Most of those people could not provide you with a working definition of Capitalism, if they were asked to. That's because the system is never described to the People. It is never taught, in our schools, what capitalism really is. So yes, it becomes a matter of faith for many people.
@@itzenormous Some words about the economic system called capitalism: However long a series of periodical reproductions and preceding accumulations the capital functioning today may have passed through, it always preserves its original virginity. So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange the mode of appropriation can be completely revolutionised without in any way affecting the property rights which correspond to commodity production. These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from 415 Chapter 24 the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation. (Capital page 415)
Richard Wolff is like the grandad I never had. It's true that I never met my own grandad. But I am glad I met Richard and get to see him teaching me everyday things and empowering me. From what I was told my grandad was a socialist and a worker, all his life. What a coincidence
He is what my immigrant, working-class, English fluent father was in righteous anger…”the rich get richer, the poor get poorer”. “The little man finishes last” “there is not enough compassion in the world”
You do, perhaps. Wealthy people who want to deny others the same rights and privileges that made themselves wealthy are huge fans of modern socialists. Working people who are successfully providing for themselves and their families in this capitalist system have zero respect whatsoever for demogogues like Richard Wolff trying to demonize rich people to avoid the weakness in their arguments.
Your 100% wrong Seriously do me a favor ask yourself this. Do i know how value is added or removed from an economic system as a whole? do i even understand how economic growth is created? If you can't grasp that concept then your in way too deep. you need to understand basic economic principles before you can even grasp how to form any economy. Can you give me one single example of how value is added to an economy? This is not a capitalism vs socalisum question. This applies to all economics.
@@stuckinthemud4352 Right off the top your idea that economic "growth" is a necessary thing is capitalist. We live on a finite planet. For the rest I am at work and will peruse your question when I have the time.
@@vivalaleta please tell me how value is added and removed in any economic system? Or a citation of somthing you have read that shows it. im not gonna waste my time teaching basic macro economics. u must understand basic economic theory in order to argue about economics. Your starting the conversation by ignoring the question. Pass the test then we can debate about capitalism vs socalisum etc... Just so u know i haven't even stated what system i support. Adding value ( growth) and subtracting value are the basis for any economy. Including Marxist ones. Im not even ready to discuss what to do about growth/adding value/subtracting value if u cant explain in an understandalble way how value is added as a whole to any economic system. Just give me one example that actually leads to value being added and removed as a whole. On a Side note no economy in history has ever flatlined on growth and had a good outcome not one
Thank you sir for telling it like it is! I love it! And you're right, capitalism doesn't lift up people's standard of living. Workers demanding better benefits and working conditions do! If it were up to the capitalists we would all be getting paid $3 an hour with zero benefits working 12 hour days, 7 days a week!
Because living standards are dropping. Why are living standards dropping? Because world governments have become massive inefficient bureaucracies with incredible levels of debt, so we pay more at every level but get less back, and this influences the efficiency and productivity of business also. The work day and all the other worker improvements since the 1800s are not because of workers struggling against capitalists, they are within the context of a Protestant Christian belief system that puts intrinsic value on human life, democracy that gives people the right to self-govern, and capitalism that allows business to function independently from any national or provincial government. Workers struggling outside this context would just be killed or thrown into labor camps; why tolerate workers asking for more benefits when you can use them as slaves for protesting?
When I was advocating for M4A during the last presidential election I ran into all the arguments you are describing here. They really surprised me in the vehemence and lack of facts. Sometimes I would point out that it was ridiculous to think that the "greatest country in the world" would be brought to ruin financially simply by all US citizens being able to see a Doctor.
That's what "fighting" is all about. If we weren't confronted and opposed in Congress, sometimes on the streets or even at home, we ought to suspect we're on the wrong side.
I wish what Dr Wolff says was true but its not. Actually, all of those improvements came from captialists. For example, FDR and Lincoln was a stanch capitalist. And since there has never been a socialist congressman, all of those things Wolff mentions were implemented by capitalists. Even the major Unions are hard supporters of capitalism. Sure there were some socialist voters who agitated for those things, but ultimately it was granted by capitalists.
But there’s this idiotic notion that the state never appeared but as a burden to capitalism and that it’s thus completely disconnected. No one who argues this seems to know that a state exists to protect property, as John Locke and Adam Smith themselves said.
@@owesteen-hansen2152 Now they are polluting the municipal water systems, or at least failing to stop it, while giving control of the water supply to the likes of Nestle & Coca Cola. It's shameful.
The state does not exist to protect property or else it would actually do that. A property protecting property expropriator is a contradiction in terms.
@@ExPwner Why? When property is exprop by the state it becames common property for the common good. God did not create nature for the monopolization of the few. How are you securing equal access to property for all human beings? Large parts of property to day are acquired by force of the strongest, it is expropriated without compensation. That is the reality in USA, where most of the land now private and common property was stolen from the indians, by the right of the strongest.
@@owesteen-hansen2152 no, something taken by the state is not "common good" no matter how many times you repeat it. God did not create nature for collectivism. "Thou shalt not steal" can ONLY exist with private property, not a commons. There is no such thing as "equal access." It's a fairy tale.
Like hell, he conflates a fictional concept of all the workers with anti-capitalists and a fictional concept of all the factory owners with capitalists because he can't address the argument which has nothing to do with different people within the system having different views but has everything to do with the SYSTEM. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM, it's not a fucking group of rich people like the stupid ideologues like Richard Wolff want YOU to HATE.
I have studied the rise of the Nazis in 1920's and 1930's Germany in some detail. It is clear to me that they enjoyed almost universal support of the industrialists of their time. The US industry leaders seem to at least implicitly support the increasingly Fascist Republican Party.
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control sounds more life the democratic party to me.............. wokeism- crt- banning anyone who does not agree with you and free speech if you don't like it. Ah.................does not sound like anyone I know in the republican party.
Universal support is complete exaggeration, some did and some didn't, but like China right now if you do not support them you keep quiet because they will not allow you to buy/sell in China if you criticize emperor Xi. Same in Germany, if you criticize the Nazi regime they will kick you out of the country and you miss out on business opportunities. There is also the context of Bolshevism in Russia, and the Spanish Civil War, so anyone siding with the persecuted religious orthodoxy in either place would find themselves on the side of the Nazis in Germany by default. You are completely and utterly wrong about support for Republicans in the US, unless your definition of "industrialist" is "anyone who supports Republicans.
There are a few others you could go into. One of them you've talked about elsewhere, which is that statistical reductions in poverty are exaggerated due to the definitions used for "extreme poverty." Here's another one: capitalism is not a synonym for business. When people say that capitalism has raised standards of living, they mean that businesses have offered jobs and affordable products/innovations. But these are not unique to capitalism; you could also have these things as a result of socialist or worker-led businesses.
Another excellent video from Professor Wolff. Firstly, there is a most vulgar discrepancy which the main stream media deliberately ignores. In the last week we've had Veterans Day and Remembrance Day in the USA and UK. But Russia and China are never mentioned! Despite the fact that in WW2 Russia-USSR lost 20 million people and China lost 30 million people fighting the Axis Powers. Without Russia taking on half the German Army on the Russian eastern front, and China taking on half the Japanese Army in the Orient, then most of the Allied Forces would have ended up as hamburger meat on the beaches of Normandy France. Secondly, in his 12 volume text 'The World at War' author Winston Churchill says UK, France and USA caused WW2, not Germany. Winston Churchill points out that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was so severe in its demands for reparations, that it led to starvation in Germany and the collapse of the German Economy. The result... Germany had to go to war or it would cease to exist. This disaster was avoided post WW2 by the USA Marshall Plan which rebuilt Germany. Yes, America does do some marvellous things! But the root of the problem remains, and that is all wars are bankers wars.
I’d like to hear more about how the working classes can retake possession of their own worker productivity and innovation, that capitalism credits to the capitalists.
Don't you have an imagination? Can't you picture, in your mind, how this might be accomplished? Hint: It will never happen through voting or the electoral process.
I refuse to accept blind divisive politics as an argument. Capitalism is an economic system. It's an ECONOMIC SYSTEM. It does not bestow perfect morality on people, but it's a fuck-tonne better than what liars and charlatans like Wolff would propose.
it drive me nuts when people be like 'venezuela!' And then I'm like, 'scandinavia!' and then they tell me to move there, and i'm like 'i would if i could.'
If you believe that Scandinavian countries are 'Socialist' countries, then you have a lot of learning to do. The reason that Venezuela, or any country, struggles, is because the largest and most dominate empire in the history of the world has its boot on the necks of the Venezuelan People. Maybe you should stress THAT point to these ignoramuses?
@@itzenormous wrong. Venezuela failed because of socialism. If you spent two minutes doing your homework you'd see that it had crises long before any sanctions were imposed. Try again.
@@ExPwner you are the one that needs to do his home work under the rule of capitalism most people were dirt poor more than half could not afford to go to the doctor and the moment Chaves was elected the sanctions begun Despite sanctions, Venezuela lives better than its neighbors Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras. There are six million Colombian economic and political refugees in Venezuela; and they do not want to go back to their country. They prefer to suffer in socialist Venezuela. Now, when thousands of Central Americans are trekking to Rio Grande, the US should take care of them instead of worrying about Venezuela. The current exodus occurs in the most obliging client-states of Washington. We also learned that the US stole $31 billion of Venezuelan assets and gave 1 (one) billion to the Random Guy they appointed as Venezuelan President.
@@ExPwner and what part of under the rule of capitalism most people were dirt poor more than half could not afford to go to the doctor don't you understand?
I'm fully awake, you're sleeping. They've taught you this same BS all the way through public school but you think this is some amazing revelation? If the US were not a capitalist country you would not have had the freedom to fight for anything. A prerequisite for a free people is a free market economy. Go try to protest for worker's rights in North Korea or China right now, good luck. Capitalists are not anti-workers-rights, they are self-interested. If you are a worker withdrawing your services en masse until conditions improve that is exactly the same as a drug maker withdrawing their medicine en masse until prices increase, it's a function of the economic system; all workers in a capitalist system are just as much "capitalists" as their bosses.
In the UK, the government (Conservative) is increasingly taxing more heavily to the extent that workers of moderate income are being taxed at the "higher tax rate". Tax allowances have been frozen or reduced meaning that people who have done the right thing (such as saving more for a rainy day) are being taxed. This is unfair and is against the basic principle of the Conservative Party. Prices of ordinary products are getting more expensive. Many people are living in hardship.
Because there are no conservative parties, they were all gutted by the false accusations of leftists long ago. All conservatives who spoke honestly about womens rights, gay rights, trans rights, or immigration in the UK would be called sexist, bigoted, hateful racists and forced to resign, lose any donations, or lose their next election. This is the state of modern discourse. People like Wolff are not helping at all as he would have you believe there's this fictional class of people called "capitalists" who you should hate.
I was enlightened on watching this video. Yes , I had a fair wealthy friend who had put forward to me the opening arguments on the goods of capitalism. I didn't know enough then to response. Now I do.
Yes, now you can say he's an evil capitalist who hates workers rights. Why not just repeat Wolff's words exactly, go lose your rich friend, that will be great.
@@gorkyd7912 not all wealth from exploiting others. He made his monies from works and got paid well for his efforts. His situation could well be alien to you residing in an economy where exploitations are common.
@@wongcy713 My point is Wolff is trying to make you demonize people who are faceless to you. You know your friend, so you know he's not just an evil capitalist who hates and exploits the workers against their will. But somehow you still think there are a bunch of other evil capitalists, including me of course because I disagree with Richard Wolff and he's a good guy. Where does this friend live and what does he do for a living? If you would like me to demonize this friend using common Marxist talking points I will gladly enlighten you to how disingenuous and toxic this belief system is. I have had conversations with Marxists for over 20 years, I guarantee I can accurately reproduce their criticisms of your friend's life without building a straw man.
Yes! This is what being American is all about, what we should be proud of. lt was Americans who fought decades for things like the 8 hr work day. It was Americans who pressured FDR into New Deal policies.
Agreed. It really is too bad that right wingers are trying to co-opt the word patriot. By calling themselves patriots, it suggests that anyone opposed to them is not a patriot. It's a tricky gimmick, but easy to see through.
Prof Wolff. I'm a big fan of your platform. Thanks for the constant education. Q: How are you feeling? Have noticed you have bandages on your scalp....
The politicians talked about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour but that is so far behind the cost of living which is around $23 per hour . Go figure.
All of those distortions about "mass deaths" are exactly that - distortions. We've all heard that Stalin and Mao murdered 6 trillion people and were responsible for plagues and famines, as if both of these men somehow controlled the weather or the elements. And, anytime that I have been told, by someone, about all of these 'millions of people' that died because of communism, I have made it a point to ask them for specifics. Please provide me with the names, the dates, the location, and the circumstances surrounding just one of these "mass slaughters" that certainly must have taken place ... if 50 million people were killed. As of the present moment, I have YET to have even ONE of these people provide me with an answer. If you're going to assert that "So and So" was responsible for murdering "60 million people," then it stands to reason that you would be able to provide the context and the circumstance under which at least SOME of these people were killed. But they can't provide the information, because it doesn't exist. We can see, today, how the bourgeois press and the US Government constantly lie and spew disinformation about Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Russia, China, Syria, Iran et cetera, but we somehow imagine that these same sources have, in the past, been completely truthful about the Soviet Union? No, of course not. Take the amount of dishonesty and treachery that they employ against the previously mentioned countries, and then multiply that times 100. That's the level of dishonesty and distortion that was used, and is still used, to warp public opinion on the subject matter.
The capitalist system is like an abusive spouse who assaults you, steals from you, tells you that their abuse was your fault, then demands praise for achievements that they attempted to prevent. ✊🏼
Its nice that we can at least still have these debates openly. The thing I fear is that a really severe crisis may cause the “debate” to devolve to violence and oppression. I don’t think either side ever admits the truth… that when there is a true violent clash between the haves and have-not, no matter which side “wins”, the aftermath is a period where free debate is gone and control is through fear and violence. Capitalists call communists violent and murderous, but communists will say the exact same thing of capitalists. The truth is open violent class conflict will probably go this way no matter which side “wins” in the end. In the US they tell you about Castro in Cuba, but they don’t like to talk about Indonesia or Chile, or even that it was not just Ashkenazi Jews, but also socialists who were executed in HUGE numbers in Nazi concentration camps.
A debate would be great but I don't see how labelling a fictional class of people "capitalists" and then blaming them for all the problems with the system, while giving all the credit for improvements to a fictional class called "workers" is any argument for or against capitalism. Needless to say, I don't support socialists because their articulation of a better system always comes down to "put us in charge and find out." Democracy is fragile, I haven't seen any socialist democracies... ever.
I am currently debating this defense by libertarians on a video comments section from a video titled Hitlers National Socialism Was Left-wing Socialism by TIK history or something close to that idea. It is economic illiteracy par excellence and intellectual futility like no where else seen on earth. By arguing free markets = capitalism so national socialism having state control in the economy = "left wing socialism". The video creator uses pseudo history like Vampire Economy and von Mises and conflated definitions to flip and flop over a 5 hour long video complete with built in defenses refuting basic reality and logic but it is good for some giggles and I feel it is important to set the record straight. Thanks for the video and for addressing this here and I knew Dr. Wolf would provide.
Bawerk also didn’t predict that nearly all the innovation came out of the state sector rather than the private markets. Take every component in your iPhone - if you go through then you’ll find the early hard and innovative work was always from the non-profit state, not from profit based sector: GPS, the silicon chip design (even Intel 4040 was for traffic lights funded by the state), the Von Neumann computer design (university salary funded), the modern programming languages (all minor variants of Algol 69, state funded), the inportant internet protcols (http, https, etc), the first web browser, touch screen technology.. or modern passenger planes being minor variants of state funded bombers.. all the really difficult early risky work where the real innovation was, came out out of the state sector, which didn’t require a profit mandate, and then handed over to the private sector for relatively trivial, far less innovative and risk, incremental and profitable work.
Outstanding stuff How do you feel about participatory economics? What do you think about the 1/5 and 4/5 stuff Michael Albert speaks of? Both of you have some overlaps in style and nature of making points
Britain presided over 12 major famines in India murdering over 60 million. The last great famine was the Bengal Famine of 1943 . This happened as Indian troops were fighting for European democracy while India was ruled by decree. How many famines after independence? None. Famine has always been used as means to control rebellion?
Conservatives won't be happy until they make off hour living conditions just as unpleasantly dictatorial as working hours with a REALLY bad employer. In fact you can look forward to working more hours for the same pay because that will be more profitable for the rich.
Capitalism is about work work work and making money at any cost. This is why capitalism does not work if you work for someone else.. it only works with those who have their own business you have something of value to sell or two offer actually.
Did capitalism develop out of the a changing technology which required an ethico-religious sanction such as Protestantism, or did the Protestant ethic give rise to a type of economic behavior?
Let us not become de-radicalized by peripheral activism (identity politics, GREEN stuff, etc.). That's not to say they are bad...but they can easily be co-opted by the bourgeois. Do you know what the bourgeois will never co-opt? The movement of socialism itself. That's what we have to stick to. Hurrah for Rick Wolff and his commentaries!
@@yoshimansxl I have the exact same opinion on that matter. It's just too useful to the establishment parties. All they have to make are symbolic gestures which are worth less than nothing to the 99%/the working class. It's a perfect way for them to simply look like they're doing something with a lot of talk.
Actually I don't think capitalism is the dominant Force I think its shares it with socialism that both a force to be reckoned with and they both do work if done right.. but it's also open to abuse as well like everything else..
Wolff has a lot of good observations but I would never use the word "capitalism". Because is capitalism not always going to be with us? Wasn't that the whole lesson of the Cold War? Using the words, "capitalism" and "socialism" gives the rich an opportunity to marginalize one. We need a modified system. We can aim to be like the more humane and mixed economies of Western Europe. Any other goal is to write "witch" on a piece of paper and pin it to our back.
Capitalism once won doesn't mean that it is the all time winner or it is the highest stage of human society. Evolution is still happening both biologically and socially. Also before Capitalism there was feudalism. Capitalism is just a stage of Human society. Also the social democracies and the welfare states are built through the exploitation of the the global South. Oppression of workers by capitalists is inherent to Capitalism irrespective of it's form.
What about the wealth created though Professor? You side stepped that. What are your thoughts on that? Could socialism have created that? I have a very hard time believing it could.
Are you referring to the wealth "created" by raping and robbing Latin America and Africa, the wealth "created" through exploitation of the working class, or the wealth "created" by raping and polluting the forests, rivers, oceans, and air?
@@internetwonderbuilder4741 in Australia, where i am from, a working class miner, earns an average of $100,000 per year. I am refering to this wealth. I am referring to the plumber or carpenter who graduated trade school and earns $100,000/year. Im referring to the wealth of an individual, i know personally, who grew up close to poverty line and got a scholarship to law school and now earns $180,000 + per year. Or i could refer to myself who started with $100 in my early 20s and started a website and sold it in my mid 20s for close to half one million dollars. Are you saying these working class individuals, who were born poor, are not wealthy? Or that these working class individuals, myself included, are raping? That is who i am referring to.
@@LL-wc4wn how are your aborigines faring under your system? Serious question here, but if the average aborigine were asked whether he wished the English had arrived and taken over his lands or not, if he could wish you descendants of criminals back to the gloomy island(s) you originated from, would he? Is he grateful for your enlightened Anglo wisdom and gadgets? Is he grateful to have been indoctrinated into christianity less than a hundred years ago by the anglo who now marginalizes him for believing in spirits and being a "superstitious primitive"? Does your system work for everyone, or just some? Here in the US, the question isn't how much wealth has been produced but how it has been distributed. You know the statistics about the one percent and so on. Our government hides the scale of poverty in the US routinely, I doubt anyone who hasn't been here recently is aware of how bad it is. Nobody wants stalinism, but the current state of affairs is not acceptable for the majority.
I will take a guess / / / / / / / / a small few . . . . reaped the profits . . . . . the masses not so much inequality multipled big time who ended up with the resources, natural and otherwise ?
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." So the initial Communists stole the land of the BEST farmers. Their replacements were incompetents and, so, periodic famines. Then in 1933 there was the Ukrainian Holodomor when the competent Ukraine farmers had their land stolen and, subsequently, somewhere between 4 and 6 million Ukrainians were starved to death. In more modern times, you go into a Gum department store and the staff might not even pay attention to customers. We MUST reward innovation and excellence. Mr. Wolff's ideology is a prescription for mediocrity. Mediocrity like most CO-OPS. Venture money doesn't fund co-ops because they're historically weak because dead wood isn't chopped.
Respectfully, but I disagree. Fascism was Italian, not German. Germany wanted autarchy, and it's system was national socialism. Yes; Krupp was a high ranking guy; but the state set almost all prices. The state in germany (1930-1940) set almost ALL wages, ALL transportation costs (the reichsbahn for example wasn't allowed to even ask high prices). Prices for Coal (aka energy in that time) were fixed. Under Stalin, the "bourgousie"; aka the jews, were very methodically eradicated, albeit not on the same scale as what the nazi's did. On the side, the defense of capitalism claiming socialism has a worse track record is fairly weak. I'm fairly sure both costed roughly the same amount of human loss. Capitalism in the democratic form is an obvious faillure due to it's inherent bureaucracy and stagnation. Socialism in the USSR form is also an obvious faillure due to corruption, stagnation and in-effecient use of resources. Look up operation Keelhaul, and you'll see how much Sovjet soldiers "loved" their country. I can think of only one form of society / governement that actually works; a benevolent dictator, but that has it's own set of problems.
Wow! Thanks for the history lesson! Today I learned that nazi Germany wasn't fascist because some anonymous know it all on RUclips said so! The world doesn't deserve your brilliance!
@@HarrySmith-hr2iv Nope. they followed Marx's plan. More closely than the Soviet Union did. You can argue whether that is better or worse. But they did it.
In my view, the "perfect model" of capitalism was the chattel slavery of the ante-bellum Southern plantation. I think that's not an ideal to which we should aspire.
"In every case, the improvements were opposed by capitalists." This is like saying Democracy isn't good for people because they argue about things in parliament. Capitalism is the ECONOMIC SYSTEM under which all the improvements came. Wolff disingenuously trying to divide the working class from the "capitalists" within that system is just bullshit divisionism. Some capitalists liked the improvements, some didn't. Some capitalists support the minimum wage, some don't. Some parliamentarians vote for socialism, some don't. Some working class people support Wolff's insane bullshit, some don't.
Why FUDGE the definition of socialism at its introduction ? I already had gathered a proper definition from this same speaker. Socialism must be worker ownership, democracy at work, absolutely not dictatorship nor fascism nor so-called communism but he glued them together here. Next.
It should be pointed out that US corporations were also involved with Hitler’s regime. Also, the United States did not enter the European theater until the Soviet union started pushing Germany back. Germany was defeated, the Nazis were always here in the US. Also, please learn the definition of capital. We do not live in capitalism, we live in feudalism. As your discussion with the former Greek finance minister proves, we live in feudalism. In fact, you and David Harvey, always describe feudalism every time you speak out against capitalism.
The United States didn’t enter until after Pearl Harbour. Hitler declared war on the USA the following day. Russia didn’t start the push back until 1943 two years after the US entered the war. It was the Russians that won the Second World War.
Why does everyone always confuse capital with currency? I agree, the Russians won the war. The Russians faced over 200 divisions of the German army. The allies only had to face 10 or 20. Apparently, Hitler was inspired by the United States. Also, Hitler could never have achieved what he did without outside help.
@@Guitarpima Hitler’s inspiration for his ‘final solution’ came from General W. Tecumseh Sherman’s, Scorched Earth tactics against Native Americans, commander of the Union army against the South is the true father of Nazism, and perhaps you should define ‘Capital’ for clarification.
one of the biggest surpises to me is that everyone says we pulled the world out of poverty as well, but if you look at the list of countries that have seen the big improvements its mostly former soviet bloc and china, while we omit our handling of the 3rd world after ww2 and the billions of people who starved under the the american wing.
The only criticism I have with Dr. Wolf is his continued description of the western economic system as Capitalism. Its not. It 's really a form of Corporate Mercantilism. Enacting policies that benefit businesses at the expense of the consumer and a competitive market. Sheldon Wolin calls it Inverted totalism. Noam Chomsky calls it "Really Existing Capitalist Democracy" or RECD. John Ralston Saul describes it as a corporate Coup d'etate.
So in your world the working class does not exist and neither the class war between labor and capital that Wollf describes, refuting the first false argument. Mercantilism came before the fysiokrats and Smith&Ricardo with labor as the source of wealth. Merchants are not producers and do not buy labor to produce. You have to distinguish between Industrial, Finance and Merchant capital. Merchant and Bank Capital existed long before capitalism. Already in Greek and Roman slave societies and in feudalism you will find them.
I'm catching libertarian vibes here, are you against age of consent laws because it's government interference against forming a contract with a teenager for sex?
Mercantilism never existed in America. It's a transition system between feudalism and capitalism, which originated in the Italian city states in the 15th century and eventually lead to the first truly multinational corporation, the Dutch VOC, in the 17th century. Whereas in feudalism the power lies with the aristocracy and with capitalism with the owner class, with mercantilism the power lies with the merchant class. Mercantilism vanished with the industrial revolution and the rise of the capital owner class, mid 19th century. Also what could be described as "working class" is different. In feudalism is was the peasants, with mercantilism it were indentured servants and slaves and with capitalism it is the employee. Needless to say, in all three systems the "working class" was used by means of exploitation to generate surplus, and thus profit. All three authors you mention describe the levers of power in a capitalist system, not much unlike Macchiavelli described the levers of power in a feudal and early mercantilist system (immensely promoting the divine right of kings in order to keep the mercantilists at bay). Capital is capital. No distinction is needed, because the system by definition implies who has the means to generate surplus and hence holds all the power.
However long a series of periodical reproductions and preceding accumulations the capital functioning today may have passed through, it always preserves its original virginity. So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange the mode of appropriation can be completely revolutionised without in any way affecting the property rights which correspond to commodity production. These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others. This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.
Even the vast increases in productivity and material abundance under capitalism a) are down to improving technology and the spread of education and science rather than the capitalists, who only exploited those improvements for profits, b) have caused as many environmental problems, social dislocations, and more destructive wars as they have brought benefits, and c) were all still produced by workers, in the R&D department and on the assembly lines, not by absentee investors who don't know a capacitor from a carrot.
Please pick a country in 21st century with socialism/communism system that its citizens have higher living standards and also mention how much invention and innovation of new tech and other products came from that country.
@@TheBigGSN5 Yes and no. The European countries are partially Social Democratic (and yes, partially Neoliberal), but it's still capitalist. The only functioning countries today that are somewhat "truly socialist" are Vietnam and Singapore. They are doing great by the way. And Venezuela might be doing great too if it wasn't destroyed by continuiing US sanctions.
Name a communist/socialist country that is not heavily burdened by US-led sanctions. BTW, the UN Peace Council considers sanctions acts of war. Sanctions are not peaceful. Sanctions kill. Think starving to death or not having medications and medical equipment is peaceful? If socialism is so doomed to failure, why do capitalist countries feel the need to demonize those countries and impose murderous sanctions? Take a look at the hundreds of thousands of homeless in this country. A minimum of 40,000 Americans die each year from lack of medical care due to expense. Millions skip needed medications because of cost imposed by capitalist corporations. We have the highest infant mortality and lowest life expectancy of any developed country. We rank somewhere around #47 on education. #11 of 11 countries ranked for quality of medical care. So, where is this idea of this country having some higher quality of life coming from, aside from your own imagination?
Standard of living comes not from capitalism, but from looting the global south. Compare standards of living for socialist countries before and after they go socialist. The look at USSR before the betrayal, and after. There's your comparison.
Peoples Republic of China combines socialism with the capitalism advocated by Chiang Kai Shek. Chiang Kai Shek founded Taiwan. I've worked in The Peoples Republic of China for a UK company. There are many USA and European companies doing business in The Peoples Republic of China (capital Beijing.).
You are angry because you think you are a victim of the system. I thank god everyday that I was born into a country that has embraced the free market. I started with nothing, but with hard work and risking my own money I've done OK. Anyone can succeed in a free market economy if you are prepared to work hard. Envy makes people bitter. Don't envy other people, if they got their money fairly then for every dollar they have, they had to give a dollar to society. The top 20% pay 80% of the tax. Blaming the world war deaths on capitalism is just bazar, you need to do your research. There have been wars for ever. The unions did some good work but their power got too big and they decimated these industries. If you don't like what your job pays then get out of it, change industries. You will find that the jobs people don't want to do pay the best money. You are the master of your own destiny, work long hours if you want to get ahead. And if you don't like free market capitalism choose a socialist country to move to, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, take your pick!!
I wish what Dr Wolff says was true but its not. Actually, all of those improvements came from captialists. For example, FDR and Lincoln was a stanch capitalist. And since there has never been a socialist congressman, all of those things Wolff mentions were implemented by capitalists. Even the major Unions are hard supporters of capitalism. Sure there were some socialist voters who agitated for those things, but ultimately it was granted by capitalists.
your wish has been granted. wolff is correct and you're wrong. these days unions leadership has been captured by the oligarchy but decades ago communists, socialists and unions threatened fdr with a revolution. that's how the new deal came about.
"Sure there were some socialist voters who agitated for those things, but ultimately it was granted by capitalists." This phrase is crucial. The agitation brought about the idea and it was granted, with emphasis on granted, by the capitalists in power. But the employer class never initiated improvements themselves, and only submitted to it when they had absolutely no other choice and outright oppression was not an option.
Bad comment. If capitalists did something *against* the capitalist ideals, you can't credit that to capitalism. At all. I think what you really want to say is that the wealth that makes socialist ideas possible can only be obtained through capitalism. But that's a separate debate.
Political Science is also science- if you can present clear arguments and convince us of your view, you will get all of us' respect. Just calling BS without presenting any arguments though, is something else.
For many capitalism is a religion that can do no wrong by definition. Same old fanaticism as the old days but with a new face.
There are quite a few cucks for capitalism out there for sure
I have noticed that ignorance and the lack of critical thinking leads people to tribalism and to view most things as a zero sum game.
Most of those people could not provide you with a working definition of Capitalism, if they were asked to.
That's because the system is never described to the People. It is never taught, in our schools, what capitalism really is.
So yes, it becomes a matter of faith for many people.
@@itzenormous Yes it's more conformism to perceived power I think.
@@itzenormous Some words about the economic system called capitalism: However long a series of periodical reproductions and preceding accumulations the capital functioning today may have passed through, it always preserves its original virginity. So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange the mode of appropriation can be completely revolutionised without in any way affecting the property rights which correspond to commodity production.
These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever-increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others
This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from 415 Chapter 24 the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation. (Capital page 415)
Richard Wolff is like the grandad I never had. It's true that I never met my own grandad. But I am glad I met Richard and get to see him teaching me everyday things and empowering me. From what I was told my grandad was a socialist and a worker, all his life. What a coincidence
That's he is endearing to you, *does not mean he is telling you the truth*.
@@TheControlBlue I am sure he is aware of that, maybe you should stop treating everyone like they are three years old.
He is what my immigrant, working-class, English fluent father was in righteous anger…”the rich get richer, the poor get poorer”. “The little man finishes last” “there is not enough compassion in the world”
Professor Wolff ain’t holding back on capitalism today, and we love him for it
You do, perhaps. Wealthy people who want to deny others the same rights and privileges that made themselves wealthy are huge fans of modern socialists. Working people who are successfully providing for themselves and their families in this capitalist system have zero respect whatsoever for demogogues like Richard Wolff trying to demonize rich people to avoid the weakness in their arguments.
Did you write that on an iPhone?
More than anyone else on RUclips Professor Wolff has done more to enlighten us and deepen our understandings.
Your 100% wrong
Seriously do me a favor ask yourself this.
Do i know how value is added or removed from an economic system as a whole? do i even understand how economic growth is created?
If you can't grasp that concept then your in way too deep. you need to understand basic economic principles before you can even grasp how to form any economy.
Can you give me one single example of how value is added to an economy? This is not a capitalism vs socalisum question. This applies to all economics.
@@stuckinthemud4352 Right off the top your idea that economic "growth" is a necessary thing is capitalist. We live on a finite planet. For the rest I am at work and will peruse your question when I have the time.
@@vivalaleta please tell me how value is added and removed in any economic system? Or a citation of somthing you have read that shows it. im not gonna waste my time teaching basic macro economics. u must understand basic economic theory in order to argue about economics. Your starting the conversation by ignoring the question. Pass the test then we can debate about capitalism vs socalisum etc...
Just so u know i haven't even stated what system i support. Adding value ( growth) and subtracting value are the basis for any economy. Including Marxist ones. Im not even ready to discuss what to do about growth/adding value/subtracting value if u cant explain in an understandalble way how value is added as a whole to any economic system.
Just give me one example that actually leads to value being added and removed as a whole.
On a Side note no economy in history has ever flatlined on growth and had a good outcome not one
Nope. He's not enlightening you. He's giving you lies and propaganda.
@@vivalaleta "finite planet" is an idiotic talking point that has no concept of how efficiently resources are used.
"History is just new people making old mistakes"
Siegmund Freud
Thank you sir for telling it like it is! I love it! And you're right, capitalism doesn't lift up people's standard of living. Workers demanding better benefits and working conditions do! If it were up to the capitalists we would all be getting paid $3 an hour with zero benefits working 12 hour days, 7 days a week!
Thank you professor Wolff for enlightening us on the flaws of capitalism
The forced 12 hour work day is back. Amazon. TJMax. Arcadia health, inc. Etc,etc
Because living standards are dropping. Why are living standards dropping? Because world governments have become massive inefficient bureaucracies with incredible levels of debt, so we pay more at every level but get less back, and this influences the efficiency and productivity of business also. The work day and all the other worker improvements since the 1800s are not because of workers struggling against capitalists, they are within the context of a Protestant Christian belief system that puts intrinsic value on human life, democracy that gives people the right to self-govern, and capitalism that allows business to function independently from any national or provincial government. Workers struggling outside this context would just be killed or thrown into labor camps; why tolerate workers asking for more benefits when you can use them as slaves for protesting?
When I was advocating for M4A during the last presidential election I ran into all the arguments you are describing here. They really surprised me in the vehemence and lack of facts.
Sometimes I would point out that it was ridiculous to think that the "greatest country in the world" would be brought to ruin financially simply by all US citizens being able to see a Doctor.
That's what "fighting" is all about. If we weren't confronted and opposed in Congress, sometimes on the streets or even at home, we ought to suspect we're on the wrong side.
I wish what Dr Wolff says was true but its not. Actually, all of those improvements came from captialists. For example, FDR and Lincoln was a stanch capitalist. And since there has never been a socialist congressman, all of those things Wolff mentions were implemented by capitalists. Even the major Unions are hard supporters of capitalism. Sure there were some socialist voters who agitated for those things, but ultimately it was granted by capitalists.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 tt would had been a disaster for FDR to let "someone else" make those improvements real.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 your wish has been granted. wolff is correct and you're wrong.
@@PoliticalEconomy101 Bro, you always lick 😋 🥾 boots like this?
But there’s this idiotic notion that the state never appeared but as a burden to capitalism and that it’s thus completely disconnected. No one who argues this seems to know that a state exists to protect property, as John Locke and Adam Smith themselves said.
You are correct, but they meant private property, not common and they forgot to tell that private property came from the plunder of common.
@@owesteen-hansen2152 Now they are polluting the municipal water systems, or at least failing to stop it, while giving control of the water supply to the likes of Nestle & Coca Cola. It's shameful.
The state does not exist to protect property or else it would actually do that. A property protecting property expropriator is a contradiction in terms.
@@ExPwner Why? When property is exprop by the state it becames common property for the common good. God did not create nature for the monopolization of the few. How are you securing equal access to property for all human beings? Large parts of property to day are acquired by force of the strongest, it is expropriated without compensation. That is the reality in USA, where most of the land now private and common property was stolen from the indians, by the right of the strongest.
@@owesteen-hansen2152 no, something taken by the state is not "common good" no matter how many times you repeat it.
God did not create nature for collectivism. "Thou shalt not steal" can ONLY exist with private property, not a commons.
There is no such thing as "equal access." It's a fairy tale.
... THANKYOU.... thankyou....
Thank you very much for setting the records straight.
Like hell, he conflates a fictional concept of all the workers with anti-capitalists and a fictional concept of all the factory owners with capitalists because he can't address the argument which has nothing to do with different people within the system having different views but has everything to do with the SYSTEM. Capitalism is an ECONOMIC SYSTEM, it's not a fucking group of rich people like the stupid ideologues like Richard Wolff want YOU to HATE.
I have studied the rise of the Nazis in 1920's and 1930's Germany in some detail. It is clear to me that they enjoyed almost universal support of the industrialists of their time.
The US industry leaders seem to at least implicitly support the increasingly Fascist Republican Party.
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
sounds more life the democratic party to me..............
wokeism- crt- banning anyone who does not agree with you and free speech if you don't like it. Ah.................does not sound like anyone I know in the republican party.
Universal support is complete exaggeration, some did and some didn't, but like China right now if you do not support them you keep quiet because they will not allow you to buy/sell in China if you criticize emperor Xi. Same in Germany, if you criticize the Nazi regime they will kick you out of the country and you miss out on business opportunities. There is also the context of Bolshevism in Russia, and the Spanish Civil War, so anyone siding with the persecuted religious orthodoxy in either place would find themselves on the side of the Nazis in Germany by default.
You are completely and utterly wrong about support for Republicans in the US, unless your definition of "industrialist" is "anyone who supports Republicans.
There are a few others you could go into. One of them you've talked about elsewhere, which is that statistical reductions in poverty are exaggerated due to the definitions used for "extreme poverty."
Here's another one: capitalism is not a synonym for business. When people say that capitalism has raised standards of living, they mean that businesses have offered jobs and affordable products/innovations. But these are not unique to capitalism; you could also have these things as a result of socialist or worker-led businesses.
Another excellent video from Professor Wolff. Firstly, there is a most vulgar discrepancy which the main stream media deliberately ignores. In the last week we've had Veterans Day and Remembrance Day in the USA and UK. But Russia and China are never mentioned! Despite the fact that in WW2 Russia-USSR lost 20 million people and China lost 30 million people fighting the Axis Powers. Without Russia taking on half the German Army on the Russian eastern front, and China taking on half the Japanese Army in the Orient, then most of the Allied Forces would have ended up as hamburger meat on the beaches of Normandy France.
Secondly, in his 12 volume text 'The World at War' author Winston Churchill says UK, France and USA caused WW2, not Germany. Winston Churchill points out that the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was so severe in its demands for reparations, that it led to starvation in Germany and the collapse of the German Economy. The result... Germany had to go to war or it would cease to exist. This disaster was avoided post WW2 by the USA Marshall Plan which rebuilt Germany. Yes, America does do some marvellous things! But the root of the problem remains, and that is all wars are bankers wars.
Thank you, it's like no soldiers die except ones from AmeriKKKa, not to mention civilians, My Lai massacre I'm looking 👁️ at you
@@Khuno2 At a cost of 27 million dead.
We owe the Soviet Union a debt that can never be repaid.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 well we could have at least made a dent had Truman followed through with FDR's promises.
I’d like to hear more about how the working classes can retake possession of their own worker productivity and innovation, that capitalism credits to the capitalists.
Don't you have an imagination? Can't you picture, in your mind, how this might be accomplished?
Hint: It will never happen through voting or the electoral process.
Thank you for highlighting the true face of capitalism. Many knows this as a fact but refused to acknowledge it.
I refuse to accept blind divisive politics as an argument. Capitalism is an economic system. It's an ECONOMIC SYSTEM. It does not bestow perfect morality on people, but it's a fuck-tonne better than what liars and charlatans like Wolff would propose.
Fantastic report! I agree 100%
Right on, Wolff! You are the best of the best.
Exactly so and well stated Mr Wolf. Thank you yet again for a tidbits of the truth.
it drive me nuts when people be like 'venezuela!' And then I'm like, 'scandinavia!' and then they tell me to move there, and i'm like 'i would if i could.'
If you believe that Scandinavian countries are 'Socialist' countries, then you have a lot of learning to do.
The reason that Venezuela, or any country, struggles, is because the largest and most dominate empire in the history of the world has its boot on the necks of the Venezuelan People. Maybe you should stress THAT point to these ignoramuses?
@@itzenormous wrong. Venezuela failed because of socialism. If you spent two minutes doing your homework you'd see that it had crises long before any sanctions were imposed. Try again.
@@ExPwner you are the one that needs to do his home work under the rule of capitalism most people were dirt poor more than half could not afford to go to the doctor and the moment Chaves was
elected the sanctions begun
Despite sanctions, Venezuela lives better than its neighbors Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras. There are six million Colombian economic and political refugees in Venezuela; and they do not want to go back to their country. They prefer to suffer in socialist Venezuela. Now, when thousands of Central Americans are trekking to Rio Grande, the US should take care of them instead of worrying about Venezuela. The current exodus occurs in the most obliging client-states of Washington. We also learned that the US stole $31 billion of Venezuelan assets and gave 1 (one) billion to the Random Guy they appointed as Venezuelan President.
@@fred6319 wrong. Sanctions started after the crises, not before.
@@ExPwner and what part of
under the rule of capitalism most people were dirt poor more than half could not afford to go to the doctor don't you understand?
Thank you Professor The Truth shall make us free. Eventually. God bless you. Keep you hands on the plough and hold on.
Finally someone mentioned WW1...
We had to fight for every thing we achieved for the middle class and we are still fighting, wake up America.
I'm fully awake, you're sleeping. They've taught you this same BS all the way through public school but you think this is some amazing revelation? If the US were not a capitalist country you would not have had the freedom to fight for anything. A prerequisite for a free people is a free market economy. Go try to protest for worker's rights in North Korea or China right now, good luck. Capitalists are not anti-workers-rights, they are self-interested. If you are a worker withdrawing your services en masse until conditions improve that is exactly the same as a drug maker withdrawing their medicine en masse until prices increase, it's a function of the economic system; all workers in a capitalist system are just as much "capitalists" as their bosses.
Always enlightening to see Dr. Wolf explain complex events in terms that even I can understand
Hate the capitalists, got it. They're bad and evil, workers are good, makes sense right? This is not explaining, this is demogoguery.
Listen, Prof Dr. Wolff on fleek! 💯💭 Boom💥
And the anarchists.
Read about the Haymarket affair, which happened during the 8 hour workday campaign.
Prof. Wolff 💯🙌
Thank you for these rebuttals.
In the UK, the government (Conservative) is increasingly taxing more heavily to the extent that workers of moderate income are being taxed at the "higher tax rate". Tax allowances have been frozen or reduced meaning that people who have done the right thing (such as saving more for a rainy day) are being taxed. This is unfair and is against the basic principle of the Conservative Party. Prices of ordinary products are getting more expensive. Many people are living in hardship.
Because there are no conservative parties, they were all gutted by the false accusations of leftists long ago. All conservatives who spoke honestly about womens rights, gay rights, trans rights, or immigration in the UK would be called sexist, bigoted, hateful racists and forced to resign, lose any donations, or lose their next election. This is the state of modern discourse. People like Wolff are not helping at all as he would have you believe there's this fictional class of people called "capitalists" who you should hate.
I was enlightened on watching this video.
Yes , I had a fair wealthy friend who had put forward to me the opening arguments on the goods of capitalism. I didn't know enough then to response. Now I do.
Yes, now you can say he's an evil capitalist who hates workers rights. Why not just repeat Wolff's words exactly, go lose your rich friend, that will be great.
@@gorkyd7912 not all wealth from exploiting others. He made his monies from works and got paid well for his efforts.
His situation could well be alien to you residing in an economy where exploitations are common.
@@wongcy713 My point is Wolff is trying to make you demonize people who are faceless to you. You know your friend, so you know he's not just an evil capitalist who hates and exploits the workers against their will. But somehow you still think there are a bunch of other evil capitalists, including me of course because I disagree with Richard Wolff and he's a good guy. Where does this friend live and what does he do for a living? If you would like me to demonize this friend using common Marxist talking points I will gladly enlighten you to how disingenuous and toxic this belief system is. I have had conversations with Marxists for over 20 years, I guarantee I can accurately reproduce their criticisms of your friend's life without building a straw man.
@@gorkyd7912 nay. I was just having a dialogue with my friend.
Yes! This is what being American is all about, what we should be proud of. lt was Americans who fought decades for things like the 8 hr work day. It was Americans who pressured FDR into New Deal policies.
Agreed. It really is too bad that right wingers are trying to co-opt the word patriot. By calling themselves patriots, it suggests that anyone opposed to them
is not a patriot. It's a tricky gimmick, but easy to see through.
Thank you 🌎✊️🌹🗽
Prof Wolff. I'm a big fan of your platform. Thanks for the constant education. Q: How are you feeling? Have noticed you have bandages on your scalp....
I might be weird but I love both Jordan Peterson and Prof Wolff. Both have excellent arguments.
Problem is Wolff understands capitalism, Peterson doesn't understand anything leftist and admits hes never read the literature.
@@bigbillhaywood1415 no he doesn't. Wolff lies about capitalism constantly to shill for your money.
big thanks
The politicians talked about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour but that is so far behind the cost of living which is around $23 per hour . Go figure.
All of those distortions about "mass deaths" are exactly that - distortions.
We've all heard that Stalin and Mao murdered 6 trillion people and were responsible for plagues and famines, as if both of these men somehow controlled the weather or the elements.
And, anytime that I have been told, by someone, about all of these 'millions of people' that died because of communism, I have made it a point to ask them for specifics.
Please provide me with the names, the dates, the location, and the circumstances surrounding just one of these "mass slaughters" that certainly must have taken place ... if 50 million people were killed.
As of the present moment, I have YET to have even ONE of these people provide me with an answer.
If you're going to assert that "So and So" was responsible for murdering "60 million people," then it stands to reason that you would be able to provide the context and the circumstance under which at least SOME of these people were killed. But they can't provide the information, because it doesn't exist.
We can see, today, how the bourgeois press and the US Government constantly lie and spew disinformation about Cuba, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Russia, China, Syria, Iran et cetera, but we somehow imagine that these same sources have, in the past, been completely truthful about the Soviet Union? No, of course not. Take the amount of dishonesty and treachery that they employ against the previously mentioned countries, and then multiply that times 100. That's the level of dishonesty and distortion that was used, and is still used, to warp public opinion on the subject matter.
Nah, it's a fact that Stalin and Mao were mass murderers and capitalism doesn't have that death toll.
The capitalist system is like an abusive spouse who assaults you, steals from you, tells you that their abuse was your fault, then demands praise for achievements that they attempted to prevent. ✊🏼
Say it, Brother!
Once again, the Wolff brings down his prey. :)
You sir are a man of truth. Ty
Your videos are a gift mate
Its nice that we can at least still have these debates openly. The thing I fear is that a really severe crisis may cause the “debate” to devolve to violence and oppression. I don’t think either side ever admits the truth… that when there is a true violent clash between the haves and have-not, no matter which side “wins”, the aftermath is a period where free debate is gone and control is through fear and violence. Capitalists call communists violent and murderous, but communists will say the exact same thing of capitalists. The truth is open violent class conflict will probably go this way no matter which side “wins” in the end. In the US they tell you about Castro in Cuba, but they don’t like to talk about Indonesia or Chile, or even that it was not just Ashkenazi Jews, but also socialists who were executed in HUGE numbers in Nazi concentration camps.
A debate would be great but I don't see how labelling a fictional class of people "capitalists" and then blaming them for all the problems with the system, while giving all the credit for improvements to a fictional class called "workers" is any argument for or against capitalism. Needless to say, I don't support socialists because their articulation of a better system always comes down to "put us in charge and find out." Democracy is fragile, I haven't seen any socialist democracies... ever.
DAMN STRAIGHT!!!! GO WOLFFMAN GO!!!!
I am currently debating this defense by libertarians on a video comments section from a video titled Hitlers National Socialism Was Left-wing Socialism by TIK history or something close to that idea.
It is economic illiteracy par excellence and intellectual futility like no where else seen on earth. By arguing free markets = capitalism so national socialism having state control in the economy = "left wing socialism". The video creator uses pseudo history like Vampire Economy and von Mises and conflated definitions to flip and flop over a 5 hour long video complete with built in defenses refuting basic reality and logic but it is good for some giggles and I feel it is important to set the record straight. Thanks for the video and for addressing this here and I knew Dr. Wolf would provide.
100% correct !!!
Excellent.
Bawerk also didn’t predict that nearly all the innovation came out of the state sector rather than the private markets. Take every component in your iPhone - if you go through then you’ll find the early hard and innovative work was always from the non-profit state, not from profit based sector: GPS, the silicon chip design (even Intel 4040 was for traffic lights funded by the state), the Von Neumann computer design (university salary funded), the modern programming languages (all minor variants of Algol 69, state funded), the inportant internet protcols (http, https, etc), the first web browser, touch screen technology.. or modern passenger planes being minor variants of state funded bombers.. all the really difficult early risky work where the real innovation was, came out out of the state sector, which didn’t require a profit mandate, and then handed over to the private sector for relatively trivial, far less innovative and risk, incremental and profitable work.
Outstanding stuff
How do you feel about participatory economics? What do you think about the 1/5 and 4/5 stuff Michael Albert speaks of? Both of you have some overlaps in style and nature of making points
Britain presided over 12 major famines in India murdering over 60 million. The last great famine was the Bengal Famine of 1943 . This happened as Indian troops were fighting for European democracy while India was ruled by decree. How many famines after independence? None. Famine has always been used as means to control rebellion?
Excellent
Conservatives won't be happy until they make off hour living conditions just as unpleasantly dictatorial as working hours with a REALLY bad employer. In fact you can look forward to working more hours for the same pay because that will be more profitable for the rich.
The greed of a few will doom the many
No hat.
😢
Capitalism is about work work work and making money at any cost. This is why capitalism does not work if you work for someone else.. it only works with those who have their own business you have something of value to sell or two offer actually.
Professor Wolff is fucking pissed today and I love it.
Straight 🔥
It's capitalist that should be used as a pejorative not socialist.
Capitalism's defenses are great; however, I like communism's defenses even better. 😂
I don't understand the use of capitalism more and more. Is collective bargaining not something that can fit in the ideas of "capitalism."
Did capitalism develop out of the a changing technology which required an ethico-religious sanction such as Protestantism, or did the Protestant ethic give rise to a type of economic behavior?
The hat was cool doc. Still like your videos
Let us not become de-radicalized by peripheral activism (identity politics, GREEN stuff, etc.). That's not to say they are bad...but they can easily be co-opted by the bourgeois. Do you know what the bourgeois will never co-opt? The movement of socialism itself. That's what we have to stick to. Hurrah for Rick Wolff and his commentaries!
I personally consider identity politics a tool of distraction.
@@yoshimansxl I have the exact same opinion on that matter. It's just too useful to the establishment parties. All they have to make are symbolic gestures which are worth less than nothing to the 99%/the working class. It's a perfect way for them to simply look like they're doing something with a lot of talk.
Actually I don't think capitalism is the dominant Force I think its shares it with socialism that both a force to be reckoned with and they both do work if done right.. but it's also open to abuse as well like everything else..
You MUST be a teenager? Am I right?
@@itzenormous projection from the socialist.
Wolff has a lot of good observations but I would never use the word "capitalism". Because is capitalism not always going to be with us? Wasn't that the whole lesson of the Cold War? Using the words, "capitalism" and "socialism" gives the rich an opportunity to marginalize one. We need a modified system. We can aim to be like the more humane and mixed economies of Western Europe. Any other goal is to write "witch" on a piece of paper and pin it to our back.
Capitalism once won doesn't mean that it is the all time winner or it is the highest stage of human society. Evolution is still happening both biologically and socially. Also before Capitalism there was feudalism. Capitalism is just a stage of Human society. Also the social democracies and the welfare states are built through the exploitation of the the global South. Oppression of workers by capitalists is inherent to Capitalism irrespective of it's form.
Facism is actually a capitalist thing, capitalism is required in order to have the melding of state and corporate power that is facism.
Fascism is capital's defense against socialism.
Nope, it's a socialist thing. Capitalism has nothing to do with the state.
Capitalism , Fascism & Fanaticism does anyone see any difference . These Mixed breeds follow the same Religion so long as it serves them well .
What about the wealth created though Professor? You side stepped that. What are your thoughts on that? Could socialism have created that? I have a very hard time believing it could.
Are you referring to the wealth "created" by raping and robbing Latin America and Africa, the wealth "created" through exploitation of the working class, or the wealth "created" by raping and polluting the forests, rivers, oceans, and air?
@@internetwonderbuilder4741 in Australia, where i am from, a working class miner, earns an average of $100,000 per year. I am refering to this wealth. I am referring to the plumber or carpenter who graduated trade school and earns $100,000/year. Im referring to the wealth of an individual, i know personally, who grew up close to poverty line and got a scholarship to law school and now earns $180,000 + per year. Or i could refer to myself who started with $100 in my early 20s and started a website and sold it in my mid 20s for close to half one million dollars. Are you saying these working class individuals, who were born poor, are not wealthy? Or that these working class individuals, myself included, are raping?
That is who i am referring to.
@@LL-wc4wn how are your aborigines faring under your system? Serious question here, but if the average aborigine were asked whether he wished the English had arrived and taken over his lands or not, if he could wish you descendants of criminals back to the gloomy island(s) you originated from, would he? Is he grateful for your enlightened Anglo wisdom and gadgets? Is he grateful to have been indoctrinated into christianity less than a hundred years ago by the anglo who now marginalizes him for believing in spirits and being a "superstitious primitive"? Does your system work for everyone, or just some? Here in the US, the question isn't how much wealth has been produced but how it has been distributed. You know the statistics about the one percent and so on. Our government hides the scale of poverty in the US routinely, I doubt anyone who hasn't been here recently is aware of how bad it is. Nobody wants stalinism, but the current state of affairs is not acceptable for the majority.
@@internetwonderbuilder4741 thanks for sharing your thoughts. Good luck to you
@@LL-wc4wn thank you, and good luck to you as well. Please forgive my choleric tone, I forget that not everyone online is unreasonable.
But Venazuela.
But gulags.
But Holodomor.
This reminds me of the debate with destiny where Steven had to resort to lies
Where's the 🤠🤠 hat 🤠🤠??
Facts
I will take a guess / / / / / / / /
a small few . . . . reaped the profits . . . . . the masses not so much
inequality multipled big time
who ended up with the resources, natural and otherwise ?
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." So the initial Communists stole the land of the BEST farmers. Their replacements were incompetents and, so, periodic famines. Then in 1933 there was the Ukrainian Holodomor when the competent Ukraine farmers had their land stolen and, subsequently, somewhere between 4 and 6 million Ukrainians were starved to death. In more modern times, you go into a Gum department store and the staff might not even pay attention to customers. We MUST reward innovation and excellence. Mr. Wolff's ideology is a prescription for mediocrity. Mediocrity like most CO-OPS. Venture money doesn't fund co-ops because they're historically weak because dead wood isn't chopped.
❤️
Respectfully, but I disagree. Fascism was Italian, not German. Germany wanted autarchy, and it's system was national socialism. Yes; Krupp was a high ranking guy; but the state set almost all prices.
The state in germany (1930-1940) set almost ALL wages, ALL transportation costs (the reichsbahn for example wasn't allowed to even ask high prices). Prices for Coal (aka energy in that time) were fixed. Under Stalin, the "bourgousie"; aka the jews, were very methodically eradicated, albeit not on the same scale as what the nazi's did.
On the side, the defense of capitalism claiming socialism has a worse track record is fairly weak. I'm fairly sure both costed roughly the same amount of human loss.
Capitalism in the democratic form is an obvious faillure due to it's inherent bureaucracy and stagnation. Socialism in the USSR form is also an obvious faillure due to corruption, stagnation and in-effecient use of resources. Look up operation Keelhaul, and you'll see how much Sovjet soldiers "loved" their country.
I can think of only one form of society / governement that actually works; a benevolent dictator, but that has it's own set of problems.
Wow! Thanks for the history lesson! Today I learned that nazi Germany wasn't fascist because some anonymous know it all on RUclips said so! The world doesn't deserve your brilliance!
❤️🇨🇳🇻🇳🇱🇦🇨🇺❤️
Capitalism is cringe. Socialism is based. 😁
Peoples Republic of China combines socialism with the capitalism advocated by Chiang Kai Shek. Chiang Kai Shek founded Taiwan.
@@HarrySmith-hr2iv Nope. they followed Marx's plan.
More closely than the Soviet Union did.
You can argue whether that is better or worse.
But they did it.
Socialism is garbage. Capitalism is based.
PRC is imperialist revisionist
In my view, the "perfect model" of capitalism was the chattel slavery of the ante-bellum Southern plantation. I think that's not an ideal to which we should aspire.
That's absolutely nonsensical.
"In every case, the improvements were opposed by capitalists." This is like saying Democracy isn't good for people because they argue about things in parliament. Capitalism is the ECONOMIC SYSTEM under which all the improvements came. Wolff disingenuously trying to divide the working class from the "capitalists" within that system is just bullshit divisionism. Some capitalists liked the improvements, some didn't. Some capitalists support the minimum wage, some don't. Some parliamentarians vote for socialism, some don't. Some working class people support Wolff's insane bullshit, some don't.
They can say the same thing about socialism..
Why FUDGE the definition of socialism at its introduction ?
I already had gathered a proper definition from this same speaker. Socialism must be worker ownership, democracy at work, absolutely not dictatorship nor fascism nor so-called communism but he glued them together here.
Next.
Socialism from a Marxist view is the transitional stage from Capitalism to communism. It is the dictatorship of the proletariats.
It should be pointed out that US corporations were also involved with Hitler’s regime. Also, the United States did not enter the European theater until the Soviet union started pushing Germany back. Germany was defeated, the Nazis were always here in the US. Also, please learn the definition of capital. We do not live in capitalism, we live in feudalism. As your discussion with the former Greek finance minister proves, we live in feudalism. In fact, you and David Harvey, always describe feudalism every time you speak out against capitalism.
The United States didn’t enter until after Pearl Harbour. Hitler declared war on the USA the following day. Russia didn’t start the push back until 1943 two years after the US entered the war. It was the Russians that won the Second World War.
It's called neo-feudalism because of the dommination of Finance capital, lnsurance und Real Estate i.e. FIRE.
True that, huge sellout Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in the 30s
Why does everyone always confuse capital with currency? I agree, the Russians won the war. The Russians faced over 200 divisions of the German army. The allies only had to face 10 or 20. Apparently, Hitler was inspired by the United States. Also, Hitler could never have achieved what he did without outside help.
@@Guitarpima Hitler’s inspiration for his ‘final solution’ came from General W. Tecumseh Sherman’s, Scorched Earth tactics against Native Americans, commander of the Union army against the South is the true father of Nazism, and perhaps you should define ‘Capital’ for clarification.
one of the biggest surpises to me is that everyone says we pulled the world out of poverty as well, but if you look at the list of countries that have seen the big improvements its mostly former soviet bloc and china, while we omit our handling of the 3rd world after ww2 and the billions of people who starved under the the american wing.
The only criticism I have with Dr. Wolf is his continued description of the western economic system as Capitalism. Its not. It 's really a form of Corporate Mercantilism. Enacting policies that benefit businesses at the expense of the consumer and a competitive market. Sheldon Wolin calls it Inverted totalism. Noam Chomsky calls it "Really Existing Capitalist Democracy" or RECD. John Ralston Saul describes it as a corporate Coup d'etate.
So in your world the working class does not exist and neither the class war between labor and capital that Wollf describes, refuting the first false argument. Mercantilism came before the fysiokrats and Smith&Ricardo with labor as the source of wealth. Merchants are not producers and do not buy labor to produce. You have to distinguish between Industrial, Finance and Merchant capital. Merchant and Bank Capital existed long before capitalism. Already in Greek and Roman slave societies and in feudalism you will find them.
I'm catching libertarian vibes here, are you against age of consent laws because it's government interference against forming a contract with a teenager for sex?
Mercantilism never existed in America. It's a transition system between feudalism and capitalism, which originated in the Italian city states in the 15th century and eventually lead to the first truly multinational corporation, the Dutch VOC, in the 17th century. Whereas in feudalism the power lies with the aristocracy and with capitalism with the owner class, with mercantilism the power lies with the merchant class. Mercantilism vanished with the industrial revolution and the rise of the capital owner class, mid 19th century.
Also what could be described as "working class" is different. In feudalism is was the peasants, with mercantilism it were indentured servants and slaves and with capitalism it is the employee. Needless to say, in all three systems the "working class" was used by means of exploitation to generate surplus, and thus profit.
All three authors you mention describe the levers of power in a capitalist system, not much unlike Macchiavelli described the levers of power in a feudal and early mercantilist system (immensely promoting the divine right of kings in order to keep the mercantilists at bay).
Capital is capital. No distinction is needed, because the system by definition implies who has the means to generate surplus and hence holds all the power.
@John Niki: You write word salads. Nothing more.
However long a series of periodical reproductions and preceding accumulations the capital functioning today may have passed through, it always preserves its original virginity. So long as the laws of exchange are observed in every single act of exchange the mode of appropriation can be completely revolutionised without in any way affecting the property rights which correspond to commodity production. These same rights remain in force both at the outset, when the product belongs to its producer, who, exchanging equivalent for equivalent, can enrich himself only by his own labour, and also in the period of capitalism, when social wealth becomes to an ever increasing degree the property of those who are in a position to appropriate continually and ever afresh the unpaid labour of others. This result becomes inevitable from the moment there is a free sale, by the labourer himself, of labour-power as a commodity. But it is also only from then onwards that commodity production is generalised and becomes the typical form of production; it is only from then onwards that, from the first, every product is produced for sale and all wealth produced goes through the sphere of circulation. Only when and where wage labour is its basis does commodity production impose itself upon society as a whole; but only then and there also does it unfold all its hidden potentialities. To say that the supervention of wage labour adulterates commodity production is to say that commodity production must not develop if it is to remain unadulterated. To the extent that commodity production, in accordance with its own inherent laws, develops further, into capitalist production, the property laws of commodity production change into the laws of capitalist appropriation.
Even the vast increases in productivity and material abundance under capitalism a) are down to improving technology and the spread of education and science rather than the capitalists, who only exploited those improvements for profits, b) have caused as many environmental problems, social dislocations, and more destructive wars as they have brought benefits, and c) were all still produced by workers, in the R&D department and on the assembly lines, not by absentee investors who don't know a capacitor from a carrot.
LULA ESTADISTA
Pure bullshit.
Umm, I think Marx was still gay!
Too bad William F. Buckley isn't around to debate RW!
Because acting smug and having a smarmy accent is enough to win when you have the backing of a major tv network? Wolff will slaughter Buckley.
go watch buckley get clobbered by gore vidal. it's really good.
@@happy-go-commie That's the point.
Please pick a country in 21st century with socialism/communism system that its citizens have higher living standards and also mention how much invention and innovation of new tech and other products came from that country.
Sweden germany Finland France canada Netherlands Chile etc.
go watch wolff's talk on the mondragon corporation. socialism absolutely improves living standards.
@@TheBigGSN5 Yes and no. The European countries are partially Social Democratic (and yes, partially Neoliberal), but it's still capitalist.
The only functioning countries today that are somewhat "truly socialist" are Vietnam and Singapore. They are doing great by the way.
And Venezuela might be doing great too if it wasn't destroyed by continuiing US sanctions.
Name a communist/socialist country that is not heavily burdened by US-led sanctions. BTW, the UN Peace Council considers sanctions acts of war. Sanctions are not peaceful. Sanctions kill. Think starving to death or not having medications and medical equipment is peaceful?
If socialism is so doomed to failure, why do capitalist countries feel the need to demonize those countries and impose murderous sanctions?
Take a look at the hundreds of thousands of homeless in this country. A minimum of 40,000 Americans die each year from lack of medical care due to expense. Millions skip needed medications because of cost imposed by capitalist corporations. We have the highest infant mortality and lowest life expectancy of any developed country. We rank somewhere around #47 on education. #11 of 11 countries ranked for quality of medical care.
So, where is this idea of this country having some higher quality of life coming from, aside from your own imagination?
Standard of living comes not from capitalism, but from looting the global south.
Compare standards of living for socialist countries before and after they go socialist. The look at USSR before the betrayal, and after.
There's your comparison.
Peoples Republic of China combines socialism with the capitalism advocated by Chiang Kai Shek. Chiang Kai Shek founded Taiwan. I've worked in The Peoples Republic of China for a UK company. There are many USA and European companies doing business in The Peoples Republic of China (capital Beijing.).
@Tim Loo1 The Roc is dead. True. And the Chinese Dragon lives on well in Beijing.
You are angry because you think you are a victim of the system. I thank god everyday that I was born into a country that has embraced the free market. I started with nothing, but with hard work and risking my own money I've done OK. Anyone can succeed in a free market economy if you are prepared to work hard. Envy makes people bitter. Don't envy other people, if they got their money fairly then for every dollar they have, they had to give a dollar to society. The top 20% pay 80% of the tax. Blaming the world war deaths on capitalism is just bazar, you need to do your research. There have been wars for ever. The unions did some good work but their power got too big and they decimated these industries. If you don't like what your job pays then get out of it, change industries. You will find that the jobs people don't want to do pay the best money. You are the master of your own destiny, work long hours if you want to get ahead. And if you don't like free market capitalism choose a socialist country to move to, Venezuela, Cuba, Zimbabwe, North Korea, take your pick!!
I wish what Dr Wolff says was true but its not. Actually, all of those improvements came from captialists. For example, FDR and Lincoln was a stanch capitalist. And since there has never been a socialist congressman, all of those things Wolff mentions were implemented by capitalists. Even the major Unions are hard supporters of capitalism. Sure there were some socialist voters who agitated for those things, but ultimately it was granted by capitalists.
your wish has been granted. wolff is correct and you're wrong. these days unions leadership has been captured by the oligarchy but decades ago communists, socialists and unions threatened fdr with a revolution. that's how the new deal came about.
"Sure there were some socialist voters who agitated for those things, but ultimately it was granted by capitalists."
This phrase is crucial. The agitation brought about the idea and it was granted, with emphasis on granted, by the capitalists in power.
But the employer class never initiated improvements themselves, and only submitted to it when they had absolutely no other choice and outright oppression was not an option.
Bad comment. If capitalists did something *against* the capitalist ideals, you can't credit that to capitalism. At all.
I think what you really want to say is that the wealth that makes socialist ideas possible can only be obtained through capitalism. But that's a separate debate.
@@PropagandasaurusRex outright falsehood.
@@ExPwner If you know better, please enlighten me with your truth. With sources please.
Monumental BS.
The facts given in the video?
@B Bates Please shed some light on the BS before one goes away thinking there's some merit to the arguments laid out here.
Strawman… Proff. Wolff used clear and definitive evidence to support his thesis.
Statements completly without any argument are BS of astronomical proportions and the same with the level of narcissism that hides behind the letters.
Political Science is also science- if you can present clear arguments and convince us of your view, you will get all of us' respect. Just calling BS without presenting any arguments though, is something else.