Ask Prof Wolff: Self-Employment in a Socialist Society
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 06. 2022
- A Patron of Economic Update asks: "I have always been interested in the idea of what individualism would be like under socialism. Say, for example, some people don’t enjoy working in groups and prefer to work independently through freelance as they then have the time and flexibility to work on their own terms and not have to negotiate and make agreements with a group of people. Will there be options for people to work as sole proprietors/entrepreneurs in a socialist environment?"
This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.
Submit your own question to be considered for a video response by Prof. Wolff on Patreon: / community .
Ask Prof Wolff is a @democracyatwrk production. We are committed to providing these videos to you free of ads. Please consider supporting us on Patreon.com/economicupdate. Become a part of the growing Patreon community and gain access to exclusive patron-only content, along with the ability to ask Prof. Wolff questions like this one! Your support also helps keep this content free to the public. Spreading Prof. Wolff's message is more important than ever. Help us continue to make this possible.
_________________________________________________________________________
Check out the NEW 2021 Hardcover edition of “Understanding Marxism,” with a new, lengthy introduction by Richard Wolff! Visit: www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/richa...
“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.”
Check out all of d@w’s books: "The Sickness is the System," "Understanding Socialism," by Richard D. Wolff, and “Stuck Nation” by Bob Hennelly at www.lulu.com/spotlight/democra...
_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:
Web: www.rdwolff.com
Patreon: / economicupdate
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Daily Motion: www.dailymotion.com/democracy...
Subscribe to the EU podcast: economicupdate.libsyn.com
Shop our worker CO-OP made MERCH: democracy-at-work-shop.myshop...
Our current capitalist system harshly penalizes the self-employed. Medical insurance is tough to get -- and expensive. Your business is easy prey for whatever manufactured crisis or shock doctrine reaction disrupts the economy in favor of corporations and the wealthy. You can be wiped out in a heartbeat by global economic decisions, political disasters or government policies and you have no safety net. In the US, the freedom to work for yourself or to bring your own vision to life is deliberately made a high-risk choice.
Life in capitalism is at high risk. Predatory capitalism should be called. There is no other kind. At the individual level we could find honest people believing it is a fair system. But the nature of the system is sociopathic. Transformative contributions are limited to the profit motive not to the improvement of the society from it profits. Therefore it implies a thieving of the social effort to produce and a stagnation by design of the change of the model of producing and distributing the product. It prohibits the change in the social contract between the workers and the "owner" of the means of production.
You are so right!! Im a self employed woman, i have a son, my ex never really supported us, i didnt want to abandon my son for the sake to have a regular job, i started resell items online,ebay used to be awesome,as soon as the platforms realized it was very profitable ,they started to charge so you get more visibility and i as an international seller, need to jump the robe of taxes in my country that made it more complicated, i as a reseller of used good was paying taxes in a category that allowed me more freedom because i also cant deduct a lot of what i buy, well now i need to enlist to a new category for getting taxed every month, which means for 😊me more work, and is not worth it because i dont sell a lot and i do every thing on my own😢😢😢 im devastaded.
The penalties are because lefties don't people to succede as individuals. Freedom scares theme.
I am a self employed person in a socialist country and it has worked out pretty well for me. I live in a massive house in Shanghai and I have 2 cars. So it works out pretty good for me and I am not even a Chinese citizen!
har so ?
This Shanghai ????
(CNN)Multiple neighborhoods in Shanghai were placed back under lockdown only a day after city-wide restrictions were lifted, as China's stringent zero-Covid strategy continues to haunt the financial hub.
Shanghai lifted its two-month lockdown on Wednesday, allowing most of its 25 million residents to leave their communities. But nearly 2 million people were still confined to their homes in areas designated as "high risk" by the government.
At a news conference Thursday, Shanghai officials said seven new Covid cases were detected in the city's Jing'an and Pudong districts, resulting in four neighborhoods being swiftly sealed off and designated as "medium-risk areas" -- meaning residents will be confined to their homes for 14 days.
Their 26 close contacts and 106 secondary contacts had been placed in government quarantine, and more than 470,000 people had been tested, according to officials.
The reversion to lockdown is the latest reminder that despite the easing of restrictions, the government's zero-Covid policy -- comprised of mass testing, extensive quarantine and snap lockdowns -- will continue to dominate everyday life.
@@jgalt308 This strawman argument???
It is old snews. US lockdowns were bad too and lasted a hell of a lot longer. If you didn't have a vaccine passport, you were prohibited from work, mass transit, restaurants, movie theaters and other venues. What good is having the freedom to go outside, when there is nowhere to go except the grocery store?
By the way, the US has one of the top 10 highest death rates in the world. No other modern industrialized country comes close. In contrast, China has one of the lowest rates.
and once again, another "willfully ignorant, functional illiterate" insists on
confirming the description. A statement of fact is not a strawman argument,
it is simply a statement of fact. That statement of "another unrelated fact"
is not an argument. There is no comparison that can be made between the two lockdowns...
as not being able to go anywhere, is not the same as an "assertion" that there is
no place to go...( and the first fact includes both conditions, as not being able to go
anywhere, also includes having nowhere to go, since EVERYONE was locked down. )
As noted, things will get easier when these fools learn to read and can actually
figure out what the words mean...or at least have the sense to understand that
that the best course is not to insist on demonstrating they have no clue what
they are talking about or are willing to invest their intellectual ability and expend the effort required
to demonstrate that they "might" have an actual argument. ( or know what
that word means also. )
I am glad a transitional alternative to Capitalism within capitalism is becoming the proposition we must make comprehend those against the possibility of change. Change is inevitable and we need an open mind to understand how to be transformative for the better. Socialism is the way and it is democratic.
China is a good example of individuals working by themselves in a socialist society. It is entirely legal for an individual in China to set up his own business, as long as he follows the laws concerning employees is he does employ others. He must also follow safety laws and fire codes but the Chinese government will not interfere with him as long as he follows the laws.
China is one of the most capitalist countries on the planet
Yeah, the PRC is just peachy!
@@TheBigGSN5 WTF??? 😂
@@TheBigGSN5 You sound triggered Comrade. 😆
LMAO, China doesn't even care about labor rights and democracy, and you lot loves its "socialism". Tou guys are really pathetic
I do not want idiots determine what STUFF is created
Thank you professor Wolff! I wondered about that question too. As I understand it if someone wanted to open, say, a flower shop, they could do so. They could enjoy the profits of their own labor. But if their business is doing well and they need more workers, then those workers must be taken on as partners not employees. Each gets an even share of the profit.
If they want to be a partner then putting up half of all that has been invested,
assuming the "owner" agrees would make them one. Anything else would be theft
and that is criminal. You already have a criminal government that demands
pay to play...in what fantasy world would you imagine that a would be criminal that
can't afford to play would have any influence?
@@jgalt308 Hey J Galt. This is TC. Wolff and his D@W is practicing cancel culture and banned me from commenting. This is what the left does to conservatives, they try to shut us down and try to shut us up. They don't like people like us calling them out for the propagandists that they are. So now I'll beat him at his own game.
@@rwolff6530 No, not here...there's weird things happening, but it's youtube, not Wolff.
If I didn't have google notifications, your post would be invisible to me...
And this is a recruitment site for Wolff so he really doesn't care what happens here...
none of them are capable of producing a relevant response...if fact most of them can't read,
so I guess it depends on how much effort you want to invest dealing with the "troll" b.s. that
is their go to.
Just hang in there...at least here you are not competing with 1000's of comments
most of which are #me too b.s. and twitter length to boot.
NONE SENSE!!!
partners? Are you kidding me?
My buddy created a unique innovative business .... no partners had the skill or added anything to his creation....zero creative investment by workers.. how is that equitable?
After my buddy used up his savings making a go for his business , he borrowed money from the bank, his mom's pension, and even his Mastercard to ensure his inventories were stocked and he could make payroll... no employee volunteered to not be paid for 2 months or borrowed money from their mom to help my buddy out. No risk or financial input incurred by workers
2 weeks ago an employee quit... decided he hated the rain and went to live in Thailand. He gave 3 days notice and POoof! gone!!
My buddy is financially obligated to the creditors for another 8 months and his employees making sure they get paid.... no obligation to the "partner" who just left.
My buddy has invested countless hours of his labour... at least 10 to 12 hours a day, creative energy, personal financial risk, time away from his family, financial risk on his mom.... and the employee has invested what? The worker has invested no risk and 7.5 hours per day.
There is no partnership
There is an employment agreement and not even a contract my buddy can hold the employee to, yet the worker can hold my buddy accountable
Let me ask you.... what if my friend decided to say to hell with it.... fire everyone and get robots? Or just sell HIS business and his capital to go enjoy the fruits of his labour.... Is there a problem with that?
So the key points are: 1) That the decision to allow or deal with individual workers or self-employed be done democratically, and 2) That whatever the arrangement, the individual/self-employed may not ever act in any capacity as an employer or boss over any other person or groups.
Because socialism guarantees a baseline of living standards for everyone, these self-employed individuals will still have guaranteed shelter, food, and clothing (in theory) -- or am I wrong in assuming this? For individual craftsmen, for example, will they be allowed to sell their own finished products and create a market of their own, assuming they are of rare talent to be obviously better than the ones mass-produced? Personally, I would turn the extraordinary craftsmen into teachers or consultants, so they can improve the production in the long run, but what if they refuse? We don't want to get into a bidding war to "buy" their talent for the betterment of all in contrast to themselves assuming they would profit more from selling their own self-made products.
Socialism does not guarantee any baseline standard of living and never has.
You have obviously never seen or read anything not from the Western mainstream media about Cuba and Vietnam. They have rebuilt themselves from utter collapse while being embargoed by the US. Only cucks like you protest about rights of the overthrown bourgeoisie.
Awesome explanation here! This is going to be the largest problem for Americans like myself when discussing potential "Socialism". Here in the U.S. we are very very focused on individual identity and self actualization. This is a good value id argue! But often to Americans, the idea is that economic leftism opposes individuality.
Regarding the individual-collective relationship, a musician from Haiti with whom I worked for many years used to say-and this was in English, not his native Kreyòl-"What's good for we is good for me."
I worked as a self-employed in socialist Yugoslavia, as were many others. We could employ other people to work for us and we were the employees and bosses, no democracy, and it was up to us how we treat workers.
My father worked as a craftman in socialist Yugoslavia. Nobody was against it. He, naturally, tried to evade paying taxes, but this is something everybody is doing. If caught, he would have to pay some penalties. Plain and simple.
I worked as a craftsman in socialist Yugoslavia, and when I find a "well-connected accountant" I didn't have to worry about being caught anymore. It was common practice.
Unless you can make a society that doesn't have money at all, then you will always have individual entrepreneurs.
Long live the good Professor
I am self employed in Kansas and enjoyed Obama Care briefly many years ago... until I now find myself with an $8000 deductible policy that costs the government $500 per month and I pay $60... Here in Kansas hospitals have perfected the art of streeting anyone who isn't likely to be able to pay.. Just enough minimal care to avoid a lawsuit but not one cent more.. Thousands die or suffer without needed care. For such a ,"Pro Life" state... it is pathetic. One friend of mine had to flee to Virginia and claim residency with his mom in order to get the stomach care to save his life... I enjoy self employment but will probably need to flee Kansas to a more liberal state that offers health care for poor folks who want to be self employed in small business.
I have not found a salesperson who works on commission who can even understand the idea. What is the role of sales in this type of economy?
@@The1Elcil "Every time it rains, it rains, pennies from heaven."
Dude imagine thinking you’re a working class citizen that has a voice in this country.
@Account NumberEight I think it'd look something like the beginning of the Spanish Revolution.
We must be imaginative with ingenuity in our creativity to find alternatives to Capitalism within capitalism. The transition starts with that imagination. Is the expression of our desire for change as it should be. There is no perfect and finished system as capitalists pretend of This failed system. All because they deny change and time. There are no absolutes in this inevitable transformation we must be part of. Not victims of it . we are the agents of change with our imagination.
yup lots of choices for the working class in the Soviet Union, Cuba, NK, and East Germany.... I guess that is why so many of their citizens risked their lives to get the hell out... because they were drowned in so much opportunity to give their voices
@@good2goskeeI don’t know much about Cuba but Soviet Union was Leninist-Marxist (which didn’t work out) and East Germany was a satellite state of the Soviet Union so they followed the same government (which didn’t work out) and North Korea is following juche which Kim il sung came up with and well you can see how that worked out (it didn’t)
What we want is what I think is called democratic socialism where the people vote for everything, not Leninist or Marxist or Leninist-Marxist whatever it is called where the state owns everything but is also a dictatorship and gets to decide everything
@Orange-kh3nc
Yes.... none of them worked out.
DPRK = "DEMOCRATIC" Peoples Republic of Korea.
GDR = German "DEMOCRATIC" Republic.
I don't mean to sound rude, but all these well-meaning "democratic" socialist republics failed. There are some very basic elements why, in my opinion. 1st the socialist ultimately feels centralized control and authority of the few (socialist elites) know best for the common person in how to direct their hard earned labour, wealth, and values vs. the capitalist system. I personally do not need big daddy to tell me what's right/wrong or how I wish to help my community or family.
There are many, many other things I could speak about; however, that would make me a bore during date-night.
I encourage you to read a little about Cecil Rhodes and the Fabian Society.... it's a bit scary and insidious when you look at their aims, parallels to Communism, and the WEF of today.
Good night and good luck.
This is why unions are important in a capitalist system. Unions negotiate with employers in a collective bargaining environment. Freelancers, or self employed contract workers, can also be members of unions as in the IATSE, the international film workers' union.
Members of the IATSE have negotiated good wages, working conditions health care and pension plans.
I was following you until you said that room was made under a capitalist system for people to work alone. We live in a freedom based society, that means people can do whatever they want unless there's a law that says you can't. In the model you describe the society has to vote to allow me that freedom. I've always been self employed, I have to register for tax obviously, but I've never had to ask anyone for permission to live my life the way I want to live it. I read a book written by a man who spends his life wondering the footpaths of Britain foraging for his food. He didnt have to seek permission from society. I doubt a collective vote would allow him to step away from all economic productivity. "Why should I work every day while you lie in a field?!" I don't feel comfortable asking a democratic vote to work alone.
The Movie. By Baz Luhrrnan? Elvis explained a lot about Elvis for me anyway. The many events of his life/style. His legacy and talent, handsome, kindness, charisma, vulnerability will live on forever in our hearts and minds. A force of a lifetime. I believe if only.
Oh well wrong forum, but still relevant here too. The inherent poverty to start with. Mr Elvis P had and the cheat and liar who disempowered him.
Capitalist Gov shall do anything to boost and control to keep its system wheel going. If there are many aging people living longer and not enough young people in the workforce, then the capitalist Gov shall do (promote) any laws to keep its system going. Our modern gov has tremendous power to nudge its citizens.
2:08 So whether i am “allowed” to work alone/as I please then depends on the whim and (subject to propaganda and framing) opinion of the collective? No. Thanks. Consent of every individual > democracy.
Since the all lied to the senate. It's not that a crime? Shouldn't they all go to prison?
So, I guess my questions are:
(1) In a socialist society, you want to hire, say, a gardener. That gardener is an independent contractor? Not that different from what happens in today’s capitalist societies.
(2) In a socialist society, you’re an attorney and you want to hire-if that’s even the right word-a paralegal to do the routine things (e.g., filling out forms) that are not technically practicing law. You can’t “employ” the paralegal-or can you? Can the paralegal even _be_ an independent contractor, like the gardener, given that you, as the attorney, will control what that paralegal does? Are you and the paralegal necessarily “co-owners” in your legal practice, even though, quite deliberately, you each bring different background and skills, with different degrees of “investment,” to the practice? What’s the status of the paralegal?
depends on how you pay him. you can't pay him a salary but you can share the profits.
@@permarx1809 Thank you. And I guess you don’t have to _necessarily_ share the profits equally because, by analogy, worker coops allow _some_ differential in pay. I’m not so sure that ends up better than a salaried arrangement in those cases-and, since the profit of the practice depends far more on the skill of the attorney than that of the paralegal, the paralegal takes a downside risk that he can’t really control unlike in worker co-ops. (If the attorney has a “bad year,” at least the paralegal gets paid if he gets a salary.)
@@jeff__w Incorrect. At tendency, the division of profits will have to take into account participation measured solely by the quantity of labor. Any other consideration wanders into the obscure meanderings of the logic of exploitation, which consists of asserting rights over the labor of others, using as pretexts the most varied baseless arguments of which history is a succession, such as slave rights, seigniorial law, land ownership, quality of labor, the risk of anticipated (invested) capital, and so on.
Capitalism is only the last socio-economic formation of historical becoming in which exploitation subsists. Its merit is that it abolished all previous forms of exploitation while admitting only one: wage labor. The abolition of the wage not only accomplishes the abolition of capitalist exploitation, which is a particular form of exploitation, but also the abolition of the exploitation of man on man in general.
But the abolition of the wage is also the abolition of the wage-earner, that is, the worker who enters the production cycle not as part of it and its presupposition, in his capacity as a producer of commodities, but as separate from it and subject to it, in his capacity as a seller of a commodity, his labor power. So the abolition of wages not only abolishes capitalist exploitation, but also the separation of the producer from the product of his labor. The worker will no longer be a seller of labor power but a seller of the product of his labor. With this, the distinction between collective and individual labor is also abolished, since in the former case the worker will be the pro rata owner of the product of collective labor, in the latter of his individual labor.
@@permarx1809 Thank you for your extensive reply.
“At tendency, the division of profits will have to take into account participation measured solely by the quantity of labor.” So, when Prof. Wolff points, not disapprovingly, to the 8½ pay differential between the lowest-paid worker at Mondragón in Spain and the highest, he’s, in effect, saying that the “quantity of labor” of the highest-paid worker is 8½ times that of the lowest? (Perhaps your phrase “at tendency,” which I don’t understand, qualifies the statement to exclude what Prof. Wolff is talking about.)
I worked as a legal assistant for many years for an attorney who was a solo practioner-it was just he and I. I could spend an hour filling out some forms or producing some documents from a template; the attorney could spend the same hour dispensing legal advice to a client. Was our “quantity of labor” the same? (I don’t understand how that’s measured if it’s not by time.)
If I, as a paralegal, am a seller of “the product of my labor”-which is a bunch of filled-out forms and merged documents-is that the same as being paid for “the quantity of my labor”? On the one hand, the “product” was pretty valuable to the client, who probably could not have produced these filled-out forms on his or her own or even known to do so; on the other, the effort in producing the product was pretty minimal-it was mindless filling-in-the-blanks for the most part-so, if effort is taken into account and not solely time, “the quantity of labor” was actually not a lot.
@@jeff__wIn my view, an authentic interpretation of the socialist society is that the worker owns the product of his labor, just as in capitalism the capitalist owns the product of others' labor, that of his employees. The collective capitalist, such as a joint stock company, divides profits pro rata among the different shareholders on the basis of the amount of shares owned by each, that is, on the basis of the share of capital advanced by each of them. In socialism, products are no longer products of capital, so the distribution of "profits" is made on the basis of the participation of the associated workers, measured by the amount of labor, i.e., time worked. And this is neither a socialist revolution nor an ideological assumption, but a legacy of capitalism itself, which already measures the magnitude of value of commodities by the amount of socially necessary labor in them, that is, by the labor time required for their production under existing socially normal conditions of production, and with the average social degree of skill and labor intensity.
If filling forms requires an average of one hour of labor time with the average social degree of skill and labor intensity, and doing legal counseling requires as much labor time with the average social degree of skill and labor intensity, then in a fully developed socialist society the "profits" of the combined product of 2 hours of labor should be equally divided between those who fill forms and those who do counseling. But this is theoretical, since on the one hand it must be considered that certain skills and competencies take longer to train than others (e.g., the work skills of a lawyer or surgeon are acquired, and thus reproduced, in a longer time than those of a laborer). On the other hand, such differences will tend to become less and less relevant the further one moves away from the capitalist value category and the more one lives in a fully developed socialist society. Indeed, to understand this one must consider that in capitalism one produces exclusively to sell, since only through selling can the capitalist transform profit, which is other people's unpaid labor, from commodity (plus-product) into (plus)money, without which he could not repeat the cycle of exploitation. To do this he first buys, that is, he advances capital by turning money into goods, and then sells, turning goods into more money.
In socialism, on the other hand, one produces to satisfy one's needs, so the cycle begins with selling the product of one's labor in order to buy, with money, products that satisfy one's needs.
Clearly people will be buying and selling things in the socialist society you envision, I assume to include anything of value which they possess. My time and labor are things of value which I possess, so why can't I sell them to whomever I want to? I think it is necessary to be more specific about what rules might govern these sole proprietors, because some potential rules would not effectively conform their behavior to socialist standards, while others would be rejected by people generally as too restrictive of their human rights. You won't convince people of the viability of a society without capitalism if you are so vague regarding the conditions which would make it workable.
In a true Socialist economy, the only dynamic growth and adaptation is in the Black Market. The official economy will continue, but will be unable to compete with the Black Market.
if democracy is not working now for the people (e.g. Manufacturing Consent, Chomsky), why do you think it will work better under a 'new' system in the workplace? will the manipulation of the majority operate in the same way as to the powerful MSM , government or cultural propaganda? how is it that folks who are willfully ignorant now will suddenly become thinking democratic voters with intellectual integrity and social morals? how will this change happen? just wondering. i'd hate to join a revolution that just replaces one system with another, just different bad actors.
when they asked the horse, who is a better owner, it answered: John dismount, Jack mount
Thanks prof, although I don't agree that any individualistic enterprise should be subject to a democratic decision. And this is the crux of the problem with your philosophy, the nature of innovation and invention is to demolish old modes of production, meanwhile organizations tend to resist and keep the status quo as is. There lies the danger
Thank you Professor
I agree there is a role for self management in communism but there must be a planned commitment to achieve what is necessary for the community to live in modest prosperity as a collective. Teamwork and cooperation are the corner stones of communism, though so long as an individual isn't working for their individual gain but to better their community and the greater society, there's no reason why they can't self manage. I'm a big fan of Wolff's democratic view of socialism. But co-op's can't be the end all solution we need to either take over the government bureaucracy or topple and replace it. Otherwise the same systemic policies will continue to destroy the global environments and societies. Capitalism is the problem in the world and while socialism is about improving life for individuals, those improvements must be made on a communal basis so that all may share in them. When I say all I mean both human and non human animals and at least trees, you know sentient life that in capitalism will commodify and exploit for surplus value and raw resources.
No individual gain? How will the goods be divided up? By need? That's a race to the bottom...
@@chuckleaf8027 Living in a society is not about individualism it's about the whole collective. People rely on one another to get the things they need such as food clothing you name it. We are individual as a person but what we do as a collective is totally different things
@@melaniedennis9540 So no individual gain. Sounds like socialism has an incentive problem, kinda like Hayek and Mises said 50 years ago..
Great comment. 👍
@@chuckleaf8027 What can't you motivate yourself? Isn't helping your comrades enough to motivate you? I don't need any more motivation than knowing that I'm doing my part for my community and helping make life and the world better.
As for distribution it would be based on need it can't just all be even across the board. A single person with out children like myself doesn't need as much as a family. I theorize that monetary systems would be eliminated and all members of the economy who contribute, (and of course there would be guaranteed employment), would receive basically a debt card. That card doesn't even have to be a card, the point is that members would get a symbolic representation of the value they contributed to society. That card would grant the member access to all the goods and services of the economy. That means clean water, healthy food, adequate housing, universal healthcare and free education to the desired degree. As for luxuries those are really down to the local communities to hash out at their local political union meetings.
💓🍃
We have different values, different work ethics, different priorities.
What is important to me and Wolff may be different things. So, he can earn wealth and distribute his fruit from his labour as he sees fit. Same for me... However, the socialist moralizes imposing their value system on me and attempts to take my choices away of my earned fruits to distribute my fruits in ways that suit their priorities ...not mine
Socialism is a race to the bottom, no thanks
Love 🧡 from an American 35 yr. old man.
We have a Christian Right oligarchic hypercapitalist system. How to untangle from that?
No we don’t
I'm sorry but where is the "capitalism"...as you would need that to get to "hypercapitalism"?
Michael Hudson's new book...The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism, or Socialism.
And a CZcams video interview by Ben Norton can be found by entering this title in yt search bar.
Michael Hudson on Decline of Dollar, Sanctions War, Imperialism, Financial Parasitism
Someone running their own enterprise without exploiting others can and should be compatible with a socialist paradigm.
Some would decry the continuation of the profit motive, but I believe there's a transitional phase whereby a socialist economy, built on worker directed cooperatives, will eventually create mechanisms to erode the profit motive altogether. That transformation would probably take a couple generations though.
Unfortunately, creating legal and tax structures that favor cooperatives over corporations would likely take a revolution at this point...
If the Owner does not make you poor the free trade will.
If Amazon can be run only by Bezos with everything automated by robots, is that compatible with a socialist paradigm.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 sure. Then others will make investments in robots too, undercutting his prices. This will happen until the margins are too thin to make it worthwhile. Costs will drop for society. Without human exploitation, the diminishing margin doesn't end up a burden to labor.
In a socialist paradigm, other enterprises would also exist that would not exploit workers. Any adverse effects of enterprise, or profit extraction would be answerable to the People, not just to capitalists.
Eventually the profit motive will diminish as basic needs are universally attainable.
It would be a process.
@@Zhagg1
Competition is unsustainable. The free market always creates a dominant winner that dominates everybody else. That dream of " perpetual sustainable competition" is just that, a dream.
@@reasonerenlightened2456 industries that are determined vital to society, that tend toward monopoly, can be nationalized.
The threat of nationalization will prevent some enterprises from seeking monopoly market share.
Inevitable monopolies can be nationalized in a socialist paradigm.
Because monopoly already existed, no competition exists. It would not be "perpetual competition".
no profit potential or ability to enjoy the fruits of my labour...then there no motive to innovate, take financial risk, delay gratification so my kids can have something better than me.
socialism is a race to the bottom where the lazy, the uncreative are self-centered become the benchmark of effort. Produce more and be rewarded more= a meritocracy=more fair than a socialist system. Why would I work hard, educate myself, delay gratification.... if I am going to be compensated the same as the sitting on his ass? A freer society with property rights is a wealthier society
From an ex-soviet preliterate..... "they pretended to pay us and we pretended to work". ... the system sounds really gratifying professionally and financially..lol
Socialism is a cancer
This is full of sht… I don’t want this.
I love how he deliberately skips around not answering the question.The answer to the question is that the individual entrepreneur will be eliminated
I start my own company, and it is very successful.
How do I add coworkers?
How do I get rid of a coworker that is doing things that cause the company to fail?
What is my coworkers vote to take the company in a direction I disagree with, do they have to buy me out if I want to leave?
If you start your own company with your own money, you’re taking all the risk, so you shouldn’t add any new co-workers! All you need is to hire employees and if they don’t like it, they know where the door is:)
@@juniorgod321 You're giving "socialists" too much credit...that they have any sense of direction
lacks any evidence to support it.
@@The1Elcil Exactly! When money is removed from the process, everything will change to worse, much worse because at the end of the day, no one works for free:)
@@The1Elcil Now if you could actually define capitalism you would have actually said something.
Since neither you nor your guru can, you are simply engaged in mindless babble living in
fantasy land, while being blind to the reality that is already upon you and to which you remain oblivious.
@@The1Elcil Why would greed disappear? You see it in little children, unsullied by capitalism. It is a nature of life, well before humans.
In a cooperative, you will still have people that don't really care how things are done, and those passionate that it be done their way. If you have two that are passionate about doing things differently, you will not have cooperation. You see that in non-profits all the time.
In many companies, profit is a small bit of money left after all the operational costs are paid. Dividing "profits" among the staff will not be life changing.
Success is making enough product to meet the expenses.
Do you think you can raise the "price" just because you want to? Assuming there is competition, you will be competing with them.
The capitalist system has historically reached a dead end. In the 21st century, the crisis of the capitalist system has been amplified rapidly over time, and now it is in a dilemma over low interest rates and quantitative easing policies. Socialism is the answer!
[It] is not merely legitimate for a man to possess things as his own, it is even necessary for human life, and this for three reasons. First, because each person takes more trouble to care for something that is his sole responsibility than what is held in common or by many-for in such a case each individual shirks the work and leaves the responsibility to somebody else, which is what happens when too many officials are involved. Second, because human affairs are more efficiently organized if each person has his own responsibility to discharge; there would be chaos if everybody cared for everything. Third, because men live together in greater peace where everyone is content with his task. ( this a quote from a
period of time preceding capitalism by centuries and its reasoning is as sound today as it was then. )
" The Rentier Class Has Sought to Make America’s Neoliberal Privatization and Financialization Irreversible" Michael Hudson
Apparently, no one here acknowledges the "rentier" class or understands that it is NOT capitalism...the understanding that "Marxism" is a "critique of capitalism" while failing to include this "distinction" is simply distracting from the actual problem.
@@The1Elcil Thing will get easier when you learn to read. Then you might be able to respond to
what is written? And since the terms are mutually exclusive, they can not be combined...which
is why Marx did not, and Wolff avoids any reference to it. And you are clearly unfamiliar with
the source cited ( or also choose to avoid it ) so that is clearly your next step.
As for what socialism IS or WANTS, that is irrelevant ...vote all you want, without the means to enforce it
or by stating you will NOT use force...you have simply contradicted yourself...which has already been demonstrated
by quite a few here. No one is preventing you from creating your better way and no
capitalist would object. ( but this is NOT a capitalist system so capitalism is NOT your problem
and as long as you refuse to understand what capitalism is ( like Wolff ) your "socialism" is simply
an inferior version of it, but this is to be expected from those who don't know what any of the
words mean. )
@@jgalt308 Socialism is the answer.
@@zach214able Doesn't look like it so far, nor it is even clear what is
meant by it, and as opposed to what? It doesn't look like
anyone knows what that is either? So all you have is a bunch of words being bandied about,
with no agreement on what they mean and no understanding of the history
that got them here...and that is hardly an indication that any immediate solution is
around the corner.
@@The1Elcil You must have some idea what the words mean, or you wouldn't be here...
so the point is, is your understanding accurate and supported by evidence. To determine that
you can start with this:
Michael Hudson's new book...The Destiny of Civilization: Finance Capitalism, Industrial Capitalism, or Socialism.
And a CZcams video interview by Ben Norton can be found by entering this title in yt search bar.
Michael Hudson on Decline of Dollar, Sanctions War, Imperialism, Financial Parasitism
Then you can add this:
1. Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology
9,253,314 viewsFeb 1, 2011
(March 29, 2010) Stanford professor Robert Sapolsky gave the opening lecture of the course entitled Human Behavioral Biology and explains the basic premise of the course and how he aims to avoid categorical thinking.
The first two lectures should be enough...( direct links are being blocked by YT )
Then there's my direct response to this video...which has received no response...
What a joke!!!! "Your ONE VOTE will be powerful." Until the votes are counted...then YOU are S.O.L.
The irony of this B.S. ( and it keeps coming up again and again ) is that socialism ( marxism )
defined as a "critique of capitalism" ( the latter is still undefined by Wolff ) seems to be indistinguishable
from "capitalism" in the results it imagines and these results are to be achieved "democratically"!!!
The very definition of "democracy" is a direct contradiction that the rights of the individual will
be respected ( and if they are NOT this would be a condition of slavery ). So the next bit of sophistry
attempts to define the status of "employee" as one of slavery...and yet no one is forced to
be "an employee"...yet the socialist vision, does precisely that...since the "collective" will
democratically determine all the aspects of what is permitted by the "individual"...and in
the real world this is a.k.a. GOVERNMENT...whose "decisions" are implemented by FORCE.
This understanding of "government" as FORCE and the primacy of "individual rights" and
their "immunity" from both "government" and "democracy" was initiated in 1789 and 91, in
the "constitution" and the first ten amendments...which specifically "limited" the powers of
government, as well as certain enumerated, but not limited rights... as well as a process
for any changes to it...requiring a 75% majority.
The simple fact of the matter is that none of these precautions was sufficient to prevent
what exists now, and none of these "changes" followed the process required to make them
"legitimate" but in the end, required completely discarding all of it, and replacing it with the
fraudulent deception" that currently exists.
That those ignorant of this history ( like Wolff ) would revert to the primitive idea of
"democracy" as a means of restraining both the government and the mob, is not an
advancement of knowledge, nor does it offer any chance of improvement of society in
general...for the evidence shows it is in fact responsible for the present deterioration,
and the idea that "central planning" and the continued increase of "federal authority"
is the solution to "anything". In fact, the very idea of "co-ops" is a confirmation of the failure
of the present reality...and yet this understanding is completely lost on those proposing it
as a solution while simultaneously citing the "central authority" as the greatest obstacle
to its realization.
We will now hear from the "willfully ignorant, functional illiterates" who will have nothing
relevant to offer yet will insist upon confirming the description and defending their imagined
safe space from valid criticisms and questions they have no answers for.
P.S. Ole Prof Wolff just completed a 3-hour interview with Lex Fridman covering the
the entirety of his B.S...minus a definition of capitalism, or strangely any mention of
co-ops.
Now YOU tell ME what the accurate answers to your questions are???
Whether or not someone can be free to work for themselves being put up for a vote by the majority? You would have to be insane to try to claim this and at the same time say that you are for individual rights. Those are contradictory statements. Either you support the right of the individual or you don’t, and you have chosen the latter.
You are wasting your time attempting to talk to those who have no clue what any of the words they use actually mean.
@@The1Elcil that is not what he said. He wants rights to be put to a vote which means that he has no principled stand on individual rights since they are not absolute. There have been majorities that have voted against it and we recognize them as violating the rights of individuals.
Prof Wolff is asked his opinion regarding self employment in a socialist society. At 2:30 he states "I would expect" at 2:38 he states "likely but not certain" at 3:12 he states "assuming that could be worked out" at 3:18 "there should be no problem" at 4:05 "And I would expect" and at 6:00 "so I don't expect". It is obvious that Prof Wolff is just guessing about the answer to the question because he has no clue. He only has a theory. Prof Wolff has no real world experience in owning / operating a business. If you have a question regarding how to own, operate and manage a business you should ask someone who has successfully owned and operated a business, not some guy who is only guessing.
Ask an experienced entrepreneur if you want to know about self-employment under capitalism. Who do you ask about self-employment under a future system that evolves to something different than capitalism? One approach is to find someone who has developed some carefully considered principles and values that underlie such a system and ask them to characterize self-employment consistent with those principles and values. Projections into the future are always a "guess".
Lmfao you realize that Richard Wolff is a co-owner of Democracy at work as well as other businesses right?...
@@GR3YS0RG4N1CS OMG, THAT MAKES HIM AN EVIL EMPLOYER !!!
@@GR3YS0RG4N1CS hhhmmm since when is the production of hot air considered a business?
One of the earliest practitioners, was "democratically eliminated" in the only actual "democracy"
that ever existed...so the claim that the 'rights of the individual" would be respected by a
"deomcracy" seems to be a bit exaggerated...the U.S. is NOT a "democracy" ...but had specific
"enumerated rights"...and even these are no longer protected...not that any of you have noticed.
Wolff has also described the "patreon" community as "partners"...yet the doesn't seem to be
any "profit" generated...although according to Wolff in his recent 3 hr interview with Lex Fridman,
he is "having the time of his life". Seems a little one-sided, NO????
@@TC-eo5eb except it doesn't... Hence the "worker lead"
Just because he co-founded democracy at work doesn't make him an employer in the capitalist hierarchical sense that you're referring to and that we're criticizing.
'one person, one vote,' what music!
unfortunately, pr. wolff is an economist, not concerned about political science.
one person, one vote, happens in the usa, and it does not support a decent society.
voting is not democracy. in the usa it's an empty pacifier.
democracy is rule by the citizens. 'democracy' means 'citizens decide.'
they do so by voting, but not for people. citizens vote in referenda and initiative for law and public action and thereby express the will of the nation's masters, the citizens.
will they establish socialism? not necessarily. they don't have to.
switzerland is the only democracy among our nation-states. they take care of one another, sometimes with laws and practices that might appear in overtly socialist societies. but they are not a socialist nation. they are a democracy.
instead of 'the nation takes care of me,' they are 'we take care of one another.' certain aspects of capitalism flourish there, notably in foreign relations.
socialism without democracy is possible, the ussr demonstrated why that is not necessarily a good thing.
socialism without democracy can be admirable, the scandi's and a few others have made it work for awhile. but usa drifted in that direction in the 30's, and then lost it, because politician rule can be bought, and was. the constitution was designed to facilitate that result.
How was the constitution designed to facilitate that result?
individuality in capitalism: we all have to subjugate us under common sense made rules by capitals, but I AM always the exception at any time. i am allowed to pollute environment, all others not, they have to take care. i can earn maximum money, others not, they have to pay taxes. i can act like others dont need healthcare and social behaviours, but I DO....etc etc. its a permanent state of personal exceptionality while at the same moment others are bound to rules
Straw man
I disagree with Wolf about making everyone in the workplace equally powerful. What if the person was not qualified to do the work compared to the other workers? The reason why I wanted to start my own business is that I knew I could do the job faster and better and bring more quality to the product. The group dynamic breaded mediocrity or just downright stupidity. Wolff's idea of creating more rules and regulations so that the self-employed cant compete with the group is so destructive and unfair.
Even if socialism affects individualism and freedom in a small way, that’s means it’s still not good.
If co-ops are so great why not just let people freely decide to join them, and leave the employer/employee set-ups alone?
Do you now what a co-op is? It’s in the name
@@angrylefty7953 I guess not. Is it voluntary?
@@chuckleaf8027 yes and if you don’t want to be part of a co-op you can find another job most co-ops are formed by the employer not the employees
@@angrylefty7953 Thanks,,,,. Did you miss the part where Wolff says NO employers under socialism???
@@chuckleaf8027 let’s just say a owner wants to retire and his kids don’t want to take over or are pieces of 💩 and the employer wants to show his appreciation to his employers then he sets up a co-op instead of selling it off or shutting it down
Thats why Uber is socialist
As usual, it all sounds great.
And as usual, Wolff can only speak hypothetically. He cannot point to one socialist experiment in history where this rosy portrayal of socialism was(or is) true.
What was it you said at the beginning of the talk, professor Wolff? “Let’s look at the reality, not the propaganda”.
That would be a big improvement for your channel if that were the case.
Because there aren't any real socialist experiments except maybe one, Cuba, but there's a huge asterisk next to any country that even started attempting to move down that route. It's called American intervention.
There are multiple. Catalonia Spain with the anarcho-syndicalist movement and Burkina Faso with Thomas Sankara just to name a few
Capitalism is only about 275 years of age. Before then it was also hypothetical. Socialist experiments have always been under constant attack by the capitalist ruling class. Look at how many democracies they have overthrown just since 1945! If socialism didn't work, if it wasn't such a huge threat, they wouldn't need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually trying to prevent it from coming into existence.
Why did the United States fund the mujahdin and Taliban in Afghanistan back in the 70s?
In 1917 when the workers managed to overthrow the Czar in Russia, why did the United States get together with Canada, Britain, Japan, and France, sending troops into Russia to crush those poor illiterate farmers? They had nothing! Only the most simplest Farming tools. They couldn't read or write, they had no indoor plumbing, no electricity, nothing! The Japanese didn't leave Russian soil until 1922!
Gee, I wonder why we don't see any successful socialist experiments around the world. 😀 economic sanctions on Venezuela have resulted in at least a hundred thousand deaths. How long Cuba been under crippling sanctions?
Between 1945 and 1999 the USA has:
• tried to overthrow more than 50 governments;
• attempted to assassinate over 40 foreign leaders.
• grossly interfered in elections in 30 countries;
• bombed the civilian populations of over 30 countries;
• used chemical & biological weapons.
• supported and funded death squads that have murdered hundreds of thousands of Union organizers, children, women, Socialists, etc.
Not my opinion, a matter of public record. Just check out the National Security archive.
e.g. School of the Americas death squads
Pt 1 czcams.com/video/HOeaG6-qsVc/video.html
Pt 2- czcams.com/video/VW0k3v1RivA/video.html
Why would anyone prefer economic feudalism over economic democracy?
Worker-owned companies are tied to the community. So what would the consequence be? You have most things made in the home country rather than China and most of the wealth would be going to the workers who would spend that money into the economy. Trickle up instead of Trickle down.
But under capitalism most of the capital goes to the richest members of society. What is the consequence? Most of the wealth produced by labour goes to the richest 1% and you have most things being made in third world countries.
@@danielarochovlogs1995 Yes, the failed states of the past. They were all reportedly socialist utopias - and not one of them lasted more than a couple of years.
@@TROBassGuitar Cuba.
That’s your example of this socialist utopia Wolff always talks about? Now you are just making me laugh, comrade. Cuba is a political hell hole. An economic basket case - and sorry, it is not the fault of the big bad capitalist US of A. The only thing we have done in the last 50 years is leave Cuba alone and refuse to trade with it. If socialism is so superior to capitalism, then they should have done just fine without us.
It's nonsense to complain that each member of the "large group" (the employee) "has to live with the 'undemocratic' decisions of the small group" (the employer) Any worker who feels he's being unfairly treated by his employer has the option of offering his time and talent to other employers, or to go into business for himself.
Hey hey, sounds like a beautiful world you're living in. Is it LSD induced,
OK capitalist
That's very industry by industry; some fields are either very advantageous or very disadvantageous to the only option for self-employment, consultant status.
Lots of employees do just that. They are then called “ungrateful,” “lazy,” “selfish,” “greedy,” or “lacking work ethic.” If you stay and try to force improvements you get called the same, and likely fired. No, the only option your worldview is open to is continued abuse mixed with quiet desperation, and “please make sure you commit your suicide at home not at work, so messy!”
And then the business finds the next poor and destitute person to fill their place because the system itself has ensured that there's plenty of people who are willing to accept the horrible conditions and pay because they're already living in poverty and have thousands in debt.
Then, if they do start to feel it in their wallets, the government bails them out at our expense.
Your bullshit propaganda is just that, bullshit propaganda that you heard and believe so now you're regurgitating it in hopes that others will believe it too.
Sure you can work alone in a socialist coop based society - but as soon as you need help, you cant employ other people, you have to set it up as a coop. I can see all the exploiters out there looking for a way to exploit other people and get rich quick. Bend the rules. But that's capitalism not socialism.
Employment is not exploitation.
@@The1Elcil and the labor theory of value is wrong. The value of a thing does not depend upon the labor it takes to produce it.
What a total load of BS! lol
@Account NumberEight does the bot know the total number of accounts?