I agree. I always like and leave at least one comment. On Democracy at Work, and pretty much every other leftist/left-wing video I watch. They are increasing in popularity, so it is working.
@@jackdeniston9326 He understands neoclassical economics via his multiple PhDs, but is himself a leftist. So he is unusually capable of comparing and contrasting the neoliberal and socialist takes on existing structures and current events.
@timothy chung Monopolists operate in plenty of situations in which state actors are more influenced by the commerce than the other way around. Don't kid yourself.
@timothy chung I'll grant you its certainly a contributing factor, or at least a tool to maintain/expand their dominance, but it's certainly not the cause (=) of monopolies.
@Scott Covert Failing one because it has never materialized. And the second someone tries to make it real, there goes the forces of capitalism, along with the US, to put embargoes and make global scale economic warfare.
@Scott Covert There's a lot of history that most of us never learn. Here in the US I have found that virtually everything regarding labor history/socialism we are taught is untrue/misinformation. And of course we aren't taught critical thinking and evaluation until college! It's the perfect recipe for ignorance.
@Scott Covert Critical thinking is the first thing that's absent from public school. Beyond that I would be happy to give you a list of reading (and audio/video/other) material if you were sincerely curious. But sometimes we see people intentionally trolling, or those who are generally not being genuine. This topic (socialism/communism) is rife with this type of thing.
@Scott Covert communism 😂 there was never communism in China, nor in USSR, Cuba Vietnam. Makes me sick to hear stupid thing like this. Socialism doesn't mean centralized planning (though it made Russia 2nd largest economy in 50 years)
He simplifies stuff and perhaps makes a few errors here and there but I've not found any outright lies. Some may not like him because he doesn't continously denounce the Soviet Union or China for their evil actions. But he does briefly state that they do bad things. It's just that he focuses on the economics, rather than the politics and human rights abuses. We already know they're wrong, so we don't need convincing and we come on this channel to hear about why we need an alternative economic system.
Professor Wolff is the best narrator of 20th century history; the truth-teller on capitalism; revealer of the story of "How the hell did we get here" on TH-cam. Precise, accurate, and relevant. Thank you, Maestro.
Mmmmm-mmmm, wood chips in my food and some limits on the ratio of bug corpses to other stuff, just what I always wanted. Thank Baby Jesus for those sane regulations.
As an aside regarding Professor Wolff's comment about sugar in soft drinks - The vast majority of soft drink beverages produced by Coke and Pepsi contain a sweetener called high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as opposed to sugar. They did so because it was cheaper to use than sugar. It turns out it has been a lot worse for one's health. That hasn't stopped from continuing to use HFCS. A great illustration - of competition and monopoly in action.
👽 HFCS is ALMOST as bad as Bee Vomit in terms of glycemic effects, it is highly glycemic, and that's why just like Bee Vomit, High Fructose Corn Syrup should be avoided at all cost.
That child labor started England in the 17th century ...a lot of factories in the slums the adults could not work they were too poor so they sent the kids to work into mines.. like Charles Dickinson era...
@@souviksen7497 Maybe he was insinuating that the early 1700s was when it really took off in England ... which would coincide with the initial stages of Capitalist development in the West. The system was first born in England. And I think @ska punk OI! alternative living was referring to Charles Dickens - A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist and the like.
When all of the monopolies have succeeded, in all of the industries, there will be a bunch of industries with one dominant player. Then they will set their sights higher. Who is going to dominate the monopolies? This is a “Game of Thrones” as they each now now “compete” to become the monopoly of monopolies. In the meantime, we who are not in their game, either cheer from the bleachers or simply wait for crumbs to fall from their tables... or we revolt
As someone who supports capitalism I’m curious to see what people on the other side think. I want you to tell me why I’m wrong. From my view the only monopoly that can exist in a free market is one that benefits society, through offering consumers the best goods for the best prices. There is no way for a coercive monopoly to exist in a free market. This is because if a business, which controls a significant portion market, unjustly raise prices or produces low quality goods, new businesses will move into the sector and offer better goods to consumers at a cheaper price. There is no way for a company to rip anyone off in capitalism because consumers control the market. The only way any business can grow is by convincing consumers to voluntarily purchase their product. The only examples of coercive monopolies are ones which the government creates by eliminating competition and offering special privileges to certain companies. So can you please explain what’s wrong with a free market monopoly?
@@lilrewb4646 I was thinking the same thing, like with his example of airplane manufacturers cutting corners because of competition and ending up making defective planes, how do they win the competition like that? Nobody would want to fly in a potentially defective plane. People wouldn't trust them. So people switch to airlines with a better history of safe flights. I would also love to get insight into how a non competitive society will progress. For me the important question is not why a certain system is bad or why something is better, but the important question to me is how exactly is a system bad and how exactly will another system be better? I think there is a difference.
I grew up in an extremely neoliberal bubble/peer group/community. I've been steeped & marinated in so many capitalistic myths & lies that I felt ostracized & insane when I started questioning it all openly (privately, I always felt something was wrong about it - like a pit in my stomach). From that perspective, I've gotta say - listening to Wolff's work has been like a breath of fresh air. Thank you for everything you do.
Quantity over quality in capitalism gets the consumers using more more MORE. Also manufactured obsolescence isn't a bug of capitalism it's the feature of it, getting consumers to buy more all the while these monopolies are using more resources. It's Mass MADNESS.
@Scott Covert Why do you think somebody doesn't already just do that? You can't because you product will cost you more time & money to produce, & will carry a higher pricetag than your competitions. For some reason, those who defend the system the hardest seem to have thought about it the least...
@Scott Covert Why are you asking questions we all know the answer to? They cost more because you are using higher quality parts & labor. Who said, "Marxism" would fix it? How would you fix it? It seems to me that we should go back to the understanding that the majority of people will not act out of empathy or honor, so we need to start regulating industries again. Greed is real easy to understand.
@Scott Covert Marxism will favour quality. Why? Because the end goal isn't to produce as much as possible for profits. It's to work as little as possible for the best results. To have to produce new chairs and tables every other year for the same customers is NOT what you want. Then you can turn your attention to other things..education, arts, your family and society, innovation... etc. that is what Marx had in mind. I my self would be back in school at once.
@Scott Covert Hello. "Styles change, people's needs change, new generations are born while others die. " And co-ops can't deliver what people need? If workers are in control over the means of production, they can't produce what people want? Makes no sense? Care to explain what you mean by that?! "Marxism will never be able to satisfy the market. " "It" wants to satisfy people. The market isn't the end game, nor should it be. "Why innovate when "new chairs is not what we want?"" This needs explaining too. Why on earth would anyone produce anything that no-one wants? If you find out a better way of making a "chair" why wouldn't you do that? "What are you innovating if not goods? What does a family want? Need? Society?" Innovations can be goods, but creative ideas is a better way of looking at it. A family needs each other, it needs the society. You wouldn't want to spend more time with your friends and family? "What happens when you don't make a product that the people want? Do they just accept what you made because you don't believe in catering to what they ask for?" And again. Why would you even consider making something that no-one wants? Like bad quality goods and inferior services...Oh right! we do that now...to make profits. I still don't see how you have come to your conclusions here.
@ThePHiLsTeR, Much of that rarity, though, is due to efforts of the cartel to create an artificial scarcity of diamonds by hoarding a stockpile of those diamonds in order to limit the supply. I believe the cartel has also striven to suppress the demand for synthetic diamonds, which in reality are the purest of diamonds and also the least likely to be a 'conflict diamond'.
That's why I don't work on assembly lines weather in the car plant or for Amazon. .. because it comes like slave labor you can never get off the track I love my freedom...
The question though is would you, if you were in a situation that the choice was starve and die or work on an assembly line or at amazon. No one willingly works in those conditions. Thank your lucky stars you don't have to in order to live until tomorrow
@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 you are so right about that my friend that's exactly the point because I told a better life I told to get rid of my expensive expenses downsize and become a minimalist which means I live out of my van off the grid I build myself and I got a small attic Studio which allowed me and saved me thousands of dollars... gave me a lot of freedom and I love it I think being full album working class is a choice some people want to be ruled by the system this is why I tell people to be self-sufficient government needs to be smaller work for yourself do something for yourself don't be that slave and do three jobs and be forced to work jobs you don't want to do I'm blessed I work when I work because of my choices... and because of those right choices I don't have to work hard anymore and I am free
@@skapunkoialternativeliving6522 Imagine to work for things that are needed and to develop the community you live in. That would be nice. Instead of working for profits.
Agreeing very much with the second half: Competition leads to monopolies. Monopolies create barriers to entry (mostly through manipulating government). This is a fundamental flaw of capitalism. However the downsides of competition in the first half can be discussed: 1. The outsourcing to China is due to monetary policies. Coincidentally the dismantling of the US industry started when the Dollar was taken of the gold standard and the petrodollar system was established. This forced many countries to acquire dollars and lower their own currencies to sell products in the US markets. 2. Automation was only a problem during the industrial revolution, when it shocked the labor market. Since then it has led to higher productivity and economic growth. Which lead to higher salaries and more jobs. However we now have income tax, a big tax on labor which leads to less jobs. (For example, the Indian cash based economy grew rapidly because most jobs in the villages where not registered and out of reach for the government to tax. Until the Indian demonetization messed up that economy.)(I'm not an expert on the Indian economy, it just fascinates me) 3. Unmoral practices, like messing with food, are not unique to competition. Any bureaucratic system produces the same bad behavior, because the incentives of the decision makers are not aligned with the well being of those who bear the consequences. That said, competition creates a race to the bottom concerning morals. Please consider that this is a TH-cam comment, so I'm not going to sprinkle it with if's and maybe's and source references. The write-up is already long enough. (Maybe I need to randomly generate smileys to display good intentions)
8:35 The scary part is that this actually happens. Food companies use cellulose--wood pulp that is indigestible by humans--to stretch out their products.
One important point with competition is that companies are forced to a certain behavior even though it might be detrimental in the long run. Two examples: When companies moved production out of the USA anyone still producing there had to move out their production as well to stay competitive. Even though it was clean that the loss in jobs and income would lead to a shrinking market hurting them in the long run. Increasing the minimum wage will allow restaurant worker to go and eat in restaurants growing the market. However its difficult for a restaurant to pay their worker more as long as everyone else does not since they would not be competitive.
Ever play the game Monopoly to the end? One player owns everything. Without controls, that is what happens in real life. Of course, most people get tired of the game before that point, and most countries get feed up with the Oligarchy before that point and depose them (peacefully, or otherwise). Reading 'Goliath' by Matt Stoller that documents the attempts to take down the Robber Barons of the late 19th century, the success of that during the New Deal and WWII and the raise of the monopolist again in the present day. Yes - it is a continuous struggle. However, the monopolies were broken and regulation helped to keep them from reforming - for a while. Such regulation could be used again to break up the monopolies and keep them from reforming. I am not sure what Prof Wolff is proposing to take the place of competition and capitalism. However, I think we should be working to break up the monopolies NOW as I am sure the monopolies will be spending a LOT of money to keep anything Prof Wolff is proposing from happening. Breaking up the monopolies, taxing the oligarchy, seems like a good first step. AND, this has been done before and produced good economic return for a majority of Americans (vs the 1% - really the 0.1%).
Let the workers own their means of production. That would put a definite stop to the constant spasms of capitalism. Just let the people work for the people and their society.
The problem with capitalism isn’t the capital: It’s the flow of it. Capitalism would be fine and great if the capital means belonged to the workers and was distributed more evenly. However there in lies the rub: The goal of capitalism will always be for that capital to gain more capital. Not “competition”. Not “better products”. Not “cheaper prices”. Those are all byproducts of trying to gain more capital. As a result; capital will always concentrate.... regardless of how many or how few hands that capital belongs to.
👽 The problem with the coop model though, and that's regardless of whether we're talking about Worker Owned, or Customer Owned coops, coops have consistently failed to make goods, and services AFFORDABLE, just look at any grocery coop, or REI as examples.
Hardin9 The problem with your assessment is that you have a fucked-up modern concept of what AFFORDABLE means in your mind. Worker Co-Ops can not be as AFFORDABLE with their goods and services as corporations because they provide livable wages to their workers and that is less AFFORDABLE than... literal child slavery available in another country. Well no shit. The metric you are using to decide what is AFFORDABLE is completely under the assumption that these companies have to compete with immoral and/or unethical and/or illegal practices that a corporate entity has access and commonly utilizes. Did you watch the video? Prof Wolff even goes into detail explaining some of the practices that corporations will undertake to make things more AFFORDABLE; which often is to the detriment of all aspects of a society worker and customer alike. If (and when) you force corporations to play by the same rules as the worker Co-Op: Not only will you find that the Co-Op is just as AFFORDABLE; but it will often times be more so. As the worker co-op does not have the added expenses of paying bloated executive compensation and does not have to worry about pleasing stock holders that focus only on short-term gains instead of long-term growth and company success.
(Cont) You can look to the success and AFFORDability of co-op goods and services in many European countries (especially Spain and Italy) where corporations are barred from many of the practices of American corporations if you need such an example.
SOLUTIONS??? For those wondering about solutions to these ( and other) problems and many realizing that coops in market systems will also suffer these ills the solution I am currently most sympathetic to is called "Participatory Economics" or PARECON. It has been developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel over the last 30 years or so just to address these and other problems. I would kindly suggest Dr. Wolff reach out to these two individuals for interviews. Instead of markets or central planning for distribution it proposes democratic or participatory planning. Instead of coops with hierarchical organizational structures mimicking existing corporate structures it proposes balanced job complexes, or every worker doing essentially the same amount of empowering and disempowering work. It proposes democratic decision making where you are involved in decisions in equal proportion as to how they affect you. It proposes compensation for work according to how long you work, how hard you work (effort) and the onerousness of the work, for doing what is democratically decided to be socially valued labor. Although it has been extremely well thought out and defended over the years (mostly from critics on the left, the right largely ignores it), It is not a blueprint for an economic system but proposes to set in place the institutional structures that allow future generations to determine their own lives.
I gotta disagree with your take on automation. It’s not inherently bad. If competition wasn’t a problem and workers owned the means of production, then automation would still lead to a decrease of labor while producing the same profits, but that reduction of labor would be distributed fairly, everyone would continue to make just as much money as before, and no one would lose their job for it. And then, with all the workers now having more time on their hands, they would be free to innovate more ways make more money if they so chose. I see no problem here.
It might be too far into the future, but I believe that the purpose of automation should be to free humanity from most of the burden of hard labor. Only then we can really say we are free.
I agree with you completely! Competition isn't natural at all. If you look at nature, the wolves don't compete for their own survival. Yes, none of the animals compete for anything in nature, they share all the resources and help each other out. It's a beautiful thing when I find a robot in the forest reducing the labor of squirrels. It's fun to watch how the squirrels have automated the collection of nuts for the winter. Now the squirrels have so much stored food for the winter, all they do is sit around discussing how they will distribute the nuts fairly. I overheard them discussing the next innovation and how they would be able to automate the collection of even more nuts so they could stop working altogether and just sit around while continuously eating all day. All the squirrels were so happy. Then a funny thing happened. The nut collecting robot made a popping and grinding noise and stopped collecting nuts. All of the fat happy squirrels waddled over to the machine and stared at it. Finally, their leader said, 'Go get Frank, he's the only one that knows how this thing works since he's the one that built it'. Quickly they all got a scared look on their faces, and one of them spoke the unspeakable words, 'Frank disappeared shortly after we voted to take his nut collecting machine, don't you all remember?'. That's when I let out a long whistle, raised my eyebrows, and continued my walk in the forest.
About second hand equipment that is to say that no new capitalists would buy the easier to atain means of production if not more of them or use some of it to supply the gap in their buisness equipment.
Well said. The few companies also have the ability to produce more for less allowing them to undercut smaller competitors, last longer without high profit rates and absorb shocks better. They can make deals with suppliers to further block smaller businesses. They can reach far more people with their chain. Their presence reduces wages, lowering buying power and further insuring people go to them because they can't afford the smaller business. They create multiple other businesses that work under them which tricks the consumer into thinking they have more of a choice than they do in who they support. All of this is without any government collusion.
Professor Wolff in this session explores the question of whether the elimination of monopoly would result in a must more just society, with a fair distribution of income and wealth and the elimination (or at least significant mitigation) of our abuse of the “natural environment.” He correctly observes that monopoly has existed forever under “capitalism.” The last thing owners of firms really want is strong competition. I raise only one issue for serious investigation and consideration. Another historical fact is that the quest to monopolize nature (i.e., of land and natural resources) began not many generations after groups of people began to settle in one place and build villages that grew into towns and into cities. The historian Edward Gibbon identified monopoly of land as an important reason for the decline of the Roman empire. It did not end with the expansion of capitalist production. At the beginning of the 20th century, young Winston Churchill described the monopoly of land as “the mother of all monopolies.” Leo Tolstoy, anticipating the coming turmoil, write this to the Tzar in 1902: “In Russia, where an enormous part of the population lives on the land and is entirely depending upon the large land-owners, it is obvious that the emancipation of the workers cannot be accomplished by public ownership of the mills and factories. Real emancipation can come to the Russian nation only by abolishing private ownership in land and by recognizing land as national property. …I think that the abolition of landownership will put Russia upon a high degree of independence, prosperity and contentment.” Agreeing with both Karl Marx and Henry George, Tolstoy called for government to then lease land to individuals or private entities under terms that would capture the full rental value of whatever land was then held.
Lenin addressed this question in 1916, while he was in exile in Switzerland. He wrote, in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" - "Translated into ordinary human language, this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still 'reigns' and continues to be regarded as the basis for economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the big profits go to the 'geniuses' of financial manipulation." He goes on, "We shall see later how 'on these grounds' reactionary petit-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to 'free.' 'peaceful' and 'honest' competition." He foresaw and predicted the reaction and critique of the upper-middle class "Libertarian" types who dream of going back to some more-perfect stage of capitalism, which never really existed. We are far beyond that stage of historical development where we could have a world of small shop owners and small farmers selling their produce in the town square. It's 2019, but these people paint a bucolic and austere image that would actually be better suited to the 1830s. They fail to see that the world has changed and their beloved system, Capitalism, has progressed and changed alongside everything else. The way forward is not to go back to a "simpler and better time" but to progress into the future and adapt our strategies accordingly.
Underrated comment. But the way forward is not that obvious. Even if we avoid poverty, how do we avoid becoming the boring conforming mindless people out of science fiction because we have traded in our freedoms which make us human.
@@mennol3885 I'm curious to what freedoms you are talking about? The ones that could not be had if workers truly was in control over their means of production? What do you mean? -Regards
@@secularnevrosis The small shop owners and small farmers selling in the town square would have freedom, assuming they produce ample goods and are not struggling to survive. Given current technology level it is not difficult to produce ample. But as the OP stated, we cannot dream to go back to these simpler times. In the current interconnected world this is unstable and power will collect in the hands of a few, nibbling at the resources of the small guys. The solutions employed in the past led to totalitarian states where the people were afraid of the government. The government was the ultimate big monopoly. And consider that not every one can successfully organize the means of production. Maybe 1 out of 10 can, the other 9 will always be largely dependent upon employers. The thing is: 1 person employing 9 people is usually not a problem, 1 person employing 9999 people usually is.
@@mennol3885 Yes. We should not do as people have done in the past. Or now. Maybe if we did as Marx said we could make it work. Letting the workers be in control over the means of production. (Never happend in CCCP or North Korea etc etc). The "State" wasn't really important in that regard to Marx. Who was in control over the state was however important. Communism doesn't equal the state. It's just the workers being in control over the means of production. Why is that so important? To keep a few people from amassing huge amounts of wealth and power on the workers expense. Power that will be used to take control over the society they live in and at the end the control over their lives. "The solutions employed in the past led to totalitarian states where the people were afraid of the government." The system *now* makes people afraid of their goverment. It doesn't represent them because people with wealth and power can buy the type of goverment they want. "And consider that not every one can successfully organize the means of production. " And there is no need for that either. You do it by Co-ops. Cooperation doesn't mean that things doesn't need to be organized, it means that everybody will have a say and vote in how thing are going to be run. The big problem is when people employ others to do work they never could have done by them self, and pay them less for it. That is exploiting and not cooperating. Imagine that I would get a 1000$ for moving a boulder. I find out that I need your help to move it. Then we both carry it away. After we are done I give you 50$. Fair? No! This is when you should tell me to fuck off and move my own dammned rocks. Right? If it wasn't so that you had to buy some food. And the bills and... But this is how our beloved capitalism works :( Sad.
"does capitalism breed greed and a rigged economy"? and having asked that it would imply that Capitalism requires continual propping up (bail outs , printing etc)
Capitalism doesn’t require any bailouts. There’s nothing wrong with a business going under in a competitive market. All that means is that consumers don’t demand products from a certain business because their are better goods being produced somewhere else. The people who lose their jobs will eventually reallocate themselves and be productive in another area of the market.
@@PhoenixIgnisChannel Yes! So co-ops are probably not the only thing to implement, but it would be nice if he explained how to solve this with socialism on the show (or maybe he already has?)
Yes but u see the difference? In capitalism capitalist companies create monopoly. And u know their structure right? They are managed by tiny no. Of people, for the profit of tiny number of people! While coops are majority owned. Even if coops get merged, then it would actually mean socialist business getting more and more bigger, owned by mass of people (community), for the benefit of community! This will no longer be market economy,this is the final phase of socialism which is called as Communism where large community owned industries dominate, without any competition. At this stage institution of market itself becomes superfluous. If co-op becomes successful, it no longer remains only business. They get turned into self sufficient communities. For example mondragon, it's corporation of 200 businesses. They have everything they need. Business to work, university for education and even laboratory for research. Similar example is Amul milk company in India. It now employees 3.6 million people. This one co-op made India largest milk producer in world(India produces 19% of world's milk supply). Unfortunately people don't know about this co-op. I would like u all to search about it, also it would be good if wolff mentions it
Given socialism to be working people owning their workplaces (all such must be that way or the remaining capitalists will drive it all down) and good gov't meaning representation for the 99% i ask this question: why wouldn't competition/monopoly go on under socialism? Given the bedrock of homo sapiens I see competition/monopoly tendencies continuing on. Since "regulation" is bullshit, there's no argument to return to capitalism since 400yrs of failure put paid to that. THE REAL POINT is the nature of this species conspires to power/wealth. Unless and until you get rid of Agricultural-based Civilization and Industrialized Science and about 95% of human population, socialism is not a way out that I can see. I would still vastly prefer it to capitalism to be sure.
Competition is a sin! I wonder if people will ever remove their chains of bondage? It is a completely altruistic endeavour to be an employee. You "earn" pay and through consumerism end up giving it all right back to live. We live in the Coal Mine/Company Store system.
There's another way monopolies are maintained. Standard Oil used a technique called 'sweating'. It would lower prices in one area, sometimes even to the point of the facilities in that area running at a loss, in order to crush small firms located in only one or two places. The vast number of Standard Oil facilities meant that they could adsorb the small loss easily, or even raise prices in all other regions to cover.
you would be very interested in Social Credit by CH Douglas (even on wikipedia). He is a brilliant economist with solutions for automation (he saw this coming) and UBI. Douglas called it a national dividend. Same concept but UBI sounds like a "handout" and a national dividend as "earned", based on common heritage and advancement
This is a great overview of the problems of competition and monopolies. But how would democratic workplaces make any difference? Co-ops compete with each other and with non co-ops. I reckon they'd be more humane in their business dealings if there were only co-ops but as long as we still have different companies we will get competition between them. Consumer run co-ops could work as their primary function is to provide a service to their consumers rather than generate profits. But if we only had those, then there would be nobody making money. I've come up with the idea of having virtually every physical product be made and distributed co-operatively while people make money in the remaining industries, which include selling digital products to each other (e.g. video games that involve the use of real money). Yeah, it sounds crazy, but it would only serve to keep our money system going until we replace it with a moneyless, resource based economy. So, the only way we can have lasting and meaningful change is to create a society with no money and no trade. Automation is the greatest tool we have to make this a reality.
Jobs, debt, income!? What about Planned Obsolescence and the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods? Planned Obsolescence creates jobs, doesn't it? But if double-entry accounting had been mandatory in our high schools since Sputnik everyone could be more aware of the depreciation of the junk they buy.
Why? Because of advertising! And they really go for it: This is the way and the only way! Capitalism gave us everything! Without capitalists we would be in the stone age! etc etc. I hate advertising because it's the opposite of information. It's there to make you belive instead of understand. To serve you hollow words instead of facts. I really don't think I'm too harsh...
@@secularnevrosis Fair enough. I think the problem here is that people get confused between having an economy and adopting capitalism. By merely exchanging goods or services, you can get an economy, until people will start using coins(and I mean big ones), you have a true basis of modern economy. Hell, Feudalism is always have money, if not actual banks. Even in the 'ideal Marxist' with state controlling everything there is still an economy. But the way the government approaches this can be a variety of ways, and letting rich assholes gain any power is not the best one.
Hey I just picked up Understanding Marxism. A great, easy, clear guide to the truth of Marxian theory! Also, check out the gift ideas in the Democracy at Work store. Not a paid promoter, just a fan, but this is a rly good way to support the professor and get his ideas out there. Thanks, Dr. Wolff! ❤️
Prof Wolff... I have watched many of your talks which do provide temp solution to the economic human issue based on the assumption that life ends with death. We need to look for a system which recognises the fact that life goes beyond our physical death.. this is based on evidence of our consciousness. Without this reality in mind humans will keep exploiting each other...
You keep busting monopolies, no need to reinvent the wheel. Marx's solution was monopoly of the State, but under the guise that it was controlled by the workers, not the bourgeois capitalist. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm#A Competition disappears when everybody is told what to do. Not part of those workers are intellectuals and small farmers, or people that don't work for whatever reason. Specialists are tolerated at best. A reasonable solution that does not involve slavery would be something like the UBI, which would diminish the absolute need for competition, which is the worst part of it. Tax profit to hell, then have good lending free of interests (really subsidize, since the profits will pay for it eventually). Taxing profits does not affect competitive advantage and to some degree the need for monopoly. Then you need laws to cap salaries to reasonable levels, and you are done.
What about the relationship between monopolies and wages? Doesn't low or no competition for prices also mean the same for wages, so it's part of keeping them low? Sorry if you said that and I missed it.
My comment wasn't too bright, I apologise. It goes without saying that it is the lack of morals on the part of the corporations that is the problem with competition. So let me propose a question to kind of make up for a dumb comment. I believe Bernie Sanders could win the primary and then defeat Trump. But, when putting forth legislation for say free health care, eliminated student debt, and regulations in the workplace that benefits workers... I don't see those bills going through the house or Senate. But If they could because of social pressure, how would the elites react to that? Would they simply take a temporary loss and work to limit Bernie to one term, or result to more desperate means fearing maybe the end of their rein? And, do you see a collapse of the dollar coming and how would the oligarchy as I call them react to that?
Not a word from Dr. Wolff on the British elections? Corbyn a real democratic socialist may have a chance of winning which is of utmost relevance for Sanders. Would have appreciated Wolff's analysis.
I still think people's competitiveness can be harnessed pro socially in the right legislative regime, a necessary feature of that regime being caps on capital accumulation. We all want a free society. When people are free, they tend to compete. We need a whole new way of doings things, for sure, but no political organizational shift is going to change human nature or base incentives.
The real sad reality is that the working class in the US has no political training in running a society. The lack of training of the social and political elements in society that do run society through the institutions of political power are not taught to the working class in a way that prepares them to be the rulers of society. The working class today is largely composed of women who only know two presidents in their lifetime, Obama and Trump. And only know one war not a series of wars that began with the Vietnam War. If they see Jane Fonda getting arrested it is an old woman they see arrested not a continuation of the history of dissent by women. On economics the working class are taught absolutely nothing beyond finance or business management courses. International trade, world production, investment and business cycles, world systems are not taught to working class students. They are not given the opportunity to dedicate four years specializing in the study of the Great Depression in a Community College to be a good candidate to run the Federal Reserve. On the flip side, geniuses are born in the working class are unnurtured and never see daylight. In contrast, the children of the elites in power train their children to become the rulers and run a society.
I don’t see this as a criticism to capitalism. It’s more of a criticism to markets. The marketplace is the foundation of competition. Worker coops can also compete and become monopolies.
I love Richard Wolff and I agree that co-ops are a great step in the right direction. However we eventually need to go further than just co-ops because the problems of competition remain. Even though co-ops aren't likely to pollute their own environment or move to China like capitalist companies do, they will still compete with each other, right? Competition is so wasteful. Two or more companies try to develop essentially the same product and duplicate the research, learning process, and production process. They don't share information with each other because of patents and proprietary secrets. Then they spend huge amounts of money on advertising to try to convince you that their product is different from their competitors. Just imagine how much better off we'd be---either more wealth or fewer hours we'd need to work---if we didn't waste all this time and money. Cooperation is better than competition. We need to change our reward system. You should not be rewarded for out-competing others, thus making them the losers. You should be rewarded for contributing to society and for finding ways to improve sustainability.
Monopolies are formed when govt is swallowed by economic powers and that's called : corporatism. ; a mix between business & the state. This results in undemocratic laws passed to favor the big corps.... This is how monopolies actually come about. Now if you insist that there MUST be competition in the economy then forget about fair play coz the most powerful entities will call the shots not we the people, and THAT means suffering & poverty will be 'institutionalized' like we see around us everyday .... However if you rather have cooperation in the economy then babies old folks those with disabilities would be able to survive as well.... coz they don't have to compete on an inclined field. So where must we go with competition so that it can act in a favorable manner as mankind is naturally competitive ? And the answer is : in culture ; in the school, on the sports field, in the debate hall, where we shape our ideas to improve the economy ; so in our minds To sum up. Cooperation in the economy Equality before the law Competition in culture.
Once this model is ratified the world outlook will radically change : There will be no more poverty because we'll become one group of apolitical proactive participants in an Altruistic society very much like a beehive or an ant colony : we'll have people deliberately trying to find loopholes in the system so we can improve on it. BUT now the big secret is that there'll be competition between nations as well ; not wars of course but like which country can produce the best of everything at the best price for example... this is key to progress all round... in fact we need competition between nations like we need air to breath... but here's the catch, world trade must be totally open & free.... NO restrictions whatsoever. Do you see how important this is ?
And in oligopoly situations, what ends up happening is price-fixing where the few companies collaborate with each other to jack up prices. Generic drug companies are facing a huge lawsuit for doing this.
The sake of producing to keep the profits up...insane. They catch fish in the north atlantic, send it thousands of km to be processed and ship it thousands of km back to the same area to be sold. Why? To make a few nickels per fish. Same with the exsessive use of plastic. Why not use waxed paper where it would be possible? Because it would cost a fraction of a nickel extra.
isn't monopoly the final result of competition don't competing firms wind up falling to the most profitable firm. isn't a monopoly simply where competition winds up.
I always upvote Democracy At Work. It matters
me too mate
Facts!
I agree. I always like and leave at least one comment. On Democracy at Work, and pretty much every other leftist/left-wing video I watch.
They are increasing in popularity, so it is working.
Hey, is this guy - Woolf - an excellent accurate source of info on leftist/left-wing ness in your opinion?
@@jackdeniston9326 He understands neoclassical economics via his multiple PhDs, but is himself a leftist. So he is unusually capable of comparing and contrasting the neoliberal and socialist takes on existing structures and current events.
What is the logical conclusion of a competition?
A winner: The monopoly.
#HowCapitalismWorks :)
@timothy chung Monopolists operate in plenty of situations in which state actors are more influenced by the commerce than the other way around.
Don't kid yourself.
@timothy chung I'll grant you its certainly a contributing factor, or at least a tool to maintain/expand their dominance, but it's certainly not the cause (=) of monopolies.
So many libertarians insist it can't happen without the government.
They can help, but it's doable without their input.
Another winner: The consumer because without competition every product would be crappy!
Another excellent discussion on the pitfalls of capitalism. . . .
Wolff is a Legend
@M L
we calls them Sheeple in these here parts. 🤠
Propagandic dream of one day you to will be a millionaire keeps the Capitalist economic system alive and not to question any alternatives
@Scott Covert Failing one because it has never materialized. And the second someone tries to make it real, there goes the forces of capitalism, along with the US, to put embargoes and make global scale economic warfare.
@Scott Covert There's a lot of history that most of us never learn. Here in the US I have found that virtually everything regarding labor history/socialism we are taught is untrue/misinformation. And of course we aren't taught critical thinking and evaluation until college! It's the perfect recipe for ignorance.
@Scott Covert Critical thinking is the first thing that's absent from public school. Beyond that I would be happy to give you a list of reading (and audio/video/other) material if you were sincerely curious. But sometimes we see people intentionally trolling, or those who are generally not being genuine. This topic (socialism/communism) is rife with this type of thing.
@Scott Covert communism 😂 there was never communism in China, nor in USSR, Cuba Vietnam. Makes me sick to hear stupid thing like this. Socialism doesn't mean centralized planning (though it made Russia 2nd largest economy in 50 years)
He simplifies stuff and perhaps makes a few errors here and there but I've not found any outright lies.
Some may not like him because he doesn't continously denounce the Soviet Union or China for their evil actions. But he does briefly state that they do bad things. It's just that he focuses on the economics, rather than the politics and human rights abuses. We already know they're wrong, so we don't need convincing and we come on this channel to hear about why we need an alternative economic system.
Truest words ever spoken = "You are paying for the advertising that got you to buy it in the first place; you are paying to be hustled."
That is what many people want. Unfortunately.
Cooperation instead of competition. We are all in this together. Love one another.
Im with you when I'm pro "end competition."
Right on
That was pretty damn good Mr Wolff, thanks.
You said it Dr. Wolff. Lord help us! My mom couldn't have said it better. Thank you again.
I am always so blown away by Dr. Wolff. I have learned more about finance and how economic systems worked from him than all the education I got!
Professor Wolff is the best narrator of 20th century history; the truth-teller on capitalism; revealer of the story of "How the hell did we get here" on TH-cam. Precise, accurate, and relevant. Thank you, Maestro.
Don't stop.
Keep putting these out.
Fairly positive this Monday morning program is directly related to kick-starting my cerebrum every week. ;)
The motive of competition is actually monopoly, or entering into price rigging cartel.
Mmmmm-mmmm, wood chips in my food and some limits on the ratio of bug corpses to other stuff, just what I always wanted. Thank Baby Jesus for those sane regulations.
@Natural Man regulation should still allow someone to win, but not winner takes all.
The professor is feeling more spry today. Good to see 😊
As an aside regarding Professor Wolff's comment about sugar in soft drinks - The vast majority of soft drink beverages produced by Coke and Pepsi contain a sweetener called high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as opposed to sugar. They did so because it was cheaper to use than sugar. It turns out it has been a lot worse for one's health. That hasn't stopped from continuing to use HFCS.
A great illustration - of competition and monopoly in action.
👽 HFCS is ALMOST as bad as Bee Vomit in terms of glycemic effects, it is highly glycemic, and that's why just like Bee Vomit, High Fructose Corn Syrup should be avoided at all cost.
That child labor started England in the 17th century ...a lot of factories in the slums the adults could not work they were too poor so they sent the kids to work into mines.. like Charles Dickinson era...
Child labor and slavery existed much before that.
@@souviksen7497 my bad you are right you are very right that is true...
@@souviksen7497 Maybe he was insinuating that the early 1700s was when it really took off in England ... which would coincide with the initial stages of Capitalist development in the West. The system was first born in England.
And I think @ska punk OI! alternative living was referring to Charles Dickens - A Tale of Two Cities, Oliver Twist and the like.
@@LukasOfTheLight thanks for the correction my friend either way it was a horrible time I'm glad I was not born in that era..
Capitalism is like the movie Highlander, their shall only be one.
Isn't that what a centrally planned economy is?
@@jackdeniston9326 a centrally planned economy that's privately owned and democratically unaccountable
I was smrt this time. I ordered two of your book Understanding Socialism so that when I lend it out I'll still have one. Thanks for your work Dr Wolff
When all of the monopolies have succeeded, in all of the industries, there will be a bunch of industries with one dominant player. Then they will set their sights higher. Who is going to dominate the monopolies? This is a “Game of Thrones” as they each now now “compete” to become the monopoly of monopolies. In the meantime, we who are not in their game, either cheer from the bleachers or simply wait for crumbs to fall from their tables... or we revolt
As someone who supports capitalism I’m curious to see what people on the other side think. I want you to tell me why I’m wrong. From my view the only monopoly that can exist in a free market is one that benefits society, through offering consumers the best goods for the best prices. There is no way for a coercive monopoly to exist in a free market. This is because if a business, which controls a significant portion market, unjustly raise prices or produces low quality goods, new businesses will move into the sector and offer better goods to consumers at a cheaper price. There is no way for a company to rip anyone off in capitalism because consumers control the market. The only way any business can grow is by convincing consumers to voluntarily purchase their product. The only examples of coercive monopolies are ones which the government creates by eliminating competition and offering special privileges to certain companies. So can you please explain what’s wrong with a free market monopoly?
@@lilrewb4646 I was thinking the same thing, like with his example of airplane manufacturers cutting corners because of competition and ending up making defective planes, how do they win the competition like that? Nobody would want to fly in a potentially defective plane. People wouldn't trust them. So people switch to airlines with a better history of safe flights. I would also love to get insight into how a non competitive society will progress. For me the important question is not why a certain system is bad or why something is better, but the important question to me is how exactly is a system bad and how exactly will another system be better? I think there is a difference.
One of your best updates yet 👍
So much good content for free
Thank you professor Wolff.
I grew up in an extremely neoliberal bubble/peer group/community. I've been steeped & marinated in so many capitalistic myths & lies that I felt ostracized & insane when I started questioning it all openly (privately, I always felt something was wrong about it - like a pit in my stomach). From that perspective, I've gotta say - listening to Wolff's work has been like a breath of fresh air. Thank you for everything you do.
I was drinking monopoly juice while watching this.
Comment comment comment comment algorithm algorithm algorithm algorithm
This type of DAW video is the kind I like. It could go into further detail but it certainly makes things clear.........which is always good.
Quantity over quality in capitalism gets the consumers using more more MORE. Also manufactured obsolescence isn't a bug of capitalism it's the feature of it, getting consumers to buy more all the while these monopolies are using more resources. It's Mass MADNESS.
@Scott Covert
Why do you think somebody doesn't already just do that? You can't because you product will cost you more time & money to produce, & will carry a higher pricetag than your competitions.
For some reason, those who defend the system the hardest seem to have thought about it the least...
@Scott Covert
Why are you asking questions we all know the answer to? They cost more because you are using higher quality parts & labor.
Who said, "Marxism" would fix it? How would you fix it? It seems to me that we should go back to the understanding that the majority of people will not act out of empathy or honor, so we need to start regulating industries again.
Greed is real easy to understand.
@Scott Covert the buy once only company would be great. It would exhaust the market and collapse capitalism. Not a threat then.
@Scott Covert Marxism will favour quality. Why? Because the end goal isn't to produce as much as possible for profits. It's to work as little as possible for the best results. To have to produce new chairs and tables every other year for the same customers is NOT what you want. Then you can turn your attention to other things..education, arts, your family and society, innovation... etc. that is what Marx had in mind.
I my self would be back in school at once.
@Scott Covert Hello.
"Styles change, people's needs change, new generations are born while others die. "
And co-ops can't deliver what people need? If workers are in control over the means of production, they can't produce what people want?
Makes no sense? Care to explain what you mean by that?!
"Marxism will never be able to satisfy the market. "
"It" wants to satisfy people. The market isn't the end game, nor should it be.
"Why innovate when "new chairs is not what we want?""
This needs explaining too. Why on earth would anyone produce anything that no-one wants? If you find out a better way of making a "chair" why wouldn't you do that?
"What are you innovating if not goods? What does a family want? Need? Society?"
Innovations can be goods, but creative ideas is a better way of looking at it.
A family needs each other, it needs the society. You wouldn't want to spend more time with your friends and family?
"What happens when you don't make a product that the people want? Do they just accept what you made because you don't believe in catering to what they ask for?"
And again. Why would you even consider making something that no-one wants? Like bad quality goods and inferior services...Oh right! we do that now...to make profits.
I still don't see how you have come to your conclusions here.
Competition is better than monopoly.
Cooperation is better than competition.
Another example of a monopoly is the diamond cartel.
@ThePHiLsTeR, Much of that rarity, though, is due to efforts of the cartel to create an artificial scarcity of diamonds by hoarding a stockpile of those diamonds in order to limit the supply. I believe the cartel has also striven to suppress the demand for synthetic diamonds, which in reality are the purest of diamonds and also the least likely to be a 'conflict diamond'.
That's why I don't work on assembly lines weather in the car plant or for Amazon. .. because it comes like slave labor you can never get off the track I love my freedom...
The question though is would you, if you were in a situation that the choice was starve and die or work on an assembly line or at amazon. No one willingly works in those conditions. Thank your lucky stars you don't have to in order to live until tomorrow
@@dinnerwithfranklin2451 you are so right about that my friend that's exactly the point because I told a better life I told to get rid of my expensive expenses downsize and become a minimalist which means I live out of my van off the grid I build myself and I got a small attic Studio which allowed me and saved me thousands of dollars... gave me a lot of freedom and I love it I think being full album working class is a choice some people want to be ruled by the system this is why I tell people to be self-sufficient government needs to be smaller work for yourself do something for yourself don't be that slave and do three jobs and be forced to work jobs you don't want to do I'm blessed I work when I work because of my choices... and because of those right choices I don't have to work hard anymore and I am free
@@skapunkoialternativeliving6522 Imagine to work for things that are needed and to develop the community you live in. That would be nice. Instead of working for profits.
@@secularnevrosis make some great points definitely true...
Agreeing very much with the second half: Competition leads to monopolies. Monopolies create barriers to entry (mostly through manipulating government). This is a fundamental flaw of capitalism.
However the downsides of competition in the first half can be discussed:
1. The outsourcing to China is due to monetary policies. Coincidentally the dismantling of the US industry started when the Dollar was taken of the gold standard and the petrodollar system was established. This forced many countries to acquire dollars and lower their own currencies to sell products in the US markets.
2. Automation was only a problem during the industrial revolution, when it shocked the labor market. Since then it has led to higher productivity and economic growth. Which lead to higher salaries and more jobs. However we now have income tax, a big tax on labor which leads to less jobs. (For example, the Indian cash based economy grew rapidly because most jobs in the villages where not registered and out of reach for the government to tax. Until the Indian demonetization messed up that economy.)(I'm not an expert on the Indian economy, it just fascinates me)
3. Unmoral practices, like messing with food, are not unique to competition. Any bureaucratic system produces the same bad behavior, because the incentives of the decision makers are not aligned with the well being of those who bear the consequences. That said, competition creates a race to the bottom concerning morals.
Please consider that this is a TH-cam comment, so I'm not going to sprinkle it with if's and maybe's and source references. The write-up is already long enough. (Maybe I need to randomly generate smileys to display good intentions)
8:35
The scary part is that this actually happens. Food companies use cellulose--wood pulp that is indigestible by humans--to stretch out their products.
One important point with competition is that companies are forced to a certain behavior even though it might be detrimental in the long run.
Two examples:
When companies moved production out of the USA anyone still producing there had to move out their production as well to stay competitive. Even though it was clean that the loss in jobs and income would lead to a shrinking market hurting them in the long run.
Increasing the minimum wage will allow restaurant worker to go and eat in restaurants growing the market. However its difficult for a restaurant to pay their worker more as long as everyone else does not since they would not be competitive.
I love your energy on this EU, Richard
Congratulations on your new book!! Looking forward to reading it!
I so love your opening! It has mad beats and reminds me of Em!
This discussion will make for a good book.
Anyone else find Richard Wolff's intro music ballin and humorous at the same time? It sound so gangsta.
Yes....It sounds like M 'n M.
Loved it. They equate no or zero regulation of business practices with ‘freedom’, and look where that takes us.
Ever play the game Monopoly to the end? One player owns everything. Without controls, that is what happens in real life. Of course, most people get tired of the game before that point, and most countries get feed up with the Oligarchy before that point and depose them (peacefully, or otherwise).
Reading 'Goliath' by Matt Stoller that documents the attempts to take down the Robber Barons of the late 19th century, the success of that during the New Deal and WWII and the raise of the monopolist again in the present day. Yes - it is a continuous struggle. However, the monopolies were broken and regulation helped to keep them from reforming - for a while. Such regulation could be used again to break up the monopolies and keep them from reforming.
I am not sure what Prof Wolff is proposing to take the place of competition and capitalism. However, I think we should be working to break up the monopolies NOW as I am sure the monopolies will be spending a LOT of money to keep anything Prof Wolff is proposing from happening. Breaking up the monopolies, taxing the oligarchy, seems like a good first step. AND, this has been done before and produced good economic return for a majority of Americans (vs the 1% - really the 0.1%).
Let the workers own their means of production. That would put a definite stop to the constant spasms of capitalism. Just let the people work for the people and their society.
The problem with capitalism isn’t the capital: It’s the flow of it.
Capitalism would be fine and great if the capital means belonged to the workers and was distributed more evenly.
However there in lies the rub: The goal of capitalism will always be for that capital to gain more capital. Not “competition”. Not “better products”. Not “cheaper prices”. Those are all byproducts of trying to gain more capital. As a result; capital will always concentrate.... regardless of how many or how few hands that capital belongs to.
👽 The problem with the coop model though, and that's regardless of whether we're talking about Worker Owned, or Customer Owned coops, coops have consistently failed to make goods, and services AFFORDABLE, just look at any grocery coop, or REI as examples.
Hardin9 The problem with your assessment is that you have a fucked-up modern concept of what AFFORDABLE means in your mind.
Worker Co-Ops can not be as AFFORDABLE with their goods and services as corporations because they provide livable wages to their workers and that is less AFFORDABLE than... literal child slavery available in another country.
Well no shit.
The metric you are using to decide what is AFFORDABLE is completely under the assumption that these companies have to compete with immoral and/or unethical and/or illegal practices that a corporate entity has access and commonly utilizes.
Did you watch the video? Prof Wolff even goes into detail explaining some of the practices that corporations will undertake to make things more AFFORDABLE; which often is to the detriment of all aspects of a society worker and customer alike.
If (and when) you force corporations to play by the same rules as the worker Co-Op: Not only will you find that the Co-Op is just as AFFORDABLE; but it will often times be more so.
As the worker co-op does not have the added expenses of paying bloated executive compensation and does not have to worry about pleasing stock holders that focus only on short-term gains instead of long-term growth and company success.
(Cont) You can look to the success and AFFORDability of co-op goods and services in many European countries (especially Spain and Italy) where corporations are barred from many of the practices of American corporations if you need such an example.
SOLUTIONS???
For those wondering about solutions to these ( and other) problems and many realizing that coops in market systems will also suffer these ills the solution I am currently most sympathetic to is called "Participatory Economics" or PARECON.
It has been developed by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel over the last 30 years or so just to address these and other problems. I would kindly suggest Dr. Wolff reach out to these two individuals for interviews.
Instead of markets or central planning for distribution it proposes democratic or participatory planning.
Instead of coops with hierarchical organizational structures mimicking existing corporate structures it proposes balanced job complexes, or every worker doing essentially the same amount of empowering and disempowering work.
It proposes democratic decision making where you are involved in decisions in equal proportion as to how they affect you.
It proposes compensation for work according to how long you work, how hard you work (effort) and the onerousness of the work, for doing what is democratically decided to be socially valued labor.
Although it has been extremely well thought out and defended over the years (mostly from critics on the left, the right largely ignores it), It is not a blueprint for an economic system but proposes to set in place the institutional structures that allow future generations to determine their own lives.
What if you build Ai to do the labor value.
If worker co-ops were mandatory, how would they fare in competition? Would they be any different?
For the algorithm for learning.
I gotta disagree with your take on automation. It’s not inherently bad. If competition wasn’t a problem and workers owned the means of production, then automation would still lead to a decrease of labor while producing the same profits, but that reduction of labor would be distributed fairly, everyone would continue to make just as much money as before, and no one would lose their job for it. And then, with all the workers now having more time on their hands, they would be free to innovate more ways make more money if they so chose. I see no problem here.
It might be too far into the future, but I believe that the purpose of automation should be to free humanity from most of the burden of hard labor. Only then we can really say we are free.
Wolff addresses that in other videos. In here he's talking about competition and monopolies under Capitalism. Worker owned business is not Capitalism.
The Big IF is not what he's addressing here... he's explaining the argument for that "if"... I think we all get that.
I agree with you completely! Competition isn't natural at all. If you look at nature, the wolves don't compete for their own survival. Yes, none of the animals compete for anything in nature, they share all the resources and help each other out.
It's a beautiful thing when I find a robot in the forest reducing the labor of squirrels. It's fun to watch how the squirrels have automated the collection of nuts for the winter. Now the squirrels have so much stored food for the winter, all they do is sit around discussing how they will distribute the nuts fairly.
I overheard them discussing the next innovation and how they would be able to automate the collection of even more nuts so they could stop working altogether and just sit around while continuously eating all day. All the squirrels were so happy.
Then a funny thing happened. The nut collecting robot made a popping and grinding noise and stopped collecting nuts. All of the fat happy squirrels waddled over to the machine and stared at it. Finally, their leader said, 'Go get Frank, he's the only one that knows how this thing works since he's the one that built it'.
Quickly they all got a scared look on their faces, and one of them spoke the unspeakable words, 'Frank disappeared shortly after we voted to take his nut collecting machine, don't you all remember?'.
That's when I let out a long whistle, raised my eyebrows, and continued my walk in the forest.
Objectivityiskey The idea is that automation reduces labor, not that it eliminates it entirely. Obviously maintenance is necessary sometimes.
We shall overcome.
These are good points. Great video.
About second hand equipment that is to say that no new capitalists would buy the easier to atain means of production if not more of them or use some of it to supply the gap in their buisness equipment.
Also, the process of creating monopolies extends to the political sphere. It ends in totalitarianism of a global nature.
Cyclical consumption and corporate planned obsolescence go hand in hand. You’re only as free in America as your purchasing power will allow it
Well said. The few companies also have the ability to produce more for less allowing them to undercut smaller competitors, last longer without high profit rates and absorb shocks better. They can make deals with suppliers to further block smaller businesses. They can reach far more people with their chain. Their presence reduces wages, lowering buying power and further insuring people go to them because they can't afford the smaller business. They create multiple other businesses that work under them which tricks the consumer into thinking they have more of a choice than they do in who they support. All of this is without any government collusion.
Children still work in the diamond industry
And tobacco
And jeans made by child labor in sweat shops
Professor Wolff in this session explores the question of whether the elimination of monopoly would result in a must more just society, with a fair distribution of income and wealth and the elimination (or at least significant mitigation) of our abuse of the “natural environment.” He correctly observes that monopoly has existed forever under “capitalism.” The last thing owners of firms really want is strong competition. I raise only one issue for serious investigation and consideration.
Another historical fact is that the quest to monopolize nature (i.e., of land and natural resources) began not many generations after groups of people began to settle in one place and build villages that grew into towns and into cities. The historian Edward Gibbon identified monopoly of land as an important reason for the decline of the Roman empire. It did not end with the expansion of capitalist production. At the beginning of the 20th century, young Winston Churchill described the monopoly of land as “the mother of all monopolies.” Leo Tolstoy, anticipating the coming turmoil, write this to the Tzar in 1902:
“In Russia, where an enormous part of the population lives on the land and is entirely depending upon the large land-owners, it is obvious that the emancipation of the workers cannot be accomplished by public ownership of the mills and factories. Real emancipation can come to the Russian nation only by abolishing private ownership in land and by recognizing land as national property. …I think that the abolition of landownership will put Russia upon a high degree of independence, prosperity and contentment.”
Agreeing with both Karl Marx and Henry George, Tolstoy called for government to then lease land to individuals or private entities under terms that would capture the full rental value of whatever land was then held.
Lenin addressed this question in 1916, while he was in exile in Switzerland. He wrote, in "Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism" - "Translated into ordinary human language, this means that the development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still 'reigns' and continues to be regarded as the basis for economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the big profits go to the 'geniuses' of financial manipulation." He goes on, "We shall see later how 'on these grounds' reactionary petit-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to 'free.' 'peaceful' and 'honest' competition."
He foresaw and predicted the reaction and critique of the upper-middle class "Libertarian" types who dream of going back to some more-perfect stage of capitalism, which never really existed. We are far beyond that stage of historical development where we could have a world of small shop owners and small farmers selling their produce in the town square. It's 2019, but these people paint a bucolic and austere image that would actually be better suited to the 1830s. They fail to see that the world has changed and their beloved system, Capitalism, has progressed and changed alongside everything else. The way forward is not to go back to a "simpler and better time" but to progress into the future and adapt our strategies accordingly.
Underrated comment.
But the way forward is not that obvious. Even if we avoid poverty, how do we avoid becoming the boring conforming mindless people out of science fiction because we have traded in our freedoms which make us human.
@@mennol3885 I'm curious to what freedoms you are talking about? The ones that could not be had if workers truly was in control over their means of production?
What do you mean?
-Regards
@@secularnevrosis The small shop owners and small farmers selling in the town square would have freedom, assuming they produce ample goods and are not struggling to survive. Given current technology level it is not difficult to produce ample. But as the OP stated, we cannot dream to go back to these simpler times. In the current interconnected world this is unstable and power will collect in the hands of a few, nibbling at the resources of the small guys. The solutions employed in the past led to totalitarian states where the people were afraid of the government. The government was the ultimate big monopoly.
And consider that not every one can successfully organize the means of production. Maybe 1 out of 10 can, the other 9 will always be largely dependent upon employers. The thing is: 1 person employing 9 people is usually not a problem, 1 person employing 9999 people usually is.
@@mennol3885 Yes. We should not do as people have done in the past. Or now. Maybe if we did as Marx said we could make it work. Letting the workers be in control over the means of production. (Never happend in CCCP or North Korea etc etc). The "State" wasn't really important in that regard to Marx. Who was in control over the state was however important.
Communism doesn't equal the state. It's just the workers being in control over the means of production. Why is that so important? To keep a few people from amassing huge amounts of wealth and power on the workers expense. Power that will be used to take control over the society they live in and at the end the control over their lives.
"The solutions employed in the past led to totalitarian states where the people were afraid of the government."
The system *now* makes people afraid of their goverment. It doesn't represent them because people with wealth and power can buy the type of goverment they want.
"And consider that not every one can successfully organize the means of production. "
And there is no need for that either. You do it by Co-ops. Cooperation doesn't mean that things doesn't need to be organized, it means that everybody will have a say and vote in how thing are going to be run.
The big problem is when people employ others to do work they never could have done by them self, and pay them less for it. That is exploiting and not cooperating.
Imagine that I would get a 1000$ for moving a boulder. I find out that I need your help to move it. Then we both carry it away. After we are done I give you 50$. Fair? No! This is when you should tell me to fuck off and move my own dammned rocks. Right? If it wasn't so that you had to buy some food. And the bills and...
But this is how our beloved capitalism works :(
Sad.
"does capitalism breed greed and a rigged economy"?
and having asked that it would imply that Capitalism requires continual propping up (bail outs , printing etc)
Capitalism doesn’t require any bailouts. There’s nothing wrong with a business going under in a competitive market. All that means is that consumers don’t demand products from a certain business because their are better goods being produced somewhere else. The people who lose their jobs will eventually reallocate themselves and be productive in another area of the market.
I'm learning so much from you Mr. Wolff. I won a debate using what I learned from you. Also you're a great debater.
Will the new book come out as an ebook?
Wouldn't something similar still happen with worker owned co-ops tho?
Love this channel!
Keep up the good work
That's what I was thinking, after all they would be competing in a free market, right?
@@PhoenixIgnisChannel Yes! So co-ops are probably not the only thing to implement, but it would be nice if he explained how to solve this with socialism on the show (or maybe he already has?)
Yes but u see the difference? In capitalism capitalist companies create monopoly. And u know their structure right? They are managed by tiny no. Of people, for the profit of tiny number of people! While coops are majority owned. Even if coops get merged, then it would actually mean socialist business getting more and more bigger, owned by mass of people (community), for the benefit of community! This will no longer be market economy,this is the final phase of socialism which is called as Communism where large community owned industries dominate, without any competition. At this stage institution of market itself becomes superfluous. If co-op becomes successful, it no longer remains only business. They get turned into self sufficient communities. For example mondragon, it's corporation of 200 businesses. They have everything they need. Business to work, university for education and even laboratory for research. Similar example is Amul milk company in India. It now employees 3.6 million people. This one co-op made India largest milk producer in world(India produces 19% of world's milk supply). Unfortunately people don't know about this co-op. I would like u all to search about it, also it would be good if wolff mentions it
@@shubhamwr Thank you! Yes that kinda makes sense. I think I heard of Mondragon from him so he does mention it :)
@@ellebi2 yeah he does mention mondragon. I was talking about Amul co-op. Because it's way too large and influential than mondragon
Great comment - Thx Prof Wolff 😃
Given socialism to be working people owning their workplaces (all such must be that way or the remaining capitalists will drive it all down) and good gov't meaning representation for the 99% i ask this question: why wouldn't competition/monopoly go on under socialism? Given the bedrock of homo sapiens I see competition/monopoly tendencies continuing on. Since "regulation" is bullshit, there's no argument to return to capitalism since 400yrs of failure put paid to that. THE REAL POINT is the nature of this species conspires to power/wealth. Unless and until you get rid of Agricultural-based Civilization and Industrialized Science and about 95% of human population, socialism is not a way out that I can see. I would still vastly prefer it to capitalism to be sure.
Thank you for the excellent lesson Professor Wolff
Competition is a sin!
I wonder if people will ever remove their chains of bondage? It is a completely altruistic endeavour to be an employee. You "earn" pay and through consumerism end up giving it all right back to live. We live in the Coal Mine/Company Store system.
Very good episode 😁
There's another way monopolies are maintained. Standard Oil used a technique called 'sweating'. It would lower prices in one area, sometimes even to the point of the facilities in that area running at a loss, in order to crush small firms located in only one or two places. The vast number of Standard Oil facilities meant that they could adsorb the small loss easily, or even raise prices in all other regions to cover.
Professor what is your opinion on UBI as a countermeasure against automation and social inequality?
you would be very interested in Social Credit by CH Douglas (even on wikipedia). He is a brilliant economist with solutions for automation (he saw this coming) and UBI. Douglas called it a national dividend. Same concept but UBI sounds like a "handout" and a national dividend as "earned", based on common heritage and advancement
Truth!!
This is a great overview of the problems of competition and monopolies. But how would democratic workplaces make any difference? Co-ops compete with each other and with non co-ops. I reckon they'd be more humane in their business dealings if there were only co-ops but as long as we still have different companies we will get competition between them.
Consumer run co-ops could work as their primary function is to provide a service to their consumers rather than generate profits. But if we only had those, then there would be nobody making money.
I've come up with the idea of having virtually every physical product be made and distributed co-operatively while people make money in the remaining industries, which include selling digital products to each other (e.g. video games that involve the use of real money). Yeah, it sounds crazy, but it would only serve to keep our money system going until we replace it with a moneyless, resource based economy. So, the only way we can have lasting and meaningful change is to create a society with no money and no trade. Automation is the greatest tool we have to make this a reality.
I am wondering what Dr. Wolff thinks of Anwar Shaikh's Book Capitalism which I read earlier this year.
Jobs, debt, income!?
What about Planned Obsolescence and the Depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods?
Planned Obsolescence creates jobs, doesn't it? But if double-entry accounting had been mandatory in our high schools since Sputnik everyone could be more aware of the depreciation of the junk they buy.
Thank you Professor Wolff! Very informative.
This is so obvious, why isn't this common sense?
Well, only good expert explain it well. Be as simple as possible, but not simpler.
Why? Because of advertising! And they really go for it:
This is the way and the only way! Capitalism gave us everything! Without capitalists we would be in the stone age! etc etc.
I hate advertising because it's the opposite of information. It's there to make you belive instead of understand. To serve you hollow words instead of facts.
I really don't think I'm too harsh...
@@secularnevrosis Well I guess everything before American civil war is part of the stone age.
@@KS-wy6ky Nah. You will have to go a "bit" further back :)
@@secularnevrosis Fair enough. I think the problem here is that people get confused between having an economy and adopting capitalism. By merely exchanging goods or services, you can get an economy, until people will start using coins(and I mean big ones), you have a true basis of modern economy. Hell, Feudalism is always have money, if not actual banks. Even in the 'ideal Marxist' with state controlling everything there is still an economy.
But the way the government approaches this can be a variety of ways, and letting rich assholes gain any power is not the best one.
Hey I just picked up Understanding Marxism. A great, easy, clear guide to the truth of Marxian theory! Also, check out the gift ideas in the Democracy at Work store. Not a paid promoter, just a fan, but this is a rly good way to support the professor and get his ideas out there. Thanks, Dr. Wolff! ❤️
Prof Wolff... I have watched many of your talks which do provide temp solution to the economic human issue based on the assumption that life ends with death. We need to look for a system which recognises the fact that life goes beyond our physical death.. this is based on evidence of our consciousness. Without this reality in mind humans will keep exploiting each other...
I get your point. Just don't see any solution. Co-ops would compete, too.
You keep busting monopolies, no need to reinvent the wheel.
Marx's solution was monopoly of the State, but under the guise that it was controlled by the workers, not the bourgeois capitalist.
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_08_21.htm#A
Competition disappears when everybody is told what to do. Not part of those workers are intellectuals and small farmers, or people that don't work for whatever reason. Specialists are tolerated at best.
A reasonable solution that does not involve slavery would be something like the UBI, which would diminish the absolute need for competition, which is the worst part of it. Tax profit to hell, then have good lending free of interests (really subsidize, since the profits will pay for it eventually). Taxing profits does not affect competitive advantage and to some degree the need for monopoly. Then you need laws to cap salaries to reasonable levels, and you are done.
What about the relationship between monopolies and wages? Doesn't low or no competition for prices also mean the same for wages, so it's part of keeping them low? Sorry if you said that and I missed it.
thanks
Can't wait to read this new book 👍
change the intro song
Lol, I've grown to like it. It catches my attention
Thank you for the education know i have a better understanding of the world of finance and business.
And you must compete with communist along with prison labor . Your ahead of the game offering opinion as profession . Take care all
cooperation instead of competition!
My comment wasn't too bright, I apologise. It goes without saying that it is the lack of morals on the part of the corporations that is the problem with competition. So let me propose a question to kind of make up for a dumb comment. I believe Bernie Sanders could win the primary and then defeat Trump. But, when putting forth legislation for say free health care, eliminated student debt, and regulations in the workplace that benefits workers... I don't see those bills going through the house or Senate. But If they could because of social pressure, how would the elites react to that? Would they simply take a temporary loss and work to limit Bernie to one term, or result to more desperate means fearing maybe the end of their rein? And, do you see a collapse of the dollar coming and how would the oligarchy as I call them react to that?
The government bamkrupts small and medium business , not corporation in Australia
Not a word from Dr. Wolff on the British elections? Corbyn a real democratic socialist may have a chance of winning which is of utmost relevance for Sanders. Would have appreciated Wolff's analysis.
Brilian exposure
I still think people's competitiveness can be harnessed pro socially in the right legislative regime, a necessary feature of that regime being caps on capital accumulation. We all want a free society. When people are free, they tend to compete. We need a whole new way of doings things, for sure, but no political organizational shift is going to change human nature or base incentives.
The real sad reality is that the working class in the US has no political training in running a society.
The lack of training of the social and political elements in society that do run society through the institutions of political power are not taught to the working class in a way that prepares them to be the rulers of society. The working class today is largely composed of women who only know two presidents in their lifetime, Obama and Trump. And only know one war not a series of wars that began with the Vietnam War. If they see Jane Fonda getting arrested it is an old woman they see arrested not a continuation of the history of dissent by women.
On economics the working class are taught absolutely nothing beyond finance or business management courses.
International trade, world production, investment and business cycles, world systems are not taught to working class students.
They are not given the opportunity to dedicate four years specializing in the study of the Great Depression in a Community College to be a good candidate to run the Federal Reserve.
On the flip side, geniuses are born in the working class are unnurtured and never see daylight.
In contrast, the children of the elites in power train their children to become the rulers and run a society.
I don’t see this as a criticism to capitalism. It’s more of a criticism to markets. The marketplace is the foundation of competition. Worker coops can also compete and become monopolies.
i.e. Horizon Hobby vs. Hobbico
Not only did Horizon buy Hobbico, but they moved from their warehouse to Hobbico's warehouse.
I love Richard Wolff and I agree that co-ops are a great step in the right direction. However we eventually need to go further than just co-ops because the problems of competition remain. Even though co-ops aren't likely to pollute their own environment or move to China like capitalist companies do, they will still compete with each other, right?
Competition is so wasteful. Two or more companies try to develop essentially the same product and duplicate the research, learning process, and production process. They don't share information with each other because of patents and proprietary secrets. Then they spend huge amounts of money on advertising to try to convince you that their product is different from their competitors. Just imagine how much better off we'd be---either more wealth or fewer hours we'd need to work---if we didn't waste all this time and money.
Cooperation is better than competition.
We need to change our reward system. You should not be rewarded for out-competing others, thus making them the losers. You should be rewarded for contributing to society and for finding ways to improve sustainability.
Monopolies are formed when govt is swallowed by economic powers and that's called : corporatism. ; a mix between business & the state. This results in undemocratic laws passed to favor the big corps.... This is how monopolies actually come about. Now if you insist that there MUST be competition in the economy then forget about fair play coz the most powerful entities will call the shots not we the people, and THAT means suffering & poverty will be 'institutionalized' like we see around us everyday .... However if you rather have cooperation in the economy then babies old folks those with disabilities would be able to survive as well.... coz they don't have to compete on an inclined field.
So where must we go with competition so that it can act in a favorable manner as mankind is naturally competitive ? And the answer is : in culture ; in the school, on the sports field, in the debate hall, where we shape our ideas to improve the economy ; so in our minds
To sum up. Cooperation in the economy
Equality before the law
Competition in culture.
Once this model is ratified the world outlook will radically change :
There will be no more poverty because we'll become one group of apolitical proactive participants in an Altruistic society very much like a beehive or an ant colony : we'll have people deliberately trying to find loopholes in the system so we can improve on it. BUT now the big secret is that there'll be competition between nations as well ; not wars of course but like which country can produce the best of everything at the best price for example... this is key to progress all round... in fact we need competition between nations like we need air to breath... but here's the catch, world trade must be totally open & free.... NO restrictions whatsoever. Do you see how important this is ?
For those who are brave and hunger for wisdom please go study Dr Rudolf Steiner @ rsarchiv.org
Analyse the development of capitalism in it's competitive and Monopoly stage?
And in oligopoly situations, what ends up happening is price-fixing where the few companies collaborate with each other to jack up prices. Generic drug companies are facing a huge lawsuit for doing this.
Denmark , Norway , Australia price control economy
Beautiful biting critique from the anti-capitalist heavyweight.
Their objectives are ridiculous and shallow. Profits? No. Compassion, building up all life, that is what we need. Change your ways and prosper.
Competition Serves waste.
The sake of producing to keep the profits up...insane.
They catch fish in the north atlantic, send it thousands of km to be processed and ship it thousands of km back to the same area to be sold. Why? To make a few nickels per fish. Same with the exsessive use of plastic. Why not use waxed paper where it would be possible? Because it would cost a fraction of a nickel extra.
37 monopolists disliked this fantabulous video
isn't monopoly the final result of competition don't competing firms wind up falling to the most profitable firm. isn't a monopoly simply where competition winds up.
Australia voted for capitalsm less socislism the same.in Norway and Denmark last 5 yrs