AskProfWolff: What is the difference between market socialism and centralized socialism?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 02. 2019
- Submit your own question for Prof. Wolff on Patreon: / economicupdate
Help us reach 100,000 subscribers! Please hit the red SUBSCRIBE button above.
Support the show Economic Update with Richard D. Wolff. Become a part of the growing Patreon community and gain access to exclusive patron-only content, along the ability to ask Prof. Wolff questions like this one!
A patron asks: What is the difference between market socialism and centralized socialism? Does this relate to the 'new' and 'old' socialism you've written about?
Follow Wolff ONLINE:
Web: www.rdwolff.com
Patreon: / economicupdate
Twitter: / profwolff
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Subscribe to the EU podcast: economicupdate.libsyn.com
Shop for EU merchandise: bit.ly/2JkxIfy
Prof. Wolff's latest book "Understanding Marxism" bit.ly/2BH0lkL
I feel like luxury items could still maintain a market system. Anything that is necessary for human life such as healthcare, housing, utilities, education, prisons etc shouldn’t operate under a market system.
The big problem about this is, and it comes from experience of central planned economy in my country and other countries in east Europe, is that basic goods in planned economy, such as vegetable, meat, shoes, cloathes, toilet papers etc. are hard, if not impossible to plan - in our economy, we could get things like mass produced book about ants, 1000 version of umbrellas etc. but it was quite hard to get toilet paper and people queued in lines for days to get those. Food and basic goods shortages was primary source of public outcry and in the end, fall of "Degenerated workers' state". I feel like central planing is better in long term investments such as city planning, goods produced by heavy industries, some kind of general direction toward which economy should go.
i think something like the price stabilization for rice in vietnam would work for basic food crops (wheat, potatoes, corn, greens, apples, coffee etc.) and a social democratic system for healthcare and education. prisons absolutely should not be run privately
Landon Young, I think I agree. I believe the state could promote or provide most universal basic needs, but I also think it’s important that it doesn’t monopolize any sector (not food production, nor healthcare, nor education, etc). Not even security (state should definitely provide that, but private contributions may be welcome and not troublesome, I believe)... but prisons apparently tend to be problematic if private...
Austin Martín Hernández yes that’s a good idea.
@@prkp7248 Historically, socialism has been about empowering the individual. Decentralize is the game, subsidiarity the principle. This means that activities are managed at the lowest level possible. If you can run a business as a self-employed individual, then you should do so. If a division within a large company can function on its own, then that division should be spun off as an independent company.
"Monopoly and privilege must be destroyed, opportunity afforded, and competition encouraged. This is Liberty's work, and 'Down with Authority' her war-cry." - Benjamin Tucker
czcams.com/video/A1_lCe3vyyc/video.html
Imagine this being your Zoom class.
What about it? My classes at uni are something like that.
@@IAmNotABot9 It's an old comment but I probably meant it as a "if only..." type of comment.
Crap, if that was the case, then I would actually participate in the lection and not mute it and play vidya instead
I wish
Thank you professor for your amazing explanation. I hope you pass your knowledge to as many people as possible so we can all carry on the torch.
He's simplifying, there were way more than two schools of socialist thought in that time period.
The correct question is "what is the difference between "market socialism" and what we already have? LOL!!!!!!
Sure, carry on the torch which has destroyed ALL 50 unfortunate countries who fooled around with what Wolff wants, from where then everybody run to find a better life in America. Do this to America and you will have no other place to run to. LOL!!!!!!
@@anarchosyndicalist sure, so if Socialism is incapable to make it EVEN when is spread in half of the world, is because of the other half, not because of their own stupidity, so let's destroy that too. Got more genius loser ideas like this? LOL!!!!!!!!!!
@@anarchosyndicalist sure, the problem is with us telling it to you as it is, not with you trying to sneak behind excuses like "with no America those 50 countries will not be ruined in the first place" and using it as justification for stealing what others did and destroying America with Socialism after you destroyed half the world with it. And the rebuttal of this hurts your feelings. LOL!!!!!!!!!
Want to be treated as "people"? STOP lying and trying to steal what is not yours!
It's simply that “market socialism” is a fairly broad and somewhat amorphous idea. Throughout the decades there have been numerous theories proposed and experiments brought forth which contain many variations in the degree of state involvement as well as how much “Laissez-faire” a socialism pursued via some degree of market forces would/should entail. Mutualism, for instance, is highly Laissez-faire in its approach. Titoism combines an element of central-planning along with worker self-management. The governments of China and Vietnam also refer to their economies as “market socialist”, and Cuba allows for a degree of individual proprietorship and self-employment.
My own preference is something combining Titoism with Guild Socialism operating within a market framework along with a regulatory system with VERY clearly-defined powers. This is a means of hedging against the state becoming too arbitrary involved in the economy.
That's a very rough overview of my own economic views, it didn't fully or satisfactorily explain everything, but it's just to throw a little bit out there in hopes of enriching the conversation.
I appreciate the effort but your post is way too general, vague, and brief to resolve any issues. That's probably not your fault. I can think of a few dozen questions your remarks leave open.
Market Socialism explained- workers owning the means of production in the form of worker co-ops
Not quite it's like a narrowed definitiom of Cooperative or Guild Socialism. Market Socialism; has various forms tho.
Market socialism is simply socializing the market.
Now how do we overcome the Pavlovian response many have to the very word "socialism" which has been so demonized by the media? I am seeing people I respect, who are intelligent, and yet who curse socialism, mistaking it for the ills which capitalism actually brought us.
Thank you for answering our questions! This has been a great period in history in which so much quality learning and innovation is taking place.
by telling the truth.
Unfortunately, you can't do much. It is up to the conditioned person to challenge their conditioning. If they can't or won't do that you can't make them.
Frederic Bastiat hey Fred just wondering if you’re okay :) not knowing the differences between things doesn’t mean that they’re the same.
What about California is socialist :) do you really think one state is socialist and sippy is capitalist. Most of miss relies on federal assistance which comes from states like California so it’s a weird one to choose :)
Keep it up and have a happy time
G Kuljian
, sure, never mind that the "response" was caused by you guys screwing up 50 times in a row and creating the biggest disaster in history. LOL!!!!!
Frederic Bastiat
Miss relies on federal assistance in order to run the state? 40% of the states revenue comes from federal assistance, where do you think that money comes from?
Is that not a form of redistribution? That’s why it’s a weird example to use :)
Either way neither California or Miss are in any way socialists big bud, if anything California is full of capitalists :) I don’t know why you’re calling me a retard but I wish you well :)
ballotpedia.org/Mississippi_state_budget_and_finances#Revenues
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
Spurious quotation...
Totally agree. Socialism is not about abolishing markets for products, but labour market. It disolves the oppositions labour x property, wages x profits. Its all about workers ownership, with or without markets.
Thank you for another great video today Professor Wolff!
State Socialism is not true socialism IMO. Unless the "state" is comprised of worker councils, and and worker unions, which they never are. It's really State Capitalism
@Tom Joad not many people in the US use 'social democracy'. not that many people know what it is actually. I'd consider myself a social democrat, near Marxist but not quite, but I definitely want democracy in the workplace. worker co-ops and such. I think those can exist in a social democracy, like the Nordic model
@@b1bbscraz3y Worker Coops can exist in Capitalist social democracies, but as long as they exist within the capitalist framework, they will have to adapt less worker-friendly policies to compete with ruthless capitalists once they reach a certian size.
If state is genuinely controlled by the workers, It IS socialism.
@@eruno_ If a state grants workers control of the economy, and the state owns every enterprise, then yeah, it is by definition, socialism (Albeit the authoritarian, not-fun kind of socialism imo)
But what instance of "authoritarian socialism" has granted worker control of the economy? In general, state control of the enconomy has not led to worker control and power (USSR as an example). Meanwhile, I can easily recall a wonderful example of Libertarian Socialism giving worker power: Revoloutionary Spain.
This leads me to believe that State Socialism leads to state power (as opposed to worker power) wheras libertarian socialism leads to worker power.
Jackson Winkleson
, maybe, but the reason for it is that true Socialism is a lot worse, because when they gave the land to incompetent peasants they created huge famines, and the incompetent workers destroyed the factories they didn't know how to manage. This happened 50 times in a row. But you will do it right the 51st time. LOL!!!!!
Market socialism is based
Great explanation, thanks.
Socialism from below isn't really a new idea. But i understand you're talkint to a specific audience.
It isn't new, but wasn't implemented in a large scale yet.
Revolution is made by class. "Below" is not a class.
Sakalauskas, it seems to me that it can’t be “implemented in large scale” if it depends upon individual/group interests in doing so. Why not start ourselves if/where we can, with like-minded groups?
Alternatively, why not start small? (Let’s say a county/municipality promotes cooperatives together with local regulations to protect them...)
If you wanna go large scale, you’ll Necessarily require big power... and thus it ain’t bottom-up, but strictly top-down...
Revolution is made by violence and collective irresponsibility (the masses agitated by violent ideologues).
Why not take and foster individual/group responsibility for small scale cooperatives with specific, protective legislation (which doesn’t affect economic freedoms at large)...?
.
If we think these are good ideas, for good ends, why not let them compete in the marketplace of ideas and practices...?
Just sayin’...
@@wsad2 Capitalism doesn't leave well enough alone. People have tried throughout history to form countries and societies apart from capitalism, but capitalist countries are always invading, bombing, sanctioning, or couping other countries. So it's not us that are opting for violence. Any violence in turn is self defense from capitalist aggression and greed.
Thanks for the lesson, prof!
Lived in both systems. Was born and grew up in one, and now live as an adult in another.
From a personal point of view and from a personal experience, Capitalism, Socialism and even Communism, they're all good systems. But there's always one problem emerging in all of them. The people in charge. Humans are almost always subjected to corruption. Those who are not, usually pop up from time to time on that political spectrum, but are a minority and are always .. well .. "removed" from those positions by the majority.
All in all, systems are good but people in charge either are the problem, or they become a problem eventually.
Thank You from Canada!
Poggers in the chat for dialectic materialism. YEET THE RICH
nom nom nom.
Who’s rich? It’s relative
@@johnholmes2745 people with many mony
This is literally one of the best videos on a view into the direction of Western society over the next few hundred years. If socialism occurs in the West, it will be market socialism mixed economy using the social democratic processes we learned from capitalism such as progressive and estate taxation, VAT/GST, and perhaps even UBI. I can also see a sort of market-based election of entrepreneurial ideas exist, we have crowdfunding and Patreon today for entrepreneurs, these sorts of mechanisms can further develop into key economic features cutting out the need for capitalist investment - and therefore, capitalist ownership.
totally agree, the key to socialism is not centralized power, but placing the power in the hands of the workers to participate in the market.
you'd make every worker into a capitalist
right now, i don't really care if there are new regulations on my company or the size of my company is limited; not really my problem. its only really a problem insofar as management might fire me.
in this system, i would definitely care if the government decided to put regulations on my company. they're interfering with my livelihood. my income is directly proportional to how well my company performs on the market; therefore, i want my company to be as dominant as possible. other considerations are secondary. in fact, i wouldn't really care all that much about outside society like the government PERIOD; since i have a direct relationship with my labor, with nothing in between, i don't really care what my company does or how it might affect the world outside. as long as it doesn't affect me, why should i care?
so, while now most of the working class is against the interests of business, now all of the working class is in favor not only of business generally, but particularly of THEIR business.
i can foresee this kind of market socialism turning into a kind of libertarian anarcho-capitalist nightmare that way.
@@michaelsalmon9832 I wouldn't be doing anything, this is only a likelihood of how socialism can arise in Western and Westernized nations. Socialism is different from anarcho capitalism, and working class ownership of the means of production doesn't mean they're all suddenly capitalists.
@@Seekarr right but they don't own the means of production as a class, they own the means of production as individual firms, that are all competing with eachother
Social democracy is a form of capitalism.
It will not mix.
Thank you Mr. Wolf.
You’re a genius dude. I need to go over this further since I’m not sure if I’m super down for a few parts of this, but I might be missing something soooo 😂😂 stay safe, and I hope you’re doing well, this is really ringing true to me at the moment lol
So basically your "new Socialism" as focus on the microeconomics is compatible with both market and planned socialism
It's mutualism
Its NOT an either or binary. You are using a false dichotomy. Even the Soviet Union had markets and capitalism
@@pedroalvarez713 i dont think you understand what mutualism is
@@James-jt4fl enlighten me bruv
Pedro Alvarez Mutualism is not strictly a cooperative ideology. It advocates worker ownership of the means of production, but this can be personal ownership or associative ownership as well. Furthermore, it is based on a very specific understanding of property rights, broadly based on possession (though there is more to it), and above all, the clear understanding that all deals must be mutually beneficial and an equal trade (based on the subjectively perceived merit in the value exchange).
Was a damn useful answer. Good stuff.
Your very wise.
I love this dude
peasant revolt of 2019
Sure, never mind that Socialist peasants created the worst famines in history so the State had to force them to form coops, which did equally bad. LOL!!!!!!!!
@@snipview8363 Umm... the reason people starved was because the State Communist (not really socialist, as workers did not organize their labor) forced them to join industrial collectives and pulled out the breadbasket rug from under the people.
THAT was in 2016 and elected Trump. LOL!!!!!!!!
@@snipview8363 capitalism killed 1 billion people. I could list all the events
Enslavement and genocide of native Americans
Enslavement and genocide of africans and other people
Bengali famine
US imperialism
British imperialism
Japanese imperialism
Millions of people starving due to the lack of money
Etc
Etc
@@ravkoleavikk8577 that's called whataboutism, and what you are mostly referring to are not direct results of capitalism in any case. just a bunch of commie talking points.
Market socialism with UBI (if you are jobless you still survive) + extreme antitrust laws, companies (co-ops) can only be small or medium, large corporations even if diversified are banned forever. Economies of scale are not needed to drive down costs because of better wealth distribution. We pair this with degrowth (degrowth is not uniform, some parts of the economy like a new smartphone every couple months need to slow the fuck down, other parts can keep growing like non-luxurious food), to contain inflation (I know the productive capacity can be very elastic in some areas to contain inflation, but not in all of them).
Governments own any natural monopoly such as water distribution, and basic services for human survival and dignity (like education and healthcare) are also government-held and free.
This is my ideal atm.
Great ideas m8. That's what a brighter future really looks like.
Great job explaining it prof wolff. My only criticism is that I think we still need a planned economy when it comes to major industries, especially the energy sector. If you leave it to market forces oil will still be king.
You do need certain industries to be planned to avoid the negative externalities that come from their business practices. Renewable energy won't develop fast enough under a market system, even if it is socialist in nature because the drive for profits leads to businesses doing what's right for them and their employees but perhaps not what's good for our society in the long run.
A mix between planned economy and what you talk about is probably better.
I dont agree, you can use the advantages of markets to fix these problems too. Its importing to subsidize and make the right way the profitable option tho.
@@NervylHraje Why should anyone be profiting off of someone's need for electricity though?
@@28604 Because profits allow markets to work and i believe markets are better at allocating resources to achieve best productivity. Imo theres many externalities that prevent markets from working everywhere, but where it can work its better to implement them.
@@NervylHraje I agree that markets will probably better satisfy people's wants, but even if they're worker owned businesses I see no reason why energy, health Care, transportation services, etc. should be operated by companies looking to make money off of your needs
@@28604 I think Energy should be heavily regulated, but why shouldi care if someones making money off it ? Id agree there needs to be state/community alternative to healthcare and transport
I'm not sure I find the last answer that clear.
If myself and others run a cooperative, wouldn't it be in our best interests to gain market dominance? I don't see why humans working for a cooperative would benevolently advocate for antitrust regulations on themselves, just as I don't see why capitalistic corporations would.
Can someone explain how a co-op economy would somehow avoid the same pitfalls, if at all?
What I heard him say was that risk of monopolization would NOT completely go away even in democratic worker coops operating in a market economy, but it is just that the outcomes in terms of inequality would still be lower than in undemocratic profit-centric capitalist corporations! The question is why would that be the case? I suspect that is because the principles and the value system of co-operative enterprises are not profit-centric. Open to hear what you or others think.
Well, for example, in a capitalist system you have a few wealthy individuals who can exert massive influence on government policies (think Amazon negotiating for massive tax breaks from local governments for example) while in a cooperative system your ability to tear down these barriers is very limited.
You might want to dominate the market, but you’re likely going to attempt this by being genuinely highly competitive, rather than by unethically undermining other companies. Members of a cooperative in a market socialist economy generally have wealth similarly to society at large, so they’re more concerned about the public good, since it still affects them and they don’t have the inflated egos of capitalists.
Because, even from a selfish point of view, those antitrust laws protect you as well. You are a worker still, not the class above (as it no longer exists). You benefit from destroying monopolies too
it wouldn't, at all. in fact it'd exacerbate that problem, because you'd have many, many more people arguing for no government intervention in the market in order for their co-op to dominate on the market. let alone things like pollution controls, exploiting consumers and false advertising, workplaces not wanting to hire more workers because that would mean that their share of profits decreases, etc.
it needs to be a society-wide decision, in which the mechanisms and bureaucracies are collectively agreed upon to work in a certain manner. market socialism would be another catastrophe.
Keep up the good work professor. It's sorely needed.
A suggestion: Try to place better thumbnails on your videos. Believe me, the present ones aren't flattering
Wolff is an idiot who tries desperately to put life back in something which has failed each one of the 50 times was tried and killed 100 million people - just for his own aggrandizing. And you are so dumb that you believe all this BS in spite of it's entire history of abysmal failure. LOL!!!!!!
@@snipview8363 ew, you are ew
What about decentral planning?
*Yugoslavia intensifies*
A private company which is owned by the workers(aka cooperative) within a market economy makes sense. Which is essentially capitalism, but more egalitarian and more competitive. Govt should provide basic service, maintain regulations while keeping the market relatively free, maintain a military and impose reasonable taxation. This system won't be hostile to private individuals starting their own business and companies(unlike market socialism which requires the every company to be a cooperative),but it will promote business be it cooperative or private(private ownership is fundamental to freedom)
I feel like this idea of socialism also doesn't properly deal with rent seeking and ground rents. Adding Georgist land policies would be a start.
So this would basically be Syndicalism. The different facilities should be democratically organzied, owned and run by their workers. Labor unions, not the state should improve the communication between different workplaces and they might support workers who want to found a new factory or want to produce a new invention etc.
The big difference to classic market socialism would be that not only the distribution and allocation, but also the production and inner structure would be in the hands of the workers. And also labour unions would rather play a supportive than an interventionist role
Wait, how is Classical Market Socialism even Socialism, when only the distribution and allocation is in the hands of the workers?
I’m glad and surprised to know that you acknowledge the ironic maintenance of a powerful minority in last century’s socialist experiments, not unlike the capitalist elites so heavily criticized by socialists.
.
This, explicitly said and condemned, might help depolarize the debate between supporters and detractors of “socialism(s)” and clear things up (I, for one, had Never seen any pro-socialist speaker Explicitly recognize and/or criticize that). You’ve really gained a lot of new respect and interest from me with just these few words...
.
That said... wouldn’t cooperativism (voluntary) + intercooperative solidarity (voluntary) + few regulations against monopolies (democratically voted/approved) result in the same net benefits, without the need for centralized power/control over the means of production by the state (and the many resulting infringements on individual/private economic freedom)? If not, then why?
That was a muy bueno question. :)
*democratic decentralized planning is the best socialist system.*
100%
You can't have decentralization AND democracy or socialism.
@@Max-nc4zn You can. Look up Libertarian Socialism.
@@bennyboy9628 look up oxymoron.
@@Max-nc4zn you can have economic decentralisation with centralised rules and a centralised political machine
I say a vanguard party is to plan the basic direction of the country. While in each workplace the means of production is democratically controlled by the people who work on it. They meet what the state tells them too, but if there is a problem there can be another state apparatus. No markets needed, but you have a new democracy aspect.
The vanguard won't give up it's power and transition it to the worker's though, achieving real socialism. Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism/Stalinism don't work, we see it time and time again. Only way it works is if you found a group of the most moral people ever to found the vanguard, which you won't.
It has worked, the conditions in that time put them against all odds and even then they did their best. Without a Vanguard party to make that transition revolution might fail. Also Leninism and Stalinism is the same thing. Just call us ML's
@@CyanTeamProductions Leninism and Stalinism isn't the same thing btw.
Jackson Winkleson They are Marxist Leninist, Stalin did nothing wrong and carried out what Lenin wanted.
@@CyanTeamProductions lolwut
Do you think academia should revamp the model it operates under? President, Provost yadada...ruling class and the working class at the university causes inequality within that system.
Mr Wolff, are there any schools that work as a cooperative? If not how can anyone open one?
Most of the schools in Yugoslavia were workers cooperatives.
And there are books written specifically about these practices.
@@Sleepery22 are those books in English or Spanish? Do you know any titles of these books. Thank you
@ No, all I've seen was in Serbo-Croatian, I'm afraid.. :(
'samoupravljanje u obrazovanju' (self-governance in education) is the term, if it helps.
@@Sleepery22 ok, thank you very much, I will see if I can find something, have a great day.
I'm a Market Socialist
There are so many different types of market type of socialism
Is there any value in comparing new socialism with anarchism?
Anarchism sucks
There's a system in between those two but he and nobody else mentions it. Centralized market socialism, wages and prices are decided by the government, as well as major decisions, and there's also a market.
Some might say a centralized socialism is just capitalism ran by the state. I would disagree, because it’s still a democracy, it’s still a dictatorship of the proletariat, and the means of production are still communally owned. But instead of direct democracy, it instead goes through the state with representative’s. Which I think is necessary to maintain order and efficiency, and to have a proper representation of humanity as a whole.
My own opinion, and I am obviously not some country leader, so it's probably not worth much, but anyway, my own opinion is the following.
1 - "Money companies" that includes things like banks, credit cards, insurance, etc. should 100% be state run. Private companies seek to make a profit, and the only way these sectors can profit is off usury, and since they do not provide a tangible good/service/labor, it becomes a parasitic financial model that siphons wealth from the nation/country/workers (however you wish to define the bloc being robbed) and gives nothing in return. In addition I think prisons should all be state-run as well since there should not be a financial incentive to lock people up who don't deserve it (i.e. potheads, petty theft, etc. fines and/;or community labor can handle them).
2 - Key industries should either be private with _very heavy_ state regulation, _OR_ have _multiple_ state-owned companies (monopoly is not good, whether it be a private one or a state one) that compete over funding. The necessities of ones' livelihood should not be subject the whim of the market. Things that fall in this category would be utilities, housing, prisons, etc. I don't have a problem with things above basic necessities being private, for example a house for a family should be something people can afford, where as a mansion is more or less a luxury good and can be handled by the private sector.
3 - Luxury goods could be fully private and left to the market economy. There is no reason the state needs to involve itself with luxury goods, as the people do not _need_ them, even if they love them.
4 - UBI should not be a thing and welfare should have stricter regulation. If you are going to take something out of society, you must also put something in to it, so I don't think UBI is good, and people who live off welfare like it's a paycheck. Welfare is fine as a safety net if you are contributing to society otherwise.
It's not even upto shareholders. I wish it was. It's solely up to the board.
Black Orfice I thought shareholders elected the board.
Vietnam has adopted a market-socialist approach and that has worked out great for them.
hey I'm poor as hell and I live in your hometown, Youngstown. wanted to ask a specific question, how did growing up in Youngstown change your views on capitalism and to what extent?
If society has no say wouldnt that me Authorian state capitalism not socialism? I feel the best way to do planned socialism is cut in local worker representation, like unions. so the power is decided by communities.
🤞🏻
didn't actually describe how democratization of the workplace is actually beneficial. It was just an assertion.
He’s done that in numerous other lectures
I’m trying to understand but I keep getting tripped up on doubting the workers ability to make decisions beneficial to the business. For example, in a highly technical workplace which has extremely well educated engineers and relatively less knowledgeable manual laborers. Should these peoples votes be held at the same value? If those at the bottom want something that the engineers know can’t be provided, or won’t be beneficial, couldn’t they be overruled? Couldn’t this doom the company?
I’m trying to understand. If someone who actually understands this could please address these points, that would be greatly appreciated.
Thomas Maybe ask on the Socialism 101 subreddit on reddit! They give pretty detailed responses that may be more immediate than a CZcams comment that may answer your question!
How would centralized socialism deal with unnecessary, but “fun” like a movie, video game, or something like that?
How you deal with inequality in a market is you have customers and the workers decide the rules of that market, so they all make a system that is rational for all parties involved. This way power is still decentralized and in the hands of the people.
I believe Marx was more for the "new kind" of socialism, not state or centralized socialism? correct?
Incorrect. Read the last chapter of the Communist Manifesto, specifically the bit on the organisation of a socialist state.
randomserb That was early Marx, read Capital vol. 1, last chapter in particular, where he talks about how the US, pre-centralized state, was the closest we had gotten to communism in modern times (as most people produced for themselves, not for owners).
@@randomserb761 Marx's views changed over time. You have to read more than just the Communist Manifesto to get a accurate perspective on his views.
marx was explicitly against this kind of socialism and called it "utopian", he associated it with people like proudhon. critique of the gotha programme goes into detail about what kind of socialism he preferred
The correct question is "what is the difference between "market socialism" and what we already have? LOL!!!!!!
The many deciding on the life of the individual
I'm mad confused lol That doesn't sound new at all. Obviously it's not a planned "socialist" economy or traditional market socialism, but that sounds pretty close to what Luxemburg and other Democratic Socialists, Autonomists, Libertarian Socialists, anarchists, etc have advocated for a very long time. It's pretty close to what I've advocated for decades only without traditional government and instead using councils, immediately recallable delegates, etc. I'm not seeing what's new.
He's not talking to us socialists/communists, we know this, he's talking to the people who don't know shit.
no, luxemburg was not for this, kropotkin and proudhon were maybe but bakunin was not
This response kind of ignores the syndicalist tradition that grew out of the libertarian socialist/anarcho communist schools of thought which developed throughout the 19th and 20th centuries and which served as the foundation for the decentralized yet fully collectivized work places which flurished in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War. Maybe it's just a branding thing (Rick knowing that anarchism has a certain taboo nature to in the pop culture lexicon), but I think it a disservice to the cause to ignore the ideas of people like Proudon, Kropotkin, Chomsky, and Bookchin. Wolf is describing a similar concept of socialism, but it's not 'new', just surpressed.
stormtimedoor1138 These videos are aimed at people with very little knowledge of socialism, and it is indeed a type of branding. It is worth noting that even the USSR advocated co-ops (until a while into Stalin's regime), and Yogoslavia essentially based their economy on a type of syndicalism/co-operatism/collectivism. But that is not what his point is, it is to showcase that there is a fresh alternative to the centralized form of socialism the common person thinks of, and it is true that more and more socialists talk about worker co-ops (again).
While it is ironic that new socialism goes all the way back to Owen and Fourier, and was essentially the biggest socialist branch of socialism in many countries just a century ago, ends up as a footnote. Though he's not really promoting Syndicalism, which is far more centralized in theory, but a specific type of cooperative economy. I'm glad he's being successful, but like you I am frustrated that he talks as if he just figured this out, when the majority of Marxists where completely ignoring Libertarian Socialist ideas throughout history. In some talks he even sounds more like a Proudhonian than a Marxist, but he never mentions his name, nor any anarchist, nor safer/moderate libertarian socialist options like GDH Cole, or hell, the massive organized cooperative movement(s) around the world. He platformed Cooperation Jackson, but Kali Akuna has a Marxist background, putting them in the same boat of (re)discovery.
@British National Conservative If that is in reference to the note regarding the USSR advocating co-ops, both are true. Look up USSRs and the Eastern Bloc's cooperative history - it was particularly common within farming, with personally owned farms, cooperatives and collectives.
British National Conservative Yes, large scale forced collectivisation started under Stalin. Like I said above, please look up the history of personally owned farms, cooperative farming and collective farming in the USSR, and the Eastern Bloc as a whole.
British National Conservative Yes, they did. There is a difference between a state owned collective farming, and worker owned farms, be they personally owned, co-ops or collectives. The USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countries were originally in favor, to differing degrees of worker ownership. Heavy collectivization started, as you (and I in my first comment) stated, with Stalin.
British National Conservative You yourself admitted that the collectivization started with Stalin. This disinformation is therefore very strange. It is absolutely true that Lenin advocated for a Soviet system (worker councils democratically managing collectively owned industries) but the economy was actually mixed. Originally a lot of land was distributed among farmers and they were encouraged to join co-ops, but could leave and take their original share. Later, under Stalin, there was heavy pressure from above against worker owned farms, and they greatly diminished across the Eastern bloc.
Work our Riot let the Commonwealth tremble about the Proletarians.
How about a video on Nazism being socialism... or not? I have heard many on the right claiming so and a quick video explaining Nazism versus socialism would not hurt.
With Nazisn, and fascism generally, banking, finances and industry and manufacturing were still in private hands. Not so in the USSR.
@Frederic Bastiat Why would the size of the state have anything to do with whether or not an ideology is left wing or right wing? Dichotomies are fun, but Hayek's attempt is a joke. Was Merchantilism and Feudalism not based on incredibly powerful states and nobility - will you claim that these ideologies are also "left wing"?
Anarchy is a socialist ideology, and communism advocates for a stateless society - already there the idea breaks down completely. If Hayek wants to embrace collective ownership or worker co-ops and dismiss capitalism (how can a system based on people working for an unelected boss be considered anarchy?) great - but he is of course deeply dishonest. Most traditional socialist thinkers and economists wanted small government and worker/user management/ownership - plenty also wanted free markets, including Proudhon - was he a right winger?
Sadly there are many contradictory dichotomies you can use, and they may not at all be as helpful as at first glance, be it equality vs. inequality, liberty vs authoritarianism, collaboration vs. competition, etc. You will get a different scale pending on what you choose as your defining marks. That said, left and right does come from the French revolution and the aftermath, and the general slogans in this century were:
Left wing: "Liberty, equality, fraternity"
Right wing: "Order, property, tradition"
Though of course, the left wing at this time were a very mixed bunch, from genuine socialists to what would later become the right wing, namely liberals - fun to remember that even capitalism is a "left wing" response to feudalism&merchantilism - but somehow the slogans are still somehow relevant - and tieing this back to Nazis I think we can be quite honest and say they valued order, property and tradition far more than liberty, equality and fraternity.
Nazism will always be a strange discussion as they do not at all fit in with the two economic systems were are usually creating a spectrum between, i.e. Capitalism and (State) Socialism.
In fact, in this strange dichotomy they end up in the middle - as they were strongly pro-private property, and the term privatization even came from their economic model - but at the same time they had a brand of collective collaborative vision, which includes a push for social policies, etc.
The truth of the matter is that they rejected both the socialism and capitalism - and that their economic system was closer to merchantilism (the system prior to capitalism in many European countries, in which a strong government directed private industry for the enrichment of the country).
They were not socialist in any traditional sense as they did not support worker ownership or control of the means of production - nor did they support democratic ownership or control of the means of production. This excludes both the key socialist visions.
However, they were still collaborating, on a national level, for a stronger nation - and as such named themselves National Socialists. This was in part to attract workers, and they did. Socialism was a very popular label at the time, and they wanted in on it. The Nazi Party even had a clear left wing lead by the Strasser brothers - but this left wing was murdered on Hitler's orders.
The pattern right wingers taking left wing labels is quite widespread, from "National Syndicalists" in Spain, to the Libertarian Party in the US, to "Anarcho-Capitalists". Sometimes, like the takeover of the term "Libertarian" they are successful, other times not - but it is important to understand the context of how words are used.
As the nazis did not advocate for worker/collective ownership/control, they were not "socialist", by the definition(s) socialists use -but in using the label "National Socialism" now has two meanings (there are of course "real" national socialists, like the Zapatistas)
@Frederic Bastiat Honestly, that was a terrible reply missing every point made, Frederic. Again, big government has nothing to do with the left/right spectrum. As I explained thoroughly above, they redistributed through social programs, but social programs are not left wing ... Every liberal and conservative government has a level of redistribution. On this particular spectrum the Nazis were closer to the center - but in terms of promoting worker/public control, or any type of "equality", they were certainly not centrist, but far right.
Frederic Bastiat That is, again, a laughably incorrect spectrum. Again, anarchy is socialism, and the majority of key socialist economists and philosophers, including Marx, were pro small to no government. Hayek being deceitful is not an argument. Are Mercantilism and Feudalism left wing?! Were Karl Marx and Mikhail Bakunin right wing? Answer honestly.
market socialism > centralized socialism
Supermarket socialism > market socialism.
@@mcmulvaney4169 what’s that
>old socialists didn't think about bottom-up organising
Yeah sure go ahead and completely ignore the anarchists, Wolf.
Ancaps exist
Coco Kane ancaps aren’t anarchists
A few years of Catalonia < decades of a population of BILLIONS in USSR, China, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe and Cuba.
I'm sorry but the historical value of State-Socialism is ridiculously more relevant. It affected huge chunks of the world population for many many years.
All anarchists are ancaps.
@@Max-nc4zn All anarchists are socialists
Capitalism requires property-> a state is needed
My parents are actually from Yugoslavia but i actually agree more with state socialism...
(If anyone has any question about Yugoslavia i'll try to answer as many as i can)
One vote per each individual in a large organization equate too many cooks in the kitchen. Not all can be experts on a subject up for decision, and more, cant stay nimble to move fast through simple decisions one-two individuals could more effectively make. I prefer the concent of wider representation in BOD’s, such as in Germany, with members carrying super-votes on environmental, social, and labor matters.
Ricardo Brentar That is not how co-ops work. You don't vote in every decision the company takes, just as the stockholders don't vote for every decision the company takes. In a large cooperative corporation you vote for the board of directors, who then hire the CEO. The organizational structure can in other words be near identical to a capitalist company, with the key difference that the company is democratically accountable and responsible to the workers.
My question is how do you deel with the democratic part when you know that we have now allot of political streams in society. Like Liberals, conservativs, nationalists etc. As a treu democrat but socialist i aknowledge the fact that other groups have differenent vieuws on life. But it seems akwoard.To have this ounder a socialist umbrella. I know there is one exemple of it the Chinees communist party. They are so big that it is hard to imagine that everybody thinks the same. How do they manage different point of vieuws within the system? And i do know about the blockparty's in Eastern Europe so that system did not work.
is market socialism the same as national socialism?
Fuck no lmao. On a political compass, National "Socialism" is AuthCentre, whereas Market Socialism is, for the most part, LibLeft (though it can go up to the very bottom of the AuthLeft quadrant)
@@carterdotn3083 oliefwrthbu please never use the polcomp holy fuck
I love how socialists can have debates among ourselves when it comes to various theories and praxises, but I always feel like the cause of socialism is weakened by the optics of not presenting a unified front. Obviously this is an issue in capitalist countries at large and especially the US, where socialism is apparently anything that the right doesn't like, and anything that the left doesn't wanna spend money on, but I feel like even if people were receptive to socialism to begin with its not clear from socialists or dem-soc people what the ultimate goal is. Like sure populist programs which benefit society such as universal healthcare, universal higher ed, universal childcare/pre-K etc are good and reasonable and worth fighting for but thats not really within the realm of correcting the problems inherent to a capitalist system which make us want to call ourselves socialists. I guess what I'm asking is what is the singular major thread which binds us all together, so that we can first establish this thing in society and from there move to discussions of markets vs democratic planning, or nationalization of resources vs private run worker coops etc. I dont think that the binding thread is strong social programs and thats what annoys me a bit about which lips I see the word socialism on right now.
As long as the infrastructure against collectivist political philosophy is so gargantuan, we will never coalesce, that's the first thing you have to poke holes in, then you can reach the people. But tbhwy I think MOST of us(followers of the different currents of socialism), excluding Soc Dems and American Dem Socs because they are capitalists, could probably end up getting behind Anarcho-Synidcalism, it has the most uniting beliefs from a lot of the socialist thought schools.
I will have to read more Anarcho-Syndicalist lit, thank you for the recommendation. I was talking to somebody recently who was an intelligent trump supporter and a lot of his complaints about socialism as implemented in eastern countries was that collectivism fundamentally leads to authoritarianism. Obviously thats a ridiculous premise that could be debunked using any number of examples where collectivist entities have worked and not entirely removed the autonomy of its constituents, but I feel like in the west a better point of argumentation might be egoistic altruism, IE that we all are better off individually if we work together. This makes sense when we talk about social systems westerners are already familiar with such as dividing risk across banking, creating insurance pools, and subsidizing crops so that our food supply isnt dictated entirely by the market. Additionally, if you show them a few studies done in the US on the success of the workplace/workers when looking at worker-coops and collectives as opposed to typical corporations (namely the results that worker coops perform significantly better on any number of metrics) then it might help convince them that they are making the best choice for themselves to work towards socialist policies. Basically I'm talking about code-switching so libs dont feel threatened by The Big Collective...
The forces in capitalism that push for inequality and monopoly are always primarily the banks. Once they have a Central Bank, they have achieved monopoly and can inflate money to create inequality via Cantillon Effects.
Socialism isn't communism or fascism. "Fascism begins the moment a ruling class, fearing the people may use their political democracy to gain economic democracy, begins to destroy political democracy in order to retain its power of exploitation and special privilege." ~ Canadian, Tommy Douglas (Scottish-born Canadian Baptist minister who became a democratic socialist politician)
@British National Conservative Fascism is alive today, not as a brown shirt, but as described from an American Vice-President: Seventy-five years ago, Henry Wallace, then the vice president of the United States, mounted a campaign about the “Danger of American Fascism.” As fighting in the European and Japanese theatres drew to a close, Wallace warned that the country might win the war and lose the peace; that the fascist threat the United States. was battling abroad had a terrifying domestic VARIANT, growing rapidly in power: wealthy corporatists and their allies in the media. Wallace predicted that if the New Deal project was not renewed and expanded in the postwar era, American fascists would use fear mongering, xenophobia, and racism to regain economic and political power. He championed a progressive postwar world-an alternative to the rising triumphalist “American Century” notion in which the United States rejected colonialism and imperialism.
As Canadian Saskatchewan Premier, Mr. Douglas states: “The profit system has defiled whatever it has touched; and the profit system has touched everything. It has corrupted governments, debauched politicians, degraded morals, devitalized religion and demoralized human nature.” - Tommy Douglas, Weyburn Review, June 14, 1934.
@British National Conservative Some corporations tend to be progressive, but the fascism Roosevelt's V-P warned against in 1944 was corporate fascism. Fascism's theory of economic corporatism involved management of sectors of the economy by government or privately-controlled organizations (corporations). In Italy from 1922 until 1943, corporatism became influential amongst Italian nationalists led by Benito Mussolini. The Charter of Carnaro gained much popularity as the prototype of a "corporative state. We know for a certainty the involvement in the American government by the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and their ilk.
Are Scandinavian countries socialist or capitalist?
🌞Social Justice Democracy🌞
Used to be social democracies, now atleast Sweden is one of the most deregulated, and most privatized nation on earth. For instance, it's the only country in the world that has unregulated, for-profit schools. It's also the nation with the highest increase in economic inequality.
The socdem party is pretty much eating itself from the inside, and while they're still in power, they are pushing a neoliberal agenda. Just now, they are going to pass a motion for reducing worker's right to strike.
I think Sweden is a perfect example if you want to see what socdem was like when it worked (period from 1930-1980) and what happens when it fails (1990-now). It's also a perfect example of why social democracy as a whole is a problematic ideology - it only takes a decade of liberalism to reverse almost a century of progress.
Welfare capitalist
@Frederic Bastiat What are you even replying to? I can't see how that quote from Johan Norberg (one of Sweden's most staunch free market liberals) has anything to do with Gerardo's question, nor my reply.
This isn't about how western Europe "got rich" (which is an interesting topic in itself, with early industrialism and international trade, primitive accumulation of resources, imperialism and even slave trade). This is about whether or not Sweden was a socialist nation or not. It was social democrat - it worked well for many years, and as of late, the socdems have become more right-leaning - just as in most of Europe. What socdem did well was the welfare state, and a resonably fair redistribution of wealth in society, which decreased the tension between the capitalist- and the working class. Socdem politics is really about saving capitalism be reducing the tension that might otherwise lead to communist revolution. Kind of the same as FDR's New Deal in the US.
But yes, MeowMeow's reply is correct: Welfare capitalist. (Although the welfare part gets smaller and smaller for each year, and with each new government.)
Scandinavian countries are social democracies, which means they are mixed economies, primarily between state socialism and capitalism (though there are libertarian socialist structures as well)
Social Democracy is a system where "basic industries" are collectively owned. What is basic depends on definition, but typically includes industries connected to welfare (hospitals, schools, etc.), natural resources, and industries that would likely result in private monopolies, such as railroads. They may also advocate additional businesses for increased collective value creation. It is worth noting that all Scandinavian countries have moved to the right.
Outside of basic industries social democracy fully recognizes private property, and the majority of industries are typically capitalist. Of course, there are also co-ops, being Norwegian two of the biggest food brands, Gilde and Tine, are worker co-ops, while one of the biggest supermarket chains, Coop, is a user co-op.
In terms of Libertarian Socialist Structures, we also have a Syndicate Congress/Union Congress, and the reason why we don't have a legally mandated minimum wage is because the government recognizes that this is not its business and leaves such matters to negotiations between a Union of Labor Unions and a Union of Capitalists. Additionally we have codetermination laws ensuring partial workplace democracy in most workplaces, with up to 30% worker representation on board of directors (pending the size of the company)
1.25x speed, lads and ladies. Thank me later.
China is market socialist but there's also 5 year plans
Nah, they are doing a chinese NEP, Yugoslavia was market socialism.
Gabriel Castro State Capitalism is really China’s system.
5 year plan is their version of a manifesto. We have them too, the difference is our politicians never carry them out or never put anything in them that is worth a damn to the average worker.
In china they have just finished building 22,000 miles of high speed rail in just ten years for a cost of $7 billion. Meanwhile here in the UK it is taking us 35 years, to build 90 miles of high speed rail, at a cost of $50 billion.
Capitalist efficiency.
China is capitalist
@@sinthoras1917 It isn't, it is Socialist.
Neither market or centralized socialism works, so lets create worker (employee) controlled businesses within capitalism and that will help the inequality component. Worker/owners would presumably vote themselves a living wage and lots of bennies (health care, pensions, maternity leave, etc.); the money to pay for all this would have been hoarded by a few über-wealthy individuals/owners/investors in the current system. One of America's greatest heroes/industrialists-- Henry J. Kaiser would be proud.
Bruce Snyder Do you mean codetermination (as implemented in Germany, Norway, etc.), actual co-ownership (as proposed in the Swedish Meidner plan, or recently by UK's Labour party), or just a mixed economy with capitalist companies and co-ops?
@@Kraisedion If the business is providing goods and services that people love, it will flourish. Usually the way to do that is to create a culture within the company that rewards excellence, innovative ideas and great service, while not exploiting its workers and suppliers and the planet. So I think all the co- s are all good possibilities. Each country and culture could have its own mix.
But what about the environment? What about the climate collapse? In this day and age we will HAVE TO resort to a planned economy - planned according to what is environmentally sustainable.
I also wish "new socialists" would focus more on trying to achieve a fair society where working 8 hours a day is required. Work should be a voluntary and not mandatory.
This guy, for some reason idk, sounds like he's always irritated.
That's just you.
The difference is that only centralised socialism works
All states who tried centralised socialism failed in achieving it
How to steal or have a vote in someone elses earned property. Lol.
@Frederic Bastiat Ya, you gotta read between the bullshyte. Lol. Amazing the complicated twist of words and crap people will make up to find a way to justify steeling someone elses stuff. Lol
@Frederic Bastiat Ya, ridiculous.. The big problem is, is if they out vote us.
@@robmoffit4970 And we will outvote you, you dumb fuck. Based on your own logic what do CEOs and executives do to garner their property? Do they work behind the counter at McDonald's and clean shit from the bathrooms or do they sit in 30 floor buildings on their ass reaping the benefits of people who produce all the money they steal from people's hard work? Dumb ass