parent before school even started for you? All you have to do look at the literacy rate in the US and see that government education isn't working. Look at literacy rates 120 years ago. For extra comparison look at the literacy rate in private school.
While that simile can be dismissed out of hand as an ignorant insult to workers everywhere, if does lead to an interesting insight: In capitalism, the worker is approximately as unwilling a participant in the production process as an inmate in an asylum is in his incarceration. Food for thought, certainly, but not quite the point you were trying to make...
How is that the speaker rejects the theory of natural unemployment yet encourages market simplicity? This would innately eliminate the entire upper echelon of jobs for economists and lawyers. This would then just create more unemployment on top of what we already have. Unemployment is unavoidable in the long-term.
Any company has a right to create a lawsuit..securing a successful prosecution is another matter, remember for large government subsidized companies any lawsuit can be publicity for their own propaganda. If America wasn't bogged down with red tape and taxation combined with a minimum wage perhaps the jobs would have been in the US today. China is just as bad, but I suspect their own government intervention has served Apple's interest on this occasion...it doesn't make it right.
As I said, you don't know what Laissez-faire Capitalism is as you have just shown. You say that money is power...then you don't know what money is..think about it, what exactly is money..in all it's forms, even if you are bartering in sheep (this could be money). The danger you miss is that it is Government that seeks power... money is an inanimate object but government are people with private agendas with the power to legislate. I agree with the golden rule. I disagree with the 2nd point.
1) If YOU think I am not providing a good conversation, then why are you writing to me. My mode will not change therefore you must conclude two things, first YOU will retain your conviction that I cannot provide a good conversation and secondly why you would want to continue to write to such a person.
2) As for evidence there is limited room here as well you know. Mine among many places can be found by searching "Austrian School Economics"; "Ayn Rand"; "F.A.Hayek"; "laissez faire" etc...
How can something be both a pathetic attempt and a nice try ? Money is an idea in that it's a person's idea of that money..not the money in it self. Money has no self. The focus is the person that attaches value to it. Just as in that an idea cannot have any power but the application of the idea has the power. Money is incapable of actually having an idea in itself. Governments spend their whole existence coming up with ideas for their own gain at the public's expense. It just requires lies.
I learned to read just fine in the 1st grade. I think you're mistaking exceptions for the rule.
Sure, although it seems a bit opportunistic to me.. ;-)
all true
Furthermore, in a capitalistic system, consider the motive a bank would have to giving a loan to someone they don't think can pay it back with interest? There is none... To assume banks naturally give loans to people recklessly is retarded, this guy needs to learn more about the housing crisis and understand government involvement in mortgages.