He’s truly in rare form for this interview. Exposing Institutional Dislocation to a population that has become dependent upon a fictitious reality is dangerous.
I wished his videos were subtitled in French so French people would have entirely access to his work. He is so enlightening. Thank you @Democracy At Work
Marx IMHO was the best analyst of the 19th century structure of proto-darwinian Capitalism, but never successfully developed adequate social solutions for what still exists in the malevalent dominance of yuuge transnational crony corporations in governance worldwide in the collusion with theocratic idiocy in many current nation-states vulnerable to Religionist Cults.
Thanks for this interview. As a citizen of a once-colonised country still struggling with its deleterious effects, I was stunned to see / hear the almost facile interpretation of colonialism and governance. The colonialist 'giving' good governance, phew!
Wonderful time listening to both of you, the interviewer and the interviewee, during which I have taken the risk to spent. And it's rewarding because I am now validated my marxian conviction about the origin of the profit that the entrepreneurs make in capitalist or Lords make in slavery economical systems. All of them make the accumulation of profit, not because they are more clever or they take initiatives or risks, but because they are working in autocracy system, whereby democracy is absent
Ho Chi Minh had never said that the common people in France enjoyed liberty while the Vietnamese didn't. Soon after his arrival in France and saw for himself what exactly French society at the time looked like, he mocked that why the French rulers had never bothered to civilize France before trying to do exactly that in Vietnam as they claimed.
im amaze by proffesor wolff the way he describe the behavior of rich capitalist and the way they mask things to make they life of pilleage more aceptable thanks by this program
The part about new Keynesian part is so true… if you do a little deduction of Keynes’ general theory’s effective demand and how he explained it, he was suggesting in a sly way that wrong income distribution is the real culprit of causing financial crises (like a multiple choice question with the real answer side by side with obviously bogus answers.) given his background in logics, so obviously that he was a socialist at heart. That’s why the new Keynesian economists are afraid of being labeled as socialists.
What is economic divergence? Looked it up and most websites, I’m guessing, are explaining it from a capitalist economic perspective, or assume you understand capitalist economic language. I’m guessing that’s why I can’t understand what comes up.
I am glad to hear Dr Wolff say that Africa is a neglected and abused land. I read in my childhood that Mozambique was a beautiful place, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, when I lived in Woodward Oklahoma. I had no idea then that Mozambique was embroiled in a brutal civil war.
What does professor Wolff mean when he says “complexly overdetermined”? I’m guessing that’s his way of saying capitalist economics is deliberately confusing or made complex on purpose. I’m also guessing they do that because their logic isn’t very logical so they make things complicated to avoid having to admit their theories are nonsense. But I might be totally off on my assumptions and so I’m hoping someone can tell me what he means.
I leaned this term late in life so I’m the wrong person to explain, but it kind of means even if you removed some or a percentage of the factors determining a thing it would still be a thing. (I use it to answer why I didn’t want kids, instead of saying ‘I have ten reasons, all of them sufficient’.)
Wait… weren’t the inhabitants warring with each other anyway ? Before colonialism dug its hooky thorns everywhere ? Or even the American Indians ? Weren’t the Indians taking over other tribes ? Was it human nature to overtake weaker people ? I would think humans gravitate towards being communal . I didn’t go to college so I missed out on a lot of learning and trying to understand many things now 40 decades later . Love your work and I think Mr Wolf should be given a role in various areas of the government.
I'm almost more upset that Dr. Wolff didn't go into politics because we could've been the Wolff Pack party or something hahaha he could've really leaned into the wolf thing
And speaking of settler colonialism, didnt British failed the big time on a continent called.. i dunno “North America”? 😂 I am not a professional historian or anything.. but as far as I know British crown could not even deal with its fellow white settlers and failed so miserably that Americans went on open revolt against them…😂😂 If the settler colonial system was so brilliant and effective, why did it failed?? Are they trying to insult founding fathers of America?😮😮
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs. The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues. The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many. The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to. The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests. It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
America doesn't have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy and a very convoluted one at that which makes it even less representative and even easier to corrupt. I want direct voting referendums on things like providing tens of billions of dollars of military aid to foreign countries. that would be the sane thing to do.
@@djangofett4879 Friend, I'm sorry that you like to get drunk with cold water, representative democracy, as it is now, when we vote some representatives and they can do what they want or they don't even have to keep their promises, only democracy (the people take decisions = decides what is good for him) it is not. Moreover, many dictatorial countries have ironically included the word democracy in their name. So the name doesn't matter, the difference from an oligarchy is that in an authentic democracy laws could not be passed that are not to the advantage of the majority of citizens. Check this out and you'll find out how you fare.
Professor Woolf U are a Honest Man. Thankyou. ps- can U share with us which of the two "plastic people." U are going to vote for,-Harris or trump...??? Cheers M8.
The British Crown owes reparations to all the families that those settlers caused the death of half the population that could be paid by liquidation of the assets of the monarchy and British companies that the offspring of that nobility should by law pay for the harm caused.
For Music and Acting, we get a nice statue. Your ain't nothing without a statue. I wish I had a statue to show how great I am. I hate this crap. What if things change? Take it back? I reserve the right to be a screw up. You college guys don't hold all the "cards." We got cards too. I got a Full House. What you have?
Professor Wolff will be remembered for generations
He’s truly in rare form for this interview. Exposing Institutional Dislocation to a population that has become dependent upon a fictitious reality is dangerous.
I am definitly going to tell my daughter about him when she is older. And show her the books he has written
I wished his videos were subtitled in French so French people would have entirely access to his work. He is so enlightening. Thank you @Democracy At Work
Marx IMHO was the best analyst of the 19th century structure of proto-darwinian Capitalism, but never successfully developed adequate social solutions for what still exists in the malevalent dominance of yuuge transnational crony corporations in governance worldwide in the collusion with theocratic idiocy in many current nation-states vulnerable to Religionist Cults.
Once again, Prof Wolff speaking truth to power! Blessings to everyone who is here!!! ✨
💖 Dr. Richard Wolff and d@w. Thank you for all the important, lasting, inspiring work you all do!
Thanks for this interview. As a citizen of a once-colonised country still struggling with its deleterious effects, I was stunned to see / hear the almost facile interpretation of colonialism and governance. The colonialist 'giving' good governance, phew!
Wonderful time listening to both of you, the interviewer and the interviewee, during which I have taken the risk to spent. And it's rewarding because I am now validated my marxian conviction about the origin of the profit that the entrepreneurs make in capitalist or Lords make in slavery economical systems. All of them make the accumulation of profit, not because they are more clever or they take initiatives or risks, but because they are working in autocracy system, whereby democracy is absent
Prof.Wolff’s work on Kenya is priceless. Its definitely worth take the time to look into it
Karibuni kuetu Baba Wolff Rafiki wa Afrika 😂😂😂
I wish Dr Wolff would talk about Africa, country by country. That would be a good book. I will be happy to edit it free of charge.
Ho Chi Minh had never said that the common people in France enjoyed liberty while the Vietnamese didn't. Soon after his arrival in France and saw for himself what exactly French society at the time looked like, he mocked that why the French rulers had never bothered to civilize France before trying to do exactly that in Vietnam as they claimed.
He would help fix the world better than the group of clowns we have now playing with humans lives .
im amaze by proffesor wolff the way he describe the behavior of rich capitalist and the way they mask things to make they life of pilleage more aceptable thanks by this program
The part about new Keynesian part is so true… if you do a little deduction of Keynes’ general theory’s effective demand and how he explained it, he was suggesting in a sly way that wrong income distribution is the real culprit of causing financial crises (like a multiple choice question with the real answer side by side with obviously bogus answers.) given his background in logics, so obviously that he was a socialist at heart. That’s why the new Keynesian economists are afraid of being labeled as socialists.
We are good students of yours, professor. We call ourselves Marxists.
thanks professors
I get seriously lost when professor Wolff is talking about institutionalism.
Thanks!
What is economic divergence? Looked it up and most websites, I’m guessing, are explaining it from a capitalist economic perspective, or assume you understand capitalist economic language. I’m guessing that’s why I can’t understand what comes up.
The A in AfD stands for Alternative (whose English meaning is obvious) not for Aufstand
I am glad to hear Dr Wolff say that Africa is a neglected and abused land. I read in my childhood that Mozambique was a beautiful place, according to Encyclopedia Britannica, when I lived in Woodward Oklahoma. I had no idea then that Mozambique was embroiled in a brutal civil war.
Thank you Dr Wolff
What does professor Wolff mean when he says “complexly overdetermined”? I’m guessing that’s his way of saying capitalist economics is deliberately confusing or made complex on purpose. I’m also guessing they do that because their logic isn’t very logical so they make things complicated to avoid having to admit their theories are nonsense.
But I might be totally off on my assumptions and so I’m hoping someone can tell me what he means.
I leaned this term late in life so I’m the wrong person to explain, but it kind of means even if you removed some or a percentage of the factors determining a thing it would still be a thing. (I use it to answer why I didn’t want kids, instead of saying ‘I have ten reasons, all of them sufficient’.)
Wonderful , extremely interesting knowledge thank you
Wait… weren’t the inhabitants warring with each other anyway ? Before colonialism dug its hooky thorns everywhere ? Or even the American Indians ? Weren’t the Indians taking over other tribes ? Was it human nature to overtake weaker people ? I would think humans gravitate towards being communal . I didn’t go to college so I missed out on a lot of learning and trying to understand many things now 40 decades later . Love your work and I think Mr Wolf should be given a role in various areas of the government.
Richard,
Tks. much
Out of Africa the movie.
Does anyone know where to find a free or cheap copy of richard wolff his "the Economics of Colonialism: Britain and Kenya, 1870-1930" ?
I'm almost more upset that Dr. Wolff didn't go into politics because we could've been the Wolff Pack party or something hahaha he could've really leaned into the wolf thing
Interesting talk, though I prefer the Robusta!
So interesting ! In France Bernard Friot speak the same ! And Emplyoees has to take the power back and more !
Absolutely! Imagine a conference with the two of them! Would be brilliant!
@@C.c52 I agree totally !
And speaking of settler colonialism, didnt British failed the big time on a continent called.. i dunno “North America”? 😂
I am not a professional historian or anything.. but as far as I know British crown could not even deal with its fellow white settlers and failed so miserably that Americans went on open revolt against them…😂😂
If the settler colonial system was so brilliant and effective, why did it failed?? Are they trying to insult founding fathers of America?😮😮
If you need a real criticism of Acemoglu et al, follow me.
So incisive!
Nice! thank you
I, stephen pfrimmer, am willing to edit Dr Wolff's new book on Africa, free of charge.
Democracy is when those who make decisions on your behalf have the duty to ask for your consent first. Today's republics are actually modern oligarchies where the interest groups of the rich are arbitrated by the people, that is, you can choose from which table of the rich you will receive crumbs.
The "fatigue" of democracy occurs when there is a big difference between the interests of the elected and the voters, thus people lose confidence in the way society functions. As a result, poor and desperate citizens will vote with whoever promises them a lifeline, i.e. populists or demagogues.
The democratic aspect is a collateral effect in societies where the economy has a strong competitive aspect, that is, the interests of those who hold the economic power in society are divergent. Thus those whealty, and implicitly with political power in society, supervise each other so that none of them have undeserved advantages due to politics. For this reason, countries where mineral resources have an important weight in GDP are not democratic (Russia, Venezuela, etc.), because a small group of people can exploit these resources in their own interest. In poor countries (Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, etc.) the main exploited resource may even be the state budget, as they have convergent interests in benefiting, in their own interest, from this resource. It is easy to see if it is an oligarchy because in a true democracy laws would not be passed that would not be in the interest of the many.
The first modern oligarchy appeared in England at the end of the 17th century. After the bourgeois revolution led by Cromwell succeeded, the interest groups of the rich were unable to agree on how to divide their political power in order not to reach the dictatorship of one. The solution was to appoint a king to be the arbiter. In republics, the people are the arbiter, but let's not confuse the possibility of choosing which group will govern you with democracy, that is, with the possibility of citizens deciding which laws to pass and which not to.
The solution is modern direct democracy in which every citizen can vote, whenever he wants, over the head of the parliamentarian who represents him. He can even dismiss him if the majority of his voters consider that he does not correctly represent their interests.
It's like when you have to build a house and you choose the site manager and the architect, but they don't have the duty to consult with you. The house will certainly not look the way you want it, but the way they want it, and it is more certain that you will be left with the money given and without the house. It is strange that outside of the political sphere, nowhere, in any economic or sports activity, will you find someone elected to a leadership position and who has failure after failure and is fired only after 4 years. We, the voters, must be consulted about the decisions and if they have negative effects we can dismiss them at any time, let's not wait for the soroco to be fulfilled, because we pay, not them. In any company, the management team comes up with a plan approved by the shareholders. Any change in this plan must be re-approved by the shareholders and it is normal because the shareholders pay.
but you are not a shareholder of the government. at the same time, the government always consults with its shareholders.
America doesn't have a direct democracy, we have a representative democracy and a very convoluted one at that which makes it even less representative and even easier to corrupt.
I want direct voting referendums on things like providing tens of billions of dollars of military aid to foreign countries. that would be the sane thing to do.
@@djangofett4879 Friend, I'm sorry that you like to get drunk with cold water, representative democracy, as it is now, when we vote some representatives and they can do what they want or they don't even have to keep their promises, only democracy (the people take decisions = decides what is good for him) it is not. Moreover, many dictatorial countries have ironically included the word democracy in their name. So the name doesn't matter, the difference from an oligarchy is that in an authentic democracy laws could not be passed that are not to the advantage of the majority of citizens. Check this out and you'll find out how you fare.
Achekmoglu lol. I agree with the stinging critique of these three. But it's pronounced Aj-mow-loo.
Birkaç acemi hatası.
@@yozhleszy bu cümleyi anladım. aylarca gramer kitapları okumanın faydası oldu!
Herbert Hoover, huh? 😄
Professor Woolf U are a Honest Man. Thankyou. ps- can U share with us which of the two "plastic people." U are going to vote for,-Harris or trump...??? Cheers M8.
for Vermin Love Supreme
Prof Wolff was a Herbert Hoover fellow at Stanfurd?! That's hilarious 😂
I enjoy your program a lot
The British Crown owes reparations to all the families that those settlers caused the death of half the population that could be paid by liquidation of the assets of the monarchy and British companies that the offspring of that nobility should by law pay for the harm caused.
We're all puppies from which the food has been removed. Can do better.
BTW, use your real name when commenting.
If you care one jot about democracy you will reveal your identity online. My name is stephen pfrimmer.
For Music and Acting, we get a nice statue. Your ain't nothing without a statue. I wish I had a statue to show how great I am. I hate this crap. What if things change? Take it back? I reserve the right to be a screw up. You college guys don't hold all the "cards." We got cards too. I got a Full House. What you have?