as opposed to "the government who does nothing but obey its corporate masters" like what's happening right now ? it's going so well at the moment why change it ?
Sometimes. But Socialism can be carried out by charities in relation to their cause, companies/corporations in relation to providing for their employees or society in general. It's just more efficient/sustainable for governments to perform socialist policies.
It has been more ta a taboo to speak about socialism. As a teen, (I'm 79 years old) I was sent to the principal's office because I often brought other perspectives into social studies classes. I was taking advanced biology classes but was sent to a "remedial"social studies class in the same semester. I lost my job because I protested the McCarthy committee coming to my city and I was interviewed on television. I have been socially ostracised, spat upon, called antisemitic names. But I just persisted. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a socialist in my life that ran for President. But he was so badly treated by the Democratic party that he never really had a chance in either of his runs for the presidency. I don't know how socialist I am, but I think I am more socialist than Sanders and probably more militant too. Whatever it is, I think there is a better way than what we have now. I suspect the better way is socialism. Shocking!
@@fluorinegas6944 *WE* *WON!* Bernie Sanders ALREADY *WON!* WE got his message OUT! *THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!!!* M4A!!! . TAX THE RICH!!! . TUITION FREE EDUCATION!!! . LIVING WAGE LEGISLATION!!! . GREEN NEW DEAL!!! *WE* DID IT! *THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!* Not MY opinion; just LOOK at what is happening in the Streets! Bernie Sanders has *EMPOWERED* *THE* *PEOPLE!!!* WE ARE THE REVOLUTION! WE ARE THE CHANGE! www. PatrioticMillionaires .org
@Dim "The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 Even though it was never enforced ("The Act has since been ruled unconstitutional in federal court but has not been ruled on in the Supreme Court and has never been enforced.") that doesn't mean that it's existence wasn't a threat to all American communists during the late fifties and early sixties. Communism and socialism have not been mainstream for a long time due. They were only somewhat mainstream for a very, very short period of time between 1900 and 1930. Popularity fell in the forties due to demonizing from political figures who saw CPUSA's existence as a threat. Once support dropped enough, Eisenhower saw an opportunity to completely criminalize the entire party. Also, if you couldn't tell, communism and socialism are inherently linked due to Americans lack of understanding of either.
You’re getting screwed right now. You see, right now corporations are taking bailouts one after another. You already have capitalism and socialism of a sort - these corporations capitalize their gains and socialize their losses. That is YOU the taxpayer paying for their losses. The whole point of capitalism is that corporations are allowed to fail to allow more efficient ones to prosper. The USA is stuck in an endless cycle of bailing them out repeatedly - 3 times in the last 20 years.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov
When you quote someone, don't hide their name under the "Show More" fold. Or were you hoping to take credit for that statement being your own? Anyway, thanks for the great QUOTATION of Isaac Asimov! Those last 12 words really encapsulate the mindset that put Donald Trump in the White House & that has Americans acting against their own interests out of ignorance & arrogance. Trump is the king of ignorance & arrogance, so it's no wonder masses of people will defend him to the point of hating their fellow Americans and/or making him dictator. I've copied this quotation to my computer to use elsewhere.
Dim thanks for proving you have no coherent argument. You make an assertion about the Democrats (which you’re too ignorant even spell) without any evidence or argument provided. You are the epitome of American ignorance.
William Sands As an American I do agree, some Americans do not care to ask enough questions, bread, and circus appease the people these days in a more electronic way, but it's as old as western religion, you go to church, and never..ever ask too many questions.
@@Hazelnutz3 This is the first time that I am seeing the full speech - seeing the meme only. I just thought that this guy was another libertarian strawmanning the left. I was very confused to find out that he is based and breadpilled.
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!” ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
One of the biggest social disaster on the 20the century was communism. Read up on the history of it and it is responsible for millions of deaths. We know it fail and it failed really badly. As Einstein said, the definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome. Have a look at the South American countries that went down socialism, Venezuala is a basket case. The most suppressive regims are communist countries. How many communist Americans where trying to defect to Russia during the cold war? How many Russians were trying to defect to the US during the cold war? If you are so into communism why not go to North Korea.
The competition of locals in the international IATSE tends to show a hard roe to hoe. Far as uniting the Labor,, as Marx had it then what, was a middle class of the educated not as it went with unleashed peasants revolting in St. Petersburg & Moscow. I think of the new instant translation telephones for Business Agents to coordinate wage competition demands in the different nations these days as a great possibility. It is systems and Financial Engineering to get right now as we as labor are to be trapped on a crowded planet. Mars is no escape destination as was driving to California.
@@pixeled9683 in yo shit. It's based on facts and logic
8 лет назад+511
I am 73 years old, Poli Sci graduate from UCLA and I've learned more in this lecture than 4 years of college having read Marx and Engles among others. Thank you for a great lecture and I'm looking forward to furthering my education through you. Cheers!!
Nice to know there is one person commenting here who actually understood what was being taught, instead of throwing around the same tired name-calling and prejudices.
Worst channel ever, That's true but I hope you wouldn't be so incapable of nuance as to see it was Marx's solutions and not his critiques (some of them anyway) of capitalism that led him down the rabbit hole of failure. In other words, I think he identified the wounds fairly accurately but royally screwed up when attempting to apply the bandage.
It seems America needs a decade or two of full socialism, complete with gulags and millions of dead bodies, so that they too finally see how dumb of an idea it actually is (and how death is an inevitability with socialism/communism).
I dont see how anyone can be against workers controlling their own lives. Unless of course your in management and you think god sent you here to tell people what to do.
1997lordofdoom haven’t you ever heard of unions and employee owned companies? They exist under capitalism. In socialism, if you’re not born into privilege you have no chance. All attempts to create socialism have only resulted in elitism. And SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES are not socialism.
The Legendary Bob Dill Inn If workers are so anxious to be in control they can work for an employee owned firm and TAKE THE RISK too. And guess what, some of them will have to be managers or they can try and rule by committee, good luck with that chaos. Workers have the free choice to work at any company that their skill set is needed. The good workers will be in high demand and the slugs will be fired UNLESS you’re in a union and then the slug continue with the protection of the union. Now the quality of work is headed DOWNHILL. No you have a failure in the making.
@@Diego_SanCA Damn, you have a nice view of a worker, calling them a "slug". How you are so sure that when someone is underperforming a lot isn't gonna get fired by a union if the majority of people would agree that he is underperforming? And yeah, "good luck with that chaos" we are living in that chaos and it's called a government unless you are living in some authoritarian state where "king" does all decisions. You do you, but I would prefer democracy in my life, even if it's a bit underperforming. Because for an average worker it would be a much better situation. But then, suddenly, studies show that union enterprises are more productive www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf So, we don't even need to make that sacrifice, isn't it awesome? Isn't it makes sense, when the average joe, call center operator, would be more informed and more interested in being a good worker, responding to calls with responsibility and thought, if he owns it, compared if he just a wage-slave to an authoritarian CEO who probably don't even know that he exists and don't Joe have no say there, he either stays for a flat salary, which is as low as it's possible for the CEO or gets out?
Workers controlling the means of production through cooperatives is perfectly acceptable within a capitalist marketplace. Wanna convince a group of workers to start their own operation and have it completely owned by the employees, nothing is preventing you. This is achievable within the current system and would also be achievable within a more capitalistic system as well. The concern arises when outside forces use force to obtain this outcome. Its a gross violation of fundamental rights and liberties and morally is wrong. So by all means, using persuasion and cooperation, workers have every right to pursue this outcome of worker owned coops. Truth be told however, it is not an arrangement many desire. Israel with their communal farms demonstrate this fact.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov and knowledge is = truth
Meanwhile majority of successful Americans over history were highschool or middle school Educated and some how were creative and intelligent without being endoctrinated into society circles threw european type universities
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 That's what communism looks like! What do you think a communist regime looks like? Paper pushers assisted by brutal bastards who mass-murder anyone who dares contradict the paper pushers. Pol Pot always chatted cheerfully with those he was going to have executed by torture. Charming. And Chomsky defended Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouges - who murdered more than 3 million Cambodians!
@@stefanmetzeler did you know that Pol Pot was back supported by CIA (and China) against Vietnam? Or that the CIA (China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran too) did the same with Mujahideen (predecessors of Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan against the soviets?
The most important point he made in this video was that the revolution didn't bring Socialism with the Soviet Union, but State Capitalism, where the State became the ruling class, instead of the Capitalists/Private Business Owners. We went from Kings and Queens ruling, to the Owning Class ruling, to the State ruling, to what we have now which is either in most countries. The State Ruling, the Owning Class(business owners) ruling, or a mix of both. Sadly within the American political spectrum, the points Wolff made in this video will never be clearly understood by most people. The right-wing of this country is so pathologically disconnected from reality, and so ignorant, they make it their goal to eternally brainwash their sheepish cult into believing communism, socialism, and nazi mean the same thing, and that they are the ideology of atheists. I used to be conservative when I was younger but education and reading history and books from the people I learned about, instead of learning about them from people I thought were honestly, lead me to be less conservative more and more over time. The conservative mindset is what ruins this country. Not necessarily conservative principles, but the conservative mindset which is basically close-minded as fuck.
Thanks for your honesty. The sad truth is that someone will always rule (with one exception, but it is certainly not worth striving for), and the best you can do is try to pick the ruler who seems most reasonable. Just because we have seen how fucked up nation-states can get, it seems that the best we can do is live under an absolute monarch, or at least under an aristocrat who's involved in the planing of his estate (different from estate tax). Anything else, and you get a short, strained period of stability followed by a mad dash to take as much as quickly as possible.
You're wrong. There was always a choice, and people chose walmart. Those stores don't exist anymore, but no ones stopping anyone from opening one. It's just that it would go out of business, so no one bothers.
Socialism is state capitalism by definition. It's economical system where government owns means and productions and provides the goods. Your utopia will never come true because it always fails for same reason. Too much power in same place.
Fun Fact: He was the teacher for the Greece PM who imposed the worst austerity program in Greek history. This isn't a dig at Wolff. He's a badass. It's just sad how a student didn't take anything with him.
Yeah if that student actually listened to Wolff and took his stuff seriously Greece would have been a superpower by now, (or at least not stuck in an infinite stagnation). Austerity never works during recessions.
@@KrishnaDasLessons the problem is also the previous socialist party didn't actually enforce the tax laws properly, which meant they didn't manage to deliver on their promises and got kicked out. So the problem now is the Greek people don't trust their socialist party
The austerity program of Greece was forced by the Euopean Union after the financial crisis of 2007. The former German finanical minister Wolfgang Schäuble played a major role in this.
I have learned more from this 50-minute lecture than I have in the entirety of everything I have ever heard about Capitalism or Socialism in my entire nearly 17 years of existence
Hopefully you will do some more reading. Maybe start with feudalism to understand what it was like before capitalism. And then reading about the system of American slavery to understand capitalism based on land ownership and forced labor. And from there reading about the way workers were treated in the north beginning with Sam slaters treatment of child workers all the way through Ronald Reagan’s breaking of the air traffic controller strike and with a middle focus on the strikes of the 1930s including the GM sit down strike. All attempts by workers beginning with enslaved rebels all the way through the 1980s air traffic controllers are met with propaganda and diversionary tactic’s as well as state violence using militias and/or the National Guard. The boogeyman is communism/Socialism. Before they could deny reality to millions via online bots and cult minions they simply said that the other reality (socialism) was WAY worse.
38:31 "Lenin would have and probably did, turn over in his grave." Nope. Lenin was never buried. He's been embalmed since his death and has traveled around lying in state since his death as a puppet, basically. The 'Ask a Mortician' RUclips channel did a fascinating piece on Lenin after death. I highly recommend it.
This is a really outstanding presentation. I had told my brother that I was interested in Bernie Sanders agenda. His immediate response was that Bernie Sanders is a communist. I told him that wasn't true but it was hard to explain. This is so helpful at making more clear an understanding of socialism. Thank you. I will send this to my brother. I also look forward to Part 2.
Adam Cortright You can call him whatever you want. He calls himself a democratic socialist. FDR may have called himself a democratic socialist. I am not sure it really matters. Sanders is interested in the welfare of the society as a whole rather than the individual. If you have time look at his platform on his web site. Sanders would more likely be considered a progressive. As for being a member of the Democratic party he acknowledges the need to belong to one of the two parties to allow access to a means of participating.
Socialism as defined by Marx and Engels has, at the very least, the workers owning the means of production, with control of distribution and exchange democratically decided according to a rational plan based on human need, and not private profit. I just wanted to make that clear re: Bernie doesn't support that.
Adam Cortright If you go back to his agenda he does support cooperatives which is essentially what you are describing. He also is very much opposed to corporate America and all that they pursue related to profits. Note his position on climate change. Certainly it is profit of the fossil fuel industry that is the great barrier to addressing this issue. Note his position on election reform. Certainly it is the great profits of corporations and the elite that distort our democratic system. I think he is very much in line with thoughts on cooperatives and their value. You are wrong that Bernie doesn't support workers owning the means of production. Again go to his web site and see for yourself his agenda. Just go to a search engine and you will easily find his site.
rker321 We are extremely uneducated on many subjects, unfortunately. Most US school,s both public and private, are failing. Too worried about passing tests that all the other subjects fall away. Very sad.
I'm the only member of my inner circle that has an interest in socialism. I still wouldn't consider myself a socialist, but I am willing to listen to other view points - How do you know what system is best? You study it.
bad place to learn it. Learn it from a anarchocapitalist. If you learn from a socialist you won't notice he is sayng that basicly socialism is the ideia of robing the entire nation
As a communist myself I use the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, because while a socialist society and a communist society are different, the ideology that brings you to either is the same. Socialist societies being ones in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the workers and communist societies being a type of socialist society that exists without classes, currency, or a state. If you describe yourself as a "socialist," that is, an advocate for socialist society, it follows that you must too be a "communist," an advocate for communist society, as communism is simply the next logical step after socialism, just as socialism is the next logical step after capitalism. It's true that many Americans need a lot more nuance in their definitions of socialism and communism but to think of them as the same or at least similar isn't entirely unfair or untrue.
Probably the best economics teacher I have come across on the internet. His approach to the subject is simply the best. Appreciation from Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Imagine the way the world could’ve been if the French and British had agreed to form an alliance with the Soviets... ...Hitler would’ve been stomped a bit faster at the very least.
He got it backwards socialist and communist are the same and they are the Liberals and democratic people. Repulicans are the true people that stand for freedom and capitalizim. Capitalizim is very good and it requirs people not to be lazy and work for what they get instead of taking from the working class to give to the lazy people.
@@YourPetSnake Unlike all the fools who listened to this old Marxist like he was a new messiah, I actually know all of this socialist bullshit and I've seen it FIRST HAND. I've seen communism in Eastern Europe and I see socialism every time I hop the border to France, which is one of the most insanely socialist countries on the planet where everyone is indoctrinated with Marxism. The government schools and the media spread Marxism, the entire justice system is dominated by an openly Marxist union. In short, they all know Marxism and they do their very best to implement it and the result is misery. Horrendous unemployment, especially for young people, ridiculously low salaries with exorbitant taxes, VAT etc. Yeah, sure, hand control to government, this is what it will look like. All this guy is doing is repeat the utopian beliefs that if somehow they managed to overcome all the economic and social constraints of reality, it woudl be paradise 😂
Remember when Thomas Hobbes used to disagree with Adam Smith about Capitalism? Me either, since Hobbes died in 1679 and Adam Smith wasn't born until 1723. OK, but do you remember how Adam Smith wrote in defense of capitalism after Capitalism didn't deliver the equality it promised during the French Revolution ("liberty, equality, fraternity" being the campaign platform of Capitalism established at the Storming of the Bastille)? Me, either, since Adam Smith died within a year of the Storming of the Bastille. When you have a bunch of people who already want to believe you, you can pretty much tell them anything and they'll buy it. Good on you, ye titan of dishonesty!
Although I am a libertarian - purely in favor of true free-market capitalism, this professor is correct. Anyone advocating for more government is not inherently communistic. In fact, communism is anarchistic at the end of the day. They look forward to the end of government. I have a whole host of reasons why communism or socialism will never work, but on that point - this guy is correct.
when i was young i was told that communism was when the government owned everything and socialism was when the government controlled the whole economy i now know both are wrong
This is a very clear lecture. I believe many of the adverse comments were written by people who could not be bothered to listen to the whole presentation.
@Dim Seed was already sown in the 40's like was said in the talk, people already decided that "-isms" = bad. Not to mention that the economy wasn't as screwed up then as it is now. I'd like to have economists explain today how socialism isn't the better way to go now that the distribution of wealth is so skewed you need second or more jobs just to keep the light on. EDIT: Personally I'd prefer we moved towards a system of technocracy where the interest of the people is handled by experts. That doesn't really happen atm. experts are present, but often ignored. Surprisingly 80% of the Chinese communist party members have a engineering degree, and they're booming.
@Dim I can't believe you're saying that praying capitalists exploiting the developing parts of the world is a positive thing. Capitalists are like locusts, eating everything in their way, only to move to greener pastures, which is what we're seeing in the news all the time, what with the entertainment industry catering more and more to the Chinese market. You're kidding yourself if you think the elite has any geographical or national allegiance - they - just - want - more - money. I do agree with you, however, that capitalism is great if heavily regulated, but the fact that someone can come and buy out a vital part of the country's assets and run it into the ground (neo-liberalism) DISGUSTS me to now end, that's my take on why I'm not a huge fan, because I see the injustice it brings. And then you say millionaires and billionaires are self made. Yeah maybe through inflation they are. Numbers keep getting bigger and bigger, and in 20 years you'll say "look, selfmade trillionaires!". It's sad that you equate socialism with something horrible, like it'll force you into labor camps, wear the same clothes etc. It's more about owning the means of production for the shit that the people around you need, instead of waiting for a capitalist to come around and do it. BBC and DR (Danish Radio) were created because there was a need nobody else would fill (as we're not as big countries as the US). In unison we rise to the occasion. You see socialist stuff in the US as well. Like how communities install and run their own internet in their town.
He's being a bit bloody generous to Stalin! If Stalin declared that State ownership was Socialism, it was NOT because he was concerned about the morale of the general population! It was because he was a power-crazed psychopath, and it suited him very well to keep power of all business - just think of how much power that would give you! - in his own hands. And the sick thing is that in declaring, "This is Socialism," he was telling the population that everything was done for their benefit, that the workers now had the power - so when they felt they didn't have any power, they'd have to doubt themselves, or start to hate and distrust "Socialism". This is the con done on the workers of the whole world: everyone equates Socialism with State control aka totalitarianism, and so ignores a means of gaining their share of power in society. And of course Stalin inspired other arseholes who wanted to take all power for themselves: or if they didn't in the beginning, they soon did, as the sheer amount of power they'd have would corrupt pretty much anyone (who was it said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?). But otherwise, a brilliant lecture! beautifully clarifies how and why Socialism ISN'T what they did in the USSR.
Professor says plenty of interesting things (well, for people who are completely unfamiliar with subject at least), but he is missing on oh so many points, starting from his misrepresentation of Adaam Smith, who was actually one of the first significant critics of capitalism, and on whose works (and Ricardo's) Marx builе his own economic theory, to the completely uneducated opinions on USSR, saying that it didn't transform it's economics from capitalism, which is as wrong as it can get. By the end of the 30s, all industries except food production were transormed to planned economy which means there was no longer any commodity production or profit motive, which is what is expected from socialist system. All, except some like agrarian sector where there were which consisted mainly from kolkhozes (basically agrarian cooperatives) and distribution and small commerce sectors, but even they were embedded to some degree into planing system. For example kolkhozes recieved an expected plan for some produce like grain, according to that plan they were supplied with vehicles like tractors along with specialists who can repair it, fertilizers, pesticides and stuff like that, for that they would recieve salaries, but everything they produced above plan they were fit to deal with as they like, selling it on the market or distribute it between peasants or selling it in bulk to the government (andplan was set up in such a way that most of the times they had decent portion of produce remaining). As you can see even cooperatives (which Wolf likes very much) despite being a profit enterprise to some degree, in many ways were pulled from commodity production, because they were supplied with tractors and stuff not according to how much money they could pay, but according to plan, plan not built on profits, but on use value of the products produced. And actual industries were completely rid of the commodification. Money lost one of the important roles it has in capitalism - the ability to direct the labor. As a result - full employment by the first half of the 30s. Anyone who knows even remotely about marxism knows that it's not that big of a stretch to cvall it socialism.
@18:45 Hold the phone. Thomas Hobbes wrote the Leviathan wayyyyyyy before Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. It's really disingenuous to argue that somehow Hobbes argued against Smith's individualist arguments. Hobbes after all was arguing in favor of a strong monarchy in the feudal sense, not for a strong community in the modern sense.
I heard the idea of democracy at work from this guy. It's also his opinion that we shouldn't have a UBI. (Universal basic income) I thought a UBI was a good idea until I heard the professor talk about it. I feel his ideas- and there are other people in America talking about socialism- I feel in the not too distant future we are going to inevitably get to somewhere near where professor Wolf wants us to be. Here in Ireland people are looking to socialism more and more. We have a big party here called Sinn Fein. A socialist party. The only reason they're not in power now is because of a lack of self belief. They didn't field enough candidates in our last general election. I'm sure they've learned they're lesson. They are in a power sharing government in the north and have been constantly- barring one or two hiccups- for a very long time. Sinn Fein will transform Ireland and were Ireland leads, other nations in Europe follow. Tiocfaide ár lár.
"Capitalist Richard Wolff doesn't exist, it can't hurt you" Capitalist Richard Wolff: "Capitalism is when the company does stuff. The more company does stuff, the more Capitalist it gets, but if it does *real* stuff, its Corporatism."
I feel like we are already naturally moving towards a more socialist and communist way of thinking thanks to the internet. Most people now understand that if we want to move forward as a species we need to work together so some form of hybrid free market capitalist socialist communist theory way of life imho will naturally develop as it already is now. The only question or difference we can or have to see or predict or debate now is whether we will go full socialist or communist or where we will draw the line.
Just try and remember the good times... Ive been thinking about it quiet a lot of time: How internet is going to affect political mindset of people, points of view and so on and help people to achieve communism? There are models like open source code, backing applications all together like Kickstsrter, the pure internacionalism of the youtube is also quite socialist. Trying to spread the message that all the lower classes of the world must remain unite to fight together against work explotation is way more easy. Certantly the internet is going to change politics in some way or another. Cheers from Spain!
8:04 - I'm glad Wolff mentioned that, I've heard some anarcho-communist say that Bernie was their entering point into socialism/leftist idea, but that they later realised that he's more of a reformer than revolutionary, in any case they say they are now more leftist than Bernie ever was.
Misquoting Thomas Hobbes. He did not warn that capitalism would make life nasty brutish and short... He said that was the nature of life BEFORE civilization... before people created a civilized way of allowing individuals the freedom to cooperate and create wealth pursuing their own interests (capitalism).
+Chris Knorr -- I don't think he misquoted Hobbes - he said that the idea that everybody does what's best for him 'as a principle to organize society' would put us in danger and then referred to Hobbes who pretty much said exactly that in Leviathan - granted, he made this confusing since Hobbes pre-dates Smith, but I guess he was trying to make the point that the idea that Smith was trying to pick up was already criticised by Hobbes.
Perhaps. As far as I can tell, I think this guy is typical of liberal intellectuals. He is drawing from misinterpreted, scattered sources and speaking in terms of rationality while making irrational, half-baked conclusions.
Nice intro, but I can't stop once he gets into the history part of this: 14:20 - The French Revolution was "capitalist"? Wow. It was a hodge-podge of a thousand views, many of which were almost socialist. Price controls, currency manipulation, the universal rights and citizenship of all Frenchmen (even colonial blacks), etc... It was the inability of the Revolutionaries to control their economy and their wars with England and the other Frenchmen who disagreed with them that lead to Napoleon filling the power vacuum with - a monarchy. The eventual removal of Bonaparte resulted in - a monarchy. 17:51 - Horribly wrong view of Mr. Smith's work. Perhaps correct in how society writ large views it. "The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. (Theory of Moral Sentiments IV.1.10)" - Note that this is pre-Industrial Revolution. Also he writes that we cannot only look for ourselves, but must concern ourselves with justice. "The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others." (Theory of Moral Sentiments II.ii.2.3) 18:50 - Oh, come on! How ignorant do you think I am? Hobbes was dead and buried almost FIFTY YEARS before Smith was even born. Leviathan is a treastise on the rationale for the existance of the state in the midst of the English Civil War - when they were coping with the destruction of the Monarchy for the first time in European history since the collapse of the Roman Republic. It's not a response to TWN! I'll stop there. I'm all for discussing socialism, but let's not make our own facts to do it.
It's kind of sad to me that one of the most detailed and polite response to this video has absolutely no responses 3 years ago, while a guy saying Jesus was a socialist has 22 replies...
I just wish people would stop treating "capitalism" and "socialism" as theories that are "correct" or "incorrect" ways to run a country, and more as chosen prioritizations of the change in distribution of economic power. The latter view of course has the unfortunate consequence of requiring you to actually look at what is ACTUALLY happening in order to determine which direction is more needed in a given situation. Venezuela? Far-reaching government intervention on markets paralyze private investment and cause hyperinflation. Populist socialist government maintains the status quo by constantly demonizing private interests as exploitative. United States? Too much corporate influence on every facet of life, and inequality leading to democratic unrest. Corporatist government maintains the status quo by referring to any government action against large private interests as socialism, and "socialism never works". When you view ideologies as being absolutely true, you tend to be blind to their pitfalls and downsides.
The world is absurd. It isn't even that complicated. Luxuries should be capitalist and necessities should be socialist (and if you look at successful societies the trend is the this is true, more success means more socialized necessities). AND the more important the necessity, the more socialized it should be. And to deliver this, the government is the best means. Clean water, plumbing, electricity, education, basic transportation, and healthcare should all be heavily socialized. And the reason for this isn't even a human rights issue. Society that has socialized these things performs better because it is more efficient. Socialism can streamline things which are basic more easily than capitalism. Instead of 400 water companies figuring out the best way to deliver, clean, and store water and remove waste we can just have ONE standard for the entire nation. The same can be said across the board for electricity, healthcare, transporation, education, and honestly even things like internet potentially (as long as the internet is not censored by the government)
he spends the first 10 minutes talking about how people can't say they're socialists when every single college campus seems to have a majority of people with a positive outlook on socialism
It's no secret that things are bad in Venezuela. Rolling blackouts are causing infant deaths in hospitals where backup generators have ceased to function; the country is on pace to hit 700 percent inflation; outside of active war zones, the murder rate in Caracas is the highest in the world. For many Americans, it's a news story piped in from a faraway place. For me? It's my friends and family who are suffering at the hands of an increasingly powerful and paranoid dictatorial regime. As a kid growing up in Caracas, I remember the difficult decision my parents had to make when Hugo Chavez attempted his coup and took over shortly thereafter. My parents decided to leave behind our life in Venezuela and come to the United States - much like my mother's family fled Cuba in the 1960s when Fidel Castro took over. Though it was a hard choice, in hindsight, we were the lucky ones. Those watching from around the world, particularly in the United States, seem hesitant to put a label on Venezuela's struggle. But for me and mine, it's clear what precipitated this crisis - and we don't share the hesitance to point it out. While extenuating circumstances like drought and oil prices have certainly worsened the situation, it's clear there's a larger force behind Venezuela's woes. The force that is driving Venezuela into the ground is socialism.
Great speech. I hope more and more people listen to this and open their minds to the real truth about socialism and not just that, I hope the people in capitalistic societies learn also about what type of system brings to them in the long run also. People need to be informed and not just be brainwashed sheep. And I have to admit, I didn't know a thing or two about it myself, and I grew up in a socialist country (now I live in capitalist one, so at least I have seen and felt both, so I am not biased). State Capitalism... that's the thing I didn't realise it existed till now. Thank you.
Retarded comment. First of all, any real socialist countries has ever existed, atleast on a relevant scale. Here's the basic definition of socialism- "Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production" Socialism is defined as having the workers own their own workplaces. This has not been the case in any major countries in the world. Now, using the definition of socialism you americans love to use, you're probably thinking of social democracy. This is still capitalism, but with essentially band aids on it's problems. Now, still using your definition, there's PLENTY of examples of people fleeing to "socialist" (social democratic countries). There's countless of people that try to make it to Germany, Norway, Sweden etc.
Splugen pass Wrong. The further you drift towards a "free market" , the more exploitative the corporations will be. In countries like Bangladesh, corporations are setting up shop and forcing workers to work for a few dollars a day, with 19 hour work days. The high wages of the west didn't happen beacuse we drifted away from "free markets". It happend beacuse the workers protested and unionized. Laissez-faire economics is pure nonsense.
@@stefanmetzeler You have to wonder if he would ever have said "poor Hitler", even though the argument applies there too. Hitler would have never been able to appease the German peoople after versailles without some kind of enemy to point their anger to. If you seize power over a fucking state, you better be ready to take responsibility for it too.
@@stefanmetzeler 62 million? That seems like a lot of people. Surely you have some credible source of that number and not some anti-communist quackery.
Capitalism isn't feudalism. People aren't born as proletariat or capitalist. You say capitalism doesn't bring freedom or equality, but it gives all people the equal opportunity and freedom to become proletariat or capitalist if they so choose.
ah, no. If you're poor, you can't become a capitalist since trying to own the means of production would cost too much money. If you're a capitalist, well you can turn into a prole but it would take some inclination to a task. A prole can climb his way up, but that's pretty difficult especially due to privatized education
In my view (the only one I can have, by the way), there are two fundamental questions that clearly differentiate between what is generally called capitalism and socialism, respectively: (1) what motivates individuals to create new value and (2) on what basis is personal wealth created. There are two extremes as the answers to the first question: direct material gain and direct needs satisfaction; and two extremes as the answers to the second question: property and labor. Take the two sets of answers in the stated order and you have a crude definition of the difference between capitalism and socialism. Sure there are many other differences, but they would most likely derive from the two basic ones.
Socialism as defined here, does not need the state. In fact, if the state is involved, it is not socialism, if I am understanding Mr. Wolff correctly. To qualify as socialism, particpation must be voluntarily. People can share their incomes without coercion if they so choose. If socialism is so beautiful, people are free to do it, yet they do not, what is wrong? I submit that the theory is missing something big. Some people will slack off, other people will see that, declare it not to be fair, and cease to participate. Commune disolves. Humans are not perfect. Socialism requires perfect humans. Give me the very best arguments why the above is is wrong.
ahh, here we go again. all the other socialists got it wrong, but this guy, THIS GUY! (points to the latest great mind) will get it right and thus the great society will rise from the ashes of capitalism. finally.
I want to let you know brazilian experience, since we have been governed by socialists for 13 years. In the beginning, Lula kept austerity in public finance in order to get the confidence of investors. It worked well. Next, they started moving to the left. They lowered interest rates and gave incentives to credit and consumption. We had a boom and now the bubble bursted. In the last year, GDP decreased about 4% and it is going down another 4% this year. Brazil ranks very badly in the rank of economic freedom. They did nothing to change it, since they hate capitalism. But they love power. So, we have the biggest scandal of corruption in the history of world - Petrobras (brazilian oil company) had contract with big construction firms, that financed the project of power of the socialists. In other words, the socialists protected those companies from competition with foreign companies (in the name of "national interest") while those companies deviated billions of dollars to finance the permanence in power of the socialists and also their luxuries (yes, they love the comforts of capitalism!). Socialists are big liers and do everything to keep in power. OK, you may say as all politicians do. That is way politicians should have the lesser power possible in their hands! And that is the opposite of socialist ideology.
+Rafael Pepino there is nothing socialist about what they did, and Petrobras is a state-owned company, not socialist, btw. The problem is centralized power. It doesn't matter if you have capitalists or you have socialists in power, either way, the system is going to be very corrupt. What we need to do is get rid of governments and corporations, only then we will get rid of corruption. Actual real socialism can't function WITH a government.
Nelson Guedes What you call real socialism seems to be anarchy. In socialism (marxist), the means of production are owned by the state. As everybody knows, it does not work. Thus, so called socialists do everything to interfere in free markets - regulations, protectionism, taxation, etc. They increase the size of governments and the corollary is more corruption. Looks like you want less government and less economic freedom - a utopian communist state… I recommend you read Fukuyama books on the origins of political order.
VERY TRUE. The inter-changeability of the terms "Marxism" "communism" "socialism" "anarchism" "terrorism" is a reflection of American history. From the end of the 1930s onwards. In Europe it is ok to be or have a relative that is a socialist, like pre-1940s America. Thank you Richard Wolff!
41:46 I absolutely agree with almost everything Professor Wolff says in this video but I have to disagree on this point. There is no portraying Stalin as some good-hearted politician, saying "Poor Stalin" is insulting to the untold millions he had killed. Again, I think the message in this video is great and I agree with what he says, but I find this so wrong. I think Lenin legitimately wanted to help the workers of Russia, but Stalin was a cold-hearted murderer out for his own gain.
Please explain how Lenin was any better than Stalin? Let's not forget that Lenin didn't just defeat the feudalists and kill the tsar in Russia, he killed liberals, and he ALSO killed other socialists who didn't subscribe to his brand of socialism. Lenin was horrendous. In October 1917 the Bolsheviks lost the election to the socialist revolutionary party, and instead of accepting the L like men, the Bolsheviks decided to just overthrow them.
There is one problem with all of that. Even Marx and Lennon said that socialism is a step toward the ultimate goal of communism. Consider the fact that all socialists countries have always had to have a dictator because eventually people discover that you even have less percentage of the population with all of the wealth than you had in capitalism. Everybody is equal in socialism, EVERYBODY is starving.
on the off chance someone sees this, does this mean worker co-ops are the definition of socialist? that this whole socialism thing is just about making every business a co-op?
Worker co-ops aren't necessarily the definition of socialism, but that's pretty close! The general definition of socialism is when the workers own the means of production they use. That is, they own the tools, the land, and the capital. This can take the form of worker co-ops but there are other possibilities
my only taboo with socialism is that I grew up in it. only system I ever known. it is so hard that I don't want to experience it again. when I came to America and I saw the difference between the poor in America and the poor in Argentina, I can't help to see that I have been scammed by the socialist system making me believe that the American system was a bad system. our free schooling is a fiasco, our free healthcare kills the poor. and the only source of jobs is the government. all I can tell you is you Americans have no clue of how good you have it. I never been able to live with so much dignity in my life than when I moved into the US. I am still as poor as I was in my country but my quality of life is superior to what I experienced growing up. just Google pictures of poor people in Argentina and ask yourselves why people live like that in a socialist country.. if Bernie wins I predict 10-15 years of honeymoon and total collapse after that. one more problem, it can't be fixed... never...once a country is socialist is always socialist.
As an Alabamian, you might enjoy "Hammer and Hoe" by Robin Kelley. For all us northerners look down our noses at y'all, there was some important and powerful socialist and communist organizing in Alabama - where it was *really* f'in hard - that can inspire all of us everywhere today.
I completely disagree, the Soviet Union was socialist, it was state socialist not state capitalist. He saying himself, there was slavery and state slavery, capitalism and state capitalism. There is socialism and there is state socialism, by his own logic. Under Marx a proletarian state is completely different than the bourgeois state, he himself advocated to seize the state and letting it wither away. Thats why the USSR didnt call itself communist but socialist, they could only get rid of the state if they defeated capitalism. The state was owned by the workers, there was no capitalist class in the USSR.
socialism: the people have the means of production and decide what to do with them through the democratic means and do what is in the common interest of the population state socialism: the people decide nothing and gain nothing and the government does everything and the people cannot decide the government or what the government does your logic sucks all that was done is that the state exchanged the capitalists for members of the government so the people did not decide what to produce where to produce and how much to produce who had the capital was a small group of government officials this is state capitalism
Socialism has been happening in America for a long time now. It is the reason why we are having trouble. Socialism has failed every where it has been implemented. Including right here in America.
6:27 - "Capitalism hasn't been doing to well for the past 6-7 years". What you are seeing today is not capitalism, its crony capitalism. I'm Assuming he is talking about the years that followed the 07-08 crises? In which the crises itself was a result of government and central banking (Federal Reserve) Failures? Yes, the past 6-7 years hasnt been going well due to government ongoing intervention in the free market. 16:29 - "Capitalism having promised so much, and having deliver much less" - I guess he completely missed out on the part where an Industrial revolution had occurred from 1760 to 1820 from capitalist. Or how we've seen the greatest improvement in the life of the ordinary man in recorded history, especially in the United States where there were virtually no government intervention. Today, we (People living in the U.S) are the result and heir of the free market enterprise known as capitalism.. But we are slowly destroying our wealth due to government intervention. 17:56 "If every person seeks to pursue their own self interest it will all work out for the best of everybody (sarcasm)" then he goes on ranting about how that ideology would destroy society..Fucking sigh... How is this man even allowed to teach? The greatest achievement of civilization has come from people pursuing their own self interest.. Henry Ford did not revolutionize the automobile industry to better society or under government order, Steve Jobs didn't revolutionize the music industry because he wanted to better society.. Nearly every great innovation has spawned from a person acting in his or her own self interest. Because Henry was trying to beat his competitors in the automobile industry; we are all able to afford a car.. In order to be financially successful, you would have to create a high quality product or service at a competitive price for the society around you.. That is what so great about capitalism, people succeed by benefiting others.. 23:59 "Capitalism is preventing liberty, equality and fraternity" Capitalism is the embodiment of Liberty; you are free to choose what you want to do with your life. As a oppose to socialism where everything requires coercion. Secondly, equality is an imaginary word that only exist in socialism.. Nobody is equal.. I'm studying hard, and working hard to have a better life then some of my friends where all they do is party, drink and smoke.. Why should i be forced to be equal as them? Whats the point of educating yourself if society main goal is for every person to be equal to one another? Rename this video to " destroy an economy for dummies" Fraternity will never be possible in the human race.. Even husbands and wife disagrees and argues with each other. Another fairy tale statement made from socialist idiots. 35:10 - 39:04 Basically ranting about how Russia wasn't a real socialist society, and how they used it the wrong way.. Basic argument for every socialist.. Russia Under Stalin, Germany Hitler, Cuba Castro, North Korea Kim Jung Un, Greece, Venezuela and etc.. they all didn't know how to work socialism. Every Socialist society that has implemented it's princples and idea has been brutality failing; leaving millions of dead corpse and majority of the population in poverty.. But don't worry guys...Even though every single country that has tried socialism has failed with brutal consequences; the truth is that they failed because they simply didn't know how to use socialism the right way...this guy has found the magic formula to make it work! (sarcasm...) 40:15 " To reorganize enterprises, Factories, officers, stores, so that they would work in the interest of the whole community, because the whole community would be making the decisions" Then goes off ranting on how its better that the workers make major company decisions rather then the shareholders or business owners..It's not like these enterprises, factories, officers, and stores aren't already working for the interest of the whole community by providing the community with jobs, and quality products and services at a low price. Allowing workers, who are selfish themselves; to run a business would be a great way to destroy a business.. Workers, are just as greedy as businessmen.. They will only demand higher wages, with more benefits.. This will also destroy the incentive for entrepreneurs to start a business.. Why start a business just so that other people can take it over? The ultimate result of this foolish policy would be that all businesses would be destroyed; there will be nearly no new businesses created because there would be no incentive to start one.. Its unbelievable to me that this guy wants people who probably never had a high school education, and flips burgers or works a cashier make crucial and vital decisions for a business. Like i said before, not everybody is equal.. I would much rather have a small group of people who has a MBA degree from Harvard University to make business decisions rather then my mass employees who's working entry level jobs; and only interest is to get a higher wage, with more paid vacations and other benefits. I've research this guy; his name is Richard Wolff, and all he does is give speeches to a silent audience that doesn't seem to be allowed to protest or argue against him. He has never been in any debate or anything.. I wonder why? I would love for him to debate someone like Ben Shapiro, or Stefan Molyneux.. I bet he wont dare to do so..
Crony Capitalism is a major part of capitalism and is the end result of capitalism. Calling Crony Capitalism isn't Capitalism is like saying Jesus isn't Jewish. Laissez Faire did have a role during the industrial revolution, but it had two extremes and Laissez Faire failed to survive the industrial revolution. Due to the extreme conditions of the poor and workers socialism was a result of that. I wouldnt consider forced labor, child labor, little to no pay, slavery and blacklisting "libertarian" now would you? Worker rights is a socialist concept, you have to be completely ignorant of socialism and capitalism to ignore it. Socialism is why you work forty hours a week with time and an half for over. Socialism is why we no longer have child labor. So dont complain about socialism when socialists fought for your rights in the work place. While I do support the free market, protectionism is inevitable as economies will specialize on a product/service. Funny enough the right wing who often says free market are the ones who are often against it for a protectionist nationalistic economy. Capitalism goes against the individual and liberty as it is an hierarchy structure and the majority dont have equal rights. Since of the hierarchy structure there isn't equal opportunity as the poor are forced to work at an early age and dont receive an education. Since education is privatized most individuals cant afford it. Since living wages is a socialist concept, most workers are paid below the poverty or not paid at all. Thats not freedom. BTW im not going to go through your rant, but I will say you dont seem to understand the history of beliefs of capitalism and socialism. And your argument is terrible. I read a little more of your rant, you dont even know the differences between fascism and socialism/communism so you have no room to talk. Since fascism is economically capitalist not socialist and is anti-marxist
jsmetalcore Sorry for the late response. “Crony Capitalism is a major part of capitalism and is the end result of capitalism. Calling Crony Capitalism isn't Capitalism is like saying Jesus isn't Jewish.” How is crony capitalism a major part of capitalism? Crony capitalism isn’t what capitalism means. Capitalism means an economic condition where a country trade and industry is controlled by private owners for profit.. Not Government involvement in a free market; which is what crony capitalism is. “Laissez Faire did have a role during the industrial revolution, but it had two extremes and Laissez Faire failed to survive the industrial revolution. Due to the extreme conditions of the poor and workers socialism was a result of that. I wouldnt consider forced labor, child labor, little to no pay, slavery and blacklisting "libertarian" now would you? Worker rights is a socialist concept, you have to be completely ignorant of socialism and capitalism to ignore it. Socialism is why you work forty hours a week with time and an half for over. Socialism is why we no longer have child labor. So dont complain about socialism when socialists fought for your rights in the work place.” You are wrong. People weren’t forced to work; it’s a consensual agreement between the employee and the employer. People were working because they wanted to work; not because someone held them at gunpoint. Secondly, where are you getting your information that people were poorly paid? According to whom? Believe it or not, employers doesn’t try to pay the least amount of money to his/her employee.. Only 4.3% of employees are being paid the $7.25 minimum wage, everyone else is earning more. If there were such horrid working conditions, why were there an influx of immigrants by the millions migrating to capitalistic society such as the United States during those time? Did they come to be grinded beneath the heels of a capitalist? Or was it because they believed that moving to a country with no government involvement that was practicing honest capitalism would cause them to better their life? There has never been a time in world history where the ordinary man has improved his quality of life then the late 1700s to 1800s.. Today, we are the result and heirs of the free market system that was practiced on the birth of this country. The same people we consider to be in poverty in the United States, are still making more money then most People in China, Russia, and let alone other countries such as India, Bangladesh, Venezuela, North Korea etc.. People that we consider to be in poverty, still has a roof over their head, running water (with warm water), electricity, a vehicle (may not be a Bentley but a vehicle nonetheless,) Color TV, a Fridge, Microwave etc… And just a FYI, workers right did more harm than good.. Employers are not employing nearly as much people anymore because they are forced to pay health insurance, life insurance, taxes, a minimum wage and etc. “While I do support the free market, protectionism is inevitable as economies will specialize on a product/service. Funny enough the right wing who often says free market are the ones who are often against it for a protectionist nationalistic economy. “ Not sure where your from, but I can tell that English isn’t your first language.. Not sure what your trying to say here. “Capitalism goes against the individual and liberty as it is an hierarchy structure and the majority dont have equal rights.” You have to be mentally disable to dish out a statement like that. Capitalism is the very embodiment of freedom and liberty. You are free to pursue your own-self-interest. You are free to start a business, you are free to work anywhere you want. Socialism is opposite of freedom and requires coercion in order for it to work. “there isn't equal opportunity as the poor are forced to work at an early age and dont receive an education” When you talk about working at an early stage, I’m assuming that you mean young college students? Because all Grade schools are public. What country are you talking about? In the United States, There hardly any young children working.. I haven’t seen a 15 year old kid work anywhere for years.. Because of all these government rules and regulation, nobody wants to hire young teen to work. Which is actually a bad thing, because government is denying teens the opportunity to get an entry level job in where they can work and learn vital skills that will potentially earn them a better pay from their work experience; to the point where teens would not even need to go to college in order to support themselves or family if they don’t want to continue schooling. “Since education is privatized most individuals cant afford it.” Government is the cause of Colleges being expensive. Because they guarantee subsidies to students up to 200k, colleges bid up their tuition price to gain more money. If Government didn’t subsidies student loans, Colleges will have to literally slash tuition prices in order for students to intend their college. “Since living wages is a socialist concept, most workers are paid below the poverty or not paid at all. Thats not freedom” Do you want people to be paid living wages for flipping burgers and working a cashier? How would a business even be profitable if they do that? Why even get an education and learn valuable skills if you can earn a living wage by working at Walmart? And doing things that any 15 year old can do? That is how you essentially destroy an economy. You seem to want to put equality before freedom. Which will only destroy the incentive for people to be educated, work hard and earn money. As I mentioned in my “rant”, equality is an overrated word made from socialist.. People aren’t equals and shouldn’t be.. Why would I be forced to live in similar conditions to somone who doesn’t work as hard as me? “A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” - Milton Friedman. "BTW im not going to go through your rant, but I will say you dont seem to understand the history of beliefs of capitalism and socialism. And your argument is terrible." The history of our planet has always been crystal clear.. People enjoy a higher quality of life under capitalism then Socialism. There has never been a greater tool other then the free market system that eliminates poverty, racism, homophobia etc then capitalism.. If you really want to see where the majority of the mass is worse off, they exist in the type of society that departs from capitalism. "I read a little more of your rant, you dont even know the differences between fascism and socialism/communism so you have no room to talk. Since fascism is economically capitalist not socialist and is anti-marxist." “Fascism is more socialist and communist by FAR. Fascism is an Authoritarian and nationalistic system of government. While capitalism is private ownership with no government, your logic eats itself by the very definition of the two; capitalism ss quite the opposite.. Nazi Germany had an socialist like economy.. Although people want to call it fascism, or authotarian.. Their concept, believes, and ideology behing the economic structure was extremely similar to that of socialism.
Unknown Person Im going bottom up, since its easier. Fascist economics follow corporatism and corporatism is a form of capitalism. Nazi economics were capitalist, not socialist www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Conservative-economic-programs en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2economicsocialpolicy1.shtml Nazis privatized property and banned unions. Nazis also received support by the right. By calling Nazi socialists, it shows that you dont either gasp socialism, fascism, or capitalism. Have you even looked up Nazi economics? Historians are saying that its capitalist and he opposed socialism. There is a reason why scholars place Fascism on the far right, because its economically capitalist and socially conservative. Also there are other forms of capitalism other than free market capitalism. As capitalists also support protectionism such as with Trump and socialists do support the free market such as with mutualists and social democrats. But protectionism is inevitable as developing countries often protect their businesses and countries specialize on products and want to protect them. A pure free market economy cant hold up in an international economy. Actually Social Democratic countries have the highest living on standards and they use both capitalist and socialist beliefs. If you bother to look up Laissez Faire when it was in practice, their was forced labor, slavery, blacklisting, child labor, long hours, and had to work for next to nothing and the employers didnt even need to pay their employees. Since worker rights is a socialist concept and socialists worked hard for you to have to work forty hours a week with pay and a half with overtime, I beg a differ. The failures of capitalism is why socialism exists. You used a poor example with Walmart, since Walmart purposely makes it so their employees dont work full time so they dont need to provide benefits and they actively suppress trade unions. The people who do work at Walmart for a living even need government assistance because their pay is so low. Actually by allowing people to live off a livable wage for people who work forty hours a week would close the wage gap and make the middle class stronger. Since gaps between the extreme rich and poor kill the middle class. A 15 year old would work part-time and wouldnt need the higher wages. Look at the countries like Switzerland and Sweden, they have much higher wages due to collective bargaining. But in your system collective bargaining doesnt exist and unions get banned. Also businesses would be more profitable because more people in general would have more money. If businesses increase their wages nationwide, more people would have more money to buy products and the living standards would raise. IF we have a lot of people living in poverty who cant afford much, it isn't good for the economy. College prices are going up because more people are going to it. Which drives up demand and universities need to hire more staff. Which makes it even more expensive. Sure, student loans play a large role, but why should someone be forced to be a laborer if they want an higher education? For example, a high school degree isn't as much as it used to be. Also I'm not talking about college education, I'm talking elementary education, as most people in the society are forced to work at a young age and public school isn't provided (assuming we are talking about laissez faire capitalism) Since people are forced to work at the age of 6 and not many people have the luxury of getting an education. Which is why we view education as a universal right now, it wasnt in the passed under a laissez faire doctrine. When I say people work at a early age, i mean age six. have you done any research on Laissez Faire Britain or observe what corporations are doing overseas? again in capitalism there isn't freedom as most people are at the bottom and dont receive an education and are forced to work at a young age. The reason why people can move up is due to welfare capitalism, not laissez faire. Having a population working for low wages and not receiving an education doesnt sound like freedom to me “While I do support the free market, protectionism is inevitable as economies will specialize on a product/service. Funny enough the right wing who often says free market are the ones who are often against it for a protectionist nationalistic economy. “ Not sure where your from, but I can tell that English isn’t your first language.. Not sure what your trying to say here. reread it. "You are wrong. People weren’t forced to work; it’s a consensual agreement between the employee and the employer. People were working because they wanted to work; not because someone held them at gunpoint. Secondly, where are you getting your information that people were poorly paid? According to whom? Believe it or not, employers doesn’t try to pay the least amount of money to his/her employee.. Only 4.3% of employees are being paid the $7.25 minimum wage, everyone else is earning more." I can tell you haven't done any research on capitalism and laissez faire. www.britannica.com/topic/laissez-faire www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/shp/britishsociety/livingworkingconditionsrev1.shtml www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html link explains it The issue is that you view welfare capitalism as laissez faire Most people moved to the US during the 19th century was due to famines. Lets look at the Irish during the Irish famine, since a lot of Irish people came to the US from that. Due to Laissez Faire policy in Britain, the British government didnt act until it was too late and a lot of people starved to death. Since food prices were too high and British companies continued to import food in from Ireland. www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml#five Also the US didnt become the strongest economy after WW2 when the rest of Europe was destroyed. If the government acts upon the private individual it is a form of capitalism, this happens often as capitalism is an plutocracy
The fundamental question is even if you divorce socialism from the state, how do you reorganize society in such a way that the workers are the greatest beneficiaries while removing the hierarchies that actually make that possible? It seems naive to think that just because the state is removed from the equation, there will be no more parties that benefit more than others
You are entirely wrong to compare socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is purely economic and has no social construct whatsoever. Socialism must control behaviour in order to even begin. If you can't bring about change without force, your idea is pretty bad, no matter how well intentioned you may be. You are so lucky that you are teacher children. They won't actually argue or refute anything you are saying. Why is it that every socialist has to hide truths and mislead in order to make socialism look like a real option. Everything you are pushing about socialism is put forward without any regards to the amount of brute force that is required to make it happen. What would you say to those that decide not to go along with your socialist ideology, once you bring it about? What do you do with the individuals that leave or refuse to take part? As a business owner, what if I just decide that the business belongs to me? how do you plan to force me to do what you say? you think we would just close our businesses or hand it over to the workers? Your dream of socialism ends at the beginning. You do not have any idea of what happens after you win your bloody revolution. Once you bring about the socialist society, then what? Your answers are just, everything will work just fine from there. There are people that will never accept anything short of liberty and freedom. You keep implying , between lines, that you will just have to exterminate them, beat us into submission. That is exactly what has happened everytime socialism runs it's course. That is, of course, unless it runs out of money. I cannot believe someone of your advanced age and wisdom is still holding onto to these ridiculous ideals.
Did you not understand that he was talking about revolution as being ONE WAY of seizing assets of production? He wasn't advocating it. He said the OTHER WAY that theorists came up with of doing this was EVOLUTION ie where we VOTE IN and give permission for the government to do this as a TEMPORARY MEASURE of redistribution of wealth and ownership - which never happened in the European/Soviet countries he spoke of... I just got that from WATCHING WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID.
You mean the guy who admitted to using the UK’s NHS and though UBI was needed for the survival of capitalism because he himself admitted that the most Americans are unable to have the same buying power as the rulling elite.
Really enjoyed this. It's been something I've been interested in for a long time but never properly knew enough about, had to keep looking up the difference between socialism and communism every few weeks because I could never get a definitive enough answer that'd stick with me. Makes me want to look into world political history a lot more.
So true, Bernie Sanders won me over big time! some ass from my friend list STILL posted about Nazi's and Lenin blah blah blah blah.....I said to the how stupid their going to look when people who actually watched the video see's your comment, they erased it the next day!!! hahahahahahahahahahahah that was fun!
Oriana Rodriguez Anyone who looks at Bernie Sanders site www.sanders.senate.gov will see an agenda of a Democratic socialist. He is very interesting and I think appeals to much of America IF they understand socialism.
Craig Holman Socialism is STATE capitalism or very close !! State owns everything and you NOTHING . YOU CANNOT quit your job without STATE approval .It is like a modern slavery. Everyday you are going to listen how much you owe to "society " .
Very basic and entertaining talk, but Prof. Wolf's description of "the sacrifices of workers" is too much of a euphemism for the murderous brutality which underpins Leninism (or as he calls it, Communism, the revolutionary path toward seizing the State). The discussion here is too abstract, too far removed from the lives of real people. All Communist revolutions (as opposed to a fair election) led to totalitarianism, i.e. no individual or collective activity was allowed which was not controlled by the Party or the State, and anybody who was perceived to transgress was viciously punished or killed. There is no resulting liberty, equality, fraternity under Leninist Communism, which fails the fundamental test of social transformation.
What about the societies that reached/came very close to the stateless, classless, moneyless society that Communism is in definition. The moneyless, not so much, but Aragon in Catalonia, Makhnovia, the Anarchist communes in North Korea, rojava in the Kurdish region
Richard D. Wolff said that Stalin did not "make" socialism in the Soviet Union and only did was state capitalism. The own Lenin already theorized about that the development of socialism in Russia would also require the development of state capitalism, given the backwardness of the productive forces and the dispersal of small commodity production. And if one observes the Soviet history throughout their journey, from 1917 to 1991, you can clearly see a transitory between state capitalism and socialism society, because there are elements of one and other. This type of errors described the USSR as state capitalism is of Social-democrats or social-liberals.
26:00 I reply with: can he name one time where LABOR took over the management and was successful without creating classes of laborer and basically emulation of the same SMALL group of representatives making management choices on behalf of the group?
+Margaret Mcginn 1. Please cite the section. 2. I don't believe he would have ever made such a statement in the context that you are implying. 3. Mises insight was that a socialist economy would end in chaos with the absence of market prices arising from the free trade of private property owners. In a socialist economy in which the public owns of the means of production there can be no market price since everything is owned by the public or state. It would be necessary to have a czar to arbitrarily set prices and make economic decisions for the whole economy. No one person or group of persons could ever have the knowledge necessary to make economical buying decisions for millions of people. Venezuela is the latest example of the ruinous policies of socialism.
One question, though - @34:31 Prof. Wolff explains how the communist parties started - quote: "All communist parties start in 1921". So how does that line up with the 'Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei' (manifesto of the communist party) published by Marx and Engels in February of 1848?
I think half the people commenting didn't watch the video.. or perhaps didn't follow his reasoning.. I'd rather believe that than believe people are THIS narrow minded. The lecture was brilliant.
41:35 “Socialism is when the government does stuff”
Such a great clip
"and when it does a whole lotta stuff, its Camjanism"
as opposed to "the government who does nothing but obey its corporate masters" like what's happening right now ?
it's going so well at the moment why change it ?
@@YM-zf8mt yes... very very well /s
Sometimes.
But Socialism can be carried out by charities in relation to their cause, companies/corporations in relation to providing for their employees or society in general.
It's just more efficient/sustainable for governments to perform socialist policies.
It has been more ta a taboo to speak about socialism. As a teen, (I'm 79 years old) I was sent to the principal's office because I often brought other perspectives into social studies classes. I was taking advanced biology classes but was sent to a "remedial"social studies class in the same semester. I lost my job because I protested the McCarthy committee coming to my city and I was interviewed on television. I have been socially ostracised, spat upon, called antisemitic names. But I just persisted.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a socialist in my life that ran for President. But he was so badly treated by the Democratic party that he never really had a chance in either of his runs for the presidency. I don't know how socialist I am, but I think I am more socialist than Sanders and probably more militant too. Whatever it is, I think there is a better way than what we have now. I suspect the better way is socialism. Shocking!
@@fluorinegas6944 *WE* *WON!* Bernie Sanders ALREADY *WON!*
WE got his message OUT!
*THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!!!*
M4A!!! . TAX THE RICH!!! . TUITION FREE EDUCATION!!! . LIVING WAGE LEGISLATION!!! . GREEN NEW DEAL!!!
*WE* DID IT!
*THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!*
Not MY opinion; just LOOK at what is happening in the Streets! Bernie Sanders has *EMPOWERED* *THE* *PEOPLE!!!*
WE ARE THE REVOLUTION!
WE ARE THE CHANGE!
www. PatrioticMillionaires .org
You are a true patriot, thank you for dissenting at all costs. That's something nobody can take away from you.
@Dim this dude never heard of the labor movement or the first red scare lmaooo
@Dim "The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954
Even though it was never enforced ("The Act has since been ruled unconstitutional in federal court but has not been ruled on in the Supreme Court and has never been enforced.") that doesn't mean that it's existence wasn't a threat to all American communists during the late fifties and early sixties. Communism and socialism have not been mainstream for a long time due. They were only somewhat mainstream for a very, very short period of time between 1900 and 1930. Popularity fell in the forties due to demonizing from political figures who saw CPUSA's existence as a threat. Once support dropped enough, Eisenhower saw an opportunity to completely criminalize the entire party.
Also, if you couldn't tell, communism and socialism are inherently linked due to Americans lack of understanding of either.
@Dim
SO fucking IGNORANT !!!
SOCIALISM IS WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOES STUFF. THE MORE STUFF IT DOES, THE MORE SOCIALIST IT GETS.
AND IF IT DOES A WHOLE LOT OF STUFF, ITS *C O M M A N I S M*
@@captainjules6033 *C A H M Y U N I S M*
CAMjANASEM
And if the state is destroyed its anarcho communism
that quote but vocoded:
ruclips.net/video/gnXUFXc2Yns/видео.html
came for the "when government does stuff", stayed for the nuance
same
Same here 😊
Nuance? NEVER HEARD OF IT
Epic profile pic based young Stalin
I came for the "make pee pee"
The "why" we can't have a debate on Socialism and Capitalism is simple. Americans would realize that they're getting screwed.
You’re getting screwed right now. You see, right now corporations are taking bailouts one after another. You already have capitalism and socialism of a sort - these corporations capitalize their gains and socialize their losses. That is YOU the taxpayer paying for their losses.
The whole point of capitalism is that corporations are allowed to fail to allow more efficient ones to prosper. The USA is stuck in an endless cycle of bailing them out repeatedly - 3 times in the last 20 years.
@@mellogo1d191 I agree with what you're sayn. Americans have lost control of their government.
Go to Venezuela and see who is screwed
@@MrTiagoTnT but it's not because of Socialism.
MrTiagoTnT no person who knows anything about economics blames socialism for this.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
When you quote someone, don't hide their name under the "Show More" fold. Or were you hoping to take credit for that statement being your own? Anyway, thanks for the great QUOTATION of Isaac Asimov! Those last 12 words really encapsulate the mindset that put Donald Trump in the White House & that has Americans acting against their own interests out of ignorance & arrogance. Trump is the king of ignorance & arrogance, so it's no wonder masses of people will defend him to the point of hating their fellow Americans and/or making him dictator. I've copied this quotation to my computer to use elsewhere.
Dim thanks for proving you have no coherent argument. You make an assertion about the Democrats (which you’re too ignorant even spell) without any evidence or argument provided. You are the epitome of American ignorance.
Dim please explain
William Sands As an American I do agree, some Americans do not care to ask enough questions, bread, and circus appease the people these days in a more electronic way, but it's as old as western religion, you go to church, and never..ever ask too many questions.
@Dim wit - Heart and soul socialism is a working-class movement. What part of *working* class do you not understand?
It's sad that some people will only see the meme (41:35) and unironically believe that's the full context.
Nobody who would be swayed by this speech would think that's the full context.
@@Hazelnutz3 This is the first time that I am seeing the full speech - seeing the meme only. I just thought that this guy was another libertarian strawmanning the left. I was very confused to find out that he is based and breadpilled.
@@Nathan-p1j a notable outlier
@@Hazelnutz3 I was the same way
@@Hazelnutz3 so was i
I like how this is pre-trump and I can go without hearing his name every 30 seconds
Yeah it's trippy, hearing Prof Wolff say "Bernie Sanders announced his candidacy this week."
Until you check the comments
fuck youfor ruinjng a perfectly good video.
Fr
Determinism is Freedom 🤙
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.
Workingmen of all countries unite!”
― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
One of the biggest social disaster on the 20the century was communism. Read up on the history of it and it is responsible for millions of deaths.
We know it fail and it failed really badly. As Einstein said, the definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome. Have a look at the South American countries that went down socialism, Venezuala is a basket case. The most suppressive regims are communist countries. How many communist Americans where trying to defect to Russia during the cold war? How many Russians were trying to defect to the US during the cold war? If you are so into communism why not go to North Korea.
Transcendia Insurodollar overcomes flaw of Communism which has not worked. The System is the problem. Government is Systems Engineering.
Right on!
The competition of locals in the international IATSE tends to show a hard roe to hoe. Far as uniting the Labor,, as Marx had it then what, was a middle class of the educated not as it went with unleashed peasants revolting in St. Petersburg & Moscow. I think of the new instant translation telephones for Business Agents to coordinate wage competition demands in the different nations these days as a great possibility. It is systems and Financial Engineering to get right now as we as labor are to be trapped on a crowded planet. Mars is no escape destination as was driving to California.
The Modern Hermeticist You forgot the starvation and death camps.
This guy’s voice sounds exactly like my Uncle Tony if my Uncle Tony was BASED.
@neicu yes
but, socialism is not based
@@pixeled9683 youre right. communsim is.
Is this the same personality type that compares AoC to Rey Star Wars?
@@pixeled9683 in yo shit. It's based on facts and logic
I am 73 years old, Poli Sci graduate from UCLA and I've learned more in this lecture than 4 years of college having read Marx and Engles among others.
Thank you for a great lecture and I'm looking forward to furthering my education through you.
Cheers!!
Nice to know there is one person commenting here who actually understood what was being taught, instead of throwing around the same tired name-calling and prejudices.
Worst channel ever, That's true but I hope you wouldn't be so incapable of nuance as to see it was Marx's solutions and not his critiques (some of them anyway) of capitalism that led him down the rabbit hole of failure. In other words, I think he identified the wounds fairly accurately but royally screwed up when attempting to apply the bandage.
73 years in the wrong direction huh? Keep at it...
It seems America needs a decade or two of full socialism, complete with gulags and millions of dead bodies, so that they too finally see how dumb of an idea it actually is (and how death is an inevitability with socialism/communism).
Nick B, where did capitalism kill more than 150 million people?
I dont see how anyone can be against workers controlling their own lives. Unless of course your in management and you think god sent you here to tell people what to do.
@Dim You control your life if you happen to be born into privilege, if not, you are completely fucked.
1997lordofdoom haven’t you ever heard of unions and employee owned companies? They exist under capitalism. In socialism, if you’re not born into privilege you have no chance. All attempts to create socialism have only resulted in elitism. And SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES are not socialism.
The Legendary Bob Dill Inn If workers are so anxious to be in control they can work for an employee owned firm and TAKE THE RISK too. And guess what, some of them will have to be managers or they can try and rule by committee, good luck with that chaos. Workers have the free choice to work at any company that their skill set is needed. The good workers will be in high demand and the slugs will be fired UNLESS you’re in a union and then the slug continue with the protection of the union. Now the quality of work is headed DOWNHILL. No you have a failure in the making.
@@Diego_SanCA Damn, you have a nice view of a worker, calling them a "slug". How you are so sure that when someone is underperforming a lot isn't gonna get fired by a union if the majority of people would agree that he is underperforming? And yeah, "good luck with that chaos" we are living in that chaos and it's called a government unless you are living in some authoritarian state where "king" does all decisions. You do you, but I would prefer democracy in my life, even if it's a bit underperforming. Because for an average worker it would be a much better situation. But then, suddenly, studies show that union enterprises are more productive www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf So, we don't even need to make that sacrifice, isn't it awesome? Isn't it makes sense, when the average joe, call center operator, would be more informed and more interested in being a good worker, responding to calls with responsibility and thought, if he owns it, compared if he just a wage-slave to an authoritarian CEO who probably don't even know that he exists and don't Joe have no say there, he either stays for a flat salary, which is as low as it's possible for the CEO or gets out?
Workers controlling the means of production through cooperatives is perfectly acceptable within a capitalist marketplace. Wanna convince a group of workers to start their own operation and have it completely owned by the employees, nothing is preventing you. This is achievable within the current system and would also be achievable within a more capitalistic system as well. The concern arises when outside forces use force to obtain this outcome. Its a gross violation of fundamental rights and liberties and morally is wrong.
So by all means, using persuasion and cooperation, workers have every right to pursue this outcome of worker owned coops. Truth be told however, it is not an arrangement many desire. Israel with their communal farms demonstrate this fact.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
and knowledge is = truth
@Fabroni Giordano To hell with workers! Power to businessmen and paper pushers only!
ThePeanutButterCup13 what do you mean we wouldn’t be able to function without workers? bah humbug!
Meanwhile majority of successful Americans over history were highschool or middle school Educated and some how were creative and intelligent without being endoctrinated into society circles threw european type universities
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 That's what communism looks like! What do you think a communist regime looks like? Paper pushers assisted by brutal bastards who mass-murder anyone who dares contradict the paper pushers.
Pol Pot always chatted cheerfully with those he was going to have executed by torture. Charming. And Chomsky defended Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouges - who murdered more than 3 million Cambodians!
@@stefanmetzeler did you know that Pol Pot was back supported by CIA (and China) against Vietnam? Or that the CIA (China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran too) did the same with Mujahideen (predecessors of Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan against the soviets?
The most important point he made in this video was that the revolution didn't bring Socialism with the Soviet Union, but State Capitalism, where the State became the ruling class, instead of the Capitalists/Private Business Owners.
We went from Kings and Queens ruling, to the Owning Class ruling, to the State ruling, to what we have now which is either in most countries. The State Ruling, the Owning Class(business owners) ruling, or a mix of both.
Sadly within the American political spectrum, the points Wolff made in this video will never be clearly understood by most people. The right-wing of this country is so pathologically disconnected from reality, and so ignorant, they make it their goal to eternally brainwash their sheepish cult into believing communism, socialism, and nazi mean the same thing, and that they are the ideology of atheists.
I used to be conservative when I was younger but education and reading history and books from the people I learned about, instead of learning about them from people I thought were honestly, lead me to be less conservative more and more over time.
The conservative mindset is what ruins this country. Not necessarily conservative principles, but the conservative mindset which is basically close-minded as fuck.
Market != Capitalism. Learn what it is before you love it.
They mostly say they have to because there's no where else to go.
Thanks for your honesty. The sad truth is that someone will always rule (with one exception, but it is certainly not worth striving for), and the best you can do is try to pick the ruler who seems most reasonable. Just because we have seen how fucked up nation-states can get, it seems that the best we can do is live under an absolute monarch, or at least under an aristocrat who's involved in the planing of his estate (different from estate tax). Anything else, and you get a short, strained period of stability followed by a mad dash to take as much as quickly as possible.
You're wrong. There was always a choice, and people chose walmart. Those stores don't exist anymore, but no ones stopping anyone from opening one. It's just that it would go out of business, so no one bothers.
Socialism is state capitalism by definition. It's economical system where government owns means and productions and provides the goods. Your utopia will never come true because it always fails for same reason. Too much power in same place.
Professor Wolff is a national treasure.
International treasure.
Intergalactic treasure
More like a National embarassment
@@kpp7684 KPP is an international disgrace
@@emporioalnino4670 so your saying the aliens are based
Fun Fact: He was the teacher for the Greece PM who imposed the worst austerity program in Greek history. This isn't a dig at Wolff. He's a badass. It's just sad how a student didn't take anything with him.
Yeah if that student actually listened to Wolff and took his stuff seriously Greece would have been a superpower by now, (or at least not stuck in an infinite stagnation). Austerity never works during recessions.
@@KrishnaDasLessons the problem is also the previous socialist party didn't actually enforce the tax laws properly, which meant they didn't manage to deliver on their promises and got kicked out. So the problem now is the Greek people don't trust their socialist party
The austerity program of Greece was forced by the Euopean Union after the financial crisis of 2007. The former German finanical minister Wolfgang Schäuble played a major role in this.
Shifu had once taught Tai-Lung
I have learned more from this 50-minute lecture than I have in the entirety of everything I have ever heard about Capitalism or Socialism in my entire nearly 17 years of existence
they try to hide it but one day it will all fall together don't worry
Hopefully you will do some more reading. Maybe start with feudalism to understand what it was like before capitalism. And then reading about the system of American slavery to understand capitalism based on land ownership and forced labor. And from there reading about the way workers were treated in the north beginning with Sam slaters treatment of child workers all the way through Ronald Reagan’s breaking of the air traffic controller strike and with a middle focus on the strikes of the 1930s including the GM sit down strike. All attempts by workers beginning with enslaved rebels all the way through the 1980s air traffic controllers are met with propaganda and diversionary tactic’s as well as state violence using militias and/or the National Guard.
The boogeyman is communism/Socialism. Before they could deny reality to millions via online bots and cult minions they simply said that the other reality (socialism) was WAY worse.
38:31 "Lenin would have and probably did, turn over in his grave."
Nope. Lenin was never buried. He's been embalmed since his death and has traveled around lying in state since his death as a puppet, basically. The 'Ask a Mortician' RUclips channel did a fascinating piece on Lenin after death. I highly recommend it.
I think it's just a figure of speech, pretty much everyone knows Lenin's body is tourist attraction
@@Michael-uo8yv not anymore im pretty sure.
edit: nevermind they removed stalin`s body not lenin`s.
well if he's above ground, attach a dynamo to his feet and make a generator
Uhh... The video isn't serious.
@@gelatinocyte6270 it is but that bit isnt
This is a really outstanding presentation. I had told my brother that I was interested in Bernie Sanders agenda. His immediate response was that Bernie Sanders is a communist. I told him that wasn't true but it was hard to explain. This is so helpful at making more clear an understanding of socialism. Thank you. I will send this to my brother. I also look forward to Part 2.
Craig Holman here's part 2 recorded a couple of days ago.. ruclips.net/video/HMUuw_K-ky0/видео.html
Craig Holman Sanders isn't a socialist either. He's a liberal Democrat, like FDR.
Adam Cortright You can call him whatever you want. He calls himself a democratic socialist. FDR may have called himself a democratic socialist. I am not sure it really matters. Sanders is interested in the welfare of the society as a whole rather than the individual. If you have time look at his platform on his web site. Sanders would more likely be considered a progressive. As for being a member of the Democratic party he acknowledges the need to belong to one of the two parties to allow access to a means of participating.
Socialism as defined by Marx and Engels has, at the very least, the workers owning the means of production, with control of distribution and exchange democratically decided according to a rational plan based on human need, and not private profit. I just wanted to make that clear re: Bernie doesn't support that.
Adam Cortright If you go back to his agenda he does support cooperatives which is essentially what you are describing. He also is very much opposed to corporate America and all that they pursue related to profits. Note his position on climate change. Certainly it is profit of the fossil fuel industry that is the great barrier to addressing this issue. Note his position on election reform. Certainly it is the great profits of corporations and the elite that distort our democratic system. I think he is very much in line with thoughts on cooperatives and their value. You are wrong that Bernie doesn't support workers owning the means of production. Again go to his web site and see for yourself his agenda. Just go to a search engine and you will easily find his site.
An outstanding lecture. The truth in a concise, accurate and reasoned form.
I’m so glad you still dare to call a 50 minute lecture concise ^^ Good that you exist
Captain Zork some of us have attention spans greater than that of a goldfish. It’s a gift.
Pete Conrad - sound bites are easier.
charles bearden .. for the dim.
“socialism is when the government does stuff” so outstanding wow
This explanation of this subject should be mandatory in all High School classrooms in this country. yes, we are extremely uneducated on this subject.
rker321 That's what the top few want; dumb people who won't fight back.
rker321 I agree with you. The reason it isn't is deliberate, to keep youths stupid, uneducated, to allow brainwashing with right wing rubbish later
musicmad1 We should be so lucky. Left wing rubbish is what they have to endure now.
rker321 We are extremely uneducated on many subjects, unfortunately. Most US school,s both public and private, are failing. Too worried about passing tests that all the other subjects fall away. Very sad.
Aaron Solomon That's a good point. Either of them are an abhorrent system of government.
41:35
here you go!
Yo thanks so much
Wait, i don't get it, there's no robot rock.
do listen to the rest of it as well, its pretty good.
18:20 how come it changed from "doing the best for yourself without hurting anyone" to "doing the best for yourself and not caring"
pretty much the natural progression of that first idea. If you live for only yourself long enough to start caring less and less about other people.
@@corvax8644 pretty much just misinterpretation of Smith to push an agenda.
I haven't read the comments but I guarantee people have said "Socialism IS for Dummies".
They did, multiple times.
"b-but what about v-vuvuzuela??"
Sneed
@@homiixide how do you mean, coward
@@nathanbuhr1286 i cant sneed
@@homiixide well i can't argue with that
It's a case of destroying economic freedom...Chávez was an idiot
I'm the only member of my inner circle that has an interest in socialism. I still wouldn't consider myself a socialist, but I am willing to listen to other view points - How do you know what system is best? You study it.
Had no idea this was a meme. I looked up “what is socialism” to educate myself.
bad place to learn it. Learn it from a anarchocapitalist. If you learn from a socialist you won't notice he is sayng that basicly socialism is the ideia of robing the entire nation
@@joseluispcr does this mean I should learn what anarcho-capitalism is from a socialist?
@@joseluispcr anarcho capitalism is neither anarchist nor capitalist, its just fascism with extra steps
As a communist myself I use the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, because while a socialist society and a communist society are different, the ideology that brings you to either is the same. Socialist societies being ones in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the workers and communist societies being a type of socialist society that exists without classes, currency, or a state. If you describe yourself as a "socialist," that is, an advocate for socialist society, it follows that you must too be a "communist," an advocate for communist society, as communism is simply the next logical step after socialism, just as socialism is the next logical step after capitalism. It's true that many Americans need a lot more nuance in their definitions of socialism and communism but to think of them as the same or at least similar isn't entirely unfair or untrue.
This video radicalized me
Probably the best economics teacher I have come across on the internet. His approach to the subject is simply the best. Appreciation from Colombo, Sri Lanka.
I love this guy. I love the way he explains things.
Interwar anti-communism was a huge part on why there wasn't a anglo-french-sovjet alliance. Here in Europe anti-communism existed since 1917
Imagine the way the world could’ve been if the French and British had agreed to form an alliance with the Soviets...
...Hitler would’ve been stomped a bit faster at the very least.
@@nmeister007 Imagine the world if German socialist revolution would have won in 1919.
I hate how the internet turned this into a Anti-socialist meme
He got it backwards socialist and communist are the same and they are the Liberals and democratic people. Repulicans are the true people that stand for freedom and capitalizim. Capitalizim is very good and it requirs people not to be lazy and work for what they get instead of taking from the working class to give to the lazy people.
I came for a meme and stayed for a great hour of education
Have you read the description?
@@gelatinocyte6270 good point. Maybe they still learned what it isn’t but good thing to check it
"Education"? Seriously? The utter nonsense this old Marxist is spreading? Wow, you have a long way to go to be educated!
@@stefanmetzeler I can tell you listened to this in good faith. How epic.
@@YourPetSnake Unlike all the fools who listened to this old Marxist like he was a new messiah, I actually know all of this socialist bullshit and I've seen it FIRST HAND.
I've seen communism in Eastern Europe and I see socialism every time I hop the border to France, which is one of the most insanely socialist countries on the planet where everyone is indoctrinated with Marxism. The government schools and the media spread Marxism, the entire justice system is dominated by an openly Marxist union. In short, they all know Marxism and they do their very best to implement it and the result is misery. Horrendous unemployment, especially for young people, ridiculously low salaries with exorbitant taxes, VAT etc.
Yeah, sure, hand control to government, this is what it will look like.
All this guy is doing is repeat the utopian beliefs that if somehow they managed to overcome all the economic and social constraints of reality, it woudl be paradise 😂
Remember when Thomas Hobbes used to disagree with Adam Smith about Capitalism? Me either, since Hobbes died in 1679 and Adam Smith wasn't born until 1723. OK, but do you remember how Adam Smith wrote in defense of capitalism after Capitalism didn't deliver the equality it promised during the French Revolution ("liberty, equality, fraternity" being the campaign platform of Capitalism established at the Storming of the Bastille)? Me, either, since Adam Smith died within a year of the Storming of the Bastille. When you have a bunch of people who already want to believe you, you can pretty much tell them anything and they'll buy it. Good on you, ye titan of dishonesty!
Although I am a libertarian - purely in favor of true free-market capitalism, this professor is correct. Anyone advocating for more government is not inherently communistic. In fact, communism is anarchistic at the end of the day. They look forward to the end of government.
I have a whole host of reasons why communism or socialism will never work, but on that point - this guy is correct.
Of course it’s not inherently more communistic, but it is inherently more socialistic. Nothing wrong with that though.
I could FEEL the meme coming as he built to it. I could feel it in my bones
Like a violent desire to pee, right?
I don't know why socialism is more palatable when explained to me by an old dude from New York, but it is
when i was young i was told that communism was when the government owned everything and socialism was when the government controlled the whole economy i now know both are wrong
The problem is here that no party rules the past 200 years like the Banking party, aka "Bankism" - that is where we are now.
This is a very clear lecture. I believe many of the adverse comments were written by people who could not be bothered to listen to the whole presentation.
@Dim Seed was already sown in the 40's like was said in the talk, people already decided that "-isms" = bad. Not to mention that the economy wasn't as screwed up then as it is now. I'd like to have economists explain today how socialism isn't the better way to go now that the distribution of wealth is so skewed you need second or more jobs just to keep the light on.
EDIT: Personally I'd prefer we moved towards a system of technocracy where the interest of the people is handled by experts. That doesn't really happen atm. experts are present, but often ignored. Surprisingly 80% of the Chinese communist party members have a engineering degree, and they're booming.
@Dim I can't believe you're saying that praying capitalists exploiting the developing parts of the world is a positive thing. Capitalists are like locusts, eating everything in their way, only to move to greener pastures, which is what we're seeing in the news all the time, what with the entertainment industry catering more and more to the Chinese market. You're kidding yourself if you think the elite has any geographical or national allegiance - they - just - want - more - money.
I do agree with you, however, that capitalism is great if heavily regulated, but the fact that someone can come and buy out a vital part of the country's assets and run it into the ground (neo-liberalism) DISGUSTS me to now end, that's my take on why I'm not a huge fan, because I see the injustice it brings.
And then you say millionaires and billionaires are self made. Yeah maybe through inflation they are. Numbers keep getting bigger and bigger, and in 20 years you'll say "look, selfmade trillionaires!".
It's sad that you equate socialism with something horrible, like it'll force you into labor camps, wear the same clothes etc. It's more about owning the means of production for the shit that the people around you need, instead of waiting for a capitalist to come around and do it. BBC and DR (Danish Radio) were created because there was a need nobody else would fill (as we're not as big countries as the US). In unison we rise to the occasion.
You see socialist stuff in the US as well. Like how communities install and run their own internet in their town.
He's being a bit bloody generous to Stalin! If Stalin declared that State ownership was Socialism, it was NOT because he was concerned about the morale of the general population! It was because he was a power-crazed psychopath, and it suited him very well to keep power of all business - just think of how much power that would give you! - in his own hands. And the sick thing is that in declaring, "This is Socialism," he was telling the population that everything was done for their benefit, that the workers now had the power - so when they felt they didn't have any power, they'd have to doubt themselves, or start to hate and distrust "Socialism". This is the con done on the workers of the whole world: everyone equates Socialism with State control aka totalitarianism, and so ignores a means of gaining their share of power in society. And of course Stalin inspired other arseholes who wanted to take all power for themselves: or if they didn't in the beginning, they soon did, as the sheer amount of power they'd have would corrupt pretty much anyone (who was it said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?). But otherwise, a brilliant lecture! beautifully clarifies how and why Socialism ISN'T what they did in the USSR.
Professor says plenty of interesting things (well, for people who are completely unfamiliar with subject at least), but he is missing on oh so many points, starting from his misrepresentation of Adaam Smith, who was actually one of the first significant critics of capitalism, and on whose works (and Ricardo's) Marx builе his own economic theory, to the completely uneducated opinions on USSR, saying that it didn't transform it's economics from capitalism, which is as wrong as it can get. By the end of the 30s, all industries except food production were transormed to planned economy which means there was no longer any commodity production or profit motive, which is what is expected from socialist system. All, except some like agrarian sector where there were which consisted mainly from kolkhozes (basically agrarian cooperatives) and distribution and small commerce sectors, but even they were embedded to some degree into planing system. For example kolkhozes recieved an expected plan for some produce like grain, according to that plan they were supplied with vehicles like tractors along with specialists who can repair it, fertilizers, pesticides and stuff like that, for that they would recieve salaries, but everything they produced above plan they were fit to deal with as they like, selling it on the market or distribute it between peasants or selling it in bulk to the government (andplan was set up in such a way that most of the times they had decent portion of produce remaining). As you can see even cooperatives (which Wolf likes very much) despite being a profit enterprise to some degree, in many ways were pulled from commodity production, because they were supplied with tractors and stuff not according to how much money they could pay, but according to plan, plan not built on profits, but on use value of the products produced. And actual industries were completely rid of the commodification. Money lost one of the important roles it has in capitalism - the ability to direct the labor. As a result - full employment by the first half of the 30s. Anyone who knows even remotely about marxism knows that it's not that big of a stretch to cvall it socialism.
me awake at 2 am: I should be in bed already… but… I really should finish watching this…
At leas it's something productive, not like seeing red hot knives cutting through random stuff.
@18:45 Hold the phone. Thomas Hobbes wrote the Leviathan wayyyyyyy before Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. It's really disingenuous to argue that somehow Hobbes argued against Smith's individualist arguments. Hobbes after all was arguing in favor of a strong monarchy in the feudal sense, not for a strong community in the modern sense.
I heard the idea of democracy at work from this guy. It's also his opinion that we shouldn't have a UBI. (Universal basic income) I thought a UBI was a good idea until I heard the professor talk about it. I feel his ideas- and there are other people in America talking about socialism- I feel in the not too distant future we are going to inevitably get to somewhere near where professor Wolf wants us to be. Here in Ireland people are looking to socialism more and more. We have a big party here called Sinn Fein. A socialist party. The only reason they're not in power now is because of a lack of self belief. They didn't field enough candidates in our last general election. I'm sure they've learned they're lesson. They are in a power sharing government in the north and have been constantly- barring one or two hiccups- for a very long time. Sinn Fein will transform Ireland and were Ireland leads, other nations in Europe follow.
Tiocfaide ár lár.
Prescient comment
"Capitalist Richard Wolff doesn't exist, it can't hurt you"
Capitalist Richard Wolff:
"Capitalism is when the company does stuff. The more company does stuff, the more Capitalist it gets, but if it does *real* stuff, its Corporatism."
I feel like we are already naturally moving towards a more socialist and communist way of thinking thanks to the internet. Most people now understand that if we want to move forward as a species we need to work together so some form of hybrid free market capitalist socialist communist theory way of life imho will naturally develop as it already is now. The only question or difference we can or have to see or predict or debate now is whether we will go full socialist or communist or where we will draw the line.
?
Just try and remember the good times...
Ive been thinking about it quiet a lot of time: How internet is going to affect political mindset of people, points of view and so on and help people to achieve communism?
There are models like open source code, backing applications all together like Kickstsrter, the pure internacionalism of the youtube is also quite socialist.
Trying to spread the message that all the lower classes of the world must remain unite to fight together against work explotation is way more easy.
Certantly the internet is going to change politics in some way or another.
Cheers from Spain!
Oh wow I forgot I had already been here
I totally forgot
Time to sort comments by new
No, don't. It's a mess.
8:04 - I'm glad Wolff mentioned that, I've heard some anarcho-communist say that Bernie was their entering point into socialism/leftist idea, but that they later realised that he's more of a reformer than revolutionary, in any case they say they are now more leftist than Bernie ever was.
Hands down the best explanation for what socialism is not that I've ever heard. Thank you Professor Wolff!
Misquoting Thomas Hobbes. He did not warn that capitalism would make life nasty brutish and short... He said that was the nature of life BEFORE civilization... before people created a civilized way of allowing individuals the freedom to cooperate and create wealth pursuing their own interests (capitalism).
+Chris Knorr -- I don't think he misquoted Hobbes - he said that the idea that everybody does what's best for him 'as a principle to organize society' would put us in danger and then referred to Hobbes who pretty much said exactly that in Leviathan - granted, he made this confusing since Hobbes pre-dates Smith, but I guess he was trying to make the point that the idea that Smith was trying to pick up was already criticised by Hobbes.
Perhaps. As far as I can tell, I think this guy is typical of liberal intellectuals. He is drawing from misinterpreted, scattered sources and speaking in terms of rationality while making irrational, half-baked conclusions.
Chris Knorr He ain’t no liberal, to left for that garbage
Nice intro, but I can't stop once he gets into the history part of this:
14:20 - The French Revolution was "capitalist"? Wow. It was a hodge-podge of a thousand views, many of which were almost socialist. Price controls, currency manipulation, the universal rights and citizenship of all Frenchmen (even colonial blacks), etc... It was the inability of the Revolutionaries to control their economy and their wars with England and the other Frenchmen who disagreed with them that lead to Napoleon filling the power vacuum with - a monarchy. The eventual removal of Bonaparte resulted in - a monarchy.
17:51 - Horribly wrong view of Mr. Smith's work. Perhaps correct in how society writ large views it.
"The rich only select from the heap what is most precious and agreeable. They consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. (Theory of Moral Sentiments IV.1.10)" - Note that this is pre-Industrial Revolution.
Also he writes that we cannot only look for ourselves, but must concern ourselves with justice.
"The most sacred laws of justice, therefore, those whose violation seems to call loudest for vengeance and punishment, are the laws which guard the life and person of our neighbour; the next are those which guard his property and possessions; and last of all come those which guard what are called his personal rights, or what is due to him from the promises of others." (Theory of Moral Sentiments II.ii.2.3)
18:50 - Oh, come on! How ignorant do you think I am? Hobbes was dead and buried almost FIFTY YEARS before Smith was even born. Leviathan is a treastise on the rationale for the existance of the state in the midst of the English Civil War - when they were coping with the destruction of the Monarchy for the first time in European history since the collapse of the Roman Republic. It's not a response to TWN!
I'll stop there. I'm all for discussing socialism, but let's not make our own facts to do it.
It's kind of sad to me that one of the most detailed and polite response to this video has absolutely no responses 3 years ago, while a guy saying Jesus was a socialist has 22 replies...
I just wish people would stop treating "capitalism" and "socialism" as theories that are "correct" or "incorrect" ways to run a country, and more as chosen prioritizations of the change in distribution of economic power. The latter view of course has the unfortunate consequence of requiring you to actually look at what is ACTUALLY happening in order to determine which direction is more needed in a given situation.
Venezuela? Far-reaching government intervention on markets paralyze private investment and cause hyperinflation. Populist socialist government maintains the status quo by constantly demonizing private interests as exploitative.
United States? Too much corporate influence on every facet of life, and inequality leading to democratic unrest. Corporatist government maintains the status quo by referring to any government action against large private interests as socialism, and "socialism never works".
When you view ideologies as being absolutely true, you tend to be blind to their pitfalls and downsides.
THIS!!!!!!
SO MUCH THIS!!!!!!
Agreed.
you seem informed. please recommend books for me to learn about this further, preferably unbiased like you.
The world is absurd. It isn't even that complicated. Luxuries should be capitalist and necessities should be socialist (and if you look at successful societies the trend is the this is true, more success means more socialized necessities). AND the more important the necessity, the more socialized it should be. And to deliver this, the government is the best means. Clean water, plumbing, electricity, education, basic transportation, and healthcare should all be heavily socialized. And the reason for this isn't even a human rights issue. Society that has socialized these things performs better because it is more efficient. Socialism can streamline things which are basic more easily than capitalism. Instead of 400 water companies figuring out the best way to deliver, clean, and store water and remove waste we can just have ONE standard for the entire nation. The same can be said across the board for electricity, healthcare, transporation, education, and honestly even things like internet potentially (as long as the internet is not censored by the government)
I can listen to Professor Wolffe lecture for hours. The man is amazing....love him🤗
Protect this man at any cost
he spends the first 10 minutes talking about how people can't say they're socialists when every single college campus seems to have a majority of people with a positive outlook on socialism
It's no secret that things are bad in Venezuela. Rolling blackouts are causing infant deaths in hospitals where backup generators have ceased to function; the country is on pace to hit 700 percent inflation; outside of active war zones, the murder rate in Caracas is the highest in the world.
For many Americans, it's a news story piped in from a faraway place. For me? It's my friends and family who are suffering at the hands of an increasingly powerful and paranoid dictatorial regime. As a kid growing up in Caracas, I remember the difficult decision my parents had to make when Hugo Chavez attempted his coup and took over shortly thereafter. My parents decided to leave behind our life in Venezuela and come to the United States - much like my mother's family fled Cuba in the 1960s when Fidel Castro took over. Though it was a hard choice, in hindsight, we were the lucky ones.
Those watching from around the world, particularly in the United States, seem hesitant to put a label on Venezuela's struggle. But for me and mine, it's clear what precipitated this crisis - and we don't share the hesitance to point it out. While extenuating circumstances like drought and oil prices have certainly worsened the situation, it's clear there's a larger force behind Venezuela's woes.
The force that is driving Venezuela into the ground is socialism.
"Oh, but that's not _real_ socialism...."
- Leftists
Great speech. I hope more and more people listen to this and open their minds to the real truth about socialism and not just that, I hope the people in capitalistic societies learn also about what type of system brings to them in the long run also. People need to be informed and not just be brainwashed sheep. And I have to admit, I didn't know a thing or two about it myself, and I grew up in a socialist country (now I live in capitalist one, so at least I have seen and felt both, so I am not biased). State Capitalism... that's the thing I didn't realise it existed till now. Thank you.
No One has ever crawled over barbed wire or swam across rivers to escape free market capitalism........... no one................ever...........
Probably because it's never happened.
Retarded comment. First of all, any real socialist countries has ever existed, atleast on a relevant scale. Here's the basic definition of socialism-
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production"
Socialism is defined as having the workers own their own workplaces. This has not been the case in any major countries in the world.
Now, using the definition of socialism you americans love to use, you're probably thinking of social democracy. This is still capitalism, but with essentially band aids on it's problems.
Now, still using your definition, there's PLENTY of examples of people fleeing to "socialist" (social democratic countries). There's countless of people that try to make it to Germany, Norway, Sweden etc.
The farther you drift from a "free market (not crony market) capitalism" the more corrupt the government and the worse the people become.
Splugen pass Wrong. The further you drift towards a "free market" , the more exploitative the corporations will be. In countries like Bangladesh, corporations are setting up shop and forcing workers to work for a few dollars a day, with 19 hour work days. The high wages of the west didn't happen beacuse we drifted away from "free markets". It happend beacuse the workers protested and unionized.
Laissez-faire economics is pure nonsense.
we know you are wrong.
I had to laugh when he said, "Poor Stalin!"
Poor Stalin - he only got to murder 62 million people.
@@stefanmetzeler You have to wonder if he would ever have said "poor Hitler", even though the argument applies there too. Hitler would have never been able to appease the German peoople after versailles without some kind of enemy to point their anger to. If you seize power over a fucking state, you better be ready to take responsibility for it too.
@@stefanmetzeler 62 million? That seems like a lot of people. Surely you have some credible source of that number and not some anti-communist quackery.
Capitalism isn't feudalism. People aren't born as proletariat or capitalist. You say capitalism doesn't bring freedom or equality, but it gives all people the equal opportunity and freedom to become proletariat or capitalist if they so choose.
ah, no. If you're poor, you can't become a capitalist since trying to own the means of production would cost too much money. If you're a capitalist, well you can turn into a prole but it would take some inclination to a task. A prole can climb his way up, but that's pretty difficult especially due to privatized education
In my view (the only one I can have, by the way), there are two fundamental questions that clearly differentiate between what is generally called capitalism and socialism, respectively: (1) what motivates individuals to create new value and (2) on what basis is personal wealth created. There are two extremes as the answers to the first question: direct material gain and direct needs satisfaction; and two extremes as the answers to the second question: property and labor. Take the two sets of answers in the stated order and you have a crude definition of the difference between capitalism and socialism. Sure there are many other differences, but they would most likely derive from the two basic ones.
Phil Swift educating the masses
Holy crap, I didn’t think of that.
It all makes sense now.
I'm trying to keep my comment totally professional. Deep inside me I scream out, this is so fuck'n cool.
Socialism as defined here, does not need the state. In fact, if the state is involved, it is not socialism, if I am understanding Mr. Wolff correctly.
To qualify as socialism, particpation must be voluntarily. People can share their incomes without coercion if they so choose.
If socialism is so beautiful, people are free to do it, yet they do not, what is wrong? I submit that the theory is missing something big.
Some people will slack off, other people will see that, declare it not to be fair, and cease to participate. Commune disolves.
Humans are not perfect. Socialism requires perfect humans.
Give me the very best arguments why the above is is wrong.
ahh, here we go again. all the other socialists got it wrong, but this guy, THIS GUY! (points to the latest great mind) will get it right and thus the great society will rise from the ashes of capitalism. finally.
make pp on socialism
Thank you, algorithm, for showing me Socialist Danny DeVito
I want to let you know brazilian experience, since we have been governed by socialists for 13 years. In the beginning, Lula kept austerity in public finance in order to get the confidence of investors. It worked well. Next, they started moving to the left. They lowered interest rates and gave incentives to credit and consumption. We had a boom and now the bubble bursted. In the last year, GDP decreased about 4% and it is going down another 4% this year. Brazil ranks very badly in the rank of economic freedom. They did nothing to change it, since they hate capitalism. But they love power. So, we have the biggest scandal of corruption in the history of world - Petrobras (brazilian oil company) had contract with big construction firms, that financed the project of power of the socialists. In other words, the socialists protected those companies from competition with foreign companies (in the name of "national interest") while those companies deviated billions of dollars to finance the permanence in power of the socialists and also their luxuries (yes, they love the comforts of capitalism!).
Socialists are big liers and do everything to keep in power. OK, you may say as all politicians do. That is way politicians should have the lesser power possible in their hands! And that is the opposite of socialist ideology.
+Rafael Pepino there is nothing socialist about what they did, and Petrobras is a state-owned company, not socialist, btw. The problem is centralized power. It doesn't matter if you have capitalists or you have socialists in power, either way, the system is going to be very corrupt. What we need to do is get rid of governments and corporations, only then we will get rid of corruption. Actual real socialism can't function WITH a government.
Nelson Guedes What you call real socialism seems to be anarchy. In socialism (marxist), the means of production are owned by the state. As everybody knows, it does not work. Thus, so called socialists do everything to interfere in free markets - regulations, protectionism, taxation, etc. They increase the size of governments and the corollary is more corruption. Looks like you want less government and less economic freedom - a utopian communist state… I recommend you read Fukuyama books on the origins of political order.
My school teaches about Marx in philosophy class (which a very rare class in my country)
VERY TRUE. The inter-changeability of the terms "Marxism" "communism" "socialism" "anarchism" "terrorism" is a reflection of American history. From the end of the 1930s onwards. In Europe it is ok to be or have a relative that is a socialist, like pre-1940s America.
Thank you Richard Wolff!
41:46 I absolutely agree with almost everything Professor Wolff says in this video but I have to disagree on this point. There is no portraying Stalin as some good-hearted politician, saying "Poor Stalin" is insulting to the untold millions he had killed.
Again, I think the message in this video is great and I agree with what he says, but I find this so wrong. I think Lenin legitimately wanted to help the workers of Russia, but Stalin was a cold-hearted murderer out for his own gain.
you are wrong, Stalin only had 900 rubles in the bank when he died. Everything you know about him is false.
Please explain how Lenin was any better than Stalin? Let's not forget that Lenin didn't just defeat the feudalists and kill the tsar in Russia, he killed liberals, and he ALSO killed other socialists who didn't subscribe to his brand of socialism. Lenin was horrendous. In October 1917 the Bolsheviks lost the election to the socialist revolutionary party, and instead of accepting the L like men, the Bolsheviks decided to just overthrow them.
I’d like to think Wolff was being somewhat sarcastic with that part.
There is one problem with all of that. Even Marx and Lennon said that socialism is a step toward the ultimate goal of communism. Consider the fact that all socialists countries have always had to have a dictator because eventually people discover that you even have less percentage of the population with all of the wealth than you had in capitalism. Everybody is equal in socialism, EVERYBODY is starving.
you did not watch this presentation. You have also exposed your abysmal ignorance by mistaking comrade Lenin with one of the Beatles.
This should be entitled Dummies for Socialism
+schmatta haha it should.
on the off chance someone sees this, does this mean worker co-ops are the definition of socialist? that this whole socialism thing is just about making every business a co-op?
Worker co-ops aren't necessarily the definition of socialism, but that's pretty close! The general definition of socialism is when the workers own the means of production they use. That is, they own the tools, the land, and the capital. This can take the form of worker co-ops but there are other possibilities
every business is a co-op + largely nationalised resources like electricity and water. Communism is like this but there is no state or money.
my only taboo with socialism is that I grew up in it. only system I ever known. it is so hard that I don't want to experience it again. when I came to America and I saw the difference between the poor in America and the poor in Argentina, I can't help to see that I have been scammed by the socialist system making me believe that the American system was a bad system.
our free schooling is a fiasco, our free healthcare kills the poor. and the only source of jobs is the government.
all I can tell you is you Americans have no clue of how good you have it. I never been able to live with so much dignity in my life than when I moved into the US. I am still as poor as I was in my country but my quality of life is superior to what I experienced growing up. just Google pictures of poor people in Argentina and ask yourselves why people live like that in a socialist country..
if Bernie wins I predict 10-15 years of honeymoon and total collapse after that.
one more problem, it can't be fixed... never...once a country is socialist is always socialist.
I believe in Socialism. I do not condone Loafers. But I believe in providing for the least of our brothers. To protect women and children.
As an Alabamian, I really enjoyed that joke at the end.
As an Alabamian, you might enjoy "Hammer and Hoe" by Robin Kelley. For all us northerners look down our noses at y'all, there was some important and powerful socialist and communist organizing in Alabama - where it was *really* f'in hard - that can inspire all of us everywhere today.
I completely disagree, the Soviet Union was socialist, it was state socialist not state capitalist. He saying himself, there was slavery and state slavery, capitalism and state capitalism.
There is socialism and there is state socialism, by his own logic. Under Marx a proletarian state is completely different than the bourgeois state, he himself advocated to seize the state and letting it wither away. Thats why the USSR didnt call itself communist but socialist, they could only get rid of the state if they defeated capitalism. The state was owned by the workers, there was no capitalist class in the USSR.
socialism: the people have the means of production and decide what to do with them through the democratic means and do what is in the common interest of the population
state socialism: the people decide nothing and gain nothing and the government does everything and the people cannot decide the government or what the government does
your logic sucks all that was done is that the state exchanged the capitalists for members of the government so the people did not decide what to produce where to produce and how much to produce who had the capital was a small group of government officials this is state capitalism
I came from the meme but this is actually a pretty interesting talk
Socialism has been happening in America for a long time now. It is the reason why we are having trouble. Socialism has failed every where it has been implemented. Including right here in America.
6:27 - "Capitalism hasn't been doing to well for the past 6-7 years". What you are seeing today is not capitalism, its crony capitalism. I'm Assuming he is talking about the years that followed the 07-08 crises? In which the crises itself was a result of government and central banking (Federal Reserve) Failures? Yes, the past 6-7 years hasnt been going well due to government ongoing intervention in the free market.
16:29 - "Capitalism having promised so much, and having deliver much less" - I guess he completely missed out on the part where an Industrial revolution had occurred from 1760 to 1820 from capitalist. Or how we've seen the greatest improvement in the life of the ordinary man in recorded history, especially in the United States where there were virtually no government intervention. Today, we (People living in the U.S) are the result and heir of the free market enterprise known as capitalism.. But we are slowly destroying our wealth due to government intervention.
17:56 "If every person seeks to pursue their own self interest it will all work out for the best of everybody (sarcasm)" then he goes on ranting about how that ideology would destroy society..Fucking sigh... How is this man even allowed to teach? The greatest achievement of civilization has come from people pursuing their own self interest.. Henry Ford did not revolutionize the automobile industry to better society or under government order, Steve Jobs didn't revolutionize the music industry because he wanted to better society.. Nearly every great innovation has spawned from a person acting in his or her own self interest. Because Henry was trying to beat his competitors in the automobile industry; we are all able to afford a car.. In order to be financially successful, you would have to create a high quality product or service at a competitive price for the society around you.. That is what so great about capitalism, people succeed by benefiting others..
23:59 "Capitalism is preventing liberty, equality and fraternity" Capitalism is the embodiment of Liberty; you are free to choose what you want to do with your life. As a oppose to socialism where everything requires coercion. Secondly, equality is an imaginary word that only exist in socialism.. Nobody is equal.. I'm studying hard, and working hard to have a better life then some of my friends where all they do is party, drink and smoke.. Why should i be forced to be equal as them? Whats the point of educating yourself if society main goal is for every person to be equal to one another? Rename this video to " destroy an economy for dummies" Fraternity will never be possible in the human race.. Even husbands and wife disagrees and argues with each other. Another fairy tale statement made from socialist idiots.
35:10 - 39:04 Basically ranting about how Russia wasn't a real socialist society, and how they used it the wrong way.. Basic argument for every socialist.. Russia Under Stalin, Germany Hitler, Cuba Castro, North Korea Kim Jung Un, Greece, Venezuela and etc.. they all didn't know how to work socialism. Every Socialist society that has implemented it's princples and idea has been brutality failing; leaving millions of dead corpse and majority of the population in poverty.. But don't worry guys...Even though every single country that has tried socialism has failed with brutal consequences; the truth is that they failed because they simply didn't know how to use socialism the right way...this guy has found the magic formula to make it work! (sarcasm...)
40:15 " To reorganize enterprises, Factories, officers, stores, so that they would work in the interest of the whole community, because the whole community would be making the decisions" Then goes off ranting on how its better that the workers make major company decisions rather then the shareholders or business owners..It's not like these enterprises, factories, officers, and stores aren't already working for the interest of the whole community by providing the community with jobs, and quality products and services at a low price. Allowing workers, who are selfish themselves; to run a business would be a great way to destroy a business.. Workers, are just as greedy as businessmen.. They will only demand higher wages, with more benefits.. This will also destroy the incentive for entrepreneurs to start a business.. Why start a business just so that other people can take it over? The ultimate result of this foolish policy would be that all businesses would be destroyed; there will be nearly no new businesses created because there would be no incentive to start one.. Its unbelievable to me that this guy wants people who probably never had a high school education, and flips burgers or works a cashier make crucial and vital decisions for a business. Like i said before, not everybody is equal.. I would much rather have a small group of people who has a MBA degree from Harvard University to make business decisions rather then my mass employees who's working entry level jobs; and only interest is to get a higher wage, with more paid vacations and other benefits.
I've research this guy; his name is Richard Wolff, and all he does is give speeches to a silent audience that doesn't seem to be allowed to protest or argue against him. He has never been in any debate or anything.. I wonder why? I would love for him to debate someone like Ben Shapiro, or Stefan Molyneux.. I bet he wont dare to do so..
Crony Capitalism is a major part of capitalism and is the end result of capitalism. Calling Crony Capitalism isn't Capitalism is like saying Jesus isn't Jewish.
Laissez Faire did have a role during the industrial revolution, but it had two extremes and Laissez Faire failed to survive the industrial revolution. Due to the extreme conditions of the poor and workers socialism was a result of that. I wouldnt consider forced labor, child labor, little to no pay, slavery and blacklisting "libertarian" now would you? Worker rights is a socialist concept, you have to be completely ignorant of socialism and capitalism to ignore it. Socialism is why you work forty hours a week with time and an half for over. Socialism is why we no longer have child labor. So dont complain about socialism when socialists fought for your rights in the work place.
While I do support the free market, protectionism is inevitable as economies will specialize on a product/service. Funny enough the right wing who often says free market are the ones who are often against it for a protectionist nationalistic economy.
Capitalism goes against the individual and liberty as it is an hierarchy structure and the majority dont have equal rights. Since of the hierarchy structure there isn't equal opportunity as the poor are forced to work at an early age and dont receive an education. Since education is privatized most individuals cant afford it. Since living wages is a socialist concept, most workers are paid below the poverty or not paid at all. Thats not freedom.
BTW im not going to go through your rant, but I will say you dont seem to understand the history of beliefs of capitalism and socialism. And your argument is terrible.
I read a little more of your rant, you dont even know the differences between fascism and socialism/communism so you have no room to talk. Since fascism is economically capitalist not socialist and is anti-marxist
jsmetalcore Sorry for the late response.
“Crony Capitalism is a major part of capitalism and is the end result of capitalism. Calling Crony Capitalism isn't Capitalism is like saying Jesus isn't Jewish.”
How is crony capitalism a major part of capitalism? Crony capitalism isn’t what capitalism means. Capitalism means an economic condition where a country trade and industry is controlled by private owners for profit.. Not Government involvement in a free market; which is what crony capitalism is.
“Laissez Faire did have a role during the industrial revolution, but it had two extremes and Laissez Faire failed to survive the industrial revolution. Due to the extreme conditions of the poor and workers socialism was a result of that. I wouldnt consider forced labor, child labor, little to no pay, slavery and blacklisting "libertarian" now would you? Worker rights is a socialist concept, you have to be completely ignorant of socialism and capitalism to ignore it. Socialism is why you work forty hours a week with time and an half for over. Socialism is why we no longer have child labor. So dont complain about socialism when socialists fought for your rights in the work place.”
You are wrong. People weren’t forced to work; it’s a consensual agreement between the employee and the employer. People were working because they wanted to work; not because someone held them at gunpoint. Secondly, where are you getting your information that people were poorly paid? According to whom? Believe it or not, employers doesn’t try to pay the least amount of money to his/her employee.. Only 4.3% of employees are being paid the $7.25 minimum wage, everyone else is earning more.
If there were such horrid working conditions, why were there an influx of immigrants by the millions migrating to capitalistic society such as the United States during those time? Did they come to be grinded beneath the heels of a capitalist? Or was it because they believed that moving to a country with no government involvement that was practicing honest capitalism would cause them to better their life? There has never been a time in world history where the ordinary man has improved his quality of life then the late 1700s to 1800s.. Today, we are the result and heirs of the free market system that was practiced on the birth of this country. The same people we consider to be in poverty in the United States, are still making more money then most People in China, Russia, and let alone other countries such as India, Bangladesh, Venezuela, North Korea etc.. People that we consider to be in poverty, still has a roof over their head, running water (with warm water), electricity, a vehicle (may not be a Bentley but a vehicle nonetheless,) Color TV, a Fridge, Microwave etc…
And just a FYI, workers right did more harm than good.. Employers are not employing nearly as much people anymore because they are forced to pay health insurance, life insurance, taxes, a minimum wage and etc.
“While I do support the free market, protectionism is inevitable as economies will specialize on a product/service. Funny enough the right wing who often says free market are the ones who are often against it for a protectionist nationalistic economy. “
Not sure where your from, but I can tell that English isn’t your first language.. Not sure what your trying to say here.
“Capitalism goes against the individual and liberty as it is an hierarchy structure and the majority dont have equal rights.”
You have to be mentally disable to dish out a statement like that. Capitalism is the very embodiment of freedom and liberty. You are free to pursue your own-self-interest. You are free to start a business, you are free to work anywhere you want. Socialism is opposite of freedom and requires coercion in order for it to work.
“there isn't equal opportunity as the poor are forced to work at an early age and dont receive an education”
When you talk about working at an early stage, I’m assuming that you mean young college students? Because all Grade schools are public. What country are you talking about? In the United States, There hardly any young children working.. I haven’t seen a 15 year old kid work anywhere for years.. Because of all these government rules and regulation, nobody wants to hire young teen to work.
Which is actually a bad thing, because government is denying teens the opportunity to get an entry level job in where they can work and learn vital skills that will potentially earn them a better pay from their work experience; to the point where teens would not even need to go to college in order to support themselves or family if they don’t want to continue schooling.
“Since education is privatized most individuals cant afford it.”
Government is the cause of Colleges being expensive. Because they guarantee subsidies to students up to 200k, colleges bid up their tuition price to gain more money. If Government didn’t subsidies student loans, Colleges will have to literally slash tuition prices in order for students to intend their college.
“Since living wages is a socialist concept, most workers are paid below the poverty or not paid at all. Thats not freedom”
Do you want people to be paid living wages for flipping burgers and working a cashier? How would a business even be profitable if they do that? Why even get an education and learn valuable skills if you can earn a living wage by working at Walmart? And doing things that any 15 year old can do? That is how you essentially destroy an economy.
You seem to want to put equality before freedom. Which will only destroy the incentive for people to be educated, work hard and earn money. As I mentioned in my “rant”, equality is an overrated word made from socialist.. People aren’t equals and shouldn’t be.. Why would I be forced to live in similar conditions to somone who doesn’t work as hard as me?
“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” - Milton Friedman.
"BTW im not going to go through your rant, but I will say you dont seem to understand the history of beliefs of capitalism and socialism. And your argument is terrible."
The history of our planet has always been crystal clear.. People enjoy a higher quality of life under capitalism then Socialism. There has never been a greater tool other then the free market system that eliminates poverty, racism, homophobia etc then capitalism.. If you really want to see where the majority of the mass is worse off, they exist in the type of society that departs from capitalism.
"I read a little more of your rant, you dont even know the differences between fascism and socialism/communism so you have no room to talk. Since fascism is economically capitalist not socialist and is anti-marxist."
“Fascism is more socialist and communist by FAR. Fascism is an Authoritarian and nationalistic system of government. While capitalism is private ownership with no government, your logic eats itself by the very definition of the two; capitalism ss quite the opposite.. Nazi Germany had an socialist like economy.. Although people want to call it fascism, or authotarian.. Their concept, believes, and ideology behing the economic structure was extremely similar to that of socialism.
Unknown Person Im going bottom up, since its easier. Fascist economics follow corporatism and corporatism is a form of capitalism. Nazi economics were capitalist, not socialist
www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Conservative-economic-programs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Economics
www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/tch_wjec/germany19291947/2economicsocialpolicy1.shtml
Nazis privatized property and banned unions. Nazis also received support by the right. By calling Nazi socialists, it shows that you dont either gasp socialism, fascism, or capitalism.
Have you even looked up Nazi economics? Historians are saying that its capitalist and he opposed socialism. There is a reason why scholars place Fascism on the far right, because its economically capitalist and socially conservative.
Also there are other forms of capitalism other than free market capitalism. As capitalists also support protectionism such as with Trump and socialists do support the free market such as with mutualists and social democrats.
But protectionism is inevitable as developing countries often protect their businesses and countries specialize on products and want to protect them. A pure free market economy cant hold up in an international economy.
Actually Social Democratic countries have the highest living on standards and they use both capitalist and socialist beliefs. If you bother to look up Laissez Faire when it was in practice, their was forced labor, slavery, blacklisting, child labor, long hours, and had to work for next to nothing and the employers didnt even need to pay their employees. Since worker rights is a socialist concept and socialists worked hard for you to have to work forty hours a week with pay and a half with overtime, I beg a differ. The failures of capitalism is why socialism exists.
You used a poor example with Walmart, since Walmart purposely makes it so their employees dont work full time so they dont need to provide benefits and they actively suppress trade unions. The people who do work at Walmart for a living even need government assistance because their pay is so low. Actually by allowing people to live off a livable wage for people who work forty hours a week would close the wage gap and make the middle class stronger. Since gaps between the extreme rich and poor kill the middle class. A 15 year old would work part-time and wouldnt need the higher wages. Look at the countries like Switzerland and Sweden, they have much higher wages due to collective bargaining. But in your system collective bargaining doesnt exist and unions get banned.
Also businesses would be more profitable because more people in general would have more money. If businesses increase their wages nationwide, more people would have more money to buy products and the living standards would raise. IF we have a lot of people living in poverty who cant afford much, it isn't good for the economy.
College prices are going up because more people are going to it. Which drives up demand and universities need to hire more staff. Which makes it even more expensive. Sure, student loans play a large role, but why should someone be forced to be a laborer if they want an higher education? For example, a high school degree isn't as much as it used to be. Also I'm not talking about college education, I'm talking elementary education, as most people in the society are forced to work at a young age and public school isn't provided (assuming we are talking about laissez faire capitalism) Since people are forced to work at the age of 6 and not many people have the luxury of getting an education. Which is why we view education as a universal right now, it wasnt in the passed under a laissez faire doctrine.
When I say people work at a early age, i mean age six. have you done any research on Laissez Faire Britain or observe what corporations are doing overseas?
again in capitalism there isn't freedom as most people are at the bottom and dont receive an education and are forced to work at a young age. The reason why people can move up is due to welfare capitalism, not laissez faire. Having a population working for low wages and not receiving an education doesnt sound like freedom to me
“While I do support the free market, protectionism is inevitable as economies will specialize on a product/service. Funny enough the right wing who often says free market are the ones who are often against it for a protectionist nationalistic economy. “
Not sure where your from, but I can tell that English isn’t your first language.. Not sure what your trying to say here.
reread it.
"You are wrong. People weren’t forced to work; it’s a consensual agreement between the employee and the employer. People were working because they wanted to work; not because someone held them at gunpoint. Secondly, where are you getting your information that people were poorly paid? According to whom? Believe it or not, employers doesn’t try to pay the least amount of money to his/her employee.. Only 4.3% of employees are being paid the $7.25 minimum wage, everyone else is earning more."
I can tell you haven't done any research on capitalism and laissez faire.
www.britannica.com/topic/laissez-faire
www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/shp/britishsociety/livingworkingconditionsrev1.shtml
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html
link explains it
The issue is that you view welfare capitalism as laissez faire
Most people moved to the US during the 19th century was due to famines. Lets look at the Irish during the Irish famine, since a lot of Irish people came to the US from that. Due to Laissez Faire policy in Britain, the British government didnt act until it was too late and a lot of people starved to death. Since food prices were too high and British companies continued to import food in from Ireland.
www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/victorians/famine_01.shtml#five
Also the US didnt become the strongest economy after WW2 when the rest of Europe was destroyed.
If the government acts upon the private individual it is a form of capitalism, this happens often as capitalism is an plutocracy
19:29 "A society? Based."
The fundamental question is even if you divorce socialism from the state, how do you reorganize society in such a way that the workers are the greatest beneficiaries while removing the hierarchies that actually make that possible? It seems naive to think that just because the state is removed from the equation, there will be no more parties that benefit more than others
It is naive
You are entirely wrong to compare socialism and capitalism. Capitalism is purely economic and has no social construct whatsoever. Socialism must control behaviour in order to even begin. If you can't bring about change without force, your idea is pretty bad, no matter how well intentioned you may be. You are so lucky that you are teacher children. They won't actually argue or refute anything you are saying. Why is it that every socialist has to hide truths and mislead in order to make socialism look like a real option.
Everything you are pushing about socialism is put forward without any regards to the amount of brute force that is required to make it happen. What would you say to those that decide not to go along with your socialist ideology, once you bring it about? What do you do with the individuals that leave or refuse to take part? As a business owner, what if I just decide that the business belongs to me? how do you plan to force me to do what you say? you think we would just close our businesses or hand it over to the workers?
Your dream of socialism ends at the beginning. You do not have any idea of what happens after you win your bloody revolution. Once you bring about the socialist society, then what? Your answers are just, everything will work just fine from there. There are people that will never accept anything short of liberty and freedom. You keep implying , between lines, that you will just have to exterminate them, beat us into submission. That is exactly what has happened everytime socialism runs it's course. That is, of course, unless it runs out of money. I cannot believe someone of your advanced age and wisdom is still holding onto to these ridiculous ideals.
Did you not understand that he was talking about revolution as being ONE WAY of seizing assets of production? He wasn't advocating it. He said the OTHER WAY that theorists came up with of doing this was EVOLUTION ie where we VOTE IN and give permission for the government to do this as a TEMPORARY MEASURE of redistribution of wealth and ownership - which never happened in the European/Soviet countries he spoke of...
I just got that from WATCHING WHAT HE ACTUALLY SAID.
Road to Serfdom by F.A. Hayek
mikeyG25 My hero. Love from Australia 🇦🇺
You mean the guy who admitted to using the UK’s NHS and though UBI was needed for the survival of capitalism because he himself admitted that the most Americans are unable to have the same buying power as the rulling elite.
Really enjoyed this. It's been something I've been interested in for a long time but never properly knew enough about, had to keep looking up the difference between socialism and communism every few weeks because I could never get a definitive enough answer that'd stick with me. Makes me want to look into world political history a lot more.
@Dim care to elaborate on debunked
Honest question: What are some good examples of Socialism?
Social programs that would cover education / healthcare / housing just to name a few.
cuba is ok. here’s a quick video about Cuba: ruclips.net/video/YIqm075vC1A/видео.html
They're are so many Americans that need to watch this talk.
I'm sharing this on facebook!
Oriana Rodriguez Good! We should have a mind open to exploring the merits of socialism, without fixation.
So true, Bernie Sanders won me over big time! some ass from my friend list STILL posted about Nazi's and Lenin blah blah blah blah.....I said to the how stupid their going to look when people who actually watched the video see's your comment, they erased it the next day!!! hahahahahahahahahahahah that was fun!
Oriana Rodriguez Anyone who looks at Bernie Sanders site www.sanders.senate.gov will see an agenda of a Democratic socialist. He is very interesting and I think appeals to much of America IF they understand socialism.
ok
Craig Holman Socialism is STATE capitalism or very close !! State owns everything and you NOTHING . YOU CANNOT quit your job without STATE approval .It is like a modern slavery. Everyday you are going to listen how much you owe to "society " .
Very basic and entertaining talk, but Prof. Wolf's description of "the sacrifices of workers" is too much of a euphemism for the murderous brutality which underpins Leninism (or as he calls it, Communism, the revolutionary path toward seizing the State). The discussion here is too abstract, too far removed from the lives of real people. All Communist revolutions (as opposed to a fair election) led to totalitarianism, i.e. no individual or collective activity was allowed which was not controlled by the Party or the State, and anybody who was perceived to transgress was viciously punished or killed. There is no resulting liberty, equality, fraternity under Leninist Communism, which fails the fundamental test of social transformation.
Absolutely right, which makes the end game of socialism and communism the enslavement of the people and not their freedom.
What about the societies that reached/came very close to the stateless, classless, moneyless society that Communism is in definition. The moneyless, not so much, but Aragon in Catalonia, Makhnovia, the Anarchist communes in North Korea, rojava in the Kurdish region
@@easye9522 Someone didn't watch the lecture. Act smug all you want, at the end of the day you're the anti-intellectual here.
Richard D. Wolff said that Stalin did not "make" socialism in the Soviet Union and only did was state capitalism. The own Lenin already theorized about that the development of socialism in Russia would also require the development of state capitalism, given the backwardness of the productive forces and the dispersal of small commodity production. And if one observes the Soviet history throughout their journey, from 1917 to 1991, you can clearly see a transitory between state capitalism and socialism society, because there are elements of one and other. This type of errors described the USSR as state capitalism is of Social-democrats or social-liberals.
26:00 I reply with: can he name one time where LABOR took over the management and was successful without creating classes of laborer and basically emulation of the same SMALL group of representatives making management choices on behalf of the group?
For a thorough and comprehensive discussion of the economics of socialism read "Socialism" by Ludwig von Mises.
+Margaret Mcginn 1. Please cite the section.
2. I don't believe he would have ever made such a statement in the context that you are implying.
3. Mises insight was that a socialist economy would end in chaos with the absence of market prices arising from the free trade of private property owners. In a socialist economy in which the public owns of the means of production there can be no market price since everything is owned by the public or state. It would be necessary to have a czar to arbitrarily set prices and make economic decisions for the whole economy. No one person or group of persons could ever have the knowledge necessary to make economical buying decisions for millions of people. Venezuela is the latest example of the ruinous policies of socialism.
JohnRinNoHo Mises was a genius - he would've made mincemeat of this guy.
One question, though - @34:31 Prof. Wolff explains how the communist parties started - quote: "All communist parties start in 1921". So how does that line up with the 'Manifest der Kommunistischen Partei' (manifesto of the communist party) published by Marx and Engels in February of 1848?
Sam Flanders Majority Of historic Communist Patties began in 1921
It does not line up because that book did not create nor it demanded the creation of a communist party in name.
I think half the people commenting didn't watch the video.. or perhaps didn't follow his reasoning.. I'd rather believe that than believe people are THIS narrow minded. The lecture was brilliant.
Based
Based