Just heard that 67% of workers surveyed 'hate' their jobs. That's the death of a society. I spent my career in a non-profit co-op of 15 physicians contracted to provide medical and academic support to a major university medical center. Many of my graduating residents earned a lot more than I, but I actually loved my job, the work, the research, the teaching. Most of my former residents opted to concentrate on accumulating wealth and toys, because their work became a boring job on the factory floor.
Oh I think it is higher than that... imagine if they asked kids, "what do you love so we can see how you will help society" before you get your education. Instead the line is "go to college so you can get a job that pays you more than other."
More importantly, most workers believe their jobs are irrelevant. We’ve been trained to believe our jobs are our only validation. When you’re no longer relevant... opioids?
@@robertbritt6134 It's because humanity is being left behind by those with who should do better. Automation should have allowed people to understand the meaning of life by allowing ppl to "work" at jobs that reflect what they love aka related to a hobby so that it furthers this. But instead Automation has been used to create elites who are "wealthier" than ever and the ppl are told the lie that "you only need to work hard." Imagine if society only had to work 20 hours and the other 20 is used to become a better partner, friend, teammate, etc. They don't want that bc ppl would actually see the greed that is running this world. Ppl are overworked, stressed, etc so they have no power or energy to understand what is happening. Just sad.
You people act like work hasn’t been around for all of human history. Everyone just complains about everything. You have to work to make money. If you don’t want money don’t work. Be homeless but don’t steal from those who go out and earn for themselves.
@@joebin3286 Except you totally miss what everyone is talking about. I don't know if you're stupid or dishonest. Capitalism is not about money or trade or markets. It's about who owns the things that make the stuff. All the things you mention, predate capitalism. Lemme ask you this: As time goes by, less and less people won more and more. And, less and less workers are needed to do the work. Sooner or later it's going to end up with one person owning everything, and zero workers needed. What then? Do those people have a right to the fruits of the labour they and their ancestors put in to get that? Or is it right that they all starve? Answer the question.
America has no idea what Socialism is and is not well defined by his talks.. it is confused with communism USSR style. 🙄😳 When people live in a 'society' there is an obligation to care for all members in a fair manner. Strength & leadership transition through our lives from vulnerable infants and aged, to a time when we are strong enough to lead & work. Capitalism has lead to impending genocide today.
This system is corporatism a hybrid of socialism and capitalism that benefits the the very wealthy and politically connected. I don't see how democratic socialism would fair much better with past failures. You can change the name and fluff it up but it will still lead down to over bloated bureaucracy but he let's give democratic socialism a try.
@@Jan_YTview Fairness is subjective. I guess you believe giving the government a business that someone else built isn't stealing that is "fair". This idiot on the video talks in circles and slow because apparently most of his audience needs that to understand basic sentences. give me one example of a government program that is ran properly and has 0 funding issues.
@@joebin3286 I never said to give gov an existing business by theft. Australia has 'privatised' energy, education, construction by selling assets at solid prices. Gov does NOT have to be a thief to steal a business to make things fairer. How about taxpayers paying a fair price for the public good. Let's face it, during the GFC taxpayers bailed out private enterprise with tax dollars.. Capitalism is broken, cannot be redeemed and a social upheaval will put those who are 'perceived ' to be blamed in peril for their very lives. 😱😰😧
Because revolution is the fire of our will and a need of our solitary minds; it is an obligation of the libertarian aristocracy. To create new ethical values. To create new aesthetic values. To communalize material wealth. To individualize spiritual wealth.
fuck you, i am not your comrade i am an AMERICAN . Marxism is an ideology based on all of the theories of Karl Marx. Communism is an economic and political system. According to Karl Marx, socialism precedes and eventually evolves into communism.
As someone who grew up in Yugoslavia, it really bothers me that he never mentioned Yugoslav self-governing 'Social Property' (as it was called). My fathers company was self governed, market oriented and very successful, providing us very nice living standard. I never seen anywhere workers so loyal and devoted, as the guys who worked at his company, cos it was their company.
This is a very weird way to view Capitalism. Do you realize that your life as a poor person today is much better than any other time in human history. What is responsible for the poverty rate declining over the last century. It damn sure wasn't socialism. Humans are more innovative and create things that benefit the population in a free market society. People like you that do not have the ability to create jobs and products for others to benefit from get jobs making them. It isn't slavery because truth be told you are actually being paid enough and much more than the jobs that are offshored. Stop being jealous and go earn your living. No one is going to give you the things you want.
Not only the table but the food, plate, utensils, tablecloth, floor, house, on and on and on. Use values are exclusively the social product of human brain and muscle (the labour theory of value). We proletarians (the vast majority of humanity worldwide) need not beg but organise to expropriate society's productive forces from private ownership and hold them collectively as the common property of the proletariat as a whole. The producers can then organise social production and distribution in a way we decide.
@@joebin3286 have you seen the poverty that cutthroat capitalism creates. Do you care? Is capitalism the best system? Capitalism is terrible and we can do better.
I have worked with worker co-ops here in the US. From talking to the people that work there it was hard to implement due to the greed and power hungry people in the US that has been inherent in capitalism. As of this year they say it has finally leveled out and is working great. This is the 10th year for some of these companies and myself and many others would love to work for them. Their quality of work and personal self accomplishment has increased through the years.
Capitalism OWN most creative product, they don't generate creativity. If capitalism can't create them, they buy them from people who created them. One of the most important concept big tech company feed on is Intellectual Property: "I created it first so I can make money from it. " Which is acceptable to most. But if this concept can be bought, the chain of reasons become: 1.I have money, so I can buy IP from others. 2.I have my IP, so I can make money from it And if shorten it, it become: I have money, so I can make money from it And this is what capitalism is about, always.
@@joebin3286 You are absolutely right, that without profit, Mondragon, as it exists now, would fall apart. I'm not exactly sure how this democracy in the workshop would get rid of capital accumulation, market domination, plutocracy etc.
@@billyoldman9209 IT does not. What it does is fixes one of the major problems of capitalism. Will you vote to close the plant and send it overseas, to save money, if you work there? No. So that does not happen. Which means that money stays locally. And there are no billionaires to run off with all the loot. And no billionaires forcing the politics to accommodate them. And if the board is doing bad things, the workers simply replace them. Any wealth that builds up is shared by the workers, enriching them, and the economy. TLDR: no billionaires.
What one aspect of Socialism means to me is, our tax dollars will go back to the people and not to corporate welfare and the military industrial complex.
Exactly. The State is not needed. The neo-marxist left and left-com groups also approve of the phrase: "Taxation is theft". This is what right-libertarians and similar anti-statist right-wingers fail to understand. While they remain ignorant, they will simply keep thinking socialism and communism are "big government".
And 25 million illegals and their anchor babies, Welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, endless wars, prisons, police officers, bail outs. But you weren't listening, he said government will be in control, YOUR SCREWED!
How do you figure your tax dollars will go to the people? Communist leaders line their own pockets first, Richard mentioned this at the beginning of the speech.
Could you do a video on Yugoslavia under Tito's leadership? Sounds pretty similar to your ideas. I've heard good things about Yugoslavian Socialism too, workers definitely loved co-ops.
Professor Wolff, this is such a great analysis like most of your works. If you see my comment, my brother and I are starting a podcast in which we try to make Socialism, Marxism, States, Democracy and other leftist content more accessible and palatable like you have. We would love to talk with you if you get a moment in your busy schedule.
Professor Wolff, as always I am so illuminated by your videos. You take complex ideas and make them understandable. You're objective and critical. And, you separate fact from fiction - in easily understandable ways. I couldn't understand politics or economics, because they were so complex. As a result, I ignored them - to my great detriment. Then, I saw you on RT - on Thom Hartmann's show. I didn't even know you existed, up until that point. You've broadened my understanding of economics, politics, and their relationship with one another - and the effect they have on....everything. I'm happy to have discovered you. Thank you for your efforts and the efforts of your colleagues.
About the "Capitalism is innovative" part; What Prof. Wolff tells is half true. The big companies steal innovations, those people who part ways with the big companies do their own projects, develop them, crowdfund them somehow and successfully deliver them to the donators. However, big companies skim through these crowdfunding sites for successful projects and copy them, manufacture them for way cheaper, efficient and with higher quality and cut through the small developers profits, in most cases suffocating them financially. The best example for this would be the Asus mini pc, a credit card sized fully functional personal computer with only low specs. This was originally an individuals project and just before he was about to deliver, Asus already discovered and manufactured massive amounts of the same product and started selling them for a much cheaper price. A guy here on RUclips, channel name is StopDrop&Retro explains this in more detail and defines this as "the early worm effect". For anyone thats interested, the guy i mentioned explains it around the 6:50 mark of this video; ruclips.net/video/YKyWSc_eDqA/видео.html
Prof. Wolff, you should give a talk in disputing the lecture/book by Prof. Thomas J. DiLorenzo from Mises University on his 10 points why Socialism fails to deliver.
All in all, I enjoyed this talk, however, I would take issue a bit with the fact that Prof. Wolff never brings up Tito's Yugoslavia as an example where worker self-management had successfully existed on a large scale and overall can serve as an example of socialist economic development that was actually somewhat positive and democratic. For more information, I'd suggest reading: “Titoism; Pattern for International Communism”, by Charles P. McVicker”, and the chapter on the economy from “Yugoslavia: a country study.” Additionally, I'd also recommend the chapters on Yugoslavia in “Class Struggle in Socialist Poland”, by Albert Szymanski which deal specifically with some of the failings of Yugoslav socialism, particularly the decade of market-oriented reforms throughout the 60s and 70s. archive.org/details/titoismpatternfo012623mbp ia601205.us.archive.org/18/items/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0.pdf archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland Also I want to recommend a small book that speaks to the subject of socialism in the U.S. called “Americanism and Social Democracy” by John Spargo. It's not necessarily a complete history or some sort of encyclopedia on Socialism in America as a whole, but I feel it can be really helpful by providing some really good historical background and important information that I think is lacking among the anti-establishment left. archive.org/details/americanismsocia00sparuoft/page/n6
Also he always (at least from all videos I have seen till now) misses about Paris commune and revolutionary catalonia. These were super democratic and really communist States, Catalonia being far superior over commune. This is mistake all Marxists do, only go on talking about failed states like USSR and never say about these States. This give strength to bourgeoisie dogma that communism never existed and it's no more than utopia
Macro Socialism isn't about state ownership. It's when the people, all citizens, whether they work or not, whether they are disbled or retired or not, it's when they own all means of production in a civilization. The problem is how to manage all of that. We could manage it as a Participatory Democracy, where all citizens could vote on all decisions. Or a Representative Democracy, where the people vote for those that make decisions for them. If it's a dictatorship it's not Socialism. The dictator could have socialist policies or ideologies, but the system isn't Socialism. There's a lot to keep in mind about the complexity of this system. Micro Socialism in the other hand makes things more simple for the avarage citizen. It's the next step!! I just hope we're not too late!
Learn Socialist Justice for macro Socialism, you mean!? But is the state even necessary with Participatory Democracy? In that case, the state would be the people, and not a small number of elected officials, like a Representative Democracy. And if we can’t elect the state isn’t it a dictatorship?
D' Essay I agree. That’s why I said there’s a lot to keep in mind about the complexity of this system. And you exemplified it very well with social contamination due to centuries of capitalist exploitation.
I wanted to study economics once, but after I asked a friend who was studying it about Marx and he just laughed and said, that Marx, Engels etc. will never be part of the curriculum I am glad that I didn't.
What Richard Wolff is promoting is called "market socialism". I used to be one, but there's another hard reality in achieving socialism than just revolution: there's a global capitalist hegemony that contradicts with a socialist system. History has shown that every socialist system without exception, already being one or about to be one, has faced external aggression, and no wonder, the socialist system declares war on capital itself. Having a strong state is not ideal: _"So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."_ - V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution But having it is a necessity. A legitimate state favored by the proletarians does not need to enforce its rule dictatorially, and can exist with Soviet Democracy and Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That is, the state being built from bottom to top via democratically elected soviets, that are all subject to recall by their electors without exception, having the people armed, and organized in to a universal militia.
I remember this optimism back in the 1990"s when I was generating my political ideals. As i'm not a conservative these ideals were based on principles and societal concepts. So after observing the generational societal trends over that period I now have the ability to understand how and why these trends in optimism come and go. In the 1990's there was the burgeoning of the computer and microprocessor industry and that engineer in the garage coop was certainly apt. The similarity now is that the engineer in the garage is was true again in the development of connectivity. The result should be similar however when the innovations of the coop grows in to a business turning that socialist coop into capitalist. Zero book just released a interview that complements this video well in how the writings of Smith and Marx are an effect of bourgeoisie effectively creating a cyclical map of the relationships of worker and owners. It is my take that we are experiencing a heightened state of socio-political engagement from progressives driven by new media, but as new media increasingly corporate that engagement should become less influential. This isn't to say great reforms will not be achieved in the mean time, it just shouldn't be assumed that it will be as successful as it needs to be. An example is YT in the de-emphasis of independent content particularly in the US. The current most successful area of progressive has been born from this content. With old media viciously fighting back there is a significantly high probability that they will continue to have success in reducing progressive influence. Then also that progressive media will also become establishment based with the contributors adopting a more conservative role with established expectations. This well the usher in so new era is progressive politics based again on the coop derived innovations. But in the mean time sure there will be so exiting progressive success stories, but there will all be the inevitable appropriation of the narrative that businesses were created by businessmen, even by the innovators.
"Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement - at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist. Only, instead of demanding that those social customs should be maintained through the authority of a few, it demands it from the continued action of all." ~ Peter Kropotkin
Wow!! This was an extremely informative and exciting presentation Prof Wolff. So, we can reach progressive socialism directly from this horrid capitalistic exploitive state by workers walking away and developing their own co-ops or buying out the corps w/ government loans after Bernie is elected.Very cool. I have been beaten so far down to the ground by capitalist exploitation, I have'nt been able to work in my profession in 25 yrs. Capitalism does not permit social science in practice in my profession. It insures that we remain outside of the established work. I believe most people practicing are imposters who don't understand the science in my field of what should be community, evidence-based clinical services. If we were permitted to practice there would be little or no "youth detention centers" which would bring down their precious criminal justice empire. This info restores hope that I may practice my work before retirement. Thank you for the good work and interest in helping to keep the world alive. You are a brave man. So, how do you get billionaires interested in saving the world? They have to leave it all behind after they are gone, why can't they be shown the joy they could have & bring by using it while they are alive?
On the topic of tech socialism, why isn't anyone talking about Open Source?! Free software is unequivocally by definition a form of social ownership that has been dramatically successful. Heck, the entire internet is literally built atop *numerous* open source technologies. Modern software simply wouldn't be the same without Linux, OpenSSL, GNU, GCC, and so many more completely free and open projects
Workers have a lot to learn by running a cooperative. The working class movement needs workers to know about directing an enterprise. This will increase workers skills and strength twofold.
staughton lynd wrote a book about trying to turn the steel mills in youngstown into worker co-ops in the 70s as big business was beginning the deindustrialization of the mahoning valley (where professor wolff grew up). it is a good read for anyone interested in the kind of socialism professor wolff talks about. staughton lynd is also a must read for people who are disillusioned with trade unions.
It would be good to have a message with some linkage with anarchism & syndicalism and their ideas and histories. Also, some detailed explanation of how syndicalism would extend real (direct) democracy from the small to the large scale by federation.
Yeah, don't hold your breath. I've been waiting a couple years for that. I think even if someone gave him a question about it at a talk he would avoid it. I think he likes the idea of grouping every socialist idea under the deliberately broad category of Marxism for whatever reason. He talks about what a broad field of thought socialism is but he's never willing to talk about anything beyond Leninism or DemSoc/SocDem stuff. I don't know why. If you ever go a talk, definitely ask him about it.
Dr. Wolff, after following you for a number of months I now understand the link between socialism and worker co-ops. You raise some good points in addressing how socialism can (and maybe should) be implemented under a limited govt, as it is the fundamental argument against it in many forums. In the future, could you address more links between a limited state and socialism? This is the fuel the argument needs!
I worked for a hospital for 28 years. The board of directors lost millions of dollars and drastically cut my hours. I had no say., also disrespect for my time and financial situation. I left my unstable job took out my pension and 401k. I was really lucky to be able to get out and retire early.
Professor Wolff has a very well honed and clear message. He carefully avoids many of the traditional words associated with these libertarian socialist ideas - words that the capitalist propaganda machine has co-opted or turned into abuse words. I haven't yet heard the words libertarian or anarchism or syndicalism or revolution or even union or wildcat. Sticking with the words socialism, democracy and worker coops makes a lot of sense for a simple clear message without the baggage of extremist associations. Possibly this strategy is just avoiding complex jargon but it does imply or correlate with missing some of the historical threads that are highly relevant.
Anyone else here read Ciccariello-Maher's Building the Commune? I just finished it today and it was really fascinating how he discussed the tension between the Venezuelan state and the communal non-state being built from the bottom up via democratic working communities.
I am fascinated by the idea of worker co-ops but I have a few questions : As with Plato's Republic, the philosopher warned about the dangers of universal suffrage if the voters are not well educated and the potential for demagoguery. The question here is that will each voter vote rationally and independently? How do they make an informed decision? Where would they get information to enable them to make such decisions? Professor Wolff mentioned in the Mondragon example that the workers would employ the managers. I presume that such managers would then gather information and provided possible choices for the everyone in company to vote on? If the managers made a mistake of presenting or championing a decision to the company that resulted in a negative business outcome, how would it affect the power dynamics in the company? What happens when the employees have to vote on firing one of their own? And who will be the underlying authority in the company if there is insubordination? There are many questions that goes into how can this system will work and what are its potential pitfalls.
I think the real problem with the Marxist-Leninist model is that the people have indirect control of the MoP. People vote--> for members of the government, who controlled--> MoP. In summary People control the MoP indirectly via the State. I'm in favor of workplace democracy and cooperatives, because they allow direct worker control over MoPs. But the M-L model doesn't seem as bad as some say.
Weaver Street Market is a co-op in NC. They (we, since I'm a member) are about to open the fourth supermarket in Raleigh. More than 20,000 persons are members, among them +85% of the 250 employees. Each member is allowed to buy only ONE share. Each share has the same voting power: ONE vote. Anybody can run - and vote - for any of four board positions. The four elected directors name other three. And this is the best part: max salary can't be more of eight times greater than the lowest salary (which in turn always are higher than the local minimum living wage where stores are located).
I wasn't financial free until my 40’s and I’m still in my 40’s, bought my third house already, earn on a monthly through passive income, and got 4 out of 5 goals, just hope it encourages someone that it doesn’t matter if you don’t have any of them right now, you can start TODAY regardless your age INVEST and change your future! Investing in the financial market is a grand choice I made..
I understand that tomorrow isn't promised to anyone, but investing today is hard for me now because I have no idea of how and where to invest in. I would be happy if you could advise me based on how you went about yours, as I am ready to go the passive income path.
Well i won't say i have........His name is "Jackson Sten Marsh" can't divulge much. Most likely, the internet should have his basic info, you can research if you like
Thank you for sharing; I just Googled his name and his website came up right away. It looks interesting so far. I'm going to book a call with him and let you know how it goes.Thanks
Thanks for clearing that up, I curiously searched for Jackson Sten Marsh on the internet and thankfully, I came across him my goal is to retire in 5years time.
And back stabbed, bullied, shouted down and shut out. All competition and no cooperation is not only destroying our workplaces, but our communities and families, too. Thanks again Professor!
Sounds great! Why can't we start such co-ops right now? We get one started and successful and when word spreads, others will be inspired to start more. What's holding us back?
Love the discussion. In your first third where you discuss the problems with socialism you focus on not transforming the workplace. I was surprised. I would have thought you would focus on the tension between the values of the state (e.g. large scale industrial and military production) and the values of individuals (quality of life, freedom in the choice of work, freedom to move, freedom of association). I would think the benefit of coops is attempting to better align decision making with the values of those affected. Side note: i think the public could really benefit from sharpening the distinction between the ideas of socialism where the government owns and controls the means of production and the version where "constituents" (maybe "employees", maybe including capital, maybe adding the geographic local community) share in the ownership of the means and fruits (stock value, local ecology, intellectual property) of production.
Likely not in my lifetime, I'm 39 by the way, but eventually the worker co-op formula will also turn into a people's co-op in our government, too. The masses working together to ensure we're all taken care of, our voices have equal say, and no one has power over the others. One day it will be a reality, but it will be very far into the future, I'm afraid.
What would happen to all the big corporations if we tried to transition to a more socialist Society with work co-ops? Does that mean there is votes of a boss or manager? Or is it just deciding or getting a say in the direction the business goes??
We need a special word for this co-op kind of socialism. We could call it producerism, like consumerism. It was popular among artisans in the 18th-century 13 American colonies.
@@screenshotted I was being sarcastic. Socialism has never been and will never be as successful as capitalism. You can not provide a single instance where it is without being disingenuous. Like the professor that never had a real job does in this video.
@@screenshotted That is an ignorant statement. Under a capitalist society anyone can achieve success and become wealthy. Has nothing to do with your bloodline and the fact that you would even state that shows your ignorance.
They never seem to be able to answer the question: If a new machine lets you do twice the work per person, do you cut the hours and keep the same pay, freeing up you workers to have a better work/life balance or other cool things, or do you fire half of them, and make more profit? If you are the worker of the co-op, this question is easy, and it also prevents the jobs going overseas. Which way do you vote, as the worker in this story?
Whenever i think about policies i always ask the same question, "who stands to benefit the most?". The smaller the number that benefits, further sway i am from it ideologically.
Found some: For more information, I'd suggest reading: “Titoism; Pattern for International Communism”, by Charles P. McVicker”, and the chapter on the economy from “Yugoslavia: a country study.” Additionally, I'd also recommend the chapters on Yugoslavia in “Class Struggle in Socialist Poland”, by Albert Szymanski which deal specifically with some of the failings of Yugoslav socialism, particularly the decade of market-oriented reforms throughout the 60s and 70s. archive.org/details/titoismpatternfo012623mbp ia601205.us.archive.org/18/items/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0.pdf archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland Also I want to recommend a small book that speaks to the subject of socialism in the U.S. called “Americanism and Social Democracy” by John Spargo. It's not necessarily a complete history or some sort of encyclopedia on Socialism in America as a whole, but I feel it can be really helpful by providing some really good historical background and important information that I think is lacking among the anti-establishment left. archive.org/details/americanismsocia00sparuoft/page/n6
@@antediluvianatheist5262 The facts/data will be good for sure. The synthesis? ehh. It's kind of like the NYT. They have great fact checkers, researchers, and writers but if you weren't aware of their meta perspective they might completely propagandize you.
I am still sceptical. We are trying with this, to create a civilization in the middle of the jungle. With a hair brush and three bricks. I suppose their is a chance. But to be honest I think the people doing it already will continue to out grow our efforts.
First, the simple transformation of an agricultural to an industrialised one, explains the economic growth of the two countries you cite, so there is no difference between the two, and the power went to the state, rather than to the rich. The problem of "markets" wasn't solved, nor were goods distributed equitably, because the 'goods" did not materialise to be distributed. Both abandoned the state central authority regarding this aspect, transforming Russia into a more capitalist approach, while China adopted what might be more akin to the Japanese strategy. This deeper dive into the co-op phase, is simply that a deeper and desperate dive to save a form of "continual growth" economics which in the current reality is still unsustainable, since the environmental limits are now obvious, and will be exacerbated by every success to more equitable distribution. "Can we move nations and people in the direction of sustainability? Such a move would be a modification of society comparable in scale to the only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries, Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation, guided by the best foresight science can provide......If we actually do it, the undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity's stay on the earth." William D. Ruckelshaus, 1989 It may be therefor be necessary to adjust the bards suggestion of "First we kill all the lawyers" by adding "and the economists." In short, the new socialism is NOT a "new and sustainable economics".....and therefor there is nothing NEW about it and we don't have the luxury of time for YOU to figure it out. BTW China is roughly responsible for twice the global greenhouse emissions of the US with 5 times the population, and with an equivalent sized economy, and combined represent 40% of global emissions, with less than 2/7ths of the world population.....so understanding what "unsustainable" means in terms of simple math, should be easy for you....but so far, it hasn't made a dent.
Thanks for the knowledge Professor Wolff. The roots of Capitalism run deep in USA. Uprooting capitalism would be almost impossible. Huawei is technically defined as a employee owned company. It is then a co-op? Can you please do a program about it given it's only 32yrs old but is doing so well. Many thanks.
xDD I work in the tech sector-- I've never thought of open development and agile methodology as democratic; but you're right-- it is. All the innovation comes from basic government funded scientific research, and from "open innovation". Ie. all the socialistic stuff. lol
Dr Wolff, I recently started watching your videos and I've learned a ton, thanks. Can you explain how entrepreneurship works in a Marxist system, i don't understand why someone would start a new business if they won't have access to the future profits of that business?
Socialism requires equality in wealth but not in wages. Your position like CRO or something will or my net you a bigger salary. The key point though is that wages are decided democratically in the business. It’s likely if it was your product or idea that you could rightfully revive the highest salary.
Low birth rate is the number one problem worker Co-ops face as far as I can tell. Can you speak more about how we average working class folks can be starting worker Co-ops in our daily lives? Should we focus on point of production union organization, election campaigns or influencing elected officials, or will it grow out of something peripheral like the DSA or some of the grass roots Tennant unions being formed today? Thank you for answering.
I only just got my head around what a co-op is so forgive me for asking what is probably a bit of a noob question, but where do co-ops draw the line in what is defined as a 'worker'. Let's take the example of a bricklaying company. Yes, you have the obvious workers - the guys who lay the bricks, the guys who stir the mortar and give the directions as to how the bricks should lie, but let's say you've got a leaky pipe in the main office bathroom and you need someone to fix it. In a traditional capitalist system, you would contract a plumber to fix the pipe, but I don't imagine the plumber would need to buy a share in the co-op before doing a job. This might seem unproblematic at first, but if co-ops are permitted to contract people, why would it then be impermissible for them to contract their bricklayers, mortar stirrers, project managers in the same way. I suppose it is arguable that there is no identifiable profit to be made in having clean pipes and drains, but who's to say? A company would undoubtedly be better off with such things, and could easily negotiate a price which would be at more profitable than another price. I feel like I'm missing an obvious piece in the puzzle here, but needs some help figuring it out if you could be so kind. Thank you in advance.
My only critique regarding Wolff, whose program I watch weekly as a fan, is he seems to conflate certain governments as "communist" or "socialist." In reality, there have never been true iterations of a communistic state. The USSR/China was never real communism. If it were, we'd all be wanting to emulate portions of their functions. Regarding socialistic countries, there's never been one. Sure, there's been countries that have nationalized certain high value companies. And in the Nordic and European models, there have been Social Democracies with well-funded welfare states. Still, certainly not full-on socialism. Co-ops are the best ways to understand, but they occur only in the work-place.
Also, Mondragon is not a corporation. Semantics, yes. But I think it matters quite a bit. Again, I still like the overall work Wolff provides to educate those whom have trouble understanding just what socialism is -- since American liberal and conservative media have propagated socialism = bad, lazy and of course, scary Venezuela, where, of course, simply is not socialism. They had nationalized their oil, other than that, it's a pretty neoliberal society. And another reason media conveniently leaves out the fact of American CIA influence through imperialism to make sure all Latin American countries fail and/or insert puppets for the plutocrats running America and rest of the world.
A communist state is an oxymoron. The USSR and the like called themselves communist because that was the goal they were working toward. They took Marx's theory of economic evolution as a religious truism
@@PoliticalEconomy101 Sorry, that's just incorrect. Communism is very attainable. It's not much different from anarchism/anarchosyndicalism. Neither Russia nor China were iterations of real communism. It's akin to Wolff saying Venezuela is the perfect example of what socialism is. Just ignorance. Wolff understands Marx. He doesn't understand politics at large, unfortunately. I like him for people whom are very un(der)-educated regarding socialism and co-ops. I really do. Aside from that, saying USSR/PRC are communistic states is simply wrong.
Wolff never directly addresses the question of why worker co-ops don't take off on their own, if they have so much to recommend them. He wants the gov't to tax free-enterprise businesses to raise money to loan to workers to finance the co-ops, but that seems an admission of the fact that free-enterprise/capitalist ventures appear to be the more desirable choice. If worker co-ops are so wonderful and democratic, why are there not more of them?
Clare Stucki Access to capital for loans and by their nature, impossible to get investors. Hmm some people should work on that. Create credit unions for co-ops that loan to co-ops
@@Muykle There is unlimited private venture capital available for enterprises that seem to offer a potential for profit. Evidently investors are not sold on the potential benefits to be had from co-op ventures. There's no doubt a message for Wolff in there somewhere.
@@clarestucki5151 Venture capital has many options and only funds what they see as the most profitable. Being profitable and sustainable are not objectives of venture/vulture capitalists. A worker owned co-op means that those that own and control the business are those that work there. Traditionally in capitalist firms, investors purchase a piece of the business and own it indefinately (unless they want to sell it). Owning the business is usually a tool of controlling the business. That is why I suspect that loans are a better option for raising money for co-ops.
Just a sidenote, it has always baffled me how republicans and rightwing democrats don't see our capitalist system as inherently statist. It's right to think about protecting socialism from statist co-opting and elitist government takeover, but it's also a major fallacy in our discourse that we don't talk about the hierarchy of capitalism being exactly those things. Heads of corporations and industrial magnates essentially install their favorite capitalist ideologues into power and/or buy legislation from representatives. Commercial industry is subsidized, directly and indirectly, by tax revenue. The leadership of both major political parties are explicitly loyal to capitalism, either giving no reason or false reasons. Meanwhile the government functions the general population have a democratic right and practical need to guide toward maintaining infrastructure, that everyone, including capitalists, need to function, is made weak or impotent. Taxes are supposed to all go to corporate tax-cuts and a giant military. It's hard to think of a more statist system than plutocratic, oligarchic capitalism.
Prof Wolff- Wouldn't it be better to respond to the free market high tech innovation charge with the fact that high tech largely comes out of the Pentagon system via taxpayer funding which is obviously sheltered from market forces? ARPANET -> Internet, NaviStar -> GPS, Army Anti Air Tech -> Computer chip, etc. ?
Yeah, the embarrassing truth is that centralized military states are very good at making high-tech weapons of mass destruction, which then find other applications later. Only Chomsky talks about this. Socialists are too scared to talk about the social importance of the war machine. It should be run for the benefit of the people with all its "innovations" and not left in the hands of the blacksuits just because it's "yuck".
Big fan of co-ops ,thanks for spreading the word about them ,I think Gov should cut subsidies to multi national co. That dont need it and invest that in starting co-ops to compete with larger co. To Elevate large chunks of workers out of poverty and forcing standard Corp. to increase wages to compete with co-ops that would pay better and give ppl a sense of ownership and self determination in the endeavour that will occupy most of there waking hrs . If there was at least 1 major co-op in almost every industry it would force its competitors to pay a living wage and offer benefits plans similar to the ones ppl will be giving themselves in the co-ops that also helps consumers that fear service workers getting a living wage will make there $1burger go up to $2.. cus without the millions in bonuses to executives lots of ppl can live well and still sell cheap food .I also have no problem with Gov. Just opening businesses in various industries for the same purpose of "keeping existing co honest" so to speak and to prevent monopolies .an example of how this is good is municipal internet which a lot of countries with way better internet service have ,along with private providers who may be slightly better idk but I do know they cant price gouge ppl if the ppl have a option of a plans who's rates are decided by them and their neighbor through local Gov representatives
I like the idea of co-ops, but what stop big co-ops, like the one in Spain, to participate in un democratic practices like lobbying and paying polititians to rule in their favor?
State centralization. If the state regulates what they do, then there would be less corruption coming from monopolies of Co-ops. I generally think that state socialism is better than the Co-op.
Joseph Kovar Jr no way I did not know that, thank you for sharing that! I hope this information reaches the apple workers so they can have something to actually think about.
@@Gigika313 He doesn't get all of the money. He pays wages to a ton of people at the company. He invests in research and development. He funds offshored projects. The people that have jobs do not deserve more than the negotiated compensation. No one is forced to work there and if their idea is so great then they can go start a company to earn money from that product.
The only downside of this video is that the title will turn away the very people who would love it the most. Innovators. Independent thinkers. Collaborative entrepreneurs. Look past the title - this is the real American dream. It might be time to rename "socialism" and "worker co-ops" which have been tainted with the Soviet model and capitalist backlash. What could we call these that would attract the people who actually need this the most?
Even if the workers decided that their business was better run by a ceo who made all the decisions and did none of the work, worker co-ops can still elect bosses and managers and boards of directors. Co-ops dont necessarily need to be a direct democracy, i myself would much prefer to work in a co-op that doesnt have any hierarchy but if you think someone doing no work and being paid more money than you is a better way of doing things then you can have it that way
The failure of the new Soviet state to fade away was not contingent on Lenin living or dying. In the first place, his own democratic centralist party concept tended toward dictatorship, in emulating a military command structure, as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out. In practise, the process of replacing the Tsarist state, including the Duma, with the Bolshevik party itself, moved with an organisational inertia toward that dictatorship of one man and of the party over the the proletariat and the whole of society, and that inertia was in the opposite direction from allowing the state to wither away. Indeed, the manufacturing co-ops which had been created by workers between the February and October revolutions were steadily seized by the Bolshevik government to bring them under centralised administrative control and planning. Secondly, it was not in any case possible to do without a state, because there was a civil war to win, and a hostile international context. I am dubious about whether it is possible to do without the state, because of the experience curve involved in providing competent, adequate, accountable public services, meaning that some people have to make the provision of such services their life's work, and they in turn need to be paid, which means that there has to be some form of taxation and so on. But even if it is possible, if the population at large can carry out those responsibilities directly, the Russian people were not ready to. But because the duplication of the centralisation of the Bolshevik party model as the state model involved the suppression of other parties, of alternate organisations and alternate press, and even the suppression of factions within the Bolshevik party, there was not the open, free discussion and argument necessary to build up the political education and decision-making competence of the public which Rosa Luxemburg called for.
"But what socialism didn't address in the 20th century, at least not in any systematic way - neither in Russia nor in China nor in the other societies that have experimented with socialism - what they didn't do was transform the workplace." What about Yugoslavia and their experimentation in "workers self management"? It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Yugoslavia as their economy was different from that of the USSR, China, & Eastern Bloc, in that they did attempt to reorganize industry in the direction you advocate - towards democratic control of the workplace by the workers themselves. What is your opinion on the Yugoslav experiment and where they went wrong?
He's talking about a lot of this stuff in very broad very lay terms. He only really engages with the USSR and China and modern democratic socialism. Anarchism does not exist apparently and has never had anything to do with worker co-ops. Don't ask what happened in Spain apart from Mondragon, he won't mention it. I have no idea why.
None of the initial stuff about giving power to the State was contained in socialist writings. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin said that socialism was when the state controlled stuff. All of them said "revolution to put power into the hands of the working class as a whole in a democracy, ramp up production so that the needs of all can be met, make the political aspect of the old state apparatus become the responsibility of the people themselves (make everyone participate in running things), and only after democracy has taken hold at all levels, and the needs of the people are being met, can we claim that socialism has been created." The key WAS ALWAYS democracy first. That people talk about putting power into the hands of the State is a childish interpretation of "well, Marx said to nationalize and for the State to control stuff, and so did Lenin, and look at Russia and China! That's obviously what they meant!" No, Marx and Lenin both EXPLICITLY stated what they meant by the "State" in their writings. The armed masses of the working class as a whole in a democracy. In fact, in the Communist Manifest, Marx said: "We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy. "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible. "Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production." To WIN THE BATTLE OF DEMOCRACY, you must be the ruling class, the majority, IN A DEMOCRACY. The State, "i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class," literally means that the working class has organized itself AS THE MAJORITY IN A DEMOCRACY to act as the ruling class IN A DEMOCRACY. The change from private property to public property, i.e. THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC, NOT THE STATE, requires "...despotic inroads on the rights of property...", meaning that private property must be "nationalized," meaning that the means of production must be given over TO THE WORKERS THEMSELVES. Interestingly, Marx, Engels and Lenin didn't support the above position. Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto in 1848. They changed their approach until it resembled the 1871 Paris Commune (which they pointed to as the best example of what they advocated for), which was to just overthrow the existing system and create an entirely new one that was entirely democratic. Lenin modeled the Soviet method off of that, but BECAUSE OF OTHER REAL LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, like, say, massive poverty, WWI, civil war wiping out MOST OF THE WORKING CLASS, food shortages, low education and a lack of reciprocation after the peasants were granted their demands for more land (which the Provisional Government had refused to do anything about, which combined with other issues that led to the October Revolution), etc etc etc, that method wasn't realized, Lenin died, and Stalin, who was in a position of incalculable power, became the rising power. Mao based a lot off of Stalin's approach, not Marx, not Engels, and not Lenin. The lesson is that socialism WAS NEVER ABOUT State control, but WAS ALWAYS ABOUT democratization. Not from above, but from below. The Jacobins and Blanquists wanted it from above, with themselves at the head (Lenin wasn't a Jacobin or a Blanquist), but that's not about socialism; that's despotism. That's oligarchy or monarchy or dictatorship. Not socialism. This is one of the things that bothers me about Wolff's explanations of the history of socialism. Socialists didn't want State control. They all wanted democratic control. Stalin wasn't a socialist. He may have been part of the Bolsheviks, but what he did was anti-socialist EVEN BY THE STANDARDS OF THAT TIME. Lenin excoriated others for similar tendencies. So did Marx and Engels and many others. He corrects his beginning statements about early socialist being statist around 23:00 (the people who advocated socialism advocated democracy, not statism), but by that time it's a bit late. Most of the talks I've heard from him don't do even that.
The idea that Lenin would have revoked the statist flavor of their revolution seems dubious. After their victory in the civil war, he immediately got to work relinquishing the worker controlled soviets, the only mechanism of valid socialism. From then on, the dictatorship of the proletariat was announced, Menshevic groups repressed, and the populace forced back into serfdom, only now with machines.
@Jebus Hypocristos I would rather say reactionary, but okay. Lenin is being realistic. his country was devastated by war and famines. To centralize the economy and to control dissidence was necessary .
Lenin put a *temporary* ban on other parties, and a *temporary* ban on dissenting opinions outside the party. But I don't think "temporary" meant 7 decades. Also if I remember correctly the USSR had democracy in the workplace for some time, I don't know why that was removed.
Your not knowing is the phenomenon I am pointing out. Lenin and Trotsky were practically open about the fact that they could ill afford the soviet councils to exercise authentic political power. This was literally the only concept that made Soviet Russia socialist, without this, the Bolsheviks were left to craft state by assumption of what the proletariat wanted. To say that collectivization was a necessity is laughable however. 'To whom' is the inferential question. Collectivization was a necessity to the communist kernel, yet the efforts for centralization were so severely detrimental to the populace, that multiple generations experienced undue hardships, not to mention the distortion caused onto the bureaucratic organs.
@@DiThi it can be argued that all of those things would go away with the state. withering away of the state is one of the most important concepts with in Marxism. The state is suppose to transition into socialism and eventually communism. Lenin said that Russia was not socialist, it needed to developed under capitalism, and then it would transition into socialism. The soviet Government claimed that communism would be achieved in the 1980's, but this didn't happen due to liberalization of the economy. work place "democracy" in the soviet union wasn't effective, especially in the Russian civil war. Illiterate farmers with the mindset of the old order are the least useful people for co-ops. which is one of many reasons why the soviets abandoned this with a non-market planned economy.
@@0MVR_0 If you actually examined what Marx said, then you would know that non-developed nations can't reach socialism. They can develop socialism, but they can't immediately create it. Lenin did not consider the early soviet Union as socialist. That is because the majority of the country was not urbanize or develop. infrastructure was more focus on certain cities, and the majority of the people did not know how to read. when Lenin ruled, he considered the country a mix economy. That is because capitalist still owned businesses, landlords still rule the countryside, and co-operatives existed in some cities. The NEP economic policy was an attempt to bring the country from feudalism to capitalism. The 5 year plans of Stalin was the attempt to advance that into socialism. collectivization was needed to create a industrial revolution that would turn the development of Russia to that of the west, was suppose to improve the workers standard of living.
I have a question, what if a corporation or company or what not fires all of their workers and then they move overseas because then they could be like there was no one to refuse 1st lol. I mean its jacked up but let's be honest, not out of the realm of possibilities here in the US
I like the idea of worker Co-Ops and I agree that the workplace should be democratic but I wonder if the true nature of a corporation would change if turned into a co-op. For example, if Lockheed Martin turned into a co-op, would it's objective still be to sell murder weapons and lobby for war? I might be missing something obvious but I'm not sure how that would change...
Gabriel Afflitto With fewer profits, the less money to corrupt the politicians. Fewer US contracts, less money. Workers get laid off and hopefully get hired by a coop that prioritizes helping people more than mass slaughter.
Impossible to know, the workers at Lockheed just do whatever the capitalists want so maybe if they had a say they would build passenger planes, who knows.
Been thing of organising a media co-op, as in provide services like video, photo and graphic design and etc. Any one know some good example of business with this model?
Professor, I do realise you have to focus on the monumental task of "selling" these ideas to a capitalistic minded US audience, and for that we are, as we should, all deeply thankful. That said... Maybe you could at some point address in more detail what happened in the USSR from 1917 to 1937, from the revolution to the total takeover by Stalin. The civil war, war communism, civil rights movements [an extremely successful feminism, extremely successful ethnic equity (at least on paper), and so on], cultural vanguards, the NEP, Lenin's death, the rise of the centrist faction, the first purges of Stalin, the fall of Trotsky, the fall of the original Politburo, the decapitation of the Red Army command in 1937. There's SO MUCH to study and learn from. Such colossal errors, the most significant of which are usually overlooked, and such colossal achievements, from the economic growth you usually point out to the fact that by 1927 Trotsky had already predicted that the Chinese revolution would have to be made by farmers, that in the stalinistic path the USSR would become isolated and unable to compete with the capitalist world, and that the US would become a militaristic power the likes of which the world had never seen. That period is one whose study is mandatory to anybody interested in understanding socialism in depth. Please, do grace us with your analysis of it. :)
the revolution betrayed, by trotsky, is a great book. The greatest take is that he predicts the stagnation that would become present, decades later, in the working class of the ussr and how that would lead to collapse. He pin points how the growing bureaucracy which would control the ussr economy would indirectly lead to the collapse of the ussr. "a planned economy needs democracy just as the human body needs oxygen".
@@sebastianmatarelli5602 Definitely. Since reading that book I've been more often than not forced to agree with Trotsky's analysis of the insidious ways in which class struggle seeps into societies, and of the way it was beginning to seep back into the USSR via the strenghtening of the bureaucracy and the failure of the party (and even of the Red Army) to fight elitism within its own ranks. The fact that Lenin was in the process of overcoming war communism, which called for descentralization and oversight on the Politburo, is crucial. The need to relinquish the absolute power of the days of the Civil War was accutely felt by those with the best foresight: Trotsky, Kollontai, and even Lenin and Krupskaya.
Capitalism is plenty criticized daily! Of course it's not a perfect system n definitely needs some sensical reform. But the motive for innovation, growing a business, employing people, is profit! Voluntary interaction in a free society is capitalism. Socialism forces you to buy something that the powers that be say you must. Capitalism forces the entrepreneurs to serve the desires of other people or be voted out of favor by the power of the individuals wallet. Unions exist n I belong to one. In the private sector of course. I do not agree with public sector unions existence because they are taxpayer funded, and get to leverage money out of the pockets of the productive people. Capitalism is the solution, not the problem. Government interference and stranglehold on private business is the problem. Get government out of the way n cut the worthless beauracrasies throat that kill the economy n retain power to hand out monopolistic policies to a select few. America has too damn much socialism already! Change the system by killing barriers to growth. Basically by eliminating governmental power to fund parasitism. Taxing me n my coworkers into poverty will only disincentivize us from productivity. Worker co ops are an option and nobody is stopping it from happening. A vast majority of people are self interested and intellegent people will not vote in the same fashion as incompetent people. This is just fact! It's a death sentence for a company when social justice rules over that company. What is suggested here would have to be backed by guns and require theft and redistribution of wealth and ownership. This is a pipedream n can not work in the real world. Not improbable but completely impossible! Democracy is a path to hell, n it's been proven time and again. Richard Wolf is a genius in his analisys of the problems we face n why n how we got to this point, but the solutions he advocates arent realistic or desirable to many!
Just heard that 67% of workers surveyed 'hate' their jobs. That's the death of a society. I spent my career in a non-profit co-op of 15 physicians contracted to provide medical and academic support to a major university medical center. Many of my graduating residents earned a lot more than I, but I actually loved my job, the work, the research, the teaching. Most of my former residents opted to concentrate on accumulating wealth and toys, because their work became a boring job on the factory floor.
Oh I think it is higher than that... imagine if they asked kids, "what do you love so we can see how you will help society" before you get your education. Instead the line is "go to college so you can get a job that pays you more than other."
More importantly, most workers believe their jobs are irrelevant. We’ve been trained to believe our jobs are our only validation. When you’re no longer relevant... opioids?
@@robertbritt6134 It's because humanity is being left behind by those with who should do better. Automation should have allowed people to understand the meaning of life by allowing ppl to "work" at jobs that reflect what they love aka related to a hobby so that it furthers this. But instead Automation has been used to create elites who are "wealthier" than ever and the ppl are told the lie that "you only need to work hard." Imagine if society only had to work 20 hours and the other 20 is used to become a better partner, friend, teammate, etc. They don't want that bc ppl would actually see the greed that is running this world. Ppl are overworked, stressed, etc so they have no power or energy to understand what is happening. Just sad.
You people act like work hasn’t been around for all of human history. Everyone just complains about everything. You have to work to make money. If you don’t want money don’t work. Be homeless but don’t steal from those who go out and earn for themselves.
@@joebin3286 Except you totally miss what everyone is talking about.
I don't know if you're stupid or dishonest.
Capitalism is not about money or trade or markets.
It's about who owns the things that make the stuff.
All the things you mention, predate capitalism.
Lemme ask you this: As time goes by, less and less people won more and more.
And, less and less workers are needed to do the work.
Sooner or later it's going to end up with one person owning everything, and zero workers needed.
What then?
Do those people have a right to the fruits of the labour they and their ancestors put in to get that?
Or is it right that they all starve?
Answer the question.
Wow, scathing commentary about happy hour -- I love it. You have said what most people cannot openly admit. Keep it up, Dr. Wolff!
Capitalism: You're a mere cog in a machine.
Socialism: You're a member of civilization.
@ That sound like captalism.
America has no idea what Socialism is and is not well defined by his talks.. it is confused with communism USSR style. 🙄😳
When people live in a 'society' there is an obligation to care for all members in a fair manner. Strength & leadership transition through our lives from vulnerable infants and aged, to a time when we are strong enough to lead & work. Capitalism has lead to impending genocide today.
This system is corporatism a hybrid of socialism and capitalism that benefits the the very wealthy and politically connected. I don't see how democratic socialism would fair much better with past failures. You can change the name and fluff it up but it will still lead down to over bloated bureaucracy but he let's give democratic socialism a try.
@@Jan_YTview Fairness is subjective. I guess you believe giving the government a business that someone else built isn't stealing that is "fair". This idiot on the video talks in circles and slow because apparently most of his audience needs that to understand basic sentences. give me one example of a government program that is ran properly and has 0 funding issues.
@@joebin3286 I never said to give gov an existing business by theft. Australia has 'privatised' energy, education, construction by selling assets at solid prices. Gov does NOT have to be a thief to steal a business to make things fairer. How about taxpayers paying a fair price for the public good. Let's face it, during the GFC taxpayers bailed out private enterprise with tax dollars.. Capitalism is broken, cannot be redeemed and a social upheaval will put those who are 'perceived ' to be blamed in peril for their very lives. 😱😰😧
Hello comrades, time for another economic update.
Because revolution is the fire of our will and a need of our solitary minds; it is an obligation of the libertarian aristocracy.
To create new ethical values.
To create new aesthetic values.
To communalize material wealth.
To individualize spiritual wealth.
fuck you, i am not your comrade i am an AMERICAN .
Marxism is an ideology based on all of the theories of Karl Marx. Communism is an economic and political system. According to Karl Marx, socialism precedes and eventually evolves into communism.
@@cojo582 from capitalism
@@imgayasheck595 to bring communism to the United States,YOU ARE BATSHIT CRAZY.
@@jonnymahony9402 no dipshit from communism,you looser.
As someone who grew up in Yugoslavia, it really bothers me that he never mentioned Yugoslav self-governing 'Social Property' (as it was called).
My fathers company was self governed, market oriented and very successful, providing us very nice living standard.
I never seen anywhere workers so loyal and devoted, as the guys who worked at his company, cos it was their company.
@Sleepery22
Tito`s program was certainly one of the better ones.
Co ops will fix the base cause of poverty. People want to help others.
Yes! Please start a ton of them and leave everyone alone.
Capitalism: we working people beg for scraps from the table we made.
@ I couldn't agree more.
This is a very weird way to view Capitalism. Do you realize that your life as a poor person today is much better than any other time in human history. What is responsible for the poverty rate declining over the last century. It damn sure wasn't socialism. Humans are more innovative and create things that benefit the population in a free market society. People like you that do not have the ability to create jobs and products for others to benefit from get jobs making them. It isn't slavery because truth be told you are actually being paid enough and much more than the jobs that are offshored. Stop being jealous and go earn your living. No one is going to give you the things you want.
Not only the table but the food, plate, utensils, tablecloth, floor, house, on and on and on. Use values are exclusively the social product of human brain and muscle (the labour theory of value). We proletarians (the vast majority of humanity worldwide) need not beg but organise to expropriate society's productive forces from private ownership and hold them collectively as the common property of the proletariat as a whole. The producers can then organise social production and distribution in a way we decide.
Another ignorant person that has no concept of business.
@@joebin3286 have you seen the poverty that cutthroat capitalism creates. Do you care? Is capitalism the best system? Capitalism is terrible and we can do better.
I have worked with worker co-ops here in the US. From talking to the people that work there it was hard to implement due to the greed and power hungry people in the US that has been inherent in capitalism. As of this year they say it has finally leveled out and is working great. This is the 10th year for some of these companies and myself and many others would love to work for them. Their quality of work and personal self accomplishment has increased through the years.
I'm interested in learning more about co-ops and their founding and operations - is there a resource you could share?
Capitalism OWN most creative product, they don't generate creativity.
If capitalism can't create them, they buy them from people who created them.
One of the most important concept big tech company feed on is Intellectual Property:
"I created it first so I can make money from it. "
Which is acceptable to most. But if this concept can be bought, the chain of reasons become:
1.I have money, so I can buy IP from others.
2.I have my IP, so I can make money from it
And if shorten it, it become:
I have money, so I can make money from it
And this is what capitalism is about, always.
Thank you Mr Wolff, you’ve answered many of my questions that I had on this subject. Much appreciated
Students for Bernie
Only because you have no real life experience.
Micah Vogan I just want free universal healthcare, why is that so bad?
That’s not all Bernie is going for. Bernie is for actual socialism
Good if he gets elected I hope the government eventually takes your company.
By the way you really stated why you are for Bernie. What exactly do you support on his policy?
People fail to realize that if profits cease to exist, the world *will* keep spinning.
Money is a construct.
#MMT
If profits fail to realize that business dies. Do you really believe what you stated? If so you are a moron.
No but it keeps businesses open
@@joebin3286 You are absolutely right, that without profit, Mondragon, as it exists now, would fall apart. I'm not exactly sure how this democracy in the workshop would get rid of capital accumulation, market domination, plutocracy etc.
@@billyoldman9209 IT does not. What it does is fixes one of the major problems of capitalism.
Will you vote to close the plant and send it overseas, to save money, if you work there? No.
So that does not happen.
Which means that money stays locally.
And there are no billionaires to run off with all the loot.
And no billionaires forcing the politics to accommodate them.
And if the board is doing bad things, the workers simply replace them.
Any wealth that builds up is shared by the workers, enriching them, and the economy.
TLDR: no billionaires.
What one aspect of Socialism means to me is, our tax dollars will go back to the people and not to corporate welfare and the military industrial complex.
Exactly. The State is not needed. The neo-marxist left and left-com groups also approve of the phrase: "Taxation is theft". This is what right-libertarians and similar anti-statist right-wingers fail to understand. While they remain ignorant, they will simply keep thinking socialism and communism are "big government".
But how will the poor CEO’s afford a yacht for their poodles? You MONSTER!!!!
And 25 million illegals and their anchor babies, Welfare, food stamps, foreign aid, endless wars, prisons, police officers, bail outs. But you weren't listening, he said government will be in control, YOUR SCREWED!
Madd Maxx, oh you prefer your tax dollars going to the military industrial complex and corporate welfare?
How do you figure your tax dollars will go to the people? Communist leaders line their own pockets first, Richard mentioned this at the beginning of the speech.
Could you do a video on Yugoslavia under Tito's leadership? Sounds pretty similar to your ideas. I've heard good things about Yugoslavian Socialism too, workers definitely loved co-ops.
Yes, I just posted a comment about that..
Curious as to what freedoms the people didn’t have during that time.
@@joebin3286 Being free from genocide for example
Professor Wolff, this is such a great analysis like most of your works. If you see my comment, my brother and I are starting a podcast in which we try to make Socialism, Marxism, States, Democracy and other leftist content more accessible and palatable like you have. We would love to talk with you if you get a moment in your busy schedule.
Professor Wolff, as always I am so illuminated by your videos. You take complex ideas and make them understandable. You're objective and critical. And, you separate fact from fiction - in easily understandable ways. I couldn't understand politics or economics, because they were so complex. As a result, I ignored them - to my great detriment. Then, I saw you on RT - on Thom Hartmann's show. I didn't even know you existed, up until that point. You've broadened my understanding of economics, politics, and their relationship with one another - and the effect they have on....everything. I'm happy to have discovered you. Thank you for your efforts and the efforts of your colleagues.
About the "Capitalism is innovative" part; What Prof. Wolff tells is half true. The big companies steal innovations, those people who part ways with the big companies do their own projects, develop them, crowdfund them somehow and successfully deliver them to the donators. However, big companies skim through these crowdfunding sites for successful projects and copy them, manufacture them for way cheaper, efficient and with higher quality and cut through the small developers profits, in most cases suffocating them financially.
The best example for this would be the Asus mini pc, a credit card sized fully functional personal computer with only low specs. This was originally an individuals project and just before he was about to deliver, Asus already discovered and manufactured massive amounts of the same product and started selling them for a much cheaper price. A guy here on RUclips, channel name is StopDrop&Retro explains this in more detail and defines this as "the early worm effect".
For anyone thats interested, the guy i mentioned explains it around the 6:50 mark of this video;
ruclips.net/video/YKyWSc_eDqA/видео.html
Prof. Wolff, you should give a talk in disputing the lecture/book by Prof. Thomas J. DiLorenzo from Mises University on his 10 points why Socialism fails to deliver.
All in all, I enjoyed this talk, however, I would take issue a bit with the fact that Prof. Wolff never brings up Tito's Yugoslavia as an example where worker self-management had successfully existed on a large scale and overall can serve as an example of socialist economic development that was actually somewhat positive and democratic.
For more information, I'd suggest reading: “Titoism; Pattern for International Communism”, by Charles P. McVicker”, and the chapter on the economy from “Yugoslavia: a country study.” Additionally, I'd also recommend the chapters on Yugoslavia in “Class Struggle in Socialist Poland”, by Albert Szymanski which deal specifically with some of the failings of Yugoslav socialism, particularly the decade of market-oriented reforms throughout the 60s and 70s.
archive.org/details/titoismpatternfo012623mbp
ia601205.us.archive.org/18/items/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0.pdf
archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland
Also I want to recommend a small book that speaks to the subject of socialism in the U.S. called “Americanism and Social Democracy” by John Spargo. It's not necessarily a complete history or some sort of encyclopedia on Socialism in America as a whole, but I feel it can be really helpful by providing some really good historical background and important information that I think is lacking among the anti-establishment left.
archive.org/details/americanismsocia00sparuoft/page/n6
Thanks!
@@antediluvianatheist5262 You're welcome! I hope you find the books helpful!
Also he always (at least from all videos I have seen till now) misses about Paris commune and revolutionary catalonia. These were super democratic and really communist States, Catalonia being far superior over commune. This is mistake all Marxists do, only go on talking about failed states like USSR and never say about these States. This give strength to bourgeoisie dogma that communism never existed and it's no more than utopia
@@shubhamwr Got links?
Macro Socialism isn't about state ownership. It's when the people, all citizens, whether they work or not, whether they are disbled or retired or not, it's when they own all means of production in a civilization. The problem is how to manage all of that. We could manage it as a Participatory Democracy, where all citizens could vote on all decisions. Or a Representative Democracy, where the people vote for those that make decisions for them. If it's a dictatorship it's not Socialism. The dictator could have socialist policies or ideologies, but the system isn't Socialism. There's a lot to keep in mind about the complexity of this system. Micro Socialism in the other hand makes things more simple for the avarage citizen. It's the next step!! I just hope we're not too late!
No, the state is still instrumental to socialism. Statism does not equal dictatorship
Learn Socialist Justice for macro Socialism, you mean!? But is the state even necessary with Participatory Democracy? In that case, the state would be the people, and not a small number of elected officials, like a Representative Democracy. And if we can’t elect the state isn’t it a dictatorship?
Well.... I'm assuming State and Government are the same, just spelled differently. Forgive my ignorance if that's not the case.
D' Essay I agree. That’s why I said there’s a lot to keep in mind about the complexity of this system. And you exemplified it very well with social contamination due to centuries of capitalist exploitation.
What u called as macro socialism itself is real socialism as promoted by Marx. Rest all is irony to word socialism
I wanted to study economics once, but after I asked a friend who was studying it about Marx and he just laughed and said, that Marx, Engels etc. will never be part of the curriculum I am glad that I didn't.
What Richard Wolff is promoting is called "market socialism". I used to be one, but there's another hard reality in achieving socialism than just revolution: there's a global capitalist hegemony that contradicts with a socialist system. History has shown that every socialist system without exception, already being one or about to be one, has faced external aggression, and no wonder, the socialist system declares war on capital itself.
Having a strong state is not ideal:
_"So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state."_
- V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution
But having it is a necessity. A legitimate state favored by the proletarians does not need to enforce its rule dictatorially, and can exist with Soviet Democracy and Dictatorship of the Proletariat. That is, the state being built from bottom to top via democratically elected soviets, that are all subject to recall by their electors without exception, having the people armed, and organized in to a universal militia.
I remember this optimism back in the 1990"s when I was generating my political ideals. As i'm not a conservative these ideals were based on principles and societal concepts. So after observing the generational societal trends over that period I now have the ability to understand how and why these trends in optimism come and go. In the 1990's there was the burgeoning of the computer and microprocessor industry and that engineer in the garage coop was certainly apt. The similarity now is that the engineer in the garage is was true again in the development of connectivity. The result should be similar however when the innovations of the coop grows in to a business turning that socialist coop into capitalist. Zero book just released a interview that complements this video well in how the writings of Smith and Marx are an effect of bourgeoisie effectively creating a cyclical map of the relationships of worker and owners.
It is my take that we are experiencing a heightened state of socio-political engagement from progressives driven by new media, but as new media increasingly corporate that engagement should become less influential. This isn't to say great reforms will not be achieved in the mean time, it just shouldn't be assumed that it will be as successful as it needs to be. An example is YT in the de-emphasis of independent content particularly in the US. The current most successful area of progressive has been born from this content. With old media viciously fighting back there is a significantly high probability that they will continue to have success in reducing progressive influence. Then also that progressive media will also become establishment based with the contributors adopting a more conservative role with established expectations. This well the usher in so new era is progressive politics based again on the coop derived innovations. But in the mean time sure there will be so exiting progressive success stories, but there will all be the inevitable appropriation of the narrative that businesses were created by businessmen, even by the innovators.
All I heard was “democracy comes and goes”
Highlight of my week is when Proffesor Wolff drops a lecture
"Anarchy, when it works to destroy authority in all its aspects, when it demands the abrogation of laws and the abolition of the mechanism that serves to impose them, when it refuses all hierarchical organization and preaches free agreement - at the same time strives to maintain and enlarge the precious kernel of social customs without which no human or animal society can exist. Only, instead of demanding that those social customs should be maintained through the authority of a few, it demands it from the continued action of all." ~ Peter Kropotkin
Anyone here from apoliticalteens live stream ?
Wow!! This was an extremely informative and exciting presentation Prof Wolff. So, we can reach progressive socialism directly from this horrid capitalistic exploitive state by workers walking away and developing their own co-ops or buying out the corps w/ government loans after Bernie is elected.Very cool. I have been beaten so far down to the ground by capitalist exploitation, I have'nt been able to work in my profession in 25 yrs. Capitalism does not permit social science in practice in my profession. It insures that we remain outside of the established work. I believe most people practicing are imposters who don't understand the science in my field of what should be community, evidence-based clinical services. If we were permitted to practice there would be little or no "youth detention centers" which would bring down their precious criminal justice empire. This info restores hope that I may practice my work before retirement. Thank you for the good work and interest in helping to keep the world alive. You are a brave man. So, how do you get billionaires interested in saving the world? They have to leave it all behind after they are gone, why can't they be shown the joy they could have & bring by using it while they are alive?
Maybe you are good at your profession.
On the topic of tech socialism, why isn't anyone talking about Open Source?! Free software is unequivocally by definition a form of social ownership that has been dramatically successful. Heck, the entire internet is literally built atop *numerous* open source technologies. Modern software simply wouldn't be the same without Linux, OpenSSL, GNU, GCC, and so many more completely free and open projects
Workers have a lot to learn by running a cooperative. The working class movement needs workers to know about directing an enterprise. This will increase workers skills and strength twofold.
Thanks for these updates. Very useful I send people to these.
staughton lynd wrote a book about trying to turn the steel mills in youngstown into worker co-ops in the 70s as big business was beginning the deindustrialization of the mahoning valley (where professor wolff grew up). it is a good read for anyone interested in the kind of socialism professor wolff talks about. staughton lynd is also a must read for people who are disillusioned with trade unions.
It would be good to have a message with some linkage with anarchism & syndicalism and their ideas and histories. Also, some detailed explanation of how syndicalism would extend real (direct) democracy from the small to the large scale by federation.
Yeah, don't hold your breath. I've been waiting a couple years for that. I think even if someone gave him a question about it at a talk he would avoid it. I think he likes the idea of grouping every socialist idea under the deliberately broad category of Marxism for whatever reason. He talks about what a broad field of thought socialism is but he's never willing to talk about anything beyond Leninism or DemSoc/SocDem stuff. I don't know why. If you ever go a talk, definitely ask him about it.
Dr. Wolff, after following you for a number of months I now understand the link between socialism and worker co-ops. You raise some good points in addressing how socialism can (and maybe should) be implemented under a limited govt, as it is the fundamental argument against it in many forums. In the future, could you address more links between a limited state and socialism? This is the fuel the argument needs!
I worked for a hospital for 28 years. The board of directors lost millions of dollars and drastically cut my hours. I had no say., also disrespect for my time and financial situation. I left my unstable job took out my pension and 401k. I was really lucky to be able to get out and retire early.
i have to admit, i was a little thrown by the intro : "I'm your host, Richard .. (looks down at paper) .. Wolff"
Professor Wolff has a very well honed and clear message. He carefully avoids many of the traditional words associated with these libertarian socialist ideas - words that the capitalist propaganda machine has co-opted or turned into abuse words. I haven't yet heard the words libertarian or anarchism or syndicalism or revolution or even union or wildcat. Sticking with the words socialism, democracy and worker coops makes a lot of sense for a simple clear message without the baggage of extremist associations. Possibly this strategy is just avoiding complex jargon but it does imply or correlate with missing some of the historical threads that are highly relevant.
I look forward to these so much.
One of your best yet, prof!
Anyone else here read Ciccariello-Maher's Building the Commune? I just finished it today and it was really fascinating how he discussed the tension between the Venezuelan state and the communal non-state being built from the bottom up via democratic working communities.
I am fascinated by the idea of worker co-ops but I have a few questions :
As with Plato's Republic, the philosopher warned about the dangers of universal suffrage if the voters are not well educated and the potential for demagoguery. The question here is that will each voter vote rationally and independently? How do they make an informed decision? Where would they get information to enable them to make such decisions? Professor Wolff mentioned in the Mondragon example that the workers would employ the managers. I presume that such managers would then gather information and provided possible choices for the everyone in company to vote on? If the managers made a mistake of presenting or championing a decision to the company that resulted in a negative business outcome, how would it affect the power dynamics in the company? What happens when the employees have to vote on firing one of their own? And who will be the underlying authority in the company if there is insubordination? There are many questions that goes into how can this system will work and what are its potential pitfalls.
I think the real problem with the Marxist-Leninist model is that the people have indirect control of the MoP.
People vote--> for members of the government, who controlled--> MoP. In summary People control the MoP indirectly via the State.
I'm in favor of workplace democracy and cooperatives, because they allow direct worker control over MoPs. But the M-L model doesn't seem as bad as some say.
Weaver Street Market is a co-op in NC. They (we, since I'm a member) are about to open the fourth supermarket in Raleigh. More than 20,000 persons are members, among them +85% of the 250 employees. Each member is allowed to buy only ONE share. Each share has the same voting power: ONE vote. Anybody can run - and vote - for any of four board positions. The four elected directors name other three. And this is the best part: max salary can't be more of eight times greater than the lowest salary (which in turn always are higher than the local minimum living wage where stores are located).
So everyone is evenly poor for the most part? please do tell who the person is making 80 HR
I wasn't financial free until my 40’s and I’m still in my 40’s, bought my third house already, earn on a monthly through passive income, and got 4 out of 5 goals, just hope it encourages someone that it doesn’t matter if you don’t have any of them right now, you can start TODAY regardless your age INVEST and change your future! Investing in the financial market is a grand choice I made..
I understand that tomorrow isn't promised to anyone, but investing today is hard for me now because I have no idea of how and where to invest in. I would be happy if you could advise me based on how you went about yours, as I am ready to go the passive income path.
please who is the expert guiding you? i have lost so much as a beginner🥺 investing into stock without a proper guidiance of an expert.
Well i won't say i have........His name is "Jackson Sten Marsh" can't divulge much. Most likely, the internet should have his basic info, you can research if you like
Thank you for sharing; I just Googled his name and his website came up right away. It looks interesting so far. I'm going to book a call with him and let you know how it goes.Thanks
Thanks for clearing that up, I curiously searched for Jackson Sten Marsh on the internet and thankfully, I came across him my goal is to retire in 5years time.
Forget knowing each other. Accept working and living with each other.
Thank you Dr Wolff for the best explaination yet of what modern socialism is & could be
And back stabbed, bullied, shouted down and shut out. All competition and no cooperation is not only destroying our workplaces, but our communities and families, too. Thanks again Professor!
Sounds great! Why can't we start such co-ops right now? We get one started and successful and when word spreads, others will be inspired to start more. What's holding us back?
Love the discussion.
In your first third where you discuss the problems with socialism you focus on not transforming the workplace. I was surprised. I would have thought you would focus on the tension between the values of the state (e.g. large scale industrial and military production) and the values of individuals (quality of life, freedom in the choice of work, freedom to move, freedom of association).
I would think the benefit of coops is attempting to better align decision making with the values of those affected.
Side note: i think the public could really benefit from sharpening the distinction between the ideas of socialism where the government owns and controls the means of production and the version where "constituents" (maybe "employees", maybe including capital, maybe adding the geographic local community) share in the ownership of the means and fruits (stock value, local ecology, intellectual property) of production.
Likely not in my lifetime, I'm 39 by the way, but eventually the worker co-op formula will also turn into a people's co-op in our government, too. The masses working together to ensure we're all taken care of, our voices have equal say, and no one has power over the others. One day it will be a reality, but it will be very far into the future, I'm afraid.
Can't wait for D@W to reach 200,000 subscribers.
What would happen to all the big corporations if we tried to transition to a more socialist Society with work co-ops? Does that mean there is votes of a boss or manager? Or is it just deciding or getting a say in the direction the business goes??
We need a special word for this co-op kind of socialism. We could call it producerism, like consumerism. It was popular among artisans in the 18th-century 13 American colonies.
How can we make watching this video mandatory for participation in society?
Yeah lets put socialism in a better light because it is such a successful economic structure.
@@joebin3286 hell yeah dude
@@screenshotted I was being sarcastic. Socialism has never been and will never be as successful as capitalism. You can not provide a single instance where it is without being disingenuous. Like the professor that never had a real job does in this video.
@@joebin3286 capitalism is feudalism with more steps
@@screenshotted That is an ignorant statement. Under a capitalist society anyone can achieve success and become wealthy. Has nothing to do with your bloodline and the fact that you would even state that shows your ignorance.
They never seem to be able to answer the question: If a new machine lets you do twice the work per person, do you cut the hours and keep the same pay, freeing up you workers to have a better work/life balance or other cool things, or do you fire half of them, and make more profit?
If you are the worker of the co-op, this question is easy, and it also prevents the jobs going overseas.
Which way do you vote, as the worker in this story?
What about the former Yugoslavia? They had workers' self-management?
Whenever i think about policies i always ask the same question, "who stands to benefit the most?". The smaller the number that benefits, further sway i am from it ideologically.
Fricking love this guy
is there a transcript available?
What about the worker co-ops of Yugoslavia? Did they work? What lessons were learned from them?
I don't know. I would be interested in finding out.
Found some: For more information, I'd suggest reading: “Titoism; Pattern for International Communism”, by Charles P. McVicker”, and the chapter on the economy from “Yugoslavia: a country study.” Additionally, I'd also recommend the chapters on Yugoslavia in “Class Struggle in Socialist Poland”, by Albert Szymanski which deal specifically with some of the failings of Yugoslav socialism, particularly the decade of market-oriented reforms throughout the 60s and 70s.
archive.org/details/titoismpatternfo012623mbp
ia601205.us.archive.org/18/items/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0/yugoslaviacountr00curt_0.pdf
archive.org/details/ClassStruggleInSocialistPoland
Also I want to recommend a small book that speaks to the subject of socialism in the U.S. called “Americanism and Social Democracy” by John Spargo. It's not necessarily a complete history or some sort of encyclopedia on Socialism in America as a whole, but I feel it can be really helpful by providing some really good historical background and important information that I think is lacking among the anti-establishment left.
archive.org/details/americanismsocia00sparuoft/page/n6
@@antediluvianatheist5262 Well damn. Thanks. That "...a Country Study" series was put out for CIA field agents, just FYI.
@@williammoffett2216 Sounds like it might be accurate then.
Can't bring down a country without accurate data.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 The facts/data will be good for sure. The synthesis? ehh. It's kind of like the NYT. They have great fact checkers, researchers, and writers but if you weren't aware of their meta perspective they might completely propagandize you.
He has such a good and practiced scowl!!!!! I know that what he is saying to me means a lot to him!
Thanks for this Professor
I am still sceptical. We are trying with this, to create a civilization in the middle of the jungle. With a hair brush and three bricks.
I suppose their is a chance. But to be honest I think the people doing it already will continue to out grow our efforts.
thanks for covering this
First, the simple transformation of an agricultural to an industrialised one, explains the economic growth of the
two countries you cite, so there is no difference between the two, and the power went to the state, rather than
to the rich. The problem of "markets" wasn't solved, nor were goods distributed equitably, because the 'goods" did
not materialise to be distributed. Both abandoned the state central authority regarding this aspect, transforming Russia
into a more capitalist approach, while China adopted what might be more akin to the Japanese strategy.
This deeper dive into the co-op phase, is simply that a deeper and desperate dive to save a form of "continual growth"
economics which in the current reality is still unsustainable, since the environmental limits are now obvious, and will be
exacerbated by every success to more equitable distribution.
"Can we move nations and people in the direction of sustainability? Such a move
would be a modification of society comparable in scale to the only two other
changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution
of the past two centuries, Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and
largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation,
guided by the best foresight science can provide......If we actually do it, the
undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity's stay on the earth."
William D. Ruckelshaus, 1989
It may be therefor be necessary to adjust the bards suggestion of "First we kill all the lawyers" by adding "and the economists."
In short, the new socialism is NOT a "new and sustainable economics".....and therefor there is nothing NEW about it and we don't
have the luxury of time for YOU to figure it out.
BTW China is roughly responsible for twice the global greenhouse emissions of the US with 5 times the population,
and with an equivalent sized economy, and combined represent 40% of global emissions, with less than 2/7ths of the
world population.....so understanding what "unsustainable" means in terms of simple math, should be easy for you....but
so far, it hasn't made a dent.
Any book recommended that talks on these types of topics? Please help
Richard Wolf Secretary of Labor in the Sanders administration
28:42 Could you please offer a source on that. It would be really useful information, if it wasn't just an anecdote.
Thanks for the knowledge Professor Wolff. The roots of Capitalism run deep in USA. Uprooting capitalism would be almost impossible. Huawei is technically defined as a employee owned company. It is then a co-op? Can you please do a program about it given it's only 32yrs old but is doing so well. Many thanks.
I'd say it's not because the workers don't have democratic control of the company, as far as I know.
xDD I work in the tech sector-- I've never thought of open development and agile methodology as democratic; but you're right-- it is. All the innovation comes from basic government funded scientific research, and from "open innovation". Ie. all the socialistic stuff. lol
Dr Wolff, I recently started watching your videos and I've learned a ton, thanks. Can you explain how entrepreneurship works in a Marxist system, i don't understand why someone would start a new business if they won't have access to the future profits of that business?
Socialism requires equality in wealth but not in wages. Your position like CRO or something will or my net you a bigger salary. The key point though is that wages are decided democratically in the business. It’s likely if it was your product or idea that you could rightfully revive the highest salary.
Fantastic sir, I applaud you.
So how do we get there? I’m all for it mind you. Looking for how to get there though!
Nvm. Just watched the rest of the video haha
Low birth rate is the number one problem worker Co-ops face as far as I can tell.
Can you speak more about how we average working class folks can be starting worker Co-ops in our daily lives?
Should we focus on point of production union organization, election campaigns or influencing elected officials, or will it grow out of something peripheral like the DSA or some of the grass roots Tennant unions being formed today?
Thank you for answering.
Richard Wolff should run for president in 2020.
Eugene Debbs was thrown into jail during a brutal repression called Wilson's "Red Scare". Totally not hypocritical at all...
I only just got my head around what a co-op is so forgive me for asking what is probably a bit of a noob question, but where do co-ops draw the line in what is defined as a 'worker'. Let's take the example of a bricklaying company. Yes, you have the obvious workers - the guys who lay the bricks, the guys who stir the mortar and give the directions as to how the bricks should lie, but let's say you've got a leaky pipe in the main office bathroom and you need someone to fix it. In a traditional capitalist system, you would contract a plumber to fix the pipe, but I don't imagine the plumber would need to buy a share in the co-op before doing a job. This might seem unproblematic at first, but if co-ops are permitted to contract people, why would it then be impermissible for them to contract their bricklayers, mortar stirrers, project managers in the same way. I suppose it is arguable that there is no identifiable profit to be made in having clean pipes and drains, but who's to say? A company would undoubtedly be better off with such things, and could easily negotiate a price which would be at more profitable than another price. I feel like I'm missing an obvious piece in the puzzle here, but needs some help figuring it out if you could be so kind. Thank you in advance.
My only critique regarding Wolff, whose program I watch weekly as a fan, is he seems to conflate certain governments as "communist" or "socialist." In reality, there have never been true iterations of a communistic state. The USSR/China was never real communism. If it were, we'd all be wanting to emulate portions of their functions. Regarding socialistic countries, there's never been one. Sure, there's been countries that have nationalized certain high value companies. And in the Nordic and European models, there have been Social Democracies with well-funded welfare states. Still, certainly not full-on socialism. Co-ops are the best ways to understand, but they occur only in the work-place.
Also, Mondragon is not a corporation. Semantics, yes. But I think it matters quite a bit. Again, I still like the overall work Wolff provides to educate those whom have trouble understanding just what socialism is -- since American liberal and conservative media have propagated socialism = bad, lazy and of course, scary Venezuela, where, of course, simply is not socialism. They had nationalized their oil, other than that, it's a pretty neoliberal society. And another reason media conveniently leaves out the fact of American CIA influence through imperialism to make sure all Latin American countries fail and/or insert puppets for the plutocrats running America and rest of the world.
A communist state is an oxymoron. The USSR and the like called themselves communist because that was the goal they were working toward. They took Marx's theory of economic evolution as a religious truism
@@PoliticalEconomy101 Sorry, that's just incorrect. Communism is very attainable. It's not much different from anarchism/anarchosyndicalism. Neither Russia nor China were iterations of real communism. It's akin to Wolff saying Venezuela is the perfect example of what socialism is. Just ignorance. Wolff understands Marx. He doesn't understand politics at large, unfortunately. I like him for people whom are very un(der)-educated regarding socialism and co-ops. I really do. Aside from that, saying USSR/PRC are communistic states is simply wrong.
@@uncletom356 There is no such thing as a communist state. Communism is stateless
Wolff never directly addresses the question of why worker co-ops don't take off on their own, if they have so much to recommend them. He wants the gov't to tax free-enterprise businesses to raise money to loan to workers to finance the co-ops, but that seems an admission of the fact that free-enterprise/capitalist ventures appear to be the more desirable choice. If worker co-ops are so wonderful and democratic, why are there not more of them?
Clare Stucki
Access to capital for loans and by their nature, impossible to get investors.
Hmm some people should work on that. Create credit unions for co-ops that loan to co-ops
@@Muykle There is unlimited private venture capital available for enterprises that seem to offer a potential for profit. Evidently investors are not sold on the potential benefits to be had from co-op ventures. There's no doubt a message for Wolff in there somewhere.
@@clarestucki5151
Venture capital has many options and only funds what they see as the most profitable. Being profitable and sustainable are not objectives of venture/vulture capitalists.
A worker owned co-op means that those that own and control the business are those that work there. Traditionally in capitalist firms, investors purchase a piece of the business and own it indefinately (unless they want to sell it). Owning the business is usually a tool of controlling the business.
That is why I suspect that loans are a better option for raising money for co-ops.
Just a sidenote, it has always baffled me how republicans and rightwing democrats don't see our capitalist system as inherently statist. It's right to think about protecting socialism from statist co-opting and elitist government takeover, but it's also a major fallacy in our discourse that we don't talk about the hierarchy of capitalism being exactly those things. Heads of corporations and industrial magnates essentially install their favorite capitalist ideologues into power and/or buy legislation from representatives. Commercial industry is subsidized, directly and indirectly, by tax revenue. The leadership of both major political parties are explicitly loyal to capitalism, either giving no reason or false reasons. Meanwhile the government functions the general population have a democratic right and practical need to guide toward maintaining infrastructure, that everyone, including capitalists, need to function, is made weak or impotent. Taxes are supposed to all go to corporate tax-cuts and a giant military. It's hard to think of a more statist system than plutocratic, oligarchic capitalism.
Prof Wolff- Wouldn't it be better to respond to the free market high tech innovation charge with the fact that high tech largely comes out of the Pentagon system via taxpayer funding which is obviously sheltered from market forces? ARPANET -> Internet, NaviStar -> GPS, Army Anti Air Tech -> Computer chip, etc. ?
Yeah, the embarrassing truth is that centralized military states are very good at making high-tech weapons of mass destruction, which then find other applications later. Only Chomsky talks about this. Socialists are too scared to talk about the social importance of the war machine. It should be run for the benefit of the people with all its "innovations" and not left in the hands of the blacksuits just because it's "yuck".
Big fan of co-ops ,thanks for spreading the word about them ,I think Gov should cut subsidies to multi national co. That dont need it and invest that in starting co-ops to compete with larger co. To Elevate large chunks of workers out of poverty and forcing standard Corp. to increase wages to compete with co-ops that would pay better and give ppl a sense of ownership and self determination in the endeavour that will occupy most of there waking hrs . If there was at least 1 major co-op in almost every industry it would force its competitors to pay a living wage and offer benefits plans similar to the ones ppl will be giving themselves in the co-ops that also helps consumers that fear service workers getting a living wage will make there $1burger go up to $2.. cus without the millions in bonuses to executives lots of ppl can live well and still sell cheap food .I also have no problem with Gov. Just opening businesses in various industries for the same purpose of "keeping existing co honest" so to speak and to prevent monopolies .an example of how this is good is municipal internet which a lot of countries with way better internet service have ,along with private providers who may be slightly better idk but I do know they cant price gouge ppl if the ppl have a option of a plans who's rates are decided by them and their neighbor through local Gov representatives
What will take the place of our Military industrial Complex????
Yes
Please share this. I'm just about to.
I like the idea of co-ops, but what stop big co-ops, like the one in Spain, to participate in un democratic practices like lobbying and paying polititians to rule in their favor?
State centralization. If the state regulates what they do, then there would be less corruption coming from monopolies of Co-ops. I generally think that state socialism is better than the Co-op.
@@neo-jacobin6170 The more centralized the state the more corruption there will be. Corruption is a direct result of the state having power.
Apple, amazon etc should be worker co-op
Joseph Kovar Jr no way I did not know that, thank you for sharing that!
I hope this information reaches the apple workers so they can have something to actually think about.
Why?
Micah Vogan why should the ceo get all the money?
@@Gigika313 He doesn't get all of the money. He pays wages to a ton of people at the company. He invests in research and development. He funds offshored projects. The people that have jobs do not deserve more than the negotiated compensation. No one is forced to work there and if their idea is so great then they can go start a company to earn money from that product.
@@josephkovarjr6955 And the business would last for less than a week.
The only downside of this video is that the title will turn away the very people who would love it the most. Innovators. Independent thinkers. Collaborative entrepreneurs. Look past the title - this is the real American dream. It might be time to rename "socialism" and "worker co-ops" which have been tainted with the Soviet model and capitalist backlash. What could we call these that would attract the people who actually need this the most?
Even if the workers decided that their business was better run by a ceo who made all the decisions and did none of the work, worker co-ops can still elect bosses and managers and boards of directors. Co-ops dont necessarily need to be a direct democracy, i myself would much prefer to work in a co-op that doesnt have any hierarchy but if you think someone doing no work and being paid more money than you is a better way of doing things then you can have it that way
The failure of the new Soviet state to fade away was not contingent on Lenin living or dying. In the first place, his own democratic centralist party concept tended toward dictatorship, in emulating a military command structure, as Rosa Luxemburg pointed out. In practise, the process of replacing the Tsarist state, including the Duma, with the Bolshevik party itself, moved with an organisational inertia toward that dictatorship of one man and of the party over the the proletariat and the whole of society, and that inertia was in the opposite direction from allowing the state to wither away. Indeed, the manufacturing co-ops which had been created by workers between the February and October revolutions were steadily seized by the Bolshevik government to bring them under centralised administrative control and planning. Secondly, it was not in any case possible to do without a state, because there was a civil war to win, and a hostile international context. I am dubious about whether it is possible to do without the state, because of the experience curve involved in providing competent, adequate, accountable public services, meaning that some people have to make the provision of such services their life's work, and they in turn need to be paid, which means that there has to be some form of taxation and so on. But even if it is possible, if the population at large can carry out those responsibilities directly, the Russian people were not ready to. But because the duplication of the centralisation of the Bolshevik party model as the state model involved the suppression of other parties, of alternate organisations and alternate press, and even the suppression of factions within the Bolshevik party, there was not the open, free discussion and argument necessary to build up the political education and decision-making competence of the public which Rosa Luxemburg called for.
"But what socialism didn't address in the 20th century, at least not in any systematic way - neither in Russia nor in China nor in the other societies that have experimented with socialism - what they didn't do was transform the workplace."
What about Yugoslavia and their experimentation in "workers self management"?
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on Yugoslavia as their economy was different from that of the USSR, China, & Eastern Bloc, in that they did attempt to reorganize industry in the direction you advocate - towards democratic control of the workplace by the workers themselves. What is your opinion on the Yugoslav experiment and where they went wrong?
He's talking about a lot of this stuff in very broad very lay terms. He only really engages with the USSR and China and modern democratic socialism. Anarchism does not exist apparently and has never had anything to do with worker co-ops. Don't ask what happened in Spain apart from Mondragon, he won't mention it. I have no idea why.
None of the initial stuff about giving power to the State was contained in socialist writings. Neither Marx nor Engels nor Lenin said that socialism was when the state controlled stuff. All of them said "revolution to put power into the hands of the working class as a whole in a democracy, ramp up production so that the needs of all can be met, make the political aspect of the old state apparatus become the responsibility of the people themselves (make everyone participate in running things), and only after democracy has taken hold at all levels, and the needs of the people are being met, can we claim that socialism has been created." The key WAS ALWAYS democracy first. That people talk about putting power into the hands of the State is a childish interpretation of "well, Marx said to nationalize and for the State to control stuff, and so did Lenin, and look at Russia and China! That's obviously what they meant!" No, Marx and Lenin both EXPLICITLY stated what they meant by the "State" in their writings. The armed masses of the working class as a whole in a democracy. In fact, in the Communist Manifest, Marx said:
"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.
"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production."
To WIN THE BATTLE OF DEMOCRACY, you must be the ruling class, the majority, IN A DEMOCRACY. The State, "i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class," literally means that the working class has organized itself AS THE MAJORITY IN A DEMOCRACY to act as the ruling class IN A DEMOCRACY. The change from private property to public property, i.e. THE PROPERTY OF THE PUBLIC, NOT THE STATE, requires "...despotic inroads on the rights of property...", meaning that private property must be "nationalized," meaning that the means of production must be given over TO THE WORKERS THEMSELVES.
Interestingly, Marx, Engels and Lenin didn't support the above position. Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto in 1848. They changed their approach until it resembled the 1871 Paris Commune (which they pointed to as the best example of what they advocated for), which was to just overthrow the existing system and create an entirely new one that was entirely democratic. Lenin modeled the Soviet method off of that, but BECAUSE OF OTHER REAL LIFE CIRCUMSTANCES, like, say, massive poverty, WWI, civil war wiping out MOST OF THE WORKING CLASS, food shortages, low education and a lack of reciprocation after the peasants were granted their demands for more land (which the Provisional Government had refused to do anything about, which combined with other issues that led to the October Revolution), etc etc etc, that method wasn't realized, Lenin died, and Stalin, who was in a position of incalculable power, became the rising power. Mao based a lot off of Stalin's approach, not Marx, not Engels, and not Lenin.
The lesson is that socialism WAS NEVER ABOUT State control, but WAS ALWAYS ABOUT democratization. Not from above, but from below. The Jacobins and Blanquists wanted it from above, with themselves at the head (Lenin wasn't a Jacobin or a Blanquist), but that's not about socialism; that's despotism. That's oligarchy or monarchy or dictatorship. Not socialism.
This is one of the things that bothers me about Wolff's explanations of the history of socialism. Socialists didn't want State control. They all wanted democratic control. Stalin wasn't a socialist. He may have been part of the Bolsheviks, but what he did was anti-socialist EVEN BY THE STANDARDS OF THAT TIME. Lenin excoriated others for similar tendencies. So did Marx and Engels and many others.
He corrects his beginning statements about early socialist being statist around 23:00 (the people who advocated socialism advocated democracy, not statism), but by that time it's a bit late. Most of the talks I've heard from him don't do even that.
The idea that Lenin would have revoked the statist flavor of their revolution seems dubious.
After their victory in the civil war, he immediately got to work relinquishing the worker controlled soviets, the only mechanism of valid socialism.
From then on, the dictatorship of the proletariat was announced, Menshevic groups repressed, and the populace forced back into serfdom, only now with machines.
@Jebus Hypocristos I would rather say reactionary, but okay. Lenin is being realistic. his country was devastated by war and famines. To centralize the economy and to control dissidence was necessary .
Lenin put a *temporary* ban on other parties, and a *temporary* ban on dissenting opinions outside the party. But I don't think "temporary" meant 7 decades. Also if I remember correctly the USSR had democracy in the workplace for some time, I don't know why that was removed.
Your not knowing is the phenomenon I am pointing out. Lenin and Trotsky were practically open about the fact that they could ill afford the soviet councils to exercise authentic political power. This was literally the only concept that made Soviet Russia socialist, without this, the Bolsheviks were left to craft state by assumption of what the proletariat wanted. To say that collectivization was a necessity is laughable however. 'To whom' is the inferential question. Collectivization was a necessity to the communist kernel, yet the efforts for centralization were so severely detrimental to the populace, that multiple generations experienced undue hardships, not to mention the distortion caused onto the bureaucratic organs.
@@DiThi it can be argued that all of those things would go away with the state. withering away of the state is one of the most important concepts with in Marxism. The state is suppose to transition into socialism and eventually communism. Lenin said that Russia was not socialist, it needed to developed under capitalism, and then it would transition into socialism. The soviet Government claimed that communism would be achieved in the 1980's, but this didn't happen due to liberalization of the economy. work place "democracy" in the soviet union wasn't effective, especially in the Russian civil war. Illiterate farmers with the mindset of the old order are the least useful people for co-ops. which is one of many reasons why the soviets abandoned this with a non-market planned economy.
@@0MVR_0 If you actually examined what Marx said, then you would know that non-developed nations can't reach socialism. They can develop socialism, but they can't immediately create it. Lenin did not consider the early soviet Union as socialist. That is because the majority of the country was not urbanize or develop. infrastructure was more focus on certain cities, and the majority of the people did not know how to read. when Lenin ruled, he considered the country a mix economy. That is because capitalist still owned businesses, landlords still rule the countryside, and co-operatives existed in some cities. The NEP economic policy was an attempt to bring the country from feudalism to capitalism. The 5 year plans of Stalin was the attempt to advance that into socialism. collectivization was needed to create a industrial revolution that would turn the development of Russia to that of the west, was suppose to improve the workers standard of living.
I have a question, what if a corporation or company or what not fires all of their workers and then they move overseas because then they could be like there was no one to refuse 1st lol. I mean its jacked up but let's be honest, not out of the realm of possibilities here in the US
I like the idea of worker Co-Ops and I agree that the workplace should be democratic but I wonder if the true nature of a corporation would change if turned into a co-op. For example, if Lockheed Martin turned into a co-op, would it's objective still be to sell murder weapons and lobby for war? I might be missing something obvious but I'm not sure how that would change...
Gabriel Afflitto
With fewer profits, the less money to corrupt the politicians. Fewer US contracts, less money. Workers get laid off and hopefully get hired by a coop that prioritizes helping people more than mass slaughter.
Impossible to know, the workers at Lockheed just do whatever the capitalists want so maybe if they had a say they would build passenger planes, who knows.
Been thing of organising a media co-op, as in provide services like video, photo and graphic design and etc. Any one know some good example of business with this model?
Professor, I do realise you have to focus on the monumental task of "selling" these ideas to a capitalistic minded US audience, and for that we are, as we should, all deeply thankful. That said...
Maybe you could at some point address in more detail what happened in the USSR from 1917 to 1937, from the revolution to the total takeover by Stalin. The civil war, war communism, civil rights movements [an extremely successful feminism, extremely successful ethnic equity (at least on paper), and so on], cultural vanguards, the NEP, Lenin's death, the rise of the centrist faction, the first purges of Stalin, the fall of Trotsky, the fall of the original Politburo, the decapitation of the Red Army command in 1937. There's SO MUCH to study and learn from. Such colossal errors, the most significant of which are usually overlooked, and such colossal achievements, from the economic growth you usually point out to the fact that by 1927 Trotsky had already predicted that the Chinese revolution would have to be made by farmers, that in the stalinistic path the USSR would become isolated and unable to compete with the capitalist world, and that the US would become a militaristic power the likes of which the world had never seen. That period is one whose study is mandatory to anybody interested in understanding socialism in depth. Please, do grace us with your analysis of it. :)
the revolution betrayed, by trotsky, is a great book. The greatest take is that he predicts the stagnation that would become present, decades later, in the working class of the ussr and how that would lead to collapse. He pin points how the growing bureaucracy which would control the ussr economy would indirectly lead to the collapse of the ussr. "a planned economy needs democracy just as the human body needs oxygen".
@@sebastianmatarelli5602 Definitely. Since reading that book I've been more often than not forced to agree with Trotsky's analysis of the insidious ways in which class struggle seeps into societies, and of the way it was beginning to seep back into the USSR via the strenghtening of the bureaucracy and the failure of the party (and even of the Red Army) to fight elitism within its own ranks. The fact that Lenin was in the process of overcoming war communism, which called for descentralization and oversight on the Politburo, is crucial. The need to relinquish the absolute power of the days of the Civil War was accutely felt by those with the best foresight: Trotsky, Kollontai, and even Lenin and Krupskaya.
Hello, what do you advice a young millennial to do to prepare for the next decade?
Go get some skills that actually make you money and stop praying that socialism comes around and you will get free shit.
Great video.
Capitalism is plenty criticized daily!
Of course it's not a perfect system n definitely needs some sensical reform.
But the motive for innovation, growing a business, employing people, is profit!
Voluntary interaction in a free society is capitalism.
Socialism forces you to buy something that the powers that be say you must.
Capitalism forces the entrepreneurs to serve the desires of other people or be voted out of favor by the power of the individuals wallet.
Unions exist n I belong to one. In the private sector of course. I do not agree with public sector unions existence because they are taxpayer funded, and get to leverage money out of the pockets of the productive people.
Capitalism is the solution, not the problem.
Government interference and stranglehold on private business is the problem. Get government out of the way n cut the worthless beauracrasies throat that kill the economy n retain power to hand out monopolistic policies to a select few.
America has too damn much socialism already!
Change the system by killing barriers to growth. Basically by eliminating governmental power to fund parasitism.
Taxing me n my coworkers into poverty will only disincentivize us from productivity.
Worker co ops are an option and nobody is stopping it from happening.
A vast majority of people are self interested and intellegent people will not vote in the same fashion as incompetent people. This is just fact!
It's a death sentence for a company when social justice rules over that company.
What is suggested here would have to be backed by guns and require theft and redistribution of wealth and ownership.
This is a pipedream n can not work in the real world. Not improbable but completely impossible! Democracy is a path to hell, n it's been proven time and again.
Richard Wolf is a genius in his analisys of the problems we face n why n how we got to this point, but the solutions he advocates arent realistic or desirable to many!
Thanks
I liked that!