Great Ideas Debate: Socialism or Capitalism?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 26 เม.ย. 2021
- This is a recording of the second annual Great Ideas Debate in conjunction with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation. This year's topic was Socialism or Capitalism? and Professor Richard D. Wolff and Professor Arthur C. Brooks debated the resolution: Socialism is preferable to Capitalism as an economic system that promotes freedom, equality, and prosperity. Prof. Wolff was on the affirmative, and Prof. Brooks the negative.
For more events visit: www.abigailadamsinstitute.org...
Counting the dead is exactly what the US government refuses to acknowledge. Amnesia is not an excuse for the US denial of our history of wars destruction!!!
Socialism or barbarism?
The main difference of capitalism in the US versus China as I see it is that China sets limits on a corporation and enforces them. They have whole communities involved in working for the success of the enterprise for the benefit of all, not just the owners!
Here we allow corporations to create monopolies by crushing competition, not paying taxes, after they are subsidized by taxpayers, then taking their wealth out of our country, leaving us empty of all the benefits we worked for. This is incompetence in our government or just pure and simple personal GREED!!!
THIS IN NO WAY MAKES SENSE!
One talks about fantasy land and the other one talks about reality. Can you guess which is which?
I'll help you...Dr Wolff makes sense.
When are you moving to b socialist country near you?
😂 nope Wolff is a liar living in a fantasy
Amazing debate! I loved the civility, how yall explained the diversity of thought in both camps, and tackled particular examples such as the war on poverty, China's growth, and the general agreement for a need for improvement/change. While the Zizek and Peterson debate was interesting, I found that this one definitely surpassed it and was able to learn alot.
Someone should give Brook a copy of "The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" by Robert Tressell. Written over a century ago but still so relevant today
Mr Brooks is an idealist but has no realistic answers. He lives in an abstract Utopia of his imagination. Mr Wolff has actual practical solutions which we can put into practice. There already are cooperative companies where the workers are the owners. (Red Mill for example)
I think Prof Brooks is basing his viewpoint from within the current structure as opposed to looking at reshaping the structure within which he is operating.
In this spectrum of organized human polity, which politics deals more effectively with the psychology of criminology within the human population, that always presents in 3% of emerging generations?
Where does Brooks get hours statistics and history from?
With due respect, Prof. Brooks analyses is skin deep at best. He doesn't understand that Democracy is not a creation of Capitalism. That Democracy has a class character.
Excellent debate without the sort of angry, talking heads trying to "destroy" each that is popular with the TV & Twitter masses. Just two very smart, good-hearted scholars in a sensibly paced debate having the space to present their views without vitriolic interruptions or personal attacks to undermine one's train of thought. This is what we need in the 21st century as our problems are now too large & intractable to afford us the luxury of pedantic mud wrestling contests.
As I see it, the principal problem facing us is getting the mix of socialism & capitalism just right to soft land our weakening US economy on solid ground once again, without the need to lighten the plane by heaving some folks out the door without a parachute. Globalism, financialization, de-industrialization and dis-investment have all combined into a perfect storm that left numerous "sacrifice zones" scattered around the country, especially in rustbelt towns that have lost their major employer. The positively anemic gig service economy that replaced the industrial economy has pulled the rug out from under each succeeding generation and dunked us all into an ocean of unsustainable debt.
And monetization of the debt, the classic response of a declining empire with a devaluing reserve currency, is only going to carry us so far before the plane runs out of gas. One only has to take a look at our earlier industrial & colonial European progenitors to see the well-established historical trajectory that we are following almost to the letter. No need to have a crystal ball or be clairvoyant to see the future here.
Since no one mentioned the predominant business model that is afoot in our economy these days, I feel compelled to bring it up: the Silicon Valley Disruptive Business Model. These are the new digital service based companies that pride themselves on disrupting well established markets and attempting to corner them by burning thru venture capital funding to reach a critical size worthy of an IPO, and a further round of cash burning provided by tech stock investors. Whether it's Uber & Lyft ignoring local taxi company rules & regulations in order to compete with long-established taxi companies with their legions of disposable immigrant drivers now left holding massive loans on expensive but near worthless taxi medallions, or Amazon crowding out established brick & mortar retailers in the ferocious competition to sell Made in China products to American consumers, or Facebook mastering the art of surveillance capitalism by selling our personal profiles to the highest bidders, our new post industrial disruptive digital monopolies are hard at work destroying what is left of our economic prosperity and stuffing the profits out of reach of any corporate responsibility towards the social consequences. (i.e. put on your astronaut diaper and go apply for a job at the nearest Amazon warehouse)
And, finally, a word on healthcare in America. Will you happen to get healthcare that includes a doctor or hospital "not in network", or a procedure "not covered" by your health insurance, or some other snafu that results in a 5 or 6 figure medical bill when you eventually get home? How come nobody told you? How come you can't get an estimate for medical services BEFORE they are delivered, along with how much is covered by your insurance and how much you will pay out of pocket? Why are healthcare providers exempted from pricing their goods & services up front like almost all other businesses? Why do we tolerate this, and how is this not a violation of the Hippocratic Oath of "first, do no harm."
If doctors, nurses and their support staffs are caring people charged with taking care of the rest of us, and they casually screw us over if the opportunity arises, then how will cooperatives of ordinary workers treat us any different? This better system that we now need to create in order to prevent a further collapse of our socioeconomic system, how can we create it if human beings themselves don't change their self-centered behaviors and desire for ever more material prosperity?
It would seem that we have met the enemy and he is us...
Maoism and Stalinism were dictatorships based on cults of personality. These were NOT Communist societies. Mr Brooks needs to understand political history a bit better. And in a class society created by Capitalism there is no such a thing as meritocracy. The playing field is VERY UNEVEN starting from birth. Being honest about the reality we live in is the basis of any debate, but if we refuse to admit what we all experience, then the debate becomes untenable.
Yes. This, exactly. Your comment is perfect, lol.
Very good point! I want to add the following, as socialist grown up in one if these former "communist/socialist" countries.The rat tails, left overs, of these "communist/socialist" countries are also parties who call themselves f.e. "communist party of Russia" or similar. But they still serve the narratives of Stalinism and right-wing, rather than communist goals. The "communist" in Russia are fine with Putins goals in Ukraine and got behind this right-wing idea of an "Greater Russo-Slavic State" dominated by Russia.Some lefties in the US are even crying foul, because the Zelenskyi government (I don't support) has forbidden two "left-wing" parties. Those parties were racist, sectarian and a mouthpiece of the Kremlin, while getting money from Moscow. Understanding the "Now" means understanding the "Past"! Btw., there were and are no socialist countries in the world!
@@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl Wow... Thank you so much for sharing your perspective, which is extremely valuable information given how much gets misconstrued when it comes to socialism, communism, etc. with the entire histories of these nations. I'm not the most enlightened global citizen I hate to admit (comes with the territory of being an disinformed, barely educated American, especially from within my cultural background and geographic region), although I've been fortunate to at least be somewhat aware for some time of the misconceptions with socialism and communism in Russia and China... But if you don't mind me asking, I'm curious about your qualms with the Ukrainian government and/or Zelensky's administration (of which most American people, aside from far right supporters of Putin, have been valorizing since the attacks recently began). Would you perhaps care to elaborate a bit further on some of that history, as well? I only have a barebones knowledge of some of their actions that have created tensions with some other nations, but I would really appreciate your perspective.
@@celestejones6315 If you're interested in Ukraines history you really should go to Wikipedia, because otherwise I would tip my fingers bloody (lol). I begin and end with the Russian claim that Ukraine doesn't really exist. That's wrong! After being a Soviet Republic of the same name "Ukraine", it became sovereign in 1991. A Ukraine as a state existed also from 1917-1920 within the Soviet Union. After being exposed to an oligarchy for a long time (until now), like that of Russia, the people wanted democracy, western lifestyle and being part of the EU. So they decided to uprise against the grifter Yanukowitch (president) in 2014. Having already players like the US and EU in the country,the US "put" idiots on the top and no change was coming. There was also a rise of right-wing parties, fans of the Bandera myth/cult, mostly from the Lviv/Galicia region. The US armed the right and "bad nationalism" was part of Ukraine for some few years in the Rada (Russian talking points!!). You have to know, after all what Ukrainians had to endure, nationalism was and is a thing there. BUT, it differs totally from the nationalism seen as some sort of reactionary, or right wing, like it exists in our countries! That's not so in Ukraine and I agree on that. Ukrainians are friendly towards foreigners and people with other skin colours or religion.They're very proud people and don't want to be dominated by anyone ever! Certainly not by Russia! Most Ukrainians have ties to Russia, Belarussia and other countries around. But they don't hate Russians (at least not before the war). A few "Banderistas" hate all Russian things, but the amount of those "Nazis" are way overestimated! Now to Zelenskyi. He was challenging a oligarch who was president before him. He claimed to be a reformist and was elected by a overwhelming majority of Ukrainians. But he failed badly! His approval ratings fell from 80 to 30% before the war (if I remember correctly). He didn't do what he promised. Ukraine is still dominated by oligarchs and corruption. Now he's a war hero. "Okay Biden and Western media". lol Because it's such a difficult topic and lying is everywhere, by Russia and Ukraine,as well as the West, people only know what they're been told, but not the "whole truth"! Putins war made "things" even more complicated and real democracy for the people, in both countries, isn't possible soon. That was only a few thoughts by me and out of remembrance! Don't judge me on correct numbers. But if anyone wants, challenge me on the essence of what I wrote and meant.
Trueeeee! And actually... I live in a Socialist country. The system has Socialism on it but... But the reality is veryyyyyy different! If you get me... Socialism can be Government-Capitalism basically! So in fact that, presidents and ministers can have 10 or 100x's the salaries of the public. Mr Brooks said "people like their jobs not because of money but because they enjoy the workplace". Yeah.... He should try working for $5/hour and see if he's happy... He has some point though! The workplace environment DOES matter but, for me, it's not exactly the most important thing. In fact, a higher salary gives that boost to go to work and deal with all the bs.
Socialism has the same problems like all systems.... Greed and power! When people are above us, who can shout orders, who can determine your life, who can dictate things,.... Doesn't matter if it's Socialism, Capitalism, Communism,... Whatever-ism. It ALL ends in Unbalance. Personally I find the American system more attractive because it seems it has a Micro management rather than a Macro management. On a micro level it's more focused on people and on a macro level it's more focused on the general... Which can influence stuff like "people don't matter, only the country does". The thing is... What makes a country are exactly the PEOPLE. You might find this obvious but... People can get lost in numbers and talk and they forget that "little" factor
Thank you RD.W
This was a good one
These guys are geniuses.
The capitalist says wealth inequality has been reduced "almost every year for the last 50 years" ...but I can find no source to reinforce this. Does anyone have one?
The World Bank puts out similar figures. But if we are to have a serious debate about world poverty, we have to start by acknowledging that the global problem of poverty is far more extensive than World Bank rhetoric would have us believe. Two big factors need to be confronted. The first is that the majority of the world’s poor live in countries that have experienced strong economic growth. The second is that the growth strategies these countries have practiced create and reproduce poverty.
@@DrSanity7777777 you are mostly talking about China...yes?
@@Couch_Potato I'm talking in reference to systems, not nations.
Capitalism is an evil not because it defends the legal right to property, but because it is of its nature the use of that legal right for the defense of a privileged few against a much greater number who, though free and equal citizens, are without economic basis of their own.
Both the benefits and the success of capitalism grow with the number of people who are capitalists.
@@DrSanity7777777capitalism isn’t evil and it isn’t only benefitting some small minority.
@ExPwner Capitalism is an evil not because it defends the legal right to property, but because it is of its nature the use of that legal right for the defense of a privileged few against a much greater number who, though free and equal citizens, are without economic basis of their own.
"Economic equality cannot mean equality of possessions any more than political equality means equality of functions. Yet if we proceed by analogy with the ideal of political democracy, which we conceive as a politically classless society with a rotating aristocracy of leaders, we can at least surmise that an economic democracy must somehow be conceived as an economically classless society, and that, too, with a rotating aristocracy of managers.
Until very recently, as I thought about these questions, I had grave doubts that what has come to be called 'capitalism' could establish the kind of economic democracy which political democracy required as its counterpart. I now understand the reasons for my doubts. They were based on an understanding of 'capitalism' which was colored by the sound criticisms that had been leveled against its injustices and inequities, not only by Marx and Engels, and by socialists generally, but also by Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI, and by social philosophers or reformers as diverse as Alexis de Tocqueville, Horace Mann, Henry George, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Hilaire Belloc, Jacques Maritain, Amintore Fanfani, and Karl Polanyi. Of these, only Marx, Engels and their followers proposed communism as the remedy." - Louis Kelso [The Capitalist Manifesto]
"What Marx almost discovered was that both the benefits and the success of capitalism grow with the number of men who are capitalists. His error in failing to discover this truth was the most fateful near-miss in history." - Louis Ortho Kelso
Groovism will bring on your whole list of cash alternatives; friendship, happiness, culture, joy, community, & happiness! Contributions not only financially, but more importantly, giving of Groove energy. This will benefit all of humanity!!
First you must define the capitalism, socialism and comunism. After that you can comment.
sorry arthur, but inequality is way up. Oxfam has the whole depressing story, and worst in usa ever.
How many Americans perished after 1929 during Great Depression & Hunger? How many Native Americans? How were happy Japan-Americans in Death valley camps? How successful was McCarthy commission to clear country from same sort of people?
Just commenting so I know I've watched this.
To counter Prof. Brooks' observation about those who prefer Socialist arrangements with regards to charity, the reason for this is because these are primarily workers who do not make enough to survive, let alone make the decision to be charitable because that would be at the expense of what they need to survive. If workers had more wealth and income to spare, they would have more to be charitable with without sacrificing their own wellbeing. It's not that their more selfish than the Capitalists; it's that the Capitalists have the means to be charitable because of the massive wealth and income inequality that Capitalism produces, and what they do give is never enough to mitigate the problems caused by the incentive structure in Capitalism. In other words, Charity in and of itself is an inadequate attempt to mitigate Capitalism's shortcomings, and this will always be the case because the goal of Capitalism is the maximization of profits, which Charity inevitably cuts into.
Well said, indeed. Love the name's positive twist on the Chamber of Commerce! 😂
The truth is we're all equal, and necessary in order to fulfill our human purpose; which is ultimately to evolve! All the many processes allowing communications to go global, were essential for this to happen. Uniting instinctively will Be the instigator of evolution!!
Streaming daily & soon to Be 24/7.
Today's Groove: th-cam.com/video/5TpWjXtVfkM/w-d-xo.html
Mitch Mc Connell is senator of Kentucky and majority leader of Senate Republican party. They keep him in power. Richard does not say more ownership of corporations by state; he says more ownership and decision making by the employees not management, boards of executives and CEO's. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems, not a governing structures. We would still have a constitutional republic. Because of the wealth going to most wealthy 1% and 0.01 % we actually have a banana republic.
Nobody stops you from starting your own company, Debbie.
The problem with Brooks' position is that, whilst he's recognising the grotesqueness of corporatism, he hasn't yet understood that it's the dynamics and incentives of a capitalist system which lead to that. It's that same old problem libertarians have had: they want the parts of capitalism they like, but disown the parts they don't. Capitalism will always tend towards monopoly, which will trend towards power disparity, which will trend towards unaccountability and corruption. Libertarians have no viable strategy or counterveiling power (i.e. like the working class) to redress this, and so end up caught in this mire of opining that "If only things were done differently, things would be better", as though the world is merely a battle of competing ideas, instead of competing interests. As a result, his prescription is all highly abstract and unapplicable to real world circumstances.
On the other hand, Wolff is proposing a system change which presents new dynamics and incentives. Because those are based in class analysis, the prescription is different, too: Working class consciousness and according activity.
No dunce, capitalism does not “always tend towards monopoly.” Quit parroting Wolff’s lies and read the historical record. It shows the exact opposite.
@@ExPwner provide facts and not baseless attacks
@@SamuraiKage-iv3owyou provided no facts yourself. You are the one making the claim and not backing it up. The onus is on you to provide facts.
Prof. Brooks' points on Capitalism throughout the world are due to Prof. Wolff's points about Labor organization and growing Democracy in the workplace because in these countries, they are strong enough to keep the greed of the Capitalists in check. But as history has proven, the Capitalists eventually find ways to regain their positions of influence and begin to undo everything that the Working Class had achieved, leading to the return to growing wealth and income inequality that take the whole of society back to Square One. What's more, Prof. Brooks makes a point that vindicates the democratization of the workplace that modern Socialists are pushing for. If we wanted to, we could refer to this approach as "Social Capitalism", which means Private ownership at a collective level of the means of production. This was really a terrific debate. Great job, Professors!
Such a satisfying rebuttal from Prof. Wolff on the "counting the dead" piece that just kept coming back. I mean, my god, slavery and wiping out nearly the entire native population of Turtle Island and the Caribbean. My brother in Christ, Brooks, take a seat.
It isn’t. It’s just lies
capitalism is feudalism except anyone can be a lord. Also, RE: death tolls, not hearing a lot about the millions who died of famine in british india, nor the ~200million who have died since 1990 b/c of unclean drinking water, something we could easily solve but it's not *incentivized* under this system like exploiting workers is
Lords and feudalism do not come from Capital.
You have to have all people dependent on the sale of their labor capacity to have capitalism.
Serf and lords were dependent on each other as a closed system of production as was master and slave were a closed system of production dependent on each other but in capitalism, everyone is independent of each other; all you need is not love, but $$$money. Money is our connection to social labor. But it takes a long time to change or break the bonds of social labor from individual producers of wealth and cut off one's connection to the earth, tools, and stock (objective conditions for labor) and through a series of battles, conflicts, wars, tyrannical episodes by Kings. Monarchs, and now in modern times invasions, wars, immigration incarceration, by Joe Biden, is a process of cutting people off from the objective conditions of work, a separation of labor from its own product and working conditions as it unfolds before our eyes. Capitalism is achieved when this process is finished. When labor capacity is all people have to make money with. The problem with this 19th century manner of American capitalism is climate change. It cannot on its own figure out how to use climate induced physiological transformations like the melting of ice into electrical power when all the elements in production are used for exchange-values and government is based on these exchange-values.
Well it’s a futile argument to a larger extent. Socialism is a political ideology whereas Capitalism is an economic methodology. So it is similar to attempting to compare apples to elephants. In our polarisation of politics the vociferous extremes have become the the policy makers and the voice of an otherwise centrist, quietly scrutinising majority. Have exponents of capitalism gone as far as to exploit other people, no doubt yes some have. So is there a need to legislate and control - undoubtedly yes. Oddly enough when the left criticises capitalism it describes corporatism. So if we substitute the word capitalism for its true meaning, which is the method by which we create wealth, it is easy to see that the demonisation of wealth creation leads to poverty. That’s why all the socialist countries are p..s poor. Ah but I hear you cry the Scandinavian countries are doing very well! Well that’s easily explained. If you look around the world you will notice that all countries that have strong welfare systems, regardless of the en vogue political direction, have capitalist economies, albeit heavily taxed. They are the only ones who can afford it! If socialism is to flourish and become the bastion of equal opportunity it has a number of things it must do. It must relinquish its lowest common denominator strategy, legislate against corporatism, embrace capitalism and ensure wealth is better distributed.
There are some that believe the work force should have ownership of the business, what a great idea! There is already a system within the capitalist structure that encourages it - Cooperatives. Of course the sharing of the business brings with it the responsibility of shared liability should things fail. That’s perhaps where things fall down. Many of us would enjoy the fruits of ownership but are not prepared to take on the liability.
So where to start? Maybe the starting point is acquiring the knowledge and understanding to identify the component parts. Vociferousness comes hand in hand with vacuousness
the moment somebody mentions Cuba without mentioning the brutal embargo loses all trust from my part. I can't deal with all the bs
Why didn't Cuba blockade the west? If it's so successful
The embargo is not why it sucks. Socialism is
33:40 more ownership is correct. Socialize the ownership of corporations.
But this is not more capitalism. More ownership is a return into what was the society capitalism blew apart!
The self-contained system of master-slave and the closed system of the Common lands of Native Americans, and the self-contained system of the settler-farmers who fought the Revolutionary War, all systems of production in relation to land ownership and use were blown apart by the rise of capitalism in production.
The separation of the worker from the product and from the means of production made the worker free of ownership except for labor-power.
Before capitalism in the US the working class of that time were settler farmers, ranchers, herders, blacksmiths, tanners, home textile producers largely women and children, slaves and native Americans who produced from the land and both cultures had ownership of land. Different forms of property ownership but ownership just the same. When Lenin distributed the land to the peasants it was a move to generalize privatization or what is the same thing by a different name, socializing ownership of land, the opposite of America's 1% purchasing land. To this day every Russian owns some form of land. Expanding ownership makes sense, it expands markets and makes it inclusive, but that is not capitalism. Capitalism is the the deprivation of the worker of the means of production that all they have to exchange with a capitalist is their labor capacity.
The only reason charity is given by the rich and corporatist is to have a tax cut.
Guess who made the laws
Wrong. Charity predates tax cuts
Sounds to me like Arthur C. Brooks is a libertarian who believes in a Meritocracy.
Is this serious? Capitalism vs Socialism? People who support Socialism should, like an adult, scientific debate, provide evidence for their contention.
The debate would be, short.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is not fired after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
No it isn’t. Democracy is the majority forcing their will onto the rest without their consent.
Poor Mr Brooks. What a massacre!
Brook makes alot of assumptions that are not based on facts but rather on innuendos and misinformation. Therefore his theories often do not hold water.
That is Wolff actually
One more point: to the question posed by the “moderator”, who clearly is on the neoliberal corporatist cheerleading team:
Surely a business can’t be run by employee plebiscite?!
Rebuttal:
Fallacious reductio ad absurdum straw man argument, similiar to the fallacious straw man arguments of Professor Brooke, once again equating authoritarianism with socialism, as if an anti-authoritarian socialism, which Professor Wolff already presented as a perfectly viable and proven successful alternative, is an impossibility and unimaginable.
But more to the point:
Yes, some people are better at management - but they can be elected by democratic worker cooperatives, by the workers themselves, rather than hired by a basically totalitarian corporate elite and board of directors. Can anybody say, Duh! ?
The libertarian socialist model that Profession Wolff presented here, or one version of it, rooted in grassroots economic democracy, workplace democracy, and worker cooperatives is decidedly not theoretical. Are you unaware, Professor Brookes, of the centuries-old co-op model, which is now wide-spread in the US and around the world, which is very successful, and growing fast? Are you unaware, ignorant, that is, of the Spanish Revolution, which was largely anarchist, libertarian socialist, and which very successfully ran an advanced, modern industrial society, while under the extreme pressures and duress of fighting a war against the fascists, and their Communist and "liberal" Western oligarch supporters? And are you likewise ignorant of the Mondragon Co-op in Spain, which was founded by two brothers only a few decades ago, and which now has become one of the biggest and most successful corporations in all of Europe? Giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming you are not a conscious liar and propagandist, one must conclude that you are, quite simply, stunningly ignorant of the facts of history and political-economy, both.
Response?
My apologies for the ferocity. It is nothing personal. It is simply a matter of 99% of the eight billion human beings on Earth being suffocated, squeezed, held down, boot on the neck, exploited, preyed upon and degraded, or worse, by a predatory and parasitic, truly vampiric system of neo-feydal corporate empire. This has to change. And the time is now.
Coops are not socialism unless forced as Wolff wants which is not libertarian.
The critiques of corporatist apologetics and ideologues could go on and on, but listening to such drivel sickens me too much to keep watching this video, despite Richard Wolff's refreshing honesty and lucidity and courage - a video which I now have to turn off, or else throw up.
But one last point:
Professor Richard Wolff already stated clearly and repeatedly that there are least three different kinds of socialism; and the millions of deaths caused by Stalin and Mao are the result of only one of the three forms of socialism, which is authoritarian state socialism - which I, along with Chomsky, would not call socialism at all. As Chomsky said, Socialism, if it neans anything, means worker control - but giving a few political elites total or near total power, is not worker control, and therefore is not socialism: it's just another form of oligarchy, elite rule, domination and submission, and empire. There is no true socialism in it. It's state capitalism, which is simply another form of oligarchy, tyranny and empire, best left to go the way of the dinosaur.
But again, in terms of imminent critique, look in the mirror, I say to the apologists and ideologues of corporate capitalism: precisely this neoliberal and increasingly neofeudal corporatist empire turns entire countries into labour camps. Listen to Bruce Cockburn, Canada's Bob Dylan, in his song, Call It Democracy. He'll clarify what should have been self-evident to everyone, all along.
Wolff is a liar and so is Chomsky. The “that’s not real socialism” is a lie and you know it
What reality is the prof living ine? Back in the 90’s, a Harvard ethics professor gave up after two years of futile tteaching. The breaking point was
the unanimous class answer to the question: “If your rival offer hookers
to Arab oil magnates, what would you do?” The entire class
was willing to do likewise, or else you will are a fool and should be fired. So take this goodwill love and respect infantilism and flush down the toilet. We are a society of winner take all, grilled into our souls by K-12. This is why capitalism will always manipulate economic policies to enrich the rich. Nothing else matters. This is why capitalism will always leave the masses in rags, puzzled why they can’t seem to save any money, while the chosen ones enjoy compounding wealth. Love have no place in capitalism.
Utter nonsense. The masses are enriched under capitalism
Workers need to democratically own their production in the work place. Unions need to be democratized as well as governments. The top-down production model is no longer trusted to work for all workers. Bosses only fin for themselves and their co-workers be damned. We must work for each others needs. Resources can no longer be over-extracted only to be disposed of unused. We need to keep the planet habitable.
Nothing stops workers from doing so today. Coops have existed in the US for over 100 years.
@@PCFLSZ nothing? Nothing stops workers from making co-ops? Ever heard of miseducation? Ever heard of propaganda? Jeez man, it's like you're living in the stone age.
@@leeporwoll2380 How did you and I manage to avoid that miseducation and propaganda?
Could it be that they know it's an option but they don't want to expend the effort? Or could it be that they enjoy their job and simply aren't interested?
@@PCFLSZ you deal entirely way too muvh with hypotheticals. Most people I've worked with, in most of my jobs (good and bad) fucking hate it. They hate working just to make someone else rich. They hate raping the planet just so a few fat cats can live high on the hog. But they've faced obstacles you and I cannot even begin to imagine. So they resign themselves to "playing the game" because its too tiresome otherwise to beat the drum of "collectivism." This system does not allow for any alternatives. Wake up man.
@@PCFLSZ and I didn't avoid it, I just saw right through it. Big difference. The system won't give you the tools you need in order to overthrow it. The oligarchs (who're only possible under capitalism) won't just roll over and hand over their world without a fight. Why you simping so hard for them? You'll never be one of them, no matter how hard you try.
Probably this capitalist guys sole knowledge comes from Fox news! LOL 😂
Capitalism value for value, Best option for freedom and economic prosperity.
The top 5 richest, own more than the bottom half of the population. Capitalism create inequalities, it's built to do so.
@@LoneWolfj11
Boooooooooooom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That was a classic ass-whoopin'!
@@LoneWolfj11 Plus, we need to democratize the work force. and produce only for people's needs. Our planet can no longer handle over-extraction, over -consumption, and hoarding of the earth's resources.
Yes, Mr. Bezzos is more valuable than half of the USA population. So should we just replace half of the USA with ONE valuable Bezzos? Really let's send all those losers hotel and restaurant workers to Amazon jungles and allow one valuable Bezzos do it alone. He's very efficient after all. So who's agreeing with me - let's get rid of all low value workers and replace all them with only one valuable Bezzos?
Lol dude shit talked socialism using Cuba