Socialism or Capitalism? Arthur Brooks and Richard Wolff Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- Half of Americans under forty say they would “prefer living in a socialist country.”
A self-described “Democratic socialist” surged to an early lead in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries . . .
. . . after winning more 2016 primary votes from under-thirty voters than the eventual Democratic and Republican nominees *combined*.
Some prominent conservative thinkers are even rethinking the wisdom of free markets.
So is capitalism passé? Should socialism get another look in this country? How should we structure our economy to ensure freedom, equality, and prosperity?
Here to debate these urgent questions are two of the most influential thinkers on political economy today: economist Richard D. Wolff and bestselling author and Harvard professor Arthur C. Brooks.
Professor Wolff has established himself as one of the leading scholars making the case for a new socialist approach to political economy.
Professor Brooks, one of America’s best-known and most respected social scientists, has conducted extensive research on fighting poverty, promoting equal opportunity, entrepreneurship, free enterprise, and related issues.
This debate, part of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Diana Davis Spencer Debate Series, was recorded live on Thursday, April 15, 2021.
Interested in more events like this? Get involved with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute at isi.org/join-community/?....
0:00 Introductions
5:25 Opening Statements
36:28 Rebuttal
53:35 Questions
1:31:42 Closing Statements
Love this debate style. No interruptions, no drama just well thought out statements.
I just heard two lectures. No real attempt at challenging an argument and coming to a more informed conclusion at the end.
I prefer a back and forth conversational style debate.
richard wolff is a braindead bot, who keeps repeating himself and ignores any other ideas or questions and just rambles his own talking points.
@@jimbobb3509 im lost
@@jackgoff6215 He was being anti-semetic bc Richard Wolffe is Jewish. Just ignore him he's swine
I've never heard a capitalist make such a great argument against capitalism
lol. Legitimately happened
I suppose the amount of intellectual backflips required to make capitalism "sound like a good thing to keep trying" (failure after failure) to informed, thinking-people simply overwhelmed him so he just cobbled together the typical crusty ancient talking points. Many of them the standard regurgitations emerging from the bowels of private totalitarian institutions themselves. Throw in the *gold standard* of useless, fecal-minded responses from the master's bootlickers (usually some variation on calling you a Marxist or using "Marxist propaganda") and the carnival of obscene ignorance is complete.
@@lobotomizedamericans the amount of intellectual backflips you have to do to repeatedly spam Marxist propaganda and insult others then try to call others indoctrinated and bullying you is impressive. You spammed your usual Marxist BS again today and then deleted it when I called you out for what was likely the 30th time because you don’t operate on facts, you operate on spam and lies.
@@ExPwner and you arent spreading ancap propaganda?
@@atheistmando4976 nope, because what I say is neither false nor misleading. What I have said is objectively correct.
Guy wants to make capitalism less vicious without removing the individuals who became rich by being vicious. In the end he resorted to fear mongering because he didn't have an argument.....Prof Wolff brought facts and real history to a ridiculous degree..
Nor does he address the competitive aspect of Capitalism that forces Capitalists to be vicious, i.e., if you pay your workers more than the absolute minimum you can get away with, any competitor who cuts wages as much as possible will get an edge over you, by being able to sell at lower prices, retain higher profits, or some of both.
His argument is basically, "Capitalism would be great if Capitalists would just place nice and share," which doesn't take into account the _systemic_ structure of Capitalism that penalizes Capitalists for playing nice and rewards them for taking a "Greed is Good" approach.
He did say there are winners and *
some* losers. More like most of them are losers
That guy is just all over the place, contradicts himself and then makes up facts. Unemployment was illegal in the Soviet Union? I mean wtf??? Does this guy even listen to his BS?
"We need Morals, a shift in Culture, Dignity and Love." ...That's a nice self-help blog tagcloud you have there, Arthur. Not surprised if he sells nutrition supplements on the side.
Stock prices from 9/11/01 to 4/23/19:
Lockheed Martin (per share): $38.49 to $333.10 (+ 865%)
Raytheon: $24.85 to $187.58 (+ 754%)
Northrup Grumman: $40.95 to $292.61 (+ 714%)
Boeing: $68.35 to $374.02 (+ 547%)
General Dynamics: $41.50 to $182.37 (+ 439%)
Honeywell: $35.75 to $171.81 (+ 481%)
War is the lifeblood of America. Americans are unable to coexist peacefully with other nations
Never witnessed such a civilized debate. Thanks to the moderator and both professors
This is reminiscent of the old days. Search debates from the 60s
In socialist states the leader is THE ONLY CAPITALIST.
The socialist government does all the buying, selling, hiring ,firing, promoting..and determines how you must live your lives..because the socialist government soon becomes a dictatorship with power for life.
The government is the only employer who is not accountable to anyone..the very opposite to democracy!!!
Ergo socialism is the worst kind of capitalism with only the government's being the only capitalist!!
So Richard Wolf needs to be 'interviewed' in order to stop him from poisoning our children's minds.
Social programs for the unfortunate members of society..the very young, the old, and the infirm..is not 'socialism'.
Socialism is where the government owns everything and you are mere peons, serfs, vassals and other euphemistic epithets for 'slaves of the ruling elites of the state'.
This Richard Wolf is a criminal who aspires Tobe a socialist leader..like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other such people who preside over the genocide of their own people..even the people who supported their criminally insane ideology.
That's the difference between professors who are experts in politics and economics debating and twitch streamers, youtubers and people outside these fields claiming expertise debating.
commie bot, marxism is not civilized
Turns out when people are well versed in their arguments and have facts to back those arguments up, then a debate will not devolve into emotional over-talking.
33:50 Brooks literally describes worker-owned coops here as part of his solution, which is exactly what Wolff has been advocating for years.
I was so confused he literally said what socialism is, it’s power given to the people enforced by the government, but you also have to have a democracy for government, which we do not have. Or not a perfect one.
Agreed. Mr. Brooks kept saying things like, "my form of capitalism" or "if we only had morals in capitalism" so he wasn't debating the actual capitalist system we're currently enduring. I did find it refreshing to hear a capitalist admit that our current system lacks morals.
@@grayhost Agreed. (And I agree with your deleted comment about Wolff's comment about capitalism never delivering on its promises.) If Brooks and people like him could take a minute to stop recoiling against the word 'socialism', they'd realize they agree with much more of what Wolff says, than they think they do. And maybe we could make some progress toward something better.
@@andybaldman Agreed as well. In the U.S it's still very difficult for so many not to have a negative auto-response to the word "socialism." 😪
I'm struggling to understand the employee co-owned concept and how it different from what we have here (or the direction of where we're headed) If I start a company and work with a few people (co owners) after we democratically agree on what; where and how much. Now if we need to hire more people I have to renegotiate the whole business? Shouldn't I be able to put an offer as is on the table and my employee can choose if they want to take it?
I'm just realizing that I am a socialist. He is brilliant!
Yup! I'd recommend following Robert Reich, Chris Hedges, and Noam Chomsky as they share all share similar view points on the left
@@grim1860 I sure wouldn't recommend Hedges, he's very abrasive and simply doesn't know how to message to most people. He kicks up a lot of anger without making his case to people on the fence.
You didn't realise anything because you don't understand SOSIALISM and total SOSIALISM there is Big difference.
Welcome to the struggle. The Real News Network just did a 30 minute piece on co-ops, a.k.a. worker owned businesses, and organizations like The Working World that are helping communities to start their own worker owned enterprises.
Please give it a watch and spread the word that a better way is possible, spread the idea we can start our own democratically controlled and worker owned companies if we work together. I encourage you to learn about, understand, teach if you have the energy, and apply the principles of dialectical/historical materialism as a tool to help analyze things or events, and if you have the energy, organize a group to start a worker owned company of your own.
All aboard!!! 💪🏽💪🏽
Anyone who says we should be "developing people as assets" can stop talking to me immediately
Heh, right? And employers have stopped training people so they don't even believe THIS anymore. "Must have significant experience, a Master's Degree, and pay is $15/hr. Why can't I find a qualified candidate!?!?"
Calling people 'assets' is often capitalist's form of dehumanization. They simply see them as objects in a puzzle required to achieve their selfish goals.
Oh man the utter promotion of ones own ignorance with not understanding the basics of how and why things flourish coming from socialist is astounding. I wouldn’t be so quick to promote just uncritical thoughts into a brain dead circle jrk that just wants to hear “socialism good and right and capitalism always wrong and bad”. It’s shocking that ppl don’t understand that when someone says assets, they are meaning to have better skills for which can help you better thrive and flourish. It’s what you know that gets you a lot of places.
Thomas sowell for instance is some one the left is allergic to who is an economist that use to be a Marxist. He studied what helped marginalized and minorities that were discriminated against like the minority group in Malaysia. The majority group even had in the constitution to discriminate against them. Guess what, they actually now earn higher then the majority group, not from getting political power but instead valued skills and went to where skills were being valued the most. It’s about skills that get a group of ppl to flourish and that’s what’s meant by “asset”. Do you want to be an asset to your wife and kids? Of course you do and being an asset in general will help you flourish more. That doesn’t mean that your only value is how much you make it’s just that we know money doesn’t grow on trees and so to help ppl flourish so they don’t stay at the bottom you have to help teach ppl how to fish not just give them a fish because that kind of system usually collapses on itself.
Also how do ppl not understand it’s not capitalism that makes you get your lazy butt out of bed and go to work to pay for a shelter and food etc? Its called since the dawn of time if you didn’t get up and do things to get food you died you morons. You think cavemen just sat around and food was delivered to them by a magical unicorn that Bernie Sanders rides on? Lol no they had to get up and be in dangerous environments to hunt for food. Now capitalism just allows you more opportunities to put food on the table and buy things. So relating that back to the caveman, if you were a caveman and didn’t want to risk your life to hunt for food, you instead wanted to sharpen the tools the caveman used for the hunt and they already maybe did that on their own but you just did it better then them, then they might agree and allow you to get some of their food they got from the hunt and you got out of the hunt and got some food out of sharpening their tools. It’s a win win despite you not getting as much food if you had gone on the hunt because the extra food to you isn’t worth the risk involved in going on the hunt. We can then go on to bartering and how it’s better to just work with currency then having to make a bunch of trades to just get the things you want and need.
Also if you can’t produce anything of much value then capitalism offers you lots of opportunities to just go and work without having much skills or knowledge. Sure you won’t be able to make big wages but we could just make it illegal to have anyone work for anyone and we all have to produce goods that are valuable enough to trade for money. But we all know a good amount of ppl would die off that way. Socialism would crash and burn because it’s just redistributing money or power to ppl that haven’t shown to justify the redistribution. You think the ppl doing what’s harder in terms of starting business instead of just the ppl coming in and doing basic functions, would just stay in this country producing the golden eggs they do and not take any profits for themselves for the businesses they start? Heck no they would leave and go somewhere else that’s willing to compensate them for their skill set in stating business which in turn helps out allot of ppl.
The golden goose that produces the golden egg isnt the average workers, because they are easily replaceable and also why don’t the lazy ppl who complain about socialism just go start worker co ops? Because that takes a lot of work and skills they know they don’t have and don’t want to get up and do all that. They just want to b and complain that they want to be bigger leaches sucking off from the ppl with the ideas and harder work ethic creating businesses that unless those ppl did all that the average worker would be starving to death because they can’t produce anything of value with their own hands and don’t have the skills and hard work to start their own businesses. Most ppl agree with a social safety net but we need to make sure we help ppl flourish which we see time and time again that really only works by helping them value and accrue skills like being an “asset”.
34:31 Brooks doesn’t think we should have real liberal arts educations so we can be free and independent minded human beings capable of critical thinking, with knowledge of the classics, literature, philosophy, civics and the humanities. He wants people to have vocational training as to be obedient workers; useful to our capitalist overlords. Fuck that and fuck him
34:51 “Strangled by institutions and syndicalist mentalities.” Meaning Brooks is anti union. Who the f is the elitist now? Smh
I really appreciated the respectful tenor of the discussion from both professors, although I found one thing Professor Brooks said quite disgusting. He referred to the Cuban economy as a "joke," or something to that effect. He's an educated person, so I'm assuming he's aware of the US economic blockade of Cuba (not to mention CIA terrorism). In spite of the decades long illegal economic strangulation of the Cuban economy by the US, they've been able to do incredible things for their people (things the richest country in the world refuses to do) and have been a shining example of what international solidarity means. I'd have an easier time hearing out pro-capitalist arguments if they weren't so detached from historical and geopolitical realities.
So why isn't Cuba the economic powerhouse that puts a crushing embargo on the US and not the other way around?
how is it illegal?
@@StinkeyTwinkey Exactly what legal right does one country have to place sanctions on another country?
Let’s be honest, as a puerto rican myself I have seen the cuban lifestyle firsthand. The people are hungry, poor, and dying. The government IS a joke
@@gatoblanco5756 You come from an island colony of USA where you have so few rights and are treated like shit by your masters.
How wonderful to hear clear thinking, and respect for each other's differences without childish personal attack! Bravo. ❤
Yes, but the comments section, lol.
I'm in agreement that it was wonderful that the nuanced particulars between the systems were so well articulated, discussed and addressed (even if mostly on a hypothetical basis regarding the efficacy of either model and its relative effectiveness).
In socialist states the leader is THE ONLY CAPITALIST.
The socialist government does all the buying, selling, hiring ,firing, promoting..and determines how you must live your lives..because the socialist government soon becomes a dictatorship with power for life.
The government is the only employer who is not accountable to anyone..the very opposite to democracy!!!
Ergo socialism is the worst kind of capitalism with only the government's being the only capitalist!!
So Richard Wolf needs to be 'interviewed' in order to stop him from poisoning our children's minds.
Social programs for the unfortunate members of society..the very young, the old, and the infirm..is not 'socialism'.
Socialism is where the government owns everything and you are mere peons, serfs, vassals and other euphemistic epithets for 'slaves of the ruling elites of the state'.
This Richard Wolf is a criminal who aspires Tobe a socialist leader..like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other such people who preside over the genocide of their own people..even the people who supported their criminally insane ideology.
Brooks doesn't reach the level of analysis required to discuss this topics with Wolff.
Absolutely spot on Henry. This Brooks guy leaves me feeling nauseous! Cheers Bro!
No capitalist ever does.
Well, Richard has debated waaay worse people. For example Destiny. This conversation is relatively civilized.
@@markuspfeifer8473 true, he creamed destiny 45 seconds in…this one took closer to an hour to see who was making the better points.
Did you know Arthur Brooks is a French horn player by training? :-)
Share the work, share the rewards. I'd rather work for the good of all than the greed of a few. If you don't have democracy in the workplace, you don't live in a democracy.
Lol you really think the smart ones to be just regular employees like the dumb ones that work within the same organization? 🤦🏻
@@majedtaleb3944 that’s so vague and abstract, who’s to say who is dumb and who is smart? What we consider to be smart and dumb are more often them not just reflections of opportunity.
We've seen time and time again that that mentality simply does not work in society. Multiple studies have shown that people will hoard available resources to avoid allowing others to hoard, rather than letting them sit and accumulate, even if that would mean more for everyone in the future.
@@elijahgiles5504 have you wondered how some people come up with great ideas or inventions and others just work at restaurants? Some people get As and others Cs? If you ever worked in a company you would realize that some are more creative and better at problem solving than others.
@@majedtaleb3944 yes that is true, but have you considered that a lot of that is more to do with upbringing, generational wealth, and other privileges, and not some inherent virtues that make those successful better than everyone else? You’re mentality is very dangerous and doesn’t look at who systems effect the individual. Instead of just focusing on individual people with no context.
Amaizing! All the comments are on HOW the speakers speak. And none comments on WHAT the speakers say. It looks like people came here to enjoy speakers nice voices and pleasent manners and nobody is interested in the subject of the debate
Yes, the exchange was very civil, but I wish that Prof. Wolf had an opponent who was as clear & substantive about capitalism as he was about socialism. I think this needs to be a debate between economists. 🙏🏽
You're asking too much. Reasonably sound advocacy of capitalism is basically impossible. Consider this: by definition, all capitalism cares about is money (capital). Conversely, socialism (in principle, at least) cares about society (people). That's why it is so hard to make a case for an inherently antidemocratic system.
Given that capitalism literally has the job of making the rich richer, and the poor, dead, the only way to defend it is to lie, or be ignorant.
@@kreyvegas1way too simplistic an analogy, much less an argument.
@@kreyvegas1This is a giant straw man.
Capitalism has nothing to do with money and it would exist even without money. Money just happens to be a fantastic tool, kind of like writing, or spoken language. You could survive without any of these, but everything would be worse and less efficient.
If not for capitalism, we would not have the modern world we live in today. None of the economic systems preceding capitalism were transformative the way capitalism was. Since the beginning of civilization, absolute poverty and constant food insecurity were the norm for the vast majority of humans. This did not change until rulers got out of the way and let capitalism become the dominant economic system.
@@Leiska86 What muddled, ignorant and dangerous nonsense!
Had to laugh at the end of the Q&A where Brooks condemns the idea of a system that relies on "people not being selfish" ala the family style socialism, but that is 100% his argument for moral capitalism. That we need to rely on the capitalists allowing themselves to be guided by the invisible hand to follow their moral duty. Wow
@@Jake-fw5te The difference is, should economic systems pursue the "self-interests" of the vast majority in the bottom or the small minority on the top? It's always been that way historically, power always accumulates on the top which is EXACTLY what socialism tries to challenge.
Brilliant insight Conner. Brooks made the same argument against socialism that he used in favor of capitalism 😊. But then again…all his arguments had holes in them, so it is fitting
Yeah! The capitalists just need some more training. More ethical and moral training. Like the police need more training. That has worked well!
Who gets to do the training?
That would be great, except it will never happen unless there was a punishment for not doing it. And the corrupt politicians have changed all the laws that were once there to control them!!!
@@davidpeppers551 ha ha, maybe a cooperative employee-run company should do the training
Arthur Brooks is talking about trickle down. I heard this for many years about training in the 80's. It never happened.
the golden trickle down is billionaire piss, not gold
Arthur Brooks is a French horn player by training, not sure when he became a prominent voice for the right.
Money was flowing down, before they turned it into a trickle. It worked exactly as planned and was an amazing success.
Sadly the American public did not understand who trickle down was supposed to benefit because they bit into the propaganda hard on that one.
@@5353Jumper trickle down isn't real bc fundamentally both the government and capitalists rely on a literal trickling up of labor and taxes to then trickle it back to the people who actually made it.
Old Ronald Reagan BS capitalism mentality. Sounds good rolling off the tongue but if you question it, it fails to connect what you see to what you read/hear.
“Workers of the world unite!” has been replaced by “Students of the world unite!”
The problem was, when they united, all they got out of it was mass starvation.
Considering the current situation, looks like workers of the world and students of the world are united, not replacing the other.
It's really weird how Brooks keeps repeating Wolff's point that there are multiple definitions of Socialism, but then in his own arguments only ever articulates the idea of Socialism being equivalent to the Soviet Union
But really, capitalism with some social infrastructure is not socialism...though the majority of the US citizens seem to think so because of the latest wave of sensationalist or propagandist media coverage.
What most really want is capitalism, that is regulated by a government that actually represents the interests of the majority of the citizens, takes fair taxes from everyone, and uses the tax revenue to provide social safety net and infrastructure helping citizens with prosperity and success. Some of the social infrastructure may be centrally state owned/run or it may be privately owned but regulated to ensure social responsibility. The big goal would be providing support for a return to the entrepreneurial nature of the USA as a whole, not just an elite few.
This is not Socialism, just because the word "social" was used a couple times. This is capitalism with a government that has citizen involvement and equal representation for all citizens.
Taxing the wealthy equally or slightly more than the rest of the citizens is not socialism or anti capitalist, it is called government representing all citizens equally.
Public healthcare, old age income, disability income, unemployment insurance, worker rights and standards of employment and industry regulations are not socialist. They are infrastructure for the safety and prosperity of the citizens, they can and should fully exist in a capitalist economic model.
@Kevin Tewey people control government (genuine representative government) government regulates production.
People become shareholders, they gain control over means of production. (But they need regulations to ensure they have adequate wages so they can afford shares, and that the Exchange is fair for all citizens)
People are supported in entrepreneurial endeavors, and thus become there own capitalists, and control the means of production.
Government representative of the people provides many services and infrastructure, thus the people control the means of production.
What is needed is a fair and equal system, it does not really matter which system as long as the corruption is kept at bay and the equal citizens all have equal representation.
alot of what he said about the USSR was BS too
Brooks debates like a typical right wing libertarian, creationist, and science denier.
@@5353Jumper We had capitalism regulated by the government after World War 2. Where did that go? Corporations spent the last 70+ years slowly eroding every single regulation, in a similar vein to slow-boiling a frog, in such a way that we wouldn't notice it until it's too late. Capitalism is broken and inherently corrupt, and is now directly killing every human on the planet through climate change, which would not NEARLY be this bad if corporations didn't care more about their profit margins than human lives.
Brooks' opening statement is quite astonishing to me. He mouths the catechism of neo-liberal apologetics.
Exactly my take as well.
It’s rich of you to talk about mouthing from a catechism. When you clearly mouth from you catechism
Did you know that Brooks is a French horn player by training? :-)
market fundamentalism
He clearly won though
Really wonderful debate! Some thoughts on Professor Brooks’ comments (currently around an hour in so this could be addressed in the past half hour for all I know)- I admire the dedication Professor Brooks shows to his ideals and to the notion that Capitalism can be improved with the right morals, however the lived experience of the average American today in my experience is that the situation is so dire that there simply isn’t the possibility to even consider one’s place in things, or what “proper morals” really even are. In an economic system that - especially in crisis - necessitates a cutthroat mentality in order to survive, time to reflect and consider one’s values is a luxury only the already wealthy can afford. The conditions are destitute enough that there simply isn’t the possibility to both follow a decent moral code and put food on the table, the conditions necessitate choosing one or the other.
In addition, on the topic of Denmark- I have the luxury of being both a Dane and an American, and have lived and studied in both countries. With all due respect, graphs and charts are all fine, but there is no discussion that Denmark is objectively the better of the two nations in terms of economic and labor structure, and especially in standard of living. My experience is that there isn’t a particularly noticeable difference between the two in terms of how difficult it is to get a job, and the networks of state support here make it so that in interim periods between jobs there still isn’t really the risk of starving. The distance is so vast that there is an almost universal fear here of economic liberalisation/becoming more like the US. Denmark certainly has its own problems, and those of integration are absolutely among them, however I would say personally that the economic hardship faced by especially non-European newcomers to Denmark has more to do with conservatism in the Danish culture itself than specifically with the economy, and that the inability of the economy to successfully adapt to this as of yet is due less to a rigidity of the system and more due to intolerance towards foreigners among the Danish population. I also definitely wouldn’t go so far as to call Denmark Socialist as some do, but there is little doubt that the system here exists in the form that it does because of the historic success of Danish Socialist movements- I can highly recommend anyone who’s interested in this topic to visit the Workers Museum in Copenhagen.
EDIT: have now finished watching. I’m not sure where Professor Brooks is getting his statistics on job satisfaction in European social democracies vs in the US, but what he talks about in that section simply does not reflect reality, it’s absolutely the inverse, certainly in my experience job satisfaction is significantly higher in the social democracies by an overwhelming degree. I’m also a bit disappointed to see Professor Brooks resorting to what feel like idealistic - and, frankly, profoundly misguided - arguments in the last half hour or so.
Thank you 😊
Well said. Yes, Prof. Brooks puzzled me, too, when he talked of job satisfaction. On the one hand he said the US scored high, but on the other hand he said that the problem was not enough people had access to it 🤔
Loved your comment, and I came out of that debate with pretty much all of the same takeaways lol.
"In an economic system that - especially in crisis - necessitates a cutthroat mentality in order to survive" That's the real problem with capitalism--the emphasis put to compete and for there to be "winners and losers." It promotes hoarding and painfully inequitable distribution of resources.
Sad to say… but some of the reasons we don't have the healthcare, the education that you guys have is because people would rather go without… than to share things with black & brown people.
I think your system will change for the same reason.
Black & brown people were still illiterate 2, 3 generations ago.
Caught up in such a time… it’s disgusting to believe there is anything superior about a white person.
Do superior people have to keep telling people that they are superior… or… wouldn't we know?
jeez, I wish this debate was twice as long. I need more!
The fundamental difference I see between these two men? Prof Wolff speaks in terms of the concrete, stats, empirical evidence. Brooks, like so many others on the right, uses terms like "patriot", "morality" and only sees these terms, and therefore capitalism, through his own lived experience.
Arthur Brooks is a French horn player by training, not sure when he became such a prominent voice for the right.
I have always made the same observation about right-leaning articles in the newspapers. They rely on emotional remarks and jingoism. Left-leaning writers use empirical facts and concrete evidence.
Brooks literally mentioned about study about reduced poverty stats. Unemployment rates stats. Gini coefficient. But then, what do we expect from left-wing losers but cheer their hero - Wolff.
This is a beautiful analysis of this debate. 👏👏👏
If those on the right think so much about patriotism or morality, why is the wealth gap getting bigger and bigger? social problems getting bigger and bigger? unending wars??
When humans starts using morality, human rights and other good qualities as a cheap tool for their agenda or ideology, it only de-value those good qualities for the purpose of selfish reasons.
Wolff is hugely more knowledgeable, truthful, factual and wise than Brooks.
We need many more economists like Richard Wolff.
He’s a legend. I credit him for bringing me up to date on modern day socialism.
Lol
How did Destiny destroy him then?
Yet this guy gets to speak to think tanks Harvard bean counter students and governments. And yet he must be seen as some kind of maverick amongst his peers!
This is really a Good Faith Debate.
There should be more like this.
Awesome!!!! ❤️🙏🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Crazy how I can follow this amazing debate from the comfort of my car in Indonesia... Thank you for makin this
My favorite part was when he was like “I like poor people because I feel good when I give to charity” comedy gold
You seem happy with starving people in your country, Kim Jong-Un.
@@willnitschkeNorth Korea had a period of starvation in the 90's after the USSR fell, but today starvation doesn't exist in North Korea.
@@skyisreallyhigh3333 How the f**k would you know? You know what the dictator wants you to know. 🤣
@@willnitschke Heres a better question, how would you know when almost everything we hear about it is literally a lie.
I bet you're going to bring up defectors, while leaving out the fact that South Korea will pay up to $860K for people to defect and defectors can make up to $12,500 for speaking. Naomi-Park as never been able to keep her story straight and other defectors call her out.
So, once you can tell me how it is you know, then I will tell you how it is I know. That's how it works, you made the initial claim, ita on you to prove it.
No fucking way its Kim Jong-Un 😳😳😳 epic fade tavarish Un
Brooks’ argument is “we need to love each other.” This is the state of Ivy Leagues and DC think tanks. Worthless intellects
Should just rename them "nepo-baby leagues" so we can just ignore them like they deserve
Parallel to thoughts and prayers
And whats wolffs solutions? Democratized work places? His 'solutions' when questioned arent practical. Purely ideologue
@@zzz-nu2re what's impractical is keeping this system going
@@nathanielchieffallo4273 how so? Seems pretty practical to me since we are literally doing that. I dont think u know what practical means 😂
Love this debate. I am anti-socialist but thought both parties exhibited their viewpoints, including their enthusiasm, in an incredibly professional and respectful manner.
Watch out you’ll likely get spammed by Mad Mappin or another bot account.
@@ExPwner thanks
@@ianjharris no problem. I am also anti-socialist.
I love the comments saying they love how this debate is structured, I'm pretty sure this is how an actual debate is supposed to be, sometimes it's more open back and forth I'm sure but internet debates always end up boiling down to over talking or gatchya moments, these two respect each other atleast
One thing Richard Wolff said once has always stuck in my mind is that there's only so much money a single person can make, the rest is in reality being stolen off the labour of other people. This to me is the most compelling argument for socialism in my view..
they say capitalism is " meritocratic " but all most Employers do is valorize their money through the work of others
So you want to take the extra money they make away from them that they made or employed people to make?
@@michaellin4230 The point is we're are conditioned to think the way it is, is the only way. Clearly at some point Bazos and the other super wealthy have to be reined in or they'll end up owning the world. So the answer to your question is Absolutely yes!!
@@chrismalcomson7640 so the money they earned legally should be taken away?
@@michaellin4230 legality is not same as morality. Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral thing to do, or are you going to defend slavery now because it was legal?
The idea espoused by Brooks, a Hardvard professor, that "USSR [ a country that started as a post-feudal agrarian society tormented by civil war and which was initially invaded by 14 capitalist countries, which was so under-developed that had recurring famines and then in only a few decades of socialism became a space exploring superpower, having a better diet than Murica -according to CIA documents, & rivaling US] has failed", tells you volumes of the type of 《education》 you'll get from that overpriced brainwashing factory calling itself a University.
Truth.
Glad others make this argument. If we are debating economic systems that approach industrial production differently, than hands down communism was more efficient. Unfortunately the end game of industrial civilization is a degraded land base that no longer supports industrial production. Had the USSR not been so thoroughly isolated by US strategy of containment, they would have lasted longer. The fact it took many centuries for capitalism to undermine its land base attests to the inefficiencies of the system.
Thank you. I studied history and geography and was a teacher. I often countered the argument that communism has failed, look at the ussr, by simply stating that communism was never tested in a modern equal and peaceful society. Therefore we have no evidence that communism was a failure.
@Ronald Reagan yeah it's failing miserably in western Europe and Scandinavia...
@Ronald Reagan you are clueless then. Go look up socialism. You can be socialist and capitalist. You are mistaken with communism.
Gotta respect a man who brings a wet paper towel to a gun fight. I respect both participants; one for tone and the other for substance.
loved this debate, just perfect in every way, a productive conversation conducted with respect and professionality.
I agree Mr. Tonegawa
@@Emerardo thanks mr. emerardo
If you remove greed and the desire for profit from capitalism, it is no longer capitalism.
Greed and desire are human traits.
@@sergiolandz6056so is love and understanding
@@houseofsports8122so is innovation and competition
@@tobibenjamin6097I’m still trying to educate myself on the two systems, but I doubt. Many ancient societies have worked communally, especially when it comes to land ownership. We only have this competition because we live in a society where we weirdly value personal and private property over others.
@@tobibenjamin6097"So is innovation and competition" so what's your point?
The host did not mention how many total books has Professor Wolff written, only mentioning 2020, while for the other professor the host preferred to give the total number of 11 books, the bias starts write from the word go!
oh shit he wrote a lot of books he HAS TO be correct!
@@wyssmaster That's not the point of the comment. Nice strawman, though.
It's possible that the host was provided with bio material by the debate participants?
@@smolderingtitan that's what I'm thinking, although in these types of debates it's not particularly uncommon for the host to have a capitalist bias...
@@mylesmacpherson5534 You are right, that it is common in such types of debates to have a capitalist bias. Yet this small instance should be a reminder, that providing incomplete information is a part of the deadly repertoire, that includes spreading fake news, turning truth to falsehood and falsehood into truth, using a veneer of science for essentially providing information in the rhetorical.
Rhetoric was developed by the Greek scholars as manner of defending the rights of the ruling elite and meant, the skill to turn truth into falsehood and vice versa.
This repertoire is the only way for an "all owning' elite to defend its rights over every thing, including the social and spiritual life of the people.
It is the latter who are the true owners of such a great responsibility of commanding and deciding about social and economic life of the peoples of a country, by the very fact that social life is the life of the vast majority taken together.
The repertoire used by the elite, their professors and the media owned by the elite itself, to educate the people, is a pole opposite to the repertoire that the people themselves use to educate themselves, and which can only be based on the utmost care to provide the best of facts in an analytical manner and not the rhetorical sleight. The former is for turning a false ownership of everything into its opposite, the latter is for correcting the false reversal, i.e. forcing the reversal of the false reversal, and then the implementation of a life based on truth.
Time is precious in such struggles, otherwise the destines of the peoples and those of the world can come to a thundering halt.
Just as one instance , thousands of lives of young people belonging to working class families were sacrificed in devastating a very tiny Vietnam, and millions of the poor people of Vietnam were massacred. The working people of the U.S.A were killing working people of Vietnam
This destruction went on for years and years, only because time and gravity of time was not taken in by the peoples of the U.S.A.
Such is the manner in which the "ownership rights over everything" are defended.
The people cannot relax with the hope that time is on their side. This is the way the elite want the people to think.
The greatest responsibility for defending life, lies on the peoples of the U.S.A since it is the elite of the U.S.A, who have the greatest responsibility to defend the ownership rights of all elites, making up the pyramid of the owner elites of the world, who own everything in the world.
Time is precious for the peoples of the U.S.A, and hence the peoples of the world, or we might not have any time, any life.
By the 30th minute i realized prof brooks was basically *also* supporting prof wolff's position, just with different definitions. I think this is just because brooks sees capitalism as "humans in charge of capital" instead of "capital in charge of humans"
That's an awesome way to put it. I notice that when I do talk about econ capitalist supporters tend to not think about the negative tendencies of capitalism because it isn't necessarily a 100% occurring thing. How they see crony capitalism or corporatism as seperate from capitalism. I think that's the most fundamental disagreement I have had with pro capitalists.
The same could be said of the difference between communism and socialism. The disagreement is usually how they define 'ownership' and 'state'
The first professor said that government regulation like min wages and workers rights if private owned corporations is a form of 'socialism'. This debate should be longer with definitions fleshed out before actual ideas
I mean kinda? In the first segment, in his closing remarks, Brooks basically says we can fix capitalism with love and unity. It sounds nice, but come on - we've had to endure the hegemony of the rich for so long. Ya think some love will do the trick?
I think China has shown that neither capitalism nor socialism work by themselves and that it's possible to merge the two for everyone's benefit.
For instance we could start by nationalizing the countries natural resources, like oil. We could have that money used to help build infrastructure and cheap housing.
Having a company with 600.000 employees and virtually no profit margin still supports 600.000 lives.
A sentiment shared by both speakers was that dignity is something achieved through labor. I think that this is off base. Outside of the clear argument for those who cannot work such as children, the elderly, and those who are ill or disabled, the amount of labor done by an individual is not directly related to their value. Less working does not make you less of a human being. Less working does not inherently lower your quality of life. In fact, I think to improve all people's quality of life, a reduction in labor is necessary. To truly form community with those around you, you need down time. As a society, we are all hustling tremendously. Our friendships and our communities are online or through Google calendars. Those with nine to fives have very limited vacation. The time that they do not spend working they are preparing for or recovering from said work. This standard should not be the goal for any society. We need to dismember our association between labor and value.
this wasn't a debate. it was the confessions of a capitalist 😁
Apologizing for the economic system that sent a man to the moon and delivered famine relief to the starving, simultaneously.
@@crimony3054 Heard a rumor the Soviets flew into space. And more recently the communist Chinese too. Hmm.
LOL SPOT ON!
@@dipthongthathongthongthong9691 but the soviets starved... and the Chinese are more capitalistic than the Americans.
@@redrkstone emmmm, actually cn invented their atomic bombs hydrogen bombs and artificial satellites during Mao Zedong’s time.
Brooks: I changed my entire career because of the insane decrease in poverty.
Wolff: Yeah, that never happened.
Brooke mentioned improvement in Africa but he did not give acknowledgement to the contribution of China in alleviating poverty in Africa. He also did not acknowledge how the then most prosperous African state (Libya) was totally destroyed by Obama and Hilary Clinton in 2011-12 just to preserve US interests in the region.
@SOUL SEEKER Obama destroyed Lybia too. They did it because Gaddafi wanted African states to use an African dollar instead of the petrol dollar. The petrol dollar is designed to force all countries to buy and sell oil using $US. It became the only reserve currency for international trade. As a result every country has to have $US and thus has to buy US treasury bills. This enables US to sanction any country she wants simply by freezing the country's reserve in US$. It gives tge US power to bully every country. That is why Russia now decides to dump US$.
@SOUL SEEKER According to Guyde Moore, a former Liberian minister of (trade), African countries prefer to have Chinese companies build their infrasture because they get a better deal than they can from the IMF. He says the only country that has fallen foul was Sri Lanka because after the port was built, and after many attempts to restructure the repayment the port was leased to China for 99 years. Sri Lanka still benefits because they now have a modern port that is properly maintained and managed for them whereas previously they hadn't. He also said Western countries in the past had refused to deal with African governments directly but with contractors chosen by them. As a result, the African states got nothing in the end. The contractors were corrupt and did not produce anything eventually but the African governments were trapped into paying exorbitantly to the IMF.
Ask Wolff about Nationalist Socialists. His particular favorite.
@SOUL SEEKER Would globalists mean the elites of the world??
This is seriously one of the most respectful and civilized debates I've ever listened to
All that matters is the content.
What a fantastic debate we need much much more of this. Unfortunately University setting has become a place of no debate for students. That's said I think one specific point that would have been helpful here is the difference in individualism vs collectivism. Professor Brooks talks a lot about a moral capitalism, that will somehow meet Collective goals. However capitalism itself is based on a rugged style of individualism that precludes and prevents any sort of solidarity solidarity and collectivism collectivism. It's interesting to me that when pro-capitalist speakers talk about capitalism they speak in terms of morality and Brotherhood, yet those things stand in direct opposition to capitalist production. His final statements that brought up competition is part of what I mean. Competition pits people against people. And I think it is a Mist to think that competition is the only impetus that will inspire human beings to create and produce.
Weird considering capitalists donate far far more than self proclaimed socialists ever do.
@@bovineavenger734you wouldn't have written that had you listened to the entire debate
@@vukbajic4904 you wouldn't had written that if you looked up statistics.
@@bovineavenger734is socialism when donating to charity?
@@josephwilson696 Why don't socialists put their money where their mouth is? Oh right, they want to use other people's money instead...mostly to stash it in their own pockets
Destiny be like "define socialism bro".
"and please keep it to 15 seconds so I can have someone clip it to try and get a debate bro gotcha."
Lol destiny who isn't a capitalist beat wolff solely bc of the fact that Wolff can't define it.
@@Fabric_Hater ...no, he defines it fine. He is focused on analyzing it in terms of as a mode of production which people are not used to.
@@ianperfitt I watched it in full more than once. He never defines it. Except he supports worker owned co ops. Which, considering he is against capitalism, defined as the protection of property, means he's anti co ops bc obviously a co op should be protected.
He's just an old blathering fool with a degree next to his name to make people think he knows things.
Destiny got destroyed...so funny😅
Dr. Wolff's closing statement was a masterful indicment of capitalism's failure and socialism's future. Thank you Dr. Wolff.
Get the hell out of here. Socialism has never worked and will never work.
@@kingzion3032 It is capitalism that has never worked and never will work. We have yet to see a well fuctioning, real-life socialist society, but that's why we are still fighting for it.
@@mikkelbjrgemadsen4 capitalism never worked? Have you not seen what great heights the United States Empire reach in 100 years? That’s 100 years, or alternatively 4 generations. It has bloody well worked amazingly. Socialism / Communism not such much? Do you remember someone called Mao or Stalin?
Or my favourite socialist: The goal of socialism is communism.
@@kingzion3032 You forget to state who the system works for. The reason the US was'nt as disfounctinang as the other capitalist countries in the 1800s and the first half of the 1900s, was because of a huge appropristion of the land of the native americans, and because it seized the opportunity to rule the marked after Europe was smashes to pieces by two imperialist wars. Stalin and Mao were indeed socialists, but Hitler and bin Laden was were indeed conservatives, so I am not very impressed by this argument.
@@kingzion3032 That's what they said about democracy. The aristocrats and other rich ones could not fathom that "those ignorant masses" could rule themselves. I am hopeful. And world events seem to point that way. Ie. Europe, Canadians and young Americans.
16:04
How is it opposite when employees CHOSE, chose this company to work in. They are not forced to work there. It's not theirs. They can leave. It's free. If it's not democratic if it's not denicratic to hsve a free choise of everyone involved to cooperate, I have no idea what democratic means
"Democratic" according to this Marxist brain farts is to make everything efficient political, and hence, inefficient.
It's crazy how greatly the perception of socialism has shifted during the cold war that even after it continues to be thought of as an ideology of state ownership rather than worker ownership/democratization of business and how people seem incapable to see that free markets are not exclusive to capitalism. With Arthur speaking on state tyranny even after a breakdown of what the two were arguing.
That’s because socialists continue to insist upon using the state to try to achieve their ends rather than free markets. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it is a duck. Wolff here is no exception.
@@ExPwner most socialists don't believe markets should remain but believe in either decentralized planning apparatuses via consumer/worker coops, communal ownership, or unions/guilds/syndicates. Socialist who do believe markets should exist usually believe it won't last, but is the stepping stone between capitalism and socialism. Whereas other socialists, ones who dont believe in markets at all, believe socialism is the stepping stone to communism which as we all know is a surplus oriented society without classes, the state as we understand it, or actual money notes.
@@RextheRebel “decentralized planning” is an oxymoron. Either people are free to produce and exchange or they aren’t.
@@ExPwner If everything was freely produced, then you wouldn't have an iPhone or a modern car or computer. This production requires planning of complex actions. And concentrated monopolistic capital is already forcing a lot of people to work in the plan. If everything is free to exchange, then everything has its price and equivalent, and everything becomes for sale. Even human life, love, education or health.
@@demyrg9887 wrong. The market already produces those. The fact that they make plans is not the same as central planning you simp.
The Professor from kennedy school, is trying to mix socialist and capitalist ideas to confuse, as any defender of capitalism will do
A guy like Brooks can be a professor,hilarious。
We don't have REAL capitalism anyway there many aspects of capitalism as SOSIALISM to. Its very long to explain but Richard Wolf is not always right.
@@rogerburn5132 You don't have *real* capitalism?
Is that so?
Are not the vast majority of enterprises in private hands?
How many public or democratically-run institutions do you think we have?
We live in a society *dominated* by capitalist enterprises.
@@elnegrobembon well you don't understand what real capitalism is. It's long but I will give you just 1 or 2 examples. In 2008 financial crisis all Banks in USA and Europe and UK (Banks are private institutions) were bailed out with public (taxpayers) money (that is SOSIALISM) in. Real capitalism that doesn't happen .in Real capitalism if private (Bank or companies) loose their money the go bankrupt. And in 2008 the US government give 5 billion dollars to GM . General Motors. that is SOSIALISM not capitalism. Not to mention how much help Boeing has ( money) from the government. Its not capitalism. when lobbying the government to give preference (to private companies) pfarma or many others protecting them from competition. tariffs or different low.
So you see that we never have real capitalism in the first place. Free market economy is free from government not wen the government bailed out anything that they think deserves bailout.
@@rogerburn5132 Very true.The same can be said about aspect of Chinese society where there welfare of retired workers are concerned.Recently they had to change the laws for having children to deal with a rapidly aging population. Which will not necessarily work because of the high cost of living i.e. education, health etc.I think the road to socialism is not black or white.Capitalism does not have the answer nor does blind communism.
Civil discourse and sharp smack down by Richard about the “counting of the dead” was epic!
Every 'Capitalism vs Socialism' debate must include the meme 'iPhone Vuvuzela animal farm 100 billion dead' XD
"how dare people include the humans who were murdered in the name of my ideology!"
@@Fabric_Hater I see you have listened to the part of the debate we're talking about! (Wink wink, nod nod)
@@AG-el6vt I've listened to the Wolff talking point every time people bring up the millions murdered by people of his ideology. It's always a trash rebuttal and it's always the same rebuttal and everyone who doesn't like murder knows it.
@@Fabric_Hater iTs A tRaSh ReBuTtAl tO uSe ThE sAmE bS mEtRiC i UsE aGaInSt My PoSiTiOn.
I'm sure all those people who died during the Atlantic Slave Trade, the repression of the labour movement, the insane working conditions in the sweatshops of the Global South, the Bengal Famine, and many other cases... They'll all be assured to know that their deaths don't count as a counter to your dishonest 'gotcha'.
Fucking clown.
Those who wish to be in Congress or be President should be discussing their positions in this way. There is no reason they would object unless they were fearful that they do not understand what they are governing and that they will be exposed.
I'm 64, from USSR here since 1988, a few years before the collapse. I remember free healthcare for by everyone. I mean free. I remember free education for everyone on all levels. I mean free. I remember kindergartens almost free, basically pennies, where you can drop your kids off at 7am and pick up at 6, in some case leave overnight. And the kids were fed with healthy food, not some kind of snacks, educated, entertained. 4 weeks of vacation. Why we can't have it under capitalism?
Because the state cannot have a public fund and has to satisfy economic agents in the market firstly by not competing with them and not taxing the rich too much. Under socialism you had no capitalists, so all their paid dividends were absorbed either by the wages of the workers or by the state's public fund with which it afforded to do all those projects like good quality free education, healthcare, public transport, infrastructure, nurseries, paid vacations etc. and all of these were also paid to state-owned services.
Now imagine what would happen in US: the private insurances would lose most of their market so they would go bankrupt, the medical industry would collapse because most of the people will go to state hospitals paid by the health fund, the private schools and babysiters would run out of business and Walmart will not be able to run because nobody would accept to live on food stamps. The car manufacturers and streaming platforms would also lose a lot of clients if cinemas and theaters were subsidized by the public funds.
brooks thinks because capitalist organizations like the world bank defined abject poverty out of existence that's some success story. 🤣
That's the common response. They don't care to mention that it took making some people disgustingly rich, to bring those other people barely above the poverty line (by capitalizing their labor). Slave owners thought they treated the slaves pretty well, too.
It's as if capital investment is some capitalist angel descending on the poor and investing in them expecting nothing in return. Completely ignoring how capitalism drove colonialism which contributed to their impoverishment.
Honestly I am all for change and the better meant of Mankind and The way America is going with people wanting to use pronouns in such a way it takes u 30 mins to ask 3 people to walk across the street, I do not see our current system being a successful one. If it last 20 years I will be amazed. However using a form of government that killed 100 million people in the last century. Just the fact people even argue for such a system should show you ALL Socialist are closest Aristocrats, or wanna be tyrants.
@@tylerscofield9799 thats a very common misconception socialism did not kill 100 million people. Nowhere close to that number. That stat has been thoroughly debunked (even by some of the people who came up with the number) by using ridiculous measurements, like calling nazis killed by Soviets “victims of communism”. Or attributing famine caused by internal strife, foreign invasions, war, and sanctions to communism. They even admitted to pulling millions of deaths out of thin air. Just making shit up. Please don’t go around spreading this misinformation.
And truthfully if we are to play the numbers game, capitalism would undoubtedly lose. Between colonialism and the imperialism of capitalist nations alone, would exceed that number. And it’s not socialists who are the wanna be tyrants. They’re the ones who are victims of tyranny. Socialists were purged from government, media, and academia, sometimes even jailed in the 20th century. The US made a deliberate effort to crush every socialist government, by funding death squads and rebels, or funding coups to replace socialist governments with genocidal dictators. Sometimes they just used economic sanctions to deny food and medicine to those countries. All because they decided they want to be independent from capitalist hegemony. Capitalist countries can be just as tyrannical, it’s not related to the economic system so much as it is to the circumstances. Things like economic and political instability, or war and geopolitical threats lead to tyrannical governments independent of their economic system.
@@mediterraneanmint89 well we could contribute ww1 to death of capitalism, because its was mostly about markets and ww2 also had capitalists interests or failures as reason.
None of this will have a chance to happen as long as the elites still hold power financially and politically. What really needs to be discussed is how the people can purge these malicious elites first. What Richard is talking about is akin to an athlete thinking of what he'll do after he wins the Olympics before he's even signed up for the Olympics.
We are in a bad situation now with corporate media doing the opposite of it's role in society and an apathetic and spoilt citizenry that is ill prepared for what is headed its way.
@@willnitschke The media had no business being corporate, to begin with. It should've been either non-profit or state-controlled under the direct supervision of the representatives.
Corporate media are a convenient way for the government to ignore the 1st amendment because corporations ultimately are at the mercy of the government and the government can just force the corporation to censor who they want while saying "it's a private business it can do what it wants."
@@TeleologicalConsistency Non-profit means you're at the mercy of whoever is funding you and corporate media is essentially state controlled.
@@willnitschke Corporate media is controlled by the CEO that owns it. You should know Will, you get fed daily doses of Rupert Murdoch bullshit.
@@hobbso8508 I don't follow corporate media at all, sorry. It's too silly and stupid, which is why you are glued to CNN correct?
It would be helpful to examine those instances where social democracy and capitalism in democracy has produced outstanding and lasting success in each say by an employer, community or cooperative.
Dr. Wolff's is unsurpassed for making the case for socialism. I love to hear him. He's brilliant.
He used a lot of strawmen. He used a lot of faulty statistics. Most of what he said was emotional sympathy empathy, which is what the left specializes in. You don’t run governments and economies that way. All of the failures of capitalism he mentioned were because of government intervention. The government made the great depression far worse. So many of the things he said were just completely 100% false!
America has not had real capitalism in decades. It has been replaced by crony capitalism. By government corruption. By trade deals that were shitty for American workers. Pretty much every criticism he had of capitalism was because of government intervention and corruption special interest etc. etc.
The poorest people in America are wealthy by global standards. The poorest people of America have cars, 16% have two cars. They live in a house with central heating and air, they have smart phones, laptop computers, iPads, high-speed Internet, flatscreen TVs, microwave ovens, etc. etc. The poorest people in America live better than the richest people in the world 150 years ago.
The Educational system was destroyed by the left. Go watch some videos on RUclips of Mike Rowe and listen to what he has to say.
In China $400 a year is the poverty level. In America it’s $13,000 a year. It’s very hard to double that income unless people get off their ass and go work but first you have to work and learn skills by getting an entry-level minimum wage job. That’s how you start out. But those are entry-level no skill low skill jobs and you work your way up.
It’s easy to decrease poverty 4 fold When the poverty level is literally a few hundred dollars a year. He’s just not debating in good faith.
Capitalism and socialism are infinitely flawed and failed. They have failed everywhere. And they cause greater disparities in wealth.
Capitalism and democracy are not perfect. People are not perfect. Therefore imperfect beings cannot create a perfect system. Capitalism and socialism work well on the micro level. At the local community or the county level. Back in the day small country towns and towns out west were rather socialist. But it doesn’t work on the large macro scale. It breaks down because people have different ideologies and different beliefs.
The reality is as Robert Brooks said, capitalism and democracy have educated more people, freed more people from tyranny and authoritarianism, fed more people, cured more disease, created more wealth, than all other systems combined.
@@nedhill1242 💯% correct
@@nedhill1242 crony capitalism is a part of capitalism. Capitalism necessitates greed. Capitalism produces winners and losers. Do the winners let the losers keep their shares? Of course not. When brooks went on his rant about lobbying I don’t know where he’s been but that’s just a fundamental part of government and capitalism is it not? Lobbying is how the conservatives have gotten what they wanted. It’s something that capitalists and pretty much the right in general always ignore and try to put a bunch of flowers on to it to make it seem like everything okay.
Material wealth doesn’t make you happy. Mental illness, loneliness, and social isolation is at an all time high here is the US and is only going to get worse as technology improves and the fact that post secondary education costs are rising astronomically. If you want to get rid of these things you need to get rid of capitalism. Simple as that.
A few hundred dollars a year is no where near the minimum standard for a decent living.
Should we pull out the stats? The stats show that at equal economic development, socialism clearly outpaces capitalism in both macroeconomic growth, gdp per capita, and pretty much alleviates extreme poverty. It took Tsarist Russia from a semi-feudal backwater of Europe that was still using wooden plows to an industrialized superpower within 40 years while the US over a hundred. This is despite all the sanctions, unfair trading systems, and meddling by capitalists in the system. So which system is better?
Let’s pull out the stats again. The socialist countries show that illiteracy was almost eliminated in countries like Soviet Union and Cuba. Whereas capitalist countries have never achieved such. Higher nutrition, better universal healthcare in terms of access to doctor and outcome as shown in Cuba. and much much more.
@@ryanosterman2651 Blah blah blah fucking bullshit! Cronyism is not part of capitalism. Cronyism comes from corrupt governments that stick their grubby hands in capitalism. You are brainwashed!
No. Money does not make you happy. But poverty makes you even less happy also people in poverty have more health issues and other problems. The reason there are far less poor people in the world today is because of capitalism and democracy! That is an undeniable fact. That is a provable fact!
Ask people that have lived under communist and socialist governments. Go to Miami and talk to the people that left South American because of socialism. I don’t know where you get this shit because it’s just fucking dumb. It’s factually incorrect. It’s science fiction!
That is an undeniable fact! Poverty in America is $13,000 a year. Poverty in China is $400 a year and the majority of people in China live in poverty.
Rather than fucking up America, which people from all over the world want to come to, move to a socialist or communist country. If you think socialism & communism are so fucking great move there! Don’t fuck up a country that has giving you the free-speech rights and the other things you have today. But you will never give those things up. You’re just like black people that bitch all the time even black people with money. You don’t see them living in Europe. You don’t see them rushing out of America to live somewhere else. Because they know they’re full of shit! They know just how privileged they are. They know America is the least Racist country in the world with the most opportunity.
I’m done responding to you because you’re a typical Lib Tarde. All you do is spelled emotions and criticize capitalism but you don’t provide one single shred of evidence or facts to support your side. Things that me and people on the right do all the time. We provide factual information. You provide emotions and propaganda. Because the facts the science the history is not on your side!
@@nedhill1242 I love how you criticize me using “emotion” driven arguments when clearly you used it during your whole schpeil about how “good we have it” in America. Okay I’m going to lay it out for you here:
1. Not everyone is a US/Western centric like you and not everyone wants to be like you. By the way I love how you invoked racism as if it were somehow a valid argument. And also your comment is kinda racist in itself. Plus the only reason why we have it good here in America is because we have a really good geography that we exploit and imperialism.
2. I have talked to people directly in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Latin America and they tell me that aside from the authoritarianism (yes there is a massive difference and I think richard made it very clear) life was actually quite good because they had security, a sense of belonging, a strong nation to be proud of, etc. Right now there is a communist nostalgia going on throughout the old Soviet bloc and the polls consistently show their lives were better.
3. People like you always hate nuance. You don’t want anything that defies the glowing, whitewashed image that you were presented with so you project your own ego on to others. You know you have nothing against me here.
4. The data clearly shows that outside the military and size of economy we are number 1 in practically nothing. So why can’t we adopt what other nations have so that we can improve the lives of our own?
That's the way debates should be conducted, kindly, respectfully and open to differences. Always a pleasure to hear Professor Wolff and it was nice to hear Professor Brooks as well.
Somebody tell me if I am wrong, but couldn't it be that the passing of the Federal Reserve Act(or the centralization of banking; of which the forefathers like Thomas Jefferson were adamant about avoiding centralization--most dreadfully feared centralizing our currency to a "private" bank). Academia fails to mention what a tectonic shift in POWER the Federal Reserve Act had. The Act did not solely effect the U.S., but rather its outcomes created stellar shockwaves that shifted power ALL throughout the world!
Soon, New York would take control as head of the World of finance; following World War I it became apparent Wall Street would be replacing the Bank of England.
Kennedy had plans for Nationalizing the currency of the U.S.; unfortunately, the powers that be refused to allow that to happen...
Seems to me, within a year(could have been months) came the call for war, initiating World War I [July 28th, 1914], and was brought to an end November 11th, 1918! This means capitalism has been responsible for essentially every single war since... I dunno? World War II was hugely invested in by Wall Street (Prescott Bush, and I believe Cromwell & Sullivan
@@johnhackett6332
You can be concerned about the banks without the cynical conspiracy theory mongering.
@@AceofDlamonds Historically "the banks" are where most conspiracy is centered.
"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws." a quote by
*Mayer Anselm Rothschild*
That's what happens when a country, The United States is a debtor to a *PRIVATE BANK* (that the Federal Reserve actually is) and; as the debtor, the country is inevitably manipulated by that Private bank. Point of fact, the source of the entire financial world of the U.S. leads back to and is the firm grasp of, the Bank of England. In other words, the decisions are being made by the Bank of London; where all Financial Markets lead to.
Conspiracy is a necessary attribute of how power functions! In order to understand why we are in the current position we now find ourselves in - economically, and so on - then you *can't ignore* conspiracy!
Consider it, a fact of life!
GOP TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS SUCKS !!!
The key point to do it is focusing in the subject, not in who talks about the subject.
Consider this. When attempting to assess what could work in a society to improve, in every way that is important (and we must from the onset build an agreed upon foundational criteria as to what IS important), the quality of life of its participants, we should avoid bogging ourselves down with the names of systems. Because people have a tendency to hear the name and immediately attribute to that system either the worst or best examples that they know, whether by study or bc they were given a biased narrative based on the views of their immediate culture. In much the same way a person born to a religious family unsurprisingly (generally) grows up to have that faith and believe all others are wrong.
One cannot, and should not In my honest opinion, argue for an existing system that they believe to be best for everyone, because their presupposition of what is "best" or "good" is subjective, and may in fact be simply an equivocation as a means to an end. Additionally discussing what we imagine to be the best kind of a thing, rolls in the Bandwagons for each of those things that exist, establishing subcamps within each bandwagon, from bias confirmation driven arguments to every other type of fallacious argument.
Further more, you have this issue of defining a thing as these attributes alone, making it rigid and inflexible, closes the mind and the argument.
This is all to say...an average person, who grows up within Capitalism, and has a vague understanding of it, and has never lived any other way, vaguely recalls learning or hearing stuff about communism and how terrible and evil that was, is now hearing the discussion among his social circles and his preferred media outlet Fakes News (oops I mean Fox) equivocating progressive ideas to Communism, and Socialism is just a new Communism...well by George average Joe is incensed that anyone would want to bring back communism. His inability to distinguish Communism was but one bad form of Socialisim. And that's all he knows or cares to know.
Advancing new ideas, using pre-existing one's as ways to describe them, leads to equivocations both intentional and unintentional..i.e. propose something that's about raising quality of life for all. So it's discussed as progressive. And because it can be said to be "progressive", this automatically places you in a camp opposite "conservatives" and pits you at odds. One hears "Progressive" and attributes Socialism to that, which to their perception is just Communism 2.0. Because instead of hearing the merit or value of a single idea, one instead hears the weight of all past understandings and bias about the world view of which the proposed progressive idea is attributed to.
Proposal....
Stop discussing the future with words burdened by old grudges. It's like trying to learn how to fly with weights attached. I don't want Capitalism nor do I want Socialism. What I want is just to live an optimally happy and minimally stressful life. How can we do that?
Ok. Does the optimally happy and minimally stressful life require the nationalization of the means of production to make the exchange value of food lower than its use value? Is it fair to consider bread a commodity? Is it possible to reconcile the infinite growth of capital with the exploitation of the working class? Is it possible to reconcile it with fair prices of products? Is it possible to reconcile it with the environment?
In my country 1% of the people own 50% of the wealth. Will they share their capital? Charity? Year after year this wealth is reproduced. And they become richer. And they control our politics by lobbing. What can we do? Taxes?
Essentially, the word socialism defines the attempt to destroy the logic of infinite growth of capital.
Essentially, the word capitalism defines the attempt to preserve the logic of infinite growth of capital.
Because it seems impossible to reconcile capital logic with equality.
@@rogeraraujo4900
The following was copied from my attempt to respond to your original reply. You will see, some of it addressed your use of terms, only when I attempted the reply it wouldn't go through because you deleted and changed your response. Actually heeding my advice a little, and better simplifying it lol. To that I say kudos! But I'm cutting and pasting my original reply as is:
Very well articulated. And agreed, replacing the use value for commodity value is something that needs to change. I'd love to have a back and forth with you, and generally, I lean in your direction of thinking, but still you're coming from a learned perspective with knowledge of what the terms you're using are and are not.
The average person, is not going to follow that. Admittedly I even had to read it through twice and consider what was being said before responding. Most people don't even do that. And the use of those labels within the bulk of the paragraph are like trip mines to people preprogrammed by their Fox and Friends. When they see those words, it's a trigger that derails any genuine effort to assess what is actually being said, because the very words "socialism" and "Marxism" will have incensed them and occupied them with their ire.
Personally, I would like to see humanity let go of arbitrarily defined boarders. Or at least the concept of nationalism. Religion too while we're at it. Lol. Have you seen a film called "Zeitgeist: Moving Forward"? If not, I highly recommend it. It's the most complete deconstruction of everything wrong in a capitalist world, from the inside out, assessing Psychology and development as well as the unsustainable model of greed driven production and consumption, and the economic lunacy of it all.
And not only that, but the latter half discusses what a truly holistic resource based economy could look like to maximize the quality of all human life and the preservation of the environment in which we live.
You may have heard that the Zeitgeist films are nonsense, and the first two undoubtedly are. Each has a few good points, but mostly, those first 2 are for conspiracy nuts lol. The "Moving Forward" Zeitgeist film was done in partnership with Jaques Fresco and his Venus Project, and is ultimately his message. If you've not heard of him and his Venus Project, look into it! I'd love to hear your take on the film, the movement, the man... (Sadly he died not too long ago, but his wife and friends still carry on. Last I knew, at least.)
@@Achiles2209 You're thinking in a truly political way. Very much agreed. Sadly, debating in this level (that i'm not even capable, because I'm currently learning Marxism) is scientific and complex. Politics is complex. Recently the communist propaganda is really growing in my country, but I feel really sad, because I know that tons of study are required to grasp just a little of what these theorists are saying. They often say it is simple and that if you work, you already know that you need socialism, but... bro... again, essentially, Hegelianism and Marxism are point of views of the Whole and knowing the whole is incredibly elitist.
@@Achiles2209 It'd be nice to think less of the Whole just to make the debate possible to the masses. For example, this video could be about if it is necessary to a company, inside capitalism, to pursue infinite profit and how that impacts normal people lives. Or, maybe, this video could be about the real value of commodities and how they're intrinsically important. Instead of SOCIALISM vs. CAPITALISM like these two systems are easily comprehensible. LMAO
@@Achiles2209 Socialism is not even a system. It is a necessary development of the contradictions inside capitalism. There aren't two systems. There's the object, its critique and its development. Bro, that's really not a common sense approach. Life's hard.
A gold standard debate. A model of civility.
AH WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, Wolfman does it again!
His hair was magnificent
@@Krooksbane yes, his hair was perfect hahaha ahwhoo 😜😂
Lol. Love this comment
Did what? Used poetic words to convince simpletons of his twisted view of reality?
"Clap for the Wolfman"
Never liked “economics”… now I’m a Prof Wolff groupie😌
He has taught me so much 🙏
Learn actual economics. That guy is a hack.
Dont be a fucking groupie about anyone. I respect the hell out of Prof. Wolff. But there are economic theories worth reading from capitalists.
Ofc you never liked and learned it, that’s the only way you could actually believe Richard Wolff is not a complete hack.
@@charleslajoie4977 , what are you talkin about? What exactly is it that you disagree with in regards to Richard's argument?
"Never liked “economics”… now I’m a Prof Wolff groupie"
That's self explaining.
In 1886, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that under the law, corporations were to be considered "person's" and gave them the same rights as a human being.
The case that facilitated this decision ( Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad Company) was decided based on the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship rights to newly freed slaves, and that corporations should have same rights as newly freed slaves.
This decision is the law of the land still and paved the way to allow corporations to accumulate enormous wealth and influence which in turn allows for preferential access to public policy. Corporate priority is PROFIT, as the end that justifies the means.
Bravo 👏🏽 And this is how debates are conducted. No bad faith arguments (mostly), and productive discourse in good will.
Professor Wolff is a fierce debater and has the workers' wellbeing in mind.
he is a pied piper of fools
Might I add he wants to see the downfall of the US & it’s system of laze faire economics.
@@ScubaDude_Sg He preaches failure of personal striving. He's a toxic substance on humanity.
@@oatnoid 100% agree the sad part is evil doesn't always look like the devil. Sadly young uninformed people fall for this crap.
@@ScubaDude_Sg The term is "its system of laissez-faire", which the US has never implemented. The US has always strongly protected fledgling capitalist industries, such as imposing high tariffs on vastly superior Japanese computers to protect IBM, Texas Instruments, Apple and Microsoft in the 80s for example. The same interests do not extend in preserving jobs for industrial workers in the US, which have been shed at a steady rate under Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump. Wolff wants to achieve international working class solidarity - the notion you have more in common with someone laying bricks in Pakistan than your landlord in Tennessee.
As for whether it's a failure of personal ethics - not at all. When slavery is legally permitted, some people will be slaves. Slaves will never be free to utilise their creative endeavours for their own benefits, their ingenuity will always be used for another's profit. The same applies for people working in a corporation - the employer has title to any creative output of their employees during the time they contract their labour with them, up to the point of non-competition agreements where an employee cannot be recruited by a competing corporation.
Whether a distaste for this system derives from a lack of understanding - I've read vonMises's Socialism, Rothbard's Libertarian Manifesto, the Agorist Manifesto, The Wealth of Nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments, On The Principles of Political Economy, The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money, the Essay on the Principle of Population, Endgame, The Turner Diaries, My Struggle and Kaczynski's Manifesto. Perhaps the most insipid political text I've read was Molyneux's "Practical Anarchy" - completely risible. I'm au fait with the criticism of socialism in genral and egalitarianism more broadly. I think almost all objections were answered conclusively by Alexander Berkman.
Clearly Prof Wolff won this debate hands down & going away.
going away??
@Ronald Reagan professor wolfs interpretation of socialism
has never been applied.
European countries don’t call themselves socialist. Why does Wolfe? It’s capitalism with greater social benefits than in the US. Also, Wolfe doesn’t mention that pretty much all latest great inventions happened in the US. Why? Because incentives are much greater under capitalism. The rich must help the poor without governments forcing them but the poor are not entitled.
Correct. Socialism is not 'free stuff I get paid for by capitalists.'
Personally I think the overarching problem is the monetary system. It’s become unwieldy, continually needs maintenance and doesn’t work for everybody. It’s prioritised above the needs of people and the environmental problems we face.
It puts control of resources into the hands of a few who seem to have an unrealistic view of the extent of those resources and use them profligately for the sake of profit.
This is why we have built in obsolescence.
The full extent of the lie that is money is becoming more obvious as time goes by and, when the environment collapses and we’re facing extinction, the stupidity of it will become obvious to all.
You completely confused monetary policy with fiscal policy. And the environment is not 'collapsing'. This is just a weird mass hysteria which societies seem to perpetually suffer from. The last worst hysteria being COVID.
@@willnitschke I haven’t confused anything. I said monetary system. System not policy. If you haven’t seen the results of the climate emergency and Covid then you’re choosing to remain blind. Consequently further discussion with you will be fruitless.
@@SteveRomigsongwriter You did confuse everything you nitwit. "Monetary" refers to central bank policy. And "Fiscal" refers to government policy. And I can't see weird shit in your imagination, sorry. Presumably there is some massive crisis in your brain only you can see...
@@slevinchannel7589 your socialist propaganda is not educational material. It’s baseless indoctrination material. And you are nothing but a troll.
@SteveRomigsongwriter I agree w/ what you say about this broken monetary system, but then you jump right on board the same ship as those weilding said system as a weapon.
The worst results from the "environment emergency" and the covid plandemic where the results of government interference.
Professor Dr. Richard D. Wolff = LEGEND. It's clear he won the debate, as he always does. Facts are inconvenient for Capitalists...😏
Preach baby
Brooks not a match to dr Wolff.
But Capitalists won in reality. Leftwing = intellectual in the academe, losers in life
@@akashin6385 capktaliat didnt win they tricked everyone into believing their lies but as rojava shows us those days are ending
@@akashin6385 ... "might is right" kind of guy huh? Right is still right despite whether Might can smash it ... "Rule of Law" or rule of who got the weapon?
Of course this debate just showed up in my algorithm. Wolff is a genius and he never changes his tune with bringing the facts to the table.
Except none of the "facts" are true, none of the history is complete or correct, and none
of the economics has ever been connected to empirical reality.
You mean his opinion agreed with your world view, so you label him a "genius" and misplace his "claims without evidence" as "fact".
@Ronald Reagan That's what he used to do...now he only "educates" his
2500 patreon customers...none of which are his former students, so he didn't
make much of an impression on them and since it took 10 years to get to
the 2500, he's not making much of an impression on the "real world" either.
@Ronald Reagan ✔😎👍
@Ronald Reagan He also just repeats the same jargon about capitalism and socialism and doesn't seem to have any deep understanding of the current economic climate. Anything that goes wrong is because "capitalism", but he has no understanding of what specifically has gone wrong. It is odd people claim this guy to be a "genius". I can't tell if they're ignorant or maybe I am the idiot that just doesn't understand it.
Beautiful debate by brilliant minds. My take however, is that no matter what clever economic system is employed, there can never be a transformative change in the lives of the masses in the absence of justice; not as long as there exists a privileged class who can trample on laws with impunity.
17:33 in Europe we have capitalism as economic system and socialism as political. Basically capitalism is a life suport for goverment and everyone unable to perform which only shows how powerful this ECONOMIC system is
In canada we are also taught economic system and political are two different systems.... Sadly many people I know actually forgot it.
1:05:24 Brooks says that 70% of people in the United States say their co-workers are their best friends - has he considered that maybe people in the US work more and don't have as many opportunities to make friends outside of work? Maybe I don't want to only be friends with my co-workers, it is nice to talk to people who do other things with their days, and I'd argue that friendships like that are more important to improving society than ones with co-workers.
Yeah that is a very US centric idea, in Australia I have several groups of friends including coworkers but coworkers aren't my only friends because I have time and interests outside of work. Barely anyone I know has a coworker as a best friend.
Oh so that's why I got those surveys asking weird questions like "have you made friends at work". Maybe a new way to frame positivity about capitalism, by saying "look at the percentage of people who made their friends at work, my goodness isn't that so great" forgetting that this number being higher basically just proves people basically spend all their time at work.
"Capitalism stopped me from having friends!"
This is getting ridiculous.
@@theofficialvernetheturtley338 his argument wasn’t that “capitalism is when no friends” it’s that Brooks bringing up the fact that “70% of people have most of their friends as coworkers” is a fallacy since in capitalism conditions, you spend 8 hours, 5 out of 7 days a week at work so ofcourse you’ll have an easier access to gain friends at work rather than an outside social setting.
@@theofficialvernetheturtley338 Right, working 40hours to live prevents people from having friends. The other 128hours a week aren't enough. Oh that's right, sleep... so the other 72hours is not enough. Its not enough time to work out, or read a book, or attend church, or improve their position in life.
Or maybe people are terrible at managing their time.
Its sad that literally everything the guy said is a lie, inequality is higher now than ever in history and i just dont understand how anyone can sit up there and lie so blatantly
That's because you aren't a capitalist. ;)
Money over morals in America. It makes perfect sense actually. And I hate it.
It's possible that he wasn't lying, but instead, just wrong. Either way, he had no comprehension of what Wolff was saying, or played the fool to make his lies seem like honest ignorance.
The liar was the socialist. Inequality has grown recently because of the tech industry where you can become a millionaire or billionaire without actually having to spend much money and have employees. It’s funny money because of inflation and the M2 money supply and because of the federal reserve. There are far less people in poverty today than ever. The poorest people in America are rich by global standards. Capitalism and democracy are not perfect but they are infinitely better than everything else combine that came before them. And so why if there is wealth inequality! The people that are poor especially in America and in western society a poor because they’re either low IQ, the lack of work ethic, they’re lazy, are they made some very bad decisions in life. You don’t need an education to be successful. I’m a mortgage broker and I’m in the real estate industry. I have a BS in finance and an MBA. But I don’t need any of that to be successful in real estate or mortgages. I could’ve done that right out of high school. There are tons of millionaires in a real estate agent they got their real estate license right out of high school and became millionaires. Again go listen to what Mike Rowe has to say there are lots of jobs paying six-figure income‘s that are high level welding diesel mechanics etc. but America because of the people on the left destroyed the education system destroyed the vocational system where kids used to learn skills and tell everyone they have to go to college. And college has skyrocketed in cost because it subsidize now by the federal government. When I went to college in the 80s my for years including room and board, I was on a three meals a day seven day a week meal plan plus live in a dorm plus tuition everything cost $20,000 for my four years. That same school now cost $35,000 a year for one year for in-state students.
Capitalism is failing because of government intervention. Because it’s crony capitalism today. Not real free trade. Shitty trade deals by Clinton and Obama. The one world government tight people. The globalist people. Too much money in politics mostly on the left too much favoritism lobbying corruption! The Clinton foundation generated hundreds of millions of dollars. As soon as it was obvious that Hillary and Bill Clinton were no longer relevant countries quit donating and it’s basically all that shut down now. All of that money was for influence. Not for charity. And the Clintons are some of the most corrupt people ever in American politics and they are in fact traders and should be lined up against the wall!
Anyone that thinks socialism and communism is better than capitalism and democracy is either dumb as a boxer rocks, brainwashed, willfully ignorant, or not old enough to have seen white real communism and socialism looks like. There are plenty of people that come to America today from China and other places and see what’s going on today is going to ruin America and turned into why they came from which was terrible! Oppressive. Authoritarians.
China is not a great country. There are several RUclips channels with people that are from China that lived in China for years and years that are telling people don’t be hoodwinked. Don’t be blinded by the lies from the media and the Democrats. China is a terrible place to live. It is terribly oppressive and one of the worst human rights violators on the planet. Along with the Middle East.
Everything this guy talks about with socialism is just pure emotions. No one has ever said things couldn’t be better. But again it’s the people on the left that ruined capitalism. And wealth inequality is a strawman. You don’t have to be rich to be happy and be successful and own a home and have a good life. What we need is a robust middle class. Those people are being held back because of the welfare state and government corruption.
Black people are worse today in America than 50 years ago. Nearly 75% of black children are born out of wedlock. That is the problem in the black community. Not racism. It’s a cultural problem. A social economic problem. Not systemic racism, which doesn’t exist. Livable wage, systemic racism, assault weapons, those are not real terms. Those were made up by far left academics 30 and 40 years ago for identity politics purposes. To scare and brainwash people.
Cos capitalism is all about lies and media brainwashing so it’s not unusual for champions of capitalism to defy the natural truth to persuade the less informed
Thank you for making this happen
this here is the kind of debate we want
The fact that this Brooks guys is a Harvard professor really proves the intellectual reverence people have for that institution is misplaced.
Harvard is the best of the best i think it shows how academia is byproduct of capitalism and that in American education we aren’t taught how to interpret and rationalize and just how to conform. We are encouraged to fall inline because thats what are role is as the working class. And historically we’re still taught in the same way puritans civilized catholics and natives. It turns it out the same method works great for turning children into prisoners for cheap labor and at best the hard working neurotypical kids into obedient drones full of information on maths and science to be over worked unfulfilled software developers.
1:04:00
Dude is a Harvard professor and mixing up "Materialist" and "Historical Materialist". Pretty amusing at a semantics level.
@@hamburgerdan101 america doesn't do everything for you. That's kind of the point.
@@jessensloan6692 Like human rights. They really struggle with those.
@@hobbso8508 yeah the democrats aren't doing so well are they?
Light on the introduction, Wolff graduated top of his class at Harvard. He now teaches at one of MIT's sister Universities.
And yet he still fails at history and economics.
Right, because being emeritus professor of economics means nothing
@@ExPwner cringe
@@galacticrelic258 it’s true so cope harder
@@ExPwner Is that the flag of anarcho capitalism ? Are you above 12 years of age ? If yes, how can you support such a stupid system ? Jeez
This shared conversation, that is free to watch, thanks to the genius of human invention, is a wonderful gift. Thank you. Both professors seem to agree that more people need to have an interest in the mission of enterprise. (Interest, say, involvement) My question is, why does the drive to be an entrepreneur have to be in any way diminished by having a democratic workplace?
If more workers would be shareholders of their business, wouldn't it lead to a more efficient enterprise with more people helping to drive forward the common goal?
For me, it's not that important weather you call it capitalism or socialism. What is the goal and how can as many people as possible benefit and have a life worth living?
Professor Wolf isn't talking about government in enterprises, but about democracy in enterprises.
What we see now is that democracy seems to be fading both in government and enterprise. How comes?
Great comment couldn’t have said it better
why does the drive to be an entrepreneur have to be in any way be diminished by having a democratic workplace: the competitive pressures of capitalism ensure that all the "good" capitalists are usurped by the exploitative and more ruthless ones that don't care about employees and only want to deliver profit to their shareholders.
If more workers would be shareholders of their business, wouldn't it lead to a more efficient enterprise with more people helping to drive forward the common goal: Yes although collective ownership is better and it doesn't change the fact that the value they produce for the company is not meaningfully reflected in their salary.
What is the goal and how can as many people as possible benefit and have a life worth living: I think the answer is obvious but a system that funnels power and money to the top 1% is always going to have more inequality than one that centers power and money at the bottom 99%.
What we see now is that democracy seems to be fading both in government and enterprise. How comes: Neoliberalism, leads to concentration of power and wealth into the hands of a few and priortizies special interests that have the money to make their voice heard. America started to decline after Reagan, no wonder that he was one of the first presidents to parrot the neoliberal economic theory of places like the Heritage Foundation.
@@fuwe Awesome answer! I also don’t see how entrepreneurs would be tackled down under a more democratic organization in the work place. The idea of moral capitalism should follow the very same line in terms that you’re not only proposing change and improvement for yourself, but for the whole organization. In my opinion and from what I see in social media, Entrepreneurship nowadays only seems like the search of “that one thing” that can make an individual rich.
@@Jimmymaddok well fundamentally, capitalism relies on the exploitation of others and even with companies adopting "moral capitalism" and fairer labor practices at home it does not change the existing systems that perpetuate exploitation abroad such as in the third world. either way, it should not be up to companies to decide whether to treat their workers with dignity and reward them with what they should already have, and allowing companies to slowly transition to moral capitalism just facilitates the status quo. as long as the profit motive takes cosideration over the ethical treatment of others, this will keep happening. also in regard to entrepeneurs, theres a difference today in the people looking to get rich quick by dropshipping or scamming (which, is literally just participating in a system designed to exploit others for profit) and people who have significant investment into a means of production. the latter is what im talking about under moral capitalism the owner is only rewarding some bargaining power over it and still aligns with the broader capitalist class, rather than collective ownership where workers have a direct stake and align with the interests and needs of the workers. ANYWAYS! under something like socialism where things are done for the needs of the workers, entrepeneurs existing to fufill the profit motive may no longer exist as the conditions required to create them would cease
GREED COMES!!!!
Ignores the fundamental advantage of capitalism over socialism is simply an equal opportunity to work hard to become successful, vs people who utilize social benefits without being productive, putting more burden on hard working people
Professor Wolff always makes more sense to me than any Capitalist, sounds more true also.
I skipped the other guy speaking, after his first 30 seconds plus a few minutes. He says the same old nonsense in the same long winded round about way. Plus his 30 seconds there totally ignore how "harsh", to use his term, the positions on the right are.
I did catch his last few minutes of the first part, and that whole thing about capitalism being the best thing that happened to poor people sounds a lot like what is said during divorces. Replace capitalism with any abusive relationship title like marriage or whatever makes sense for the situation and the rhetoric is the same
It almost seems like an abusive person must convince others around them that they are not abusive, and the ones who play the game (flying monkeys or enablers) are enticed by a promise of a reward.
Tactics of abusers include controlling the finances so they don't have enough resources to leave or get help. Lies, it relies on them. Neglect, not caring for basic needs. All of those things we experience this moment today. Capitalism has failed us and continues to fail us right now
Oh my friend thats because socialism makes much more sense than capitalism 😂, at least my version and Richard's version of socialism imo
Also because Richard Wolff is an absolute fucking Savage
Brooks doesn't even know what communism or socialism actually is. He clearly has never read a political science textbook.
Capitalists only make sense to you if you’re a billionaire.
Professor Wolf, as usual, is impeccable! Kudos!
@Ronald Reagan Brilliant and convincing retort lmfao
He used to say on TV “…millionaires & billionaires…”
Now that he’s a millionaire, now it’s just, “…billionaires…”
But in all realness millionaires aren’t the problem. It’s mega billionaires and trillionaires
While,I agree with both professors, I think that both Ideas need more research. Thank you all
Let's see: an actual economist vs a guy who writes endless quasi-Buddhist tripe on "happiness" for the Atlantic, a series that I read aloud to my wife so we can laugh at its hyperindividualistic neoliberal vapidity. Huh. Wonder who will come out on top.
These “guru” types that deconstruct and help us understand how to be happy are so blatantly a symptom of the sickness caused by capitalism. Clearly it shows there is an incredible demand for answers on how to be happy in such a bleak and uncaring society. People like this serve the purpose of finding answers other than “you’re not happy because the system you live in doesn’t have any concern for whether or not you’re happy”
You're correct except that Buddhist economics is largely socialist, as it's based on reality, not just the delusions of the few who want control over the majority of people. So what Brook's argues for, would be seen as harmful according to Buddhist economics. See the work of those such as Bhikkhu Bodhi as an example.
@@ObakuZenCenter : As a Buddhist, thank you!
Hyperindividualistic neoliberal vapidity.... I am taking that one for the collective brother.
@@KznnyL Use it in good health! :)
Wow, I learned so much from Professor Wolff. His ability to articulate and explain was absolutely amazing. Socialism always confused me, but he tied it together really well and it’s like all these different terms and ideas, I have been hearing about, finally make perfect sense.
Yep. Socialism PR capitalism never made sense to me before, either, and I finally realized it's because all I'd ever learned about capitalism and socialism was from capitalists who didn't understand either.
@Ronald Reagan lol nah it's the same reason you live here. This is his home.
wolf only plays on emotion, tell me what you learned ?
What did Professor Nut Kook actually say that made the slightest bit of sense or wasn't debunked at least a hundred years ago? 🤣
@@willnitschke Wolf is doing what all socialists do which is to dress up Marxism with a new concept like "democratic worker control socialism". His overal (non starter) argument is "we're still experimenting, give us a break."
What about taking the best parts of each economic system. America believes in public roads, public police, public schools and many other collectively owned and operated enterprises. We also believe in private business as an engine of democracy, spreading the wealth and innovation. No need to choose one or the other.
Socialism has no good parts. Government versions of all of those things are inferior at every turn.
19:11 I wonder how the company would operate in such conditions. As far as I know we are barely capable of choseing goverments - I wonder how capable would be company's emploees that mop the floor in deciding what should be company's next step. The agile this thing would be, I tell you.
This is some next level, no thought given words
I wouldn't go into business with a family member, much less have 10 random dipshits voting on what to do next based on their feelings...
There are already successful co-ops all over the world, google is your friend.
@@comicsans6487 Not really. The US has 31+ million businesses and about 400 tiny worker co-ops. They are not even a rounding error. They might as well not exist they are so rare. That's the literal definition of total failure, my friend.
@@willnitschke And? Just because that's the hegemonic model doesn't mean it's better. Co-ops are all over the world not only in the USA and they are more fair and don't cause all the social issues that the regular profit over all model does.
@@comicsans6487 idiotic nonsense. What you consider “fair” is nothing but your feelings, and coops are nothing special.
When he started talking about the ownership of corporations and giving that power to the state, I wonder if he actually understands Mr Wolfe's position at all.
He has to know that Wolff's position is giving that power to those working within the enterprise, not the state...but he says it anyway, hoping to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of the audience.
Leftwing = intellectual in the academe, losers in life
@@akashin6385 Right-wingers = neurotic losers in life, often petit bourgeois, who compensate for their incel-gamer-careers on the fringes of society with some right-wing ideology and bullying behavior.
@@derantiobskurant That's silly. Everybody has to use common sense, even you.
@@oatnoid
Yep, hardwork will turn you into a billionaire and majority of hardcore crime are committed by people who live rich & comfortable lives.
Wolff brings a level of clarity, analytic rigor, and critical insight it seems most people have never encountered. Hopefully that will change. We can do better than capitalism.
I often hear that sentiment. All i can say is work on something better than capitalism Socialism isnt it. The 20th century proved socialism only transfers the wealth and power to a new, far worse group of a-holes who must tighten their grip on power or risk the same fate they handed so many before them. To be clear we’re in agreement. We can do better than capitalism. Quit wasting time on a system that only empowers the political class.
@@oddsman01 As Wolff talks about in the debate, socialism is an evolving idea with contending camps under its umbrella. The kind Wolff describes, which I think is worth working towards, inverts the relationship of concentrated wealth and power in a few hands at the top. It's about making democracy real by extending it from the political realm into the economic one. It's a fascinating idea which is being successfully practiced Inna number of regions around the world to the chagrin of the ruling class.
@@oddsman01 In Communist Albania the highest paid workers (scientists, engineers, doctors) could only be paid maximum 4x the lowest paid worker (street sweeper etc). Whereas in capitalist countries a CEO makes thousands of times more than their workers.
If socialism was a failure, why do polls show that people in Eastern Europe prefer the old socialist system? How did Communist-run China and the Communist-run USSR go from being the poorest countries in the world to becoming global superpowers?
@@glebperch7585 there’s a lot to unpack there. Let’s start with china. Have you ever watched a video about their working conditions in the factories? I couldnt work like that for 1 day much leas for the rest of my and my children’s lives. They have a BILLION people available for those positions. That leaves another 300 million or so people who are the “middle class” which of course means they are closely connected with the communists govt and have to do as told at all times or risk becoming part of the 1 billion.
I have to get back to work i’ll try to respond more later. Thank you for the civil reply and what seems like good faith questions.
@@glebperch7585 i have to say, it’s a little scary that china is used as an example for anything other than the horror and authoritarianism it’s embraced. Mao’s killing of tens of millions for the “greater good” is all but forgotten. If you do not submit to the current government’s ideology and supreme power, even if you’re a billionaire, it will earn a prison cell or a bullet or maybe just disappeared so your family can only guess what happened.
The responses when any of the horrors of collectivism ideologies are brought up are almost always: “that wasnt real socialism!” Or “you dont even know what socialism is!” Or “Try reading a book on socialism!” In my view, all people like professor wolff, bernie sanders, aoc, etc are saying is they would do it better than all the socialists professors, politicians, philosophers and PhD’s that came before them, and all the flavors of collectivism in the 20th century that devolved into an authoritarian hellscape were someone else’s fault.
This why i’m a bit black pilled. I feel if the world could produce something as awful as the 20th century and still have professors arguing for socialism (I know, REAL socialism this time), then we are doomed to repeat it. This time since the global population is 4 or 5 times larger, instead of 200 million dead, it will be closer to a billion. Maybe people in the 22nd or 23rd century will have seen enough, if there is a 22nd or 23rd century.
Professor Wolff as an idealist views China’s growth through socialist rose colored glasses. Much of what brought wealth to China was private industry that created a large number of billionaires. Now 2 years after this debate China’s economy is suffering
"College for ALL" is a misstatement. It is "Free College for the qualified" but is also "Free Trade School for the qualified" and "Free training for those it will help".
But even free tuition is not enough for the single parent who works two jobs and has children. You need access to the training and accessable and affordable child care.
Yeah we all want life to be easy and everything to be free... so what? Life's not fair?
@@willnitschke Rich from a guy that literally went to college for free Will. Just like a boomer to close the door right after he walks through it.
@@hobbso8508 Did I hurt your feelings again?
@@willnitschke Not at all, just pointing out your hypocrisy.
@@hobbso8508 What was "hypocritical" ? You mean your feelings got hurt, so you're posting insults, correct?
I have never in my life experienced such a respectful debate. Blown away.
They're each others' opinions Carlos EVERYONE should have a right to their own opinions as long as it's not threatening or dangerous to anyone.
@@chrisgoetsch1964 poo jh momma
Really? Where are all these disrespectful debates everyone is always denouncing?
A cultural change shall be AOC , etc.❤ 🤑
@@Knives9 trust me my friend, you dont want to sink time energy and attention into them, not even a microscopic amount
This debate has actually switched me to being open to socialist ideas if not supportive. I never thought of socialism has democracy in the work place. It seems so obvious
Don't feel so bad, Americans whether liberal or conservative have had nothing but anti-socialist propaganda thrown at us for our entire lives, so we never see what it is about or how to properly define it.
Great stuff. If there is anyone capable of educating people about the benefits of socialism it's Professor Wolff. The guy is so clear and concise.
But why said businesses don't work ? capitalism doesnt tell you how to manage your company, if it works it works.
@@zouharinaji5000 more particularly, capitalist companies are forced to exploit and maximize profits at all costs or else be overrun and absorbed by another company who did.
If anyone has an example of a successful socialist country please point me in that direction. If one doesn’t exist then this is nothing more than reality vs theory. And that is frustrating as I want to see a small country implement socialism “the right way” so we can then see what can be learned.
What a lot of people fail to understand is, that these things are not 1, and 0. You can have certain socialist elements while keeping the rest in capitalism. The ideal situation is giving a chance to all children to grow, but once adulthood hits it's up to them. As for this idea of "democracy in workplace". The cruel reality is, that people are not the same. Different people has different traits, and thus different directions. Some people would prefer to use the income of the workplace on comforts, others would wish to hoard it for potentially difficult times, others would prefer to expand the corporation for greater profit. If you put every single decision on vote, then you subject yourself to the majority, and the majority is not bound to lead the company in a good direction. Just as you don't see every single decision in a democracy put up to vote neither could a corporation put everything on vote. Sometimes you are forced to go against the majority for the sake of the majority, because not everyone sees the bigger picture. In fact a LOT of people fail to see the bigger picture. If everyone were see the bigger picture, then you couldn't find lazy kids who would rather go, and play instead of learning to get that high grade. You wouldn't see people losing their house over a loan. You wouldn't see people committing crimes intentionally.
So much nuance that debates without “back-and-forth’s” don’t get to the heart of the matter
Second guy is prime example of saying a lot without saying anything.
Thanks for articulating that for me. Felt exactly the same.
I wish he spent any amount of time talking about how to implement this vision he has for a friendly version of capitalism. He talked a lot about what should be with such little explanation that it sounded like a purely social movement. If that what he meant… good luck.
@@quinnco9 I'm in his camp, but he's a terrible debater. He's trying too hard to be soft on everything.
@@quinnco9 There is no "friendly" version of capitalism. The minute you make capitalism "friendly", it's no longer capitalism. You've basically destroyed it.
@@lobotomizedamericans more deranged nonsense. Dude all you have done is spam propaganda script and delete it over and over again here. Who pays you to spam these lies
Professor Wolff's arguments are well worked, comprehensive and persuasive.
Try fact checking them...start with the definitions, and then keep going.
@@jgalt308 Don't forget, words are a vector for transferring a thought. Either side's definitions may not be dictionary correct because they are conveying thoughts. Which we understand by the context. A word represent a thought, if we understand his meaning, then his words can be in morose code and still correct.
@@TrustinYamada Given the subject of the debate, defining
the meaning of the words in conflict would seem to be somewhat
critical.
Mandatory worker's pension schemes in Denmark and the Netherlands have made sure that every single person in work has become a capitalist and thus enjoy the rewards of investments. I believe in addition to this it is very important for a balanced and equitable society to ensure that many more people are able to own their own property.
The lack of democracy within businesses is not a characteristic of capitalism. It is the choice of capitaists.
I don't know if it's the same in the US but here in France, any labor contract specifies that the employee accepts subordination to the employer. It's in the contract, not a matter of morality.
Let's not forget that many of the good years of capitalism in the US were when marginal tax rates were as high as 93%
Literally no one in the country was paying a rate anywhere near that high.
@@wyssmaster were they at that rate or not?
ruclips.net/video/jWRlkGcc4Yw/видео.html
@@elcondedelafere8751 If the argument is that high tax rates can sustain growth because tax rates were that high and we experienced growth, the primary question must be whether or not anyone was actually paying that much in taxes. The answer to that question is: fuck no.
Capitalisms hight is when the workers are the most successful at fighting the capital class. So at is weakest, Capitalism is at it's best. This shows the flawed structure of the system.
I think Prof. Wolff's point about "counting the dead" was incredibly interesting. 1:23:33
It was a devastating response based on past/today's realities
Estimated death toll last century in wars fought over socialism over 100 million. Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Kim Jong-un, Kim Jong-il = 100 MILLION people killed by socialism. The British "did their thing" in India currently the second most populous nation in the world. Granted China is first but they started out that way as the most populous nation. Currently they are exterminating the Uygurs. World War II? National Socialism. Say it Wolff, you are a LIAR. Not a basis for a wholesale dismissal of socialism but a great place just to start.
Most rapidly growing GDP in the 20th century Soviet Union? How did that turn out Dick? China? Fueled by turning away from communism and turning towards capitalism. Afghanistan? So, stupid I agree but blame it on capitalism? I guess religion and ideology had nothing to do with it? Opium smugglers are socialists? Again, not the be all and end all of arguments for either side. Just an argument about the practicalities of trying to legislate man's baser instincts.
@@oatnoid 50 million were killed by a Christian sect in China during the 19th century - check out the Taiping rebellion. Currently the most populous country of the world - does that disprove that Mao committed atrocities to create an industrial society with a higher life expectancy than the US?
As for national socialism - "Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the fore-runner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former"... "Marxism, whose final objective was and is and will continue to be the destruction of all non-Jewish national States"... "Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind". Hitler was an ardent opponent of Marxism and became an anti-semite precisely because of what he saw as a disproportionate Jewish presence in the ranks of Marxists. It's not difficult to figure out why there would be more Jewish socialists for what it's worth - all the conservative parties had policies which excluded Jews on the basis of race or creed, meaning any politically conscious Jews could only find haven in radical politics.
@@gamerknown Looked up your claim about 50 million killed . The leader was Christian. Don't see your point there. Democracy, is not the fore runner of Marxism. I don't see why or how you can support that claim.
@@oatnoid "Wars fought over Socialism" is not the same thing as " people killed by Socialism". Chile had a peaceful democratically elected socialist government that was overturned by a racist military coup, that then went on to kill 10s of thousands of its own people. That could be described as a "war over Socialism" but the butcherers were capitalist.
P.S. when are you people going realize that trying to lump Nazis, who literally were killing socialists before they got around to the Jews, with Socialists, automatically cause you to lose the argument out of sheer clownish stupidity?
In regards to charity:
Professor Wolff: 1:08:08 "It's not clear, who's the bigger winner of this game, the beggar with a coin or your with the relieved guilt"
Arthur Brooks: 1:09:52 "[M]y column in the Atlantic this very morning, 'This is how you can buy happiness' [is about how the best single thing that you can do] is [help] somebody else with your money"
seems like they agree that charity is in large part an activity to make one's self feel good, but one seems a lot more materialistic about it than the other (while hypocritically denouncing being materialistic within the same debate).
Instead of focusing on these ideological debates, it can be more productive to focus on specific policies and initiatives that can address the problems we face as a society by working together to identify and implement practical solutions, we can create a more equitable and sustainable future for everyone, regardless of our political affiliations or economic beliefs.
good luck with that!
Socialists: is ideological to say that food being a commodity isn't fair? Isn't organizing the working class in a political party to defend the nationalization of the means of production practical?
Be careful. Ideology is such an easy word for reducing complex point of views to mere opinions.
Society focused on solving crucial problems would be amazing
But people are more likely to argue about abortion or how many genders exist