Thanks for all these invaluable lectures, professor. Something that could be absolutely awsome would be for you to economically analyse how the USSR devolved into stalinism. Most people have no idea of the struggles that happened in the USSR before WWII, their nature and their scope, and a competent economic review in hindsight would greatly enrich what those who know know.
@@feliciastaldotter5168 It's A conclusion, but nothing about it was natural, and only part of it was Lenin's. By the time of Lenin's death, he was drifting left again. Having distanced himself from the grassroots in the past and implemented extreme centralism during "war communism", he was beginning to listen more to the likes of Trotsky and Kollontai. His next move would be a counterplay on Stalin, descentralizing the government and instituting oversight on the politburo, essentially ending "war communism". After Lenin's death, Stalin, who was a far more effective politician than his adversaries, seized control to a extent that Lenin himself never had. But that's the political story. Economically Stalin was centrist, between those who would revoke the NEP completely, like Trotsky, and those who would build upon it to dictate future policy, like Bukharin. His reasoning was always political and self-centered, but his effects ended up being quite appalling. Namely, the absorption of the middle classes into the State apparatus, ensuring for them less extreme, but still secure, privileges that in the eyes of many reinstituted a class dichotomy and prevented the USSR from ever being a true proletary State. From the war economy to Kondratiev to the final shape of the NEP, private consessions, and "back, but not that much", there's much in there to discuss economically, and it would be awsome to hear what prof Wolff has to say about that period.
EL + LL = TL is flawed LL is not created by worker. LL is determined by market forces of Supply and Demand. A chair's worth is based on what the market will bear. The worker has no right to the future value of the product produced because he agreed to trade his labor in exchange for a predetermined amount of cash. To drive this point, lets look at bartering. Example, a fisherman barters with a farmer for some vegetables. The farmer then takes the fish and barters with a far away village that highly prizes seafood because they are no where near water. Because of the demand, the farmer gets a lot in return for the fish. When the farmer returned to his village, the fisherman saw how much goods he received from the fish. The fisherman demanded to get his fair share of goods because his labor produced the value of the fish. Because the farmer refused, the fisherman beat the farmer and stole the goods. The fisherman has no right to ask for his "fair share" of the goods from the farmer because the original transaction has no bearing on subsequent transactions.
I want to greet you Dr. Wolff and to tell you that I admire you so much because you are so easy to understand for me. I am a peruvian lawyer 81 years old and more tnan 50 years practicing my career. When I was studing philosophy at university of San Marcos in Lima there was not a teacher teaching anything related to Karl Marx. So I decided to become a lawyer and to practice labor law defending workers, the poorest people, and I am very proud of my decision because poor people deserb to be defended no matter if they can pay or not. I am poor but honest, that is why I admire you so much and I wish you the best because you are a great man. God bless you.
Any change in understanding of Socialism plus a lot more is due in no small part to all the work you and Democracy at Work folks do. Thank you Dr. Wolff.
If 25% of Americans now believe that socialism is a good thing, then I am very happy with that. It's still a minority, but I would have expected something more like 5%, to be honest. No doubt, 25% will CERTAINLY affect our politics going forward. That is a reason to celebrate. It can only grow from here, as long as we continue to educate the public. No longer will good ideas be confined to institutions of higher learning. Thank you Dr. Wolff. And thank you, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and (ironically) Donald Trump, for your roles in this new enlightenment period in American politics.
What I think is funny, so many people worship capitalism, but them moment you start speaking macro or micro economics you discover they don't even know the thing they supposedly love. Economics in the US has become dogma. And I only learned capitalism by higher education that was specific in finance and business management. Very few people outside a business degree ever take macro or micro economics. That's what's scary. And that's why we have return of robber baron corporate capture of our government with corrupt politicians reminiscent of the bribery ballot stuffing sideshow disaster of the 1800's US and other republics of that century. Unlike the early 1900's when the ignorant masses simply distrusted those who were educated, so they literally remain skeptical which is the first step about getting educated and no longer being ignorant. Today, most people are like cattle, they trust those who know more and think little of their own abilities to understand the complexity of finance... thus don't try to get educated.
Donald Trump is president. He is a form of Socialst. Bailout of Coal and Oil and Protectionism with Trade Wars and then compensating Farmers with TrumpAid all that is happening is very socialist behavior, not capitalist. So what do you think of TrumpSocialism and the fact that the USA is currently being run by a Socialist President but still calling themselves something else.
@@t24money I think you do not know what socialism is, and you have fallen for decades of government/media propaganda lying to you about "socialism" being synonymous with "totalitarianism" or "authoritarianism." It is not. All you have to do is pick up a good book and think for yourself. Question authority. It is good for you. Socialism, in reality, is public or worker control of the means of production (as opposed to CEO or stockholder control). There are authoritarian types of socialism, yes. The USSR was authoritarian. It gave the central State control over the means of production, rather than the workers. The government owned everything and decided everything. Many people in favor of other forms of socialism hate the USSR more than capitalists do. They ruined socialism and made it impossible to achieve true liberation from corporate tyranny for a very long time. It's only gotten worse, because they inevitably failed. Power should not be concentrated into the hands of a few. It does not matter whether the government or the wealthy control it. Unjust hierarchy is always bad. Trump is "socialism" only for the wealthy. That is what capitalism is. He gives tax cuts to people who have MORE than enough money, so that they can NOT raise wages, but instead invest in themselves or in stock buybacks. Meanwhile, he TAKES from those who have nothing, with no ability to invest in anything or move up in society. He cuts funding for programs intended to help them (thus the need to send money to farmers, because he DESTROYED them with his other capitalist policies). The poor and middle class don't have anything, because they work paycheck to paycheck for slave wages beneath the rising cost of living. They are forced into debt to pay for their lives, while the wealthy earn interest off of them. You think Trump is a socialist? Get real. He is as much of a greedy, lying capitalist as Ronald Reagan or Ayn Rand. He is a tyrant. Seriously look into libertarian socialism, if you aren't afraid of reason. Watch a few Noam Chompsky lectures or something if you don't like reading. Dr. Wolff here does a great job on other videos here too. As does Robert Reich (a former secretary of labor for the U.S.). All of them are excellent resources.
@@Soleilune1995 Well, I think that t24money means "Government Socialism for the Rich Corporations" LIKE "Bailouts" , "Government Subsidies" and These are kind of Hyporatic Socialism for the Top Class but not individual socialism for the citizens that said on Bernie Sander's speeches.
The word to describe Trump's style of governing is "Fascism". If left to his own while been reelected and without strong opposition, this would be the result. Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum. Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader-such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party-to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[11
Wee correction for the start of the second half. Type 1 socialism isn't democratic socialism, but instead "social democracy". The names are similar, but they mean two very different things. Democratic socialists don't merely want to regulate and redistribute wealth such as social democrats do. Democratic socialism is more of a 'process' of achieving the other modes of socialism described. That is, through (typically gradual) democratic reforms. The closer climate catastrophe comes, the more I sway towards type 2 socialism (although I don't really agree with the use of "communist" in this sense - I'm more keen to use Communism to describe the final stage of socialism discussed by Marx and Engels). Market regulation isn't going to fix it, and whilst I'm all for worker co-ops, I can't see the climate issue being tackled without heavy centralisation of planning. If a co-op/syndicalist system can form the structures to achieve that, then super. But whatever the case, we need a series of 5 year plans. Or since we have 11 years to prevent 2C...two five year plans.
Hi, Sam, this is not entirely accurate, and I am speaking as a Norwegian (a country previously lead by Democratic Socialists following both your definition, and the definition you bring to Social Democracy), as well as Social Democrats. Unfortunately Democratic Socialism, just like Socialism, does not mean one thing. 80+ years ago Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism was often synonymous, both referring to evolutionary socialism, where we implement (any kind of) socialism through democracy, but these definitions have split up and been used in too many different ways since. The real split started to happen in the post-WW2 era, but this was also when Socialist and Democratic Socialist, started to split in terms of meaning. The distnction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is this: - Social Democrats wants basic industries (welfare, etc.) to be publicly controlled/managed and the rest of the economy to be regulated capitalism, i.e. a mixed economy. - Democratic Socialists (by mainstream definition today) advocate to go further, and create a society where democracy is placed above capitalism and the people have the power within the economy - but they, sadly still accept capitalist ownership. (Liberal Socialism, is also often called democratic socialism, this is when key industries are collectively owned, but non-key industries are owned by capitalists, essentially a mixed economy with the reversed proportions of social democracy. Democratic Socialism has also been used to refer to Council Socialism, Left Communism, Socialist systems that maintain representative democracies, and more). - It is really important to understand that the mainstream strain of Democratic Socialism (TM), i.e. the Nordic influenced strain, have a fundamentally different understanding/theory concerning what capitalism and socialism than traditional socialism. To them the issue of capitalism is not exploitation or private property, the issue is the distribution of democratic power. In their ideology capitalism ends when the people have the majority of power within the economy, not when private ownership ends. In other words, "democratic socialism" (TM) is when capitalist ownership (to the extent it is allowed) is subservient to democratic control. Unlike Social Democrats they have a genuine dislike and critique of capitalism - and what to bring power to the people as opposed to private owners - but they fail to see that private ownership itself is the issue. (Though to be fair to them, many see this as a transitional tool into an actual socialist economy - and as such would fit your definition). This is the ideology that most Socialist parties in the Nordic countries are arguing for, hell, even Norway's Red Party (Marxists) have stated that they are arguing for Democratic Socialism now - which is very, very disappointing.
you don't need centralization of planning. you just need enough work focused on meeting the right goals. The goals of corps are traditionally not all the same goals of co-ops, as co-ops operators are less likely to cut their own throats over profit margins; whereas a CEO with millions in the bank would be far more likely to cut the throats of it's employees just to get a small increase in profits. That said, there are national and international non-profit orgs that provide guidance, support, and intercommunication channels for co-ops all over the US and globe. So centralized planning isn't really an issue either.
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. The cornerstone of libertarianism is property rights, whereas the cornerstone of socialism is the polar opposite, namely collective ownership.
@@PeterWW420 no, libertarianism refers to the antithesis of authoritarianism. It simply means that the role of the state is minimized. The people you're familiar with who call themselves libertarians are right wing libertarian, thus, private property.
Bob Bob The so called “left-libertarianism” you are referencing exists, but is an incoherent philosophy. There is no way to enforce collective ownership or egalitarianism without centralized power.
@Broc felix As if listening to conservatives would be any better. They literally lie about almost everything and whenever they argue, they always use strawmen arguments
Democracy can alter the Constitution completely or remove it based solely on the interpretation of people's experiences and subjective feelings. And a republic however we do not see a wavering of the people's Constitution, and very little modification of the rule of law, it's for this reason that democracies transition to tyrannies and dictatorships. They've been tried before was very ill results
So you're advocating what exactly. Imagine you think one person can eventually accumulate everything and leave everyone scraping by we tried that it was called feudalism and we know how that ended. Also if you think abortion is a sin don't allow your family to participate. Religious tyranny is also a thing as well. I also don't think abortion is a good thing but I will not oppose my will upon non believers and also your defense is to use an illogical solution to an already deeply corrupt system is to make you're situation worse shows a profound level of ignorance. I shouldn't have to post this people should understand the concept of the system they live in. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (Welfare of the United States) We live in a society. Your wants don't out weigh the needs of the country. Real patriotic btw
@Frederic Bastiat A nation doesn't exist without people and random events occur that need a national response just 1 example: Cholera first appeared in the United States in 1832, apparently arriving with European immigrants. Cholera is a disease that is spread by drinking water or eating food that is contaminated with human feces. People who contract cholera generally suffer from severe diarrhea, vomiting, and cramps. Seems you don't care about having a healthy population... Fascinating guess when sh*t hits the fan and your family starts dying figure it out yourself am I right??? The "list" 😂
I mean, in the early Soviet Union (up to about the mid-50s), the workers could literally hold a vote and fire their boss, but okay, lets say they changed nothing and talk about this as a new idea. I'm down for that. As long as it builds a democratic workspace and overthrows the nightmare that is capitalism, you can call it whatever you like. Lets just get it done.
@Frederic Bastiat _"Currently, in 18th century, there is no law prohibiting people from liberating their slaves and there is no law prohibiting people from acquiring slaves, so everything is fine when it comes to our laws and slavery. Feel free to convince your master to liberate you, work hard, and buy your own slaves."_ If you want to call people retarded, you might want to consider not making dumb arguments.
@Frederic Bastiat Using the word "retard" automatically invalidates everything you say lol, you petulant amoeba. Capitalist workplaces are inherently totalitarian in nature. Workers should have a say in how the business is run - end of story. Companies can afford to pay workers far more, but they don't because they're greedy scumbags. The workers themselves should make the rules. The more profitable the company is, the more money each worker will make, so they will be incentivized to work harder and make smart decisions. Right now, workers don't have that incentive - if the company makes no money, they won't benefit 99.9999% of the time, and if they do benefit, it's a meaningless amount. Thus, worker-coops will be even more successful than corporations are today. If the company is producing something that is no longer in demand, then the workers can vote to start producing something else that is in demand. Worker-coops are more flexible. For example, look at Mondragon Corporation in Spain. It's far from a perfect worker-coop, but it's a hell of a lot better than a normal corporation. The top executives can only make a certain amount more money than the lowest paid workers. Mondragon has been very successful throughout its existence. They frequently change what they produce if something is no longer in demand. The workers directly benefit if the company makes more money, so like I was saying, the workers are incentivized to make the company more successful. It's far from perfect though - unfortunately, they exploit cheap labor in third world countries. That's what happens when you have a worker coop that has to compete with capitalist businesses - the workers in Spain put themselves first, of course. If our economy consisted of mostly worker-coops, this wouldn't be so much of a problem.
I have long been in favor of worker owned businesses, which actually exist right here in the U. S. unbeknownst to many people. Thank you Professor Wolff. 💕
My American friend’s company is an employee ownership company in LA. The founder died and successor is my friend not the son of the owner. He told me there was incentives for taxation too.
Quick sum up: 1 is regulated market capitalism 2 is planned state capitalism 3 is nonspecific socialism Wolff is interested in the specific direction socialism will go. Will it be market socialism, planned socialism, or mixture of both?
Any system that requires constant growth is incompatible with ecology, so market socialism, while better than capitalism, is not a solution in and of itself.
A combination of 1. and 3. I think capitalism at the moment has disenfranchaised large parts of the workforce. Cooperatives would be a great solution to this alongside a regulated economy..
Canada and Scanidavia used to be mixed economy countries type of socialism not their now type A he explains, but a very construtive model that make thise countries grow and develop in all aspects making them still now the best places to live in the world. Check that out, of course there were a lot of co ops and strategically aspects of the economy owned, controlled by the state like oil, gas, electrical, water and highly regulated financial and banking systems, to protect its people. Free medical abd education. And regular restrinctions in the rest of the economy and society. There was un some versions of this a protection of the countries producers of produce, farm, and dairy and of industry to fully develop the domestic production, independence from other countries.
@@DiThi Actually, before the Anarchism has been key in the USA for quite a while. Anarchists were a big part of the early push for syndicalism, including participating in the IWW. The late 1880's, well, they were a key time for the likes of anarcho-communism in the USA with greats such as Lucy Parsons and Emma Goldman. That said, being an anarchist in these times was of course very against the system, bad arrests and executions were a thing. Lucy Parsons was implicated in the Haymarket Affair, widely considered a frame up, and was executed. The Joan Baez song "Here's to you, Nicola and Bart" is about two actual anarchists that were falsely convicted of murder and executed. The red scare also caught up the anarchists, probably earlier than the communists.
@@GroundHOG-2010 While the concept is really old, this is mostly a new "rebranding" that has to be done to have any amount of success. If you talk anyone about anarchism, communism, unions, syndicalism, etc, their brains shut off and probably spew some cold war propaganda. However "democracy in the workplace" sounds so new and so different, Bernie's proposals for that effect were labeled as "moderate" by opponents (and healthcare for all is "extreme left", go figure).
@@GroundHOG-2010 Not to mention the massive Utopian movement and communes build all around the US in the mid-1800s. Utopian Socialism, especially Ownenism, directly developed/evolved into the Co-Operative movement we know today.
@@DiThi "It's new to Americans though." i think you misspoke, the US is fairly new to socialism, generally speaking, as the US is new itself. Many American tribal nations were very socialistic, as have been others on other continents. Socialism has proven itself to be a highly functional system, but it has, unfortunately, been corrupted by greed time and again throughout history.
@@rocketsniper8726 Social democrats want to maintain a capitalist economy but provide welfare for the public through wealth redistribution. Democratic socialists want to democratically reform the economy into a socialist economy where the means of production are publicly owned. These are not the same at all
@@ascii_9727 Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats are the same in Bernie's book. It's about policy, not labels. Bernie's policy goes with your definition of "Social Democrat".
@@rocketsniper8726 yes which is why I believe Bernie advocates for social democrat policies. This has nothing to do with labels, I'm simply acknowledging that two different things are different
@Cian McCabe looking for that in reformists and electoral politics will get us nowhere, imo. Much of the work must be done by us; reformists will help by lifting the foot off of the unions and other groups that will help us achieve socialism.
@Cian McCabe That's impossible when it comes to Corbyn as long as UK stays within the EU as such laws conflict with EU corporatist laws. Labour either needs to be more socialist and pro brexit or anti and just be soft socdem.
oscar strokosz Idk about Corb, but Bernie certainly doesn’t want to rid capitalism. He just wants to give concessions so the people in power won’t be lynched by workers sooner or later
So eloquent a speaker, no wonder why I Have Become a disciple. As a lifetime socialist, at 77 years, I now have better tools thanks to professor Wolff.
Titoism was under dictatorship.. Libertarian socialism is about horizontal power (anarchy), so this comparison feels a little disingenuous. You wanna maybe elaborate?
@@liamabean3532 the workers could vote for their bosses. So economically it was very equal but politically it was quite authoritarian. Even so, Yugoslavia was one of the better developed countries in Europe before it broke apart under ethnic tensions. So I suppose where I am coming from is that it is not sufficient to retain political heirarchy while simply overturning economic heirarchy. Similarly, with the USSR, it is not sufficient to retain economic heirarchy while overturning political heirarchy. Both need to take place simultaneously.
@tiglath pileser Very true. I should have worded "political heirarchy" better - it should have been "political autocracy" where the political class was not democratically accountable, while the economy was democratically accountable in the case of Yugoslavia. It was the lack of accountability in the political class that ultimately doomed Yugoslavia to civil war. Tito just barely kept the people from each other's throats, and once he died, there was no more glue holding the house of cards together. I do think that political heirarchy is necessary - but it must be democratically accountable. While other countries may not have the historical tension of the Balkans, walking that line between regional autarky and federal co-ordination has never been easy, and always there are the ambitious in the ranks looking to expand their powers in one way or another. I think that economic heirarchy could be overturned with co-operative enterprise and democratic planning but again - systems must be in place to avoid concentration of power. Welcome to 2019, just like 1919, where conversations like this are being had once again. We stand at the end of the end of history.
@@martinko4086 Babe, don't embarrass yourself, the muslim your judging him as by his profile picture is a Hindu/Sikh guru from India, even his last name is Sikh. Gawd, get educated.
Thank you Professor Wolf for producing this video on the various concepts of socialism. You have sparked my interest in understanding global economics. I appreciate your in depth explanations!
Asking a socialist to teach you about economics is like asking the devil to teach you about christ. This wolf is a dog. Actually i should say, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
The reason Socialism is taboo is the same reason a catholic school (or any other religion) wouldn't necessarily deep dive into other religions. Loads of challenging questions where a pebble could turn into a mountain. One of the reason people don't answer the door to Jehovah witnesses.
The reason to not open the door on JW is that they will out and out lie about their religion, use any method to rope you in, one was telling me about all the single ladies in their church. I do open the door to them for 2 reasons: - (1) I understand how my faith or lack of works and (2) I actually know a lot of them though work. They no longer bother to recruit me. ( My mother on the other hand... )
I don't open the door cause I roomed with a quasi-ex JW who wouldn't open the door when others visited, or he would send his wife to the door and they'd refuse to talk to her. I have other examples of reasons not to open the door.
I always welcome them in and talk with them. The local JW's have banned them from coming here anymore though. Every single individual who has come to speak with me turned apostate immediately after, so they won't let them come here anymore. It's sad. I miss their visits.
The first one mr. Wollf is talking about is called etatistic or administrative socialism, and it was also the first step in creating true socialism in Yugoslavia (that followed truly Marx and Engels theory). Interestingly, Sweden was interested in the fifties in Yugoslav socialism and issued whole Program of Yugoslav Communist Party in Sweden. Etatistic socialism in Yugoslavia in first 5-10 years after the 2. world war obtained financial and material base for developing true socialism of Marx.
I brought to Mr. Wolf attention about Yugoslavia socialist system , it was one of the most advance system World ever seen , Yugoslavia did not failed because the system but because interferences of the special interest , Salute to you :)
@@plutoniusis : Oh, lovely. Yes, Yugoslavia was destroyed by fascist emigration. They start infiltrating society after Tito died... a place called Medjugorje was installed first, in a form of pilgrimage. Interestingly madona decided to apear just after the death of president Tito ...before she was shy haha... Through that chanell came money and fascists, like reverse ratlines ( escape routes for fascist, nazist and their colaborators...organized by Vatican). Thanks for a support for Yugoslavia 👌
You explained how the capitalist class fights against the Democratic Socialist governments, but you forgot to mention how the international capitalist class also fights against the Communist countries. Socialism doesn't operate in a vacuum. The communist countries had to be authoritarian in order to protect the socialist system. They also had co-ops and some of the worker participation that you mentioned.
3rd Way is what most of the world has nowadays. People only argue about the smallest of details in the political world when it comes to 3rd Way economics.
I generally support the 3rd option, but I'm uncertain about how effectively it can be applied in a factory/mill environment. It makes perfect sense in a small co-op store, but in a facility where tons of material are produced daily and the need for decisive decisions made by formally educated specialists is apparent (example: having an HSE Manager that makes sure the facility doesn't violate EPA regulations, perhaps with a veto power). Perhaps a factory environment could use some sort of Republic system...
I suggest reading the Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin, alternatively look up "life under anarchism" by a Channel called Non-compete, it goes into the specifics of how police/gov't/workplace/etc
The trick is using the first type of socialism to hold capitalism in check, and protect the third type while it establishes itself. We should push political leaders for government incentives for cooperative business.
There are some already, incentives and support, I forget the name, but the gov just denied an attempt to defund the effort. Passed over the article like 2 days ago, you could probably find it if you look. There are also non-gov agencies that will help organize and fund co-ops. You just gotta get started and look for the means.
I could listen to Richard all day. I've been debating with pro capitalism folks and doing badly. Upon watching this great video I feel more confident. Thank you Richard for enlightening me.
My observation is this, a socialist will hold the ladder whilst someone more in need climbs , a right winger ( English Tory/ Republican American ) pulls up the ladder after themselves once they have climbed , A capitalist makes sure there's not enough ladders.
You describe self-care and mutual care, necessary and highly functional personal characteristics (psychologically). Selfishness, a sign of dysfunction, as excessive self-focus causes harm in general. And abuse, habitual harm of others, usually as a result of inaccurate beliefs; here it might be: there's only so much room for success, so I can't share any with anybody less I risk losing it myself all together. Selfishness and selflessness exist on a scale, where self-care and mutual care exist in the middle, and the others towards each extreme. Abusive behavior has a tendency to occur where people behave more selfishly, but there are usually other factors to consider. In any case, outwardly abusive behavior is the more damaging behavior here, as it can persist to affect many more people more harshly than more minor selfishness or selflessness (the later mostly only hurts the self, but tends to benefit others). If we want a functional society, we must create an environment that breeds highly functional people rather than highly dysfunctional ones. Just thought I'd elaborate on your observations, you get no argument from me.
This presentation may not do justice to those socialists who are against state planning but go beyond mere employee-owned businesses - among them, Karl Marx. To quote economist Andrew Kliman: “The notion that ‘socialism equals state ownership, planning and control’ was alien to Marx’s conception of socialism - more precisely, was alien to his conception of what he called communist society, both in its initial phase and its higher phase.” czcams.com/video/qyFMKiHFZXg/video.html Wolff doesn’t discuss the system of labor certificates proposed by Marx and more recently outlined in some detail by computer scientist Paul Cockshott.
masawe mcfranco He acts like the idea of workers and the community having direct democratic control of work and distribution is something new but libertarian socialists have advocated for this for a very long time. This is how socialism/communism was originally envisaged if I’m not mistaken.
@@lifeingeneral4508 Yes it aligns pretty well. Witch is not all that surprising seeing as there is massive overlap between the more libertarian tendencies within historical Marxism and the bulk of Anarchism as it was understood in the 19th and 20th century. That being said i think hes made a deliberate editorial decision not to mention any of this, largely as a branding exercise for his brand of marxism.
@@lifeingeneral4508 Prof Wolff has stated that, beyond Marx, he was heavily influenced by the work of Althusser. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser czcams.com/video/TeHye7P3RSA/video.html
so the 3 types are 1. govenment planned economy. 2. government owned economy. 3. direct democracy in the workplace which may be government owned or.privately owned.. There is a fourth idea, and that is community owned and controlled via direct democracy, which is the type of socialism I support.
you mean anarcho-communism? I'm with you, comrade, however, I wonder the efficiency of dealing with while having imperialists pour in through drains. the only way is through laws that dictate there be no hierarchy, meaning no one can themselves vote into becoming, and the slowly but surely becoming more hierarchical. there must be laws against and in, my view, a vanguard party to be the physical representation of these laws. sort of as a body of intellectuals to act as a barrier and the means, to ensure that laws that become, do not violate said constitution of an anarcho-communist society. or as better put the social contract.
I'm a Mexican-American, I have the dual citizenship and all, meaning that I have both an American and a Mexican passport. I do enjoy traveling and I've been very lucky to be able to visit lots of countries and the Mex passport has come in handy when traveling to places that America isn't crazy about & vice versa... Among other destinations I've been to Cuba, China and Russia (Russia during the world cup)... I apologize for bursting the socialism/communism bubble so eloquently narrated by Dr Wolf here but that economic growth + government distribution/rations he talks about in Russia and China and how they've successfully reduced poverty is a mear fairytale as far as the regular, every day folk are concerned in these 2 countries. The poor citizens are barely making it, barely able to make ends meat (meat isn't even an option most of the time). China's economy has definitely grown exponentially in recent years (not so much currently) but the beneficiaries of said growth are a very, very few in the stratospheric top echelons of government, while the other 99.5% lives in utter poverty, in a state of scared, paranoic, controlled, poverty... Always dreaming of the chance to one day have what the western tourists who visit them so take for granted... and yearning of living to see the day their communist way of government dies, it's truly sad and disheartening to hear them tell you their stories (sometimes in tears). Same exact thing in Russia, with the only difference being that the top .05% are called oligarchs and they are not necessarily exclusively top gov officials. But sad stories from the everyday common folks. I mean in America we've got the top 1% f*cking us over in a capitalist economy (capitalist as in open internet, HBO, bbq sundays, SUVs, video games, fashion options, happy hour & legal weed) but the alternative Chinese, Russian, Cuban version is practically the same, the top f*cking the common folk over, only that it's just the top .05% f*cking you, not the 1% only that in a much worse fascist, totalitarian, authoritarian, communist, dystopian dictatorship. Personally I'll take the Capitalist Pigs option any day of the week! I mean, honestly, open internet, HBO & Sunday Bbqs make the getting f*cked part a little less painful. Oh! yeah... Something else those 2 communist regimes have in common is that they do tend to enjoy applying the fascist, authoritarian hammer on their people who live in a perpetual paranoid state of want. I won't even include Cuba in the discussion because it has all of the bads as the first 2 but without the so called "national economic growth", quite the opposite! Unfortunately, the lovely people of Cuba do suffer poverty in a much-much harsher way, the government rations are ridiculous, they're even offensive and that constant state of want is elevated 100 fold, just as is their state of paranoia, fear and hopelessness, my heart broke several times a day as I spoke with different people. Ironically, I actually considered some shape of socialism as a potential viable option to capitalism, but time, travel and experience have made me change my mind and almost disregard it! It sounds good on paper but when applied to human nature it utterly fails, that's why no county has actually made it work in the last century & change... and the few who've tried have gone off the tyrannical, monstrous deep end. The only version of socialism that I may still see as having a chance is Europe/Scandinavian style democratic socialism championed by Sanders here in the US but I'm not 100% sure it would even take off in American society. Until then I will have to continue to adapt and apply Churchill's take on democracy to capitalism: Capitalism is the worse economic system, except for all the others.
I support a combination of the 3. Have a welfare state have a centralized planned and also have worker cooperatives as some parts of the market. Restaurants hotels department stores I think they our best as worker cooperatives however there are some things that I think of centralized plan would be best for in the economy.
@itsinmyvein I support a centralized plan and I think it's good for some things however some luxury things I think cooperatives are better like in restaurants or department stores but I think the scientists the engineers housing groceries I think that would be best under a centralized plant
@itsinmyvein well I'm open to ideas but I do feel a planned economy is better however cooperatives are best in some parts of the economy. I have a long list of ideas and would be happy to hear yours
We seriously need awareness and education from the opposite end of the spectrum of Economics... We've heard and read everything under the sun about Capitalism. Socialism needs a chance to shine. Prof. Richard Wolff, please visit the Joe Rogan Podcast regularly once every month and educate the world about Socialism, Communism, Economic Democracy, etc, etc.
@Frederic Bastiat intellectually immature illogical drivel....with a nasty touch. Why not grow up and state your case properly why you believe your nonsense to be the case like an adult would? Best wishes.
@Frederic Bastiat congratulations on your job...it's not a place I'd work...but that's what's great about freedom. Now, given rights is better than stealing....it isn't stealing by definition....unlike colonial theft that led to the genocide over the planet by a relative few rich groups that indentured their own plebs to slave for them. If you'd have listened to wolff before, you'd know...if you could understand, that he stressed not forcefully taking anything. All those companies and jobs that left the USA/uk etc from the seventies could have stayed if the workers and communities supported the take over of the redundant/closing factory to be left to waste.....that's not theft...that same principle can still be applied or used for new/upcoming companies...now who is the retard....rhetorical question. Best wishes.
@@jimmycorkhill1390 Don't bother man, these people aren't serious. They don't actually care about liberty for all, nor the full implications of the non-aggression principle. Look at how conservatives reacted when AOC (an employer) decided to (slightly) flatten the pay rates for her aids and intern so that everybody got a living wage, they called that socialism! I guarantee you that if a worker-owned McD's gets formed and competes with McD's these people will take some issue with it. It's all about the benjamins. So yea don't bother. Maybe go make that socialist McD's or whatever happen and make these people squirm! :D
This is an important video. These distinctions are unfortunately not always made by the supporters nor the detractors of socialism. Libertarian socialism is the way forward! Thanks for all your hard work, comrade Wolff!
In Europe the idea of socialism has been around for more than a century, so let me add a few details: the first kind of socialism he's talking about arose in Europe after ww2. It's referred to as SOCIAL DEMOCRACY and almost dominated politics until 15 years ago. The second kind of socialism was PRACTICED BY COMMUNISTS during the first period of the Bolshevik revolution but was soon reformed by Lenin who allowed private ownership to some extent for ordinary citizens. This was called REAL or EXISTING SOCIALISM and was a social condition that COMMUNISTS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSITION TO A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. That's why the two terms are often wrongly treated as identical. The third kind of socialism he's talking about has to do with the people's OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION which is inherent in all radical left and libertarian traditions. This aspect has also been the focus of anti capitalist criticism of the economic organization of countries who's economies are organized according to the model of existing socialism.
@tiglath pileser Interesting comments. Well, I'll have to argue that social democracy is the most free market friendly interpretation of socialism wether one likes that or not. I'm not the guy who buys into that "communists want to take everything we have" theory but I still don't get what your point is regarding personal and private property. Finally can you give us any example of MOP ownership in socialist countries? In my country right now there's only one factory run by it's own workers and interstingly their effort is only supported by far left parties and the anarchist movement.
@tiglath pileser We can definitely agree that social democracy is in no means anti capitalist. Regarding MOP ownership, I'll have to stress that joint ownership by the workers reflects the first phase of the Bolshevik revolution and was suppressed later on by the reforms of the early twenties. For what I'm aware of joint ownership was also practiced during the Spanish revolution and in China for a small period of time, right after the revolution's victory. The idea of having a state apparatus claiming to represent the workers interests and their ownership of MOP is highly problematic and the purpose of the above video is to stress that such an institution is inherently dysfunctional.
@@sugarshane8622 you people have got it all wrong! The definition of "free market" is "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses". In other words the free market is a synonym of capitalism and I'm misunderstood if you think I advocated for a free market in social democratic context previously.
*thanks Matthew for mentioning Marinaleda as another living attempt of people themselves in aiding each other, taking control of their lives, sharing what they have, refusing to let profit dominate their lives, and doing all these actions whilst trying to always recognize that power corrupts and should always be put in the hands of community instead of the moneyed and the already-powerful! *taking inspiration from articles showing their struggles and successes! freepassenger.com/en/the-truths-about-spanish-communist-city-marinaleda/ roarmag.org/essays/marinaleda-spain-communist-utopia/ czcams.com/video/XmKXEEUhG6E/video.html ...and many more! ^^ SOLIDARIDAD to many peeps all over the world already making worlds of LIBERTAD!
Having Wolff in office with Sanders is similar to the correct choice of Bran as the Iron King. Knowledge of historical pros and cons is a great way to weigh current choices and the “has this worked out historically? Or what have been this things pitfalls?” It’s impartial
The basic ideal of Socialism is that the means of production should be owned and controlled by those who do the work, whether the work yields product(s) or service(s) or both. As such, the first and second types here presented are not any sort of Socialism. The first is Social Democracy of the welfare state sort, a mixed economy with some elements of Capitalism and some elements of Socialism. This is Centrism in its actual manifestation, unlike Neoliberalism (some proponents of which refer to themselves as Centrists), which is actually a form of Corporatism and thus Extreme Right. The second is State Capitalism, a scheme devised by Stalin and emulated by Mao to change the economy from a largely feudalistic one to a capitalist one, since for Marx and Engels Socialism was supposed to be a transitional economy from Capitalism to Marxist Communism, so Stalin felt that he needed to force Russia into a form of Capitalism before he could implement Marxist Socialism as the bridge to Marxist Communism. If one wanted to be generous, one might describe this as a mutation of Marxism. Only the third is Socialism, of which there are several types. I would be interested in hearing Richard Wolff discuss the various types of authentic Socialism (Democratic Socialism as such rather than Social Democracy wearing the name, Ecosocialism, Cooperative Commonwealth Socialism, Syndicalism, Market Socialism, etc.) in terms of comparison and contrast, rather than the various things which are *_called_* "Socialism" but are not. Remember what Machiavelli wrote in his commentaries on Livy about appearances versus reality. I can *_call_* myself "Mary Queen of Scots," but you don't have to play along.
First concept is basically Social-Democracy, Second concept is a really good example of a simple explanation of what socialism mostly means/planned economy communism, third is basically Democratic Socialism/Workplace Democracy and socialism. Grest video!
@@martinko4086 I've since revised my thoughts on Wolff's p.o.v., but I am still a far Lefty with socialist and capitalist leanings and am pro Reparations.
The third option is available everywhere. It is called Cooperatives, you can start one in a small place such as a restaurant. See if it works, it will depend on the type of persons involved, not all persons are prepared or want to be owners ( profit an losses alike). The US socialists should start this type of businesses to prove they can work.
Rosa Luxemburg wrote in her celebrated brochure Organization Questions of the Russian Social- Democracy that "historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee."
I really like her writings also Anton Pannekoek is very interesting as well. Also like the writings of Robert Owens & Charles Fourier the 2 who created the concept of worker cooperatives. 👍
Option 1 - Social Democracy Option 2 - Communism Option 3 - Democratic Socialism After being a Social Democrat most of my life and always having rejected Communism, I have recently become convinced the only way forward is Democratic Socialism.
Professor Wolff seriously needs a lesson in Modern Monetary Theory. His belief that the government needs revenue to spend on resources and programs falls into the neoliberal doctrine asking the question, "How are you going to pay for it?" As the sole creator of currency, the government creates money by simply spending. When the government taxes, it results in destroying the money supply in the private sector. The main reason for taxing is to create a demand for the currency.
27:00 , it's simple, we choose anarcho-communism. Employ worker cooperatives and full democratic procedures in every aspect of the society, and then you slam that directly into the central-planned system, centrally planned by a few specialists, voted on by all, funded according to your votes rather than funded whether or not you consent.
central planning on the scale of nations we see today would not mix with anarcho-communism imo. that would just be state communism under a one party state (essentially, what china was before it allowed for private enterprise but after the communist revolution)
What is needed is a cross between Type #2 and Type #3. This is what Lenin and Stalin originally envisioned, but saboteurs and Anti-Communists within their system prevented the Worker Soviets from ever gaining the amount of power which was intended. Indeed we do need to transform the workplace and eliminate the anti-populist ruling class, aka Capitalists; but in the beginning stages we will at the very least, need some sort of administrative body at the top to coordinate the transformation of society. Doing away with the Capitalist Class, which has a tendency to corrupt the institutions of government with their undue influence, will go a long way toward making sure that the democratic government, which we elect, will serve the interests of the public. The eventual goal, though, is to transform society into Full Communism, where an open society can handle all of its own problems without the coercive force of any government. Communists and Anarchists are on the same page in the bigger picture, because they both envision an equal stateless and cashless society. (As an interesting side note, isn't this what a lot of misled Libertarians also envision?)
Instead of political propaganda, this came off as insightful and thought provoking. It would be interesting if google allows this to be advertised (ie suggested), and in doing so, started a genuine grassroots conversation on the difference addresses. I doubt they would allow that to happen.
@@jaym10918 We can't just decide to take it? Start voting for what we want in the companies we already work for; votes organised by the workforce. How could they stop us? Anyone under the glass sealing should understand the benefits of listening to an organised collective of people who want the best for a company that wants the best for people who make the company. Just by ignoring them. Am I chatting crap?
@@em3mny - I agree with you that in theory it is supposed to work like that, but unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy where the voice of the many is heard. In terms of them stopping us, I would contend that for the last 40 or so years, they have succeeded rather immensely in crafting a narrative that keeps them in power. I really hope you're right. The 2020 primary (NOT the general election) will be a great test of that theory. If the DNC succeeds in getting their anointed candidate through the primary, I fear that after the system collapses, the next candidate will be an extreme fascist (basically Trump with an actual brain). Either way, it's not looking good unless we get major change in the next couple of cycles.
Start a cooperative business LLC with a handful of trusted colleagues in an area you think will be fulfilling and profitable. Succeed in your business. document the cooperative process so you can train others.
A point on the third kind of socialism, it doesn't stop exploitation between companies. John Lewis is a company set up this way in the UK and there have been cases of them using exploitative tactics against suppliers and subcontractors. Some kind of regulation between companies is still required, as long as labour is plentiful.
Free market Industrial capitalism with workplace socialism in a representative democracy is exactly what grew the U.S.A. into a powerful country. Debt finance corporate Kleptocracy destroyed it.
Love Professor Wolff! Guys, please dump that super cringey intro/outro music. It sounds like Lil Wayne teamed up with a baby crib company to drop a rap melody for infants.. I know you wanna make Progressive politics and economics hip and everything...but that ain’t the one.
8:30 Professor you are mistaken here, communists far predate the USSR and have been its earliest critics. To quote Marx himself: "Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." --- The German Ideology, 1845
The same way "socialism" has had many meanings, "communism" had too. Wolff is catering to the most common meaning of "communist" on the west. He didn't say the term was born there, just that it was used for that purpose. Even if people don't know the actual meanings of "socialism" and "communism", people do understand the latter is a more extreme version of the former. Kind of inaccurate, but useful for explaining these ideas to as many people as possible.
@@DiThi "The mirage of alternative institutions can cause us to lose sight of the main problem, to bewilder us in the murky world of choosing the product that we like the most, the way we would most like to be exploited, the ethic that is always most advantageous for us whenever we participate in speculation and usury, the sauce in which we have decided we should cook whenever it does not occur to us to attack either private property or the privileges of those who rule over us because … where would we prefer to deposit our money, where would we prefer to work? If we do not ask ourselves the right questions we can end up swallowing the hook and to forget the fact that what is necessary is to continue fighting against money, against work and against all oppression." - - Terra Cremada
I'd be very interested to hear Mr. Wolff's analysis of socialist Yugoslavia's economic system. As I understand it, it was quite similar to your interpretation of socialism and it could be enlightening to hear about how that economy relates to the American context.
This was good! People are extremely ignorant of all economics regardless in general both capitalism or socialism or any market whatsoever. So ignorant most people think the stuff is too complex and just don't bother understanding it. Thus it becomes dogma. And we wonder in the US why we have a second gilded age underway in a retrenchment of robber barons, and foreign policy around the world look very similar to that of the early 20th century that gave us a series of depressions and two world wars.
I've always been a socialist at heart but have struggled to defend the failures of socialism.. Richard give us great insight into the possibilities of socialism going forward...
Your third type of socialism was introduced by Josip Broz Tito in SFR Yugoslavia, which was called "worker self-government". This form of socialism enabled workers to participate in the division of labour and participate entirely in the workplace collectively. It was a system starting at the grass roots level, from down-up. Workers would decide who gets employed, management and every other aspect of enterprise. At the local level people would elect the council representatives to manage local issues and vote for county, regional, provincial and republican representatives. Event hough the system is called socialist or some suggest communist, representatives were always supposed to be elected to represent the view points of the voters. However, with the devastating effects of the First and Second World Wars, whereby 40 percent of the male population in certain republics Serbia and Bosnia being whipped out by Austro-Hungarian. German, and their puppet fascist sympathisers Mussolini's forces and the Croatian Ustashi and their Bosnian Muslim followers, organising, elevating literacy and bringing people out of tremendous poverty took 20 years. By the time self government was introduced (1974) corruption and nepotism were rife. However, self government creates huge social opportunities and liberties for people. Small private businesses started to thrive, many workers had free housing or were given interest free loans by their companies to build or buy houses, workers and their families had access to company resorts around the country for free. Education and Medicare was free for all. There is plenty of literature on Tito's form of workers self governing socialism. In addition. I may add, Tito's socialism allowed its citizens the freedom to travel anywhere and go anywhere. They could travel to Rome, Paris London New York or Moscow or Beijing without restrictions. However, the problem was that the West saw this form of socialism as a real threat. It was a system that was an a real alternative and had the possibility of working. The West could not afford to have their own citizens even think about something like this, let alone aspire to this. Thus, they did everything to dismantle it. They destabilised the country by spurring ethnic rivalries by promoting ultra nationalists, Albanians in Kosovo, NAZI sympathisers in Croatia through the Vatican and Muslim extremists in Bosnia through Turkey. They would label these peoples as moderates and the rest communists through the mainstream media to gain sympathy towards disembowelment of SFR Yugoslavia. The rest we know.
Hello from Russia! Socialism is society without private property on means of production,but with money and distribution of goods proportionally of labor. Communism is society without private property on means of production and with equal distribution of goods. Sorry for bad English.
That should probably be the only definitions, but politics have made it very complicated. So we have to defend a new "brand" of socialism to distinguish it from common concepts people have and avoid irrational rejection. What do you think of the USSR?
@Divan Selev: Hello to you from ex Yugoslav. ;) Just to say that we in SFRJ had also small precentage of private property upon means of productions. In crafts mostly. And small busineses who actually cooperated with big, like in building ships, or with firms that mainteined comunity houses like electricians, hydro instalaters (sorry don't know exact word), carpenters... In agriculture also, like small farms that sold their products to big cooperations, etc. :)
@@DiThi : How about humanism? Anyway, Marx said that Socialism is humanism in practice. I agree with that. Unfortunately, capitalist regime spoiled ( made dirty) socialism with its propaganda. I think we all shold be propaganding socialism...make small posters and distribute it all over. Not words, just strong pictures. If word socialism is discusting for someone because of capitalist propaganda...we could call it humanism or ... ?
@Ron Maimon : Unfortunately people think that socialism abolish private property. But you know, I wonder what people really own in capitalist regime. It seems to me that people who own their houses (or a flat) are rare. Or have busineses. It would be nice if prof. Wolff investigate that. In capitalism they certanly do not own profit - boss does. In Yugoslavia, you could own a small busines, you owned your house, you had a permanent tenancy right to a flat where you lived (you couldn't sell it, just change it for another if you had to, because flats were buildt from a housing fund in which ALL people put money), you could privately own land up to a 10ha (bigger than that was concidered big busines), you could own weekend house... And it would be good to convince people that there is private property in socialism. :)
@Ron Maimon : Thank you for your thoughts. I didn't understand that about giving power to a small cometee in a party. But, about small cometee in a party, for example in Yugoslavia, party didn't have so much power as you might think. Companies that was social, I mean in hands of workers who work there were very autonomous. Workers decided what and how to produce through their delegates, council, and they give only 30% of the earning (profit) of company to the state. Workers self governed their society, not political party. I admit, I don't know a situation in USA or in other similar state, but you are right capitalist on power shall not stand aside and watch people gaining power. ;) Actually, sometimes I think that they are only ones that see world in such way as battle for power...people just want to live like human beings and not to exploit other human being. But that is acase for psychoterapists haha. Life can be so easy for everyone if just some people would stopped thinking in some grabing way. :)
Grab your copy of Wolff's "Understanding Marxism" today. Funds support our work: bit.ly/31d6iRC
Thanks for all these invaluable lectures, professor. Something that could be absolutely awsome would be for you to economically analyse how the USSR devolved into stalinism. Most people have no idea of the struggles that happened in the USSR before WWII, their nature and their scope, and a competent economic review in hindsight would greatly enrich what those who know know.
@@juliahenriques210 Stalinism is the natural conclusion of Lenins Bolshevism.
@@feliciastaldotter5168 It's A conclusion, but nothing about it was natural, and only part of it was Lenin's. By the time of Lenin's death, he was drifting left again. Having distanced himself from the grassroots in the past and implemented extreme centralism during "war communism", he was beginning to listen more to the likes of Trotsky and Kollontai. His next move would be a counterplay on Stalin, descentralizing the government and instituting oversight on the politburo, essentially ending "war communism". After Lenin's death, Stalin, who was a far more effective politician than his adversaries, seized control to a extent that Lenin himself never had.
But that's the political story. Economically Stalin was centrist, between those who would revoke the NEP completely, like Trotsky, and those who would build upon it to dictate future policy, like Bukharin. His reasoning was always political and self-centered, but his effects ended up being quite appalling. Namely, the absorption of the middle classes into the State apparatus, ensuring for them less extreme, but still secure, privileges that in the eyes of many reinstituted a class dichotomy and prevented the USSR from ever being a true proletary State.
From the war economy to Kondratiev to the final shape of the NEP, private consessions, and "back, but not that much", there's much in there to discuss economically, and it would be awsome to hear what prof Wolff has to say about that period.
@@feliciastaldotter5168 have you ever actually read Lenin?
EL + LL = TL is flawed
LL is not created by worker. LL is determined by market forces of Supply and Demand. A chair's worth is based on what the market will bear.
The worker has no right to the future value of the product produced because he agreed to trade his labor in exchange for a predetermined amount of cash.
To drive this point, lets look at bartering. Example, a fisherman barters with a farmer for some vegetables. The farmer then takes the fish and barters with a far away village that highly prizes seafood because they are no where near water. Because of the demand, the farmer gets a lot in return for the fish.
When the farmer returned to his village, the fisherman saw how much goods he received from the fish. The fisherman demanded to get his fair share of goods because his labor produced the value of the fish. Because the farmer refused, the fisherman beat the farmer and stole the goods.
The fisherman has no right to ask for his "fair share" of the goods from the farmer because the original transaction has no bearing on subsequent transactions.
I want to greet you Dr. Wolff and to tell you that I admire you so much because you are so easy to understand for me. I am a peruvian lawyer 81 years old and more tnan 50 years practicing my career. When I was studing philosophy at university of San Marcos in Lima there was not a teacher teaching anything related to Karl Marx. So I decided to become a lawyer and to practice labor law defending workers, the poorest people, and I am very proud of my decision because poor people deserb to be defended no matter if they can pay or not. I am poor but honest, that is why I admire you so much and I wish you the best because you are a great man. God bless you.
Any change in understanding of Socialism plus a lot more is due in no small part to all the work you and Democracy at Work folks do. Thank you Dr. Wolff.
totally. I though they were all commies as an american public school survivor
@@justpettet3506 you do know that Wolff is a Marxist right?
@@means_of_production7807 yes let's label some more that will clear things up...
captalism is best no one can beat no problem all 700 cr people against
@@vishalbabhaniya1986 dude just use Google translate
If 25% of Americans now believe that socialism is a good thing, then I am very happy with that. It's still a minority, but I would have expected something more like 5%, to be honest. No doubt, 25% will CERTAINLY affect our politics going forward. That is a reason to celebrate. It can only grow from here, as long as we continue to educate the public. No longer will good ideas be confined to institutions of higher learning.
Thank you Dr. Wolff. And thank you, Bernie Sanders, AOC, and (ironically) Donald Trump, for your roles in this new enlightenment period in American politics.
What I think is funny, so many people worship capitalism, but them moment you start speaking macro or micro economics you discover they don't even know the thing they supposedly love. Economics in the US has become dogma.
And I only learned capitalism by higher education that was specific in finance and business management. Very few people outside a business degree ever take macro or micro economics.
That's what's scary. And that's why we have return of robber baron corporate capture of our government with corrupt politicians reminiscent of the bribery ballot stuffing sideshow disaster of the 1800's US and other republics of that century.
Unlike the early 1900's when the ignorant masses simply distrusted those who were educated, so they literally remain skeptical which is the first step about getting educated and no longer being ignorant.
Today, most people are like cattle, they trust those who know more and think little of their own abilities to understand the complexity of finance... thus don't try to get educated.
Donald Trump is president. He is a form of Socialst. Bailout of Coal and Oil and Protectionism with Trade Wars and then compensating Farmers with TrumpAid all that is happening is very socialist behavior, not capitalist. So what do you think of TrumpSocialism and the fact that the USA is currently being run by a Socialist President but still calling themselves something else.
@@t24money I think you do not know what socialism is, and you have fallen for decades of government/media propaganda lying to you about "socialism" being synonymous with "totalitarianism" or "authoritarianism." It is not. All you have to do is pick up a good book and think for yourself. Question authority. It is good for you.
Socialism, in reality, is public or worker control of the means of production (as opposed to CEO or stockholder control). There are authoritarian types of socialism, yes. The USSR was authoritarian. It gave the central State control over the means of production, rather than the workers. The government owned everything and decided everything. Many people in favor of other forms of socialism hate the USSR more than capitalists do. They ruined socialism and made it impossible to achieve true liberation from corporate tyranny for a very long time. It's only gotten worse, because they inevitably failed. Power should not be concentrated into the hands of a few. It does not matter whether the government or the wealthy control it. Unjust hierarchy is always bad.
Trump is "socialism" only for the wealthy. That is what capitalism is. He gives tax cuts to people who have MORE than enough money, so that they can NOT raise wages, but instead invest in themselves or in stock buybacks. Meanwhile, he TAKES from those who have nothing, with no ability to invest in anything or move up in society. He cuts funding for programs intended to help them (thus the need to send money to farmers, because he DESTROYED them with his other capitalist policies). The poor and middle class don't have anything, because they work paycheck to paycheck for slave wages beneath the rising cost of living. They are forced into debt to pay for their lives, while the wealthy earn interest off of them. You think Trump is a socialist? Get real. He is as much of a greedy, lying capitalist as Ronald Reagan or Ayn Rand. He is a tyrant.
Seriously look into libertarian socialism, if you aren't afraid of reason. Watch a few Noam Chompsky lectures or something if you don't like reading. Dr. Wolff here does a great job on other videos here too. As does Robert Reich (a former secretary of labor for the U.S.). All of them are excellent resources.
@@Soleilune1995 Well, I think that t24money means "Government Socialism for the Rich Corporations" LIKE "Bailouts" , "Government Subsidies" and These are kind of Hyporatic Socialism for the Top Class but not individual socialism for the citizens that said on Bernie Sander's speeches.
The word to describe Trump's style of governing is "Fascism". If left to his own while been reelected and without strong opposition, this would be the result.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical right-wing, authoritarian ultranationalism[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left-right spectrum.
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader-such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party-to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[11
I was not expecting such a friendly and receptive comment section. Good on ya CZcams community.
This seems a good place to recommend Engels' "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific".
And "After the Revolution" by Diego Abad de Santillian and
"Conquest of Bread" by Pyotr Kropotkin for the anarchist take on socialist economics
@rogb rogb Good book
@M T LOL! Nothing quite like a true believer sharing his dogma with the ignorant masses.
Wee correction for the start of the second half. Type 1 socialism isn't democratic socialism, but instead "social democracy". The names are similar, but they mean two very different things. Democratic socialists don't merely want to regulate and redistribute wealth such as social democrats do. Democratic socialism is more of a 'process' of achieving the other modes of socialism described. That is, through (typically gradual) democratic reforms.
The closer climate catastrophe comes, the more I sway towards type 2 socialism (although I don't really agree with the use of "communist" in this sense - I'm more keen to use Communism to describe the final stage of socialism discussed by Marx and Engels). Market regulation isn't going to fix it, and whilst I'm all for worker co-ops, I can't see the climate issue being tackled without heavy centralisation of planning. If a co-op/syndicalist system can form the structures to achieve that, then super. But whatever the case, we need a series of 5 year plans. Or since we have 11 years to prevent 2C...two five year plans.
Hi, Sam, this is not entirely accurate, and I am speaking as a Norwegian (a country previously lead by Democratic Socialists following both your definition, and the definition you bring to Social Democracy), as well as Social Democrats. Unfortunately Democratic Socialism, just like Socialism, does not mean one thing.
80+ years ago Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism was often synonymous, both referring to evolutionary socialism, where we implement (any kind of) socialism through democracy, but these definitions have split up and been used in too many different ways since. The real split started to happen in the post-WW2 era, but this was also when Socialist and Democratic Socialist, started to split in terms of meaning.
The distnction between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism is this:
- Social Democrats wants basic industries (welfare, etc.) to be publicly controlled/managed and the rest of the economy to be regulated capitalism, i.e. a mixed economy.
- Democratic Socialists (by mainstream definition today) advocate to go further, and create a society where democracy is placed above capitalism and the people have the power within the economy - but they, sadly still accept capitalist ownership.
(Liberal Socialism, is also often called democratic socialism, this is when key industries are collectively owned, but non-key industries are owned by capitalists, essentially a mixed economy with the reversed proportions of social democracy.
Democratic Socialism has also been used to refer to Council Socialism, Left Communism, Socialist systems that maintain representative democracies, and more).
-
It is really important to understand that the mainstream strain of Democratic Socialism (TM), i.e. the Nordic influenced strain, have a fundamentally different understanding/theory concerning what capitalism and socialism than traditional socialism.
To them the issue of capitalism is not exploitation or private property, the issue is the distribution of democratic power. In their ideology capitalism ends when the people have the majority of power within the economy, not when private ownership ends. In other words, "democratic socialism" (TM) is when capitalist ownership (to the extent it is allowed) is subservient to democratic control.
Unlike Social Democrats they have a genuine dislike and critique of capitalism - and what to bring power to the people as opposed to private owners - but they fail to see that private ownership itself is the issue. (Though to be fair to them, many see this as a transitional tool into an actual socialist economy - and as such would fit your definition).
This is the ideology that most Socialist parties in the Nordic countries are arguing for, hell, even Norway's Red Party (Marxists) have stated that they are arguing for Democratic Socialism now - which is very, very disappointing.
you don't need centralization of planning. you just need enough work focused on meeting the right goals. The goals of corps are traditionally not all the same goals of co-ops, as co-ops operators are less likely to cut their own throats over profit margins; whereas a CEO with millions in the bank would be far more likely to cut the throats of it's employees just to get a small increase in profits.
That said, there are national and international non-profit orgs that provide guidance, support, and intercommunication channels for co-ops all over the US and globe. So centralized planning isn't really an issue either.
samsonlovesyou they mean the same thing now. social democracy was first a means to transition
Can't stop listening your lecture Mr. Richard Wolf, my economist, my philosopher.
From India.
Wolff*
I'd love to hear Professor Wolff's opinion and analyses of Libertarian Socialism and Anarchism.
Jonathan Melton yea I thought he’d go into those but I guess we’ll wait another day
Much of the newer socialist movements (third category) are more libertarian
Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. The cornerstone of libertarianism is property rights, whereas the cornerstone of socialism is the polar opposite, namely collective ownership.
@@PeterWW420 no, libertarianism refers to the antithesis of authoritarianism. It simply means that the role of the state is minimized. The people you're familiar with who call themselves libertarians are right wing libertarian, thus, private property.
Bob Bob The so called “left-libertarianism” you are referencing exists, but is an incoherent philosophy. There is no way to enforce collective ownership or egalitarianism without centralized power.
I’m a simple guy. I see Richard Wolff, I click the link.
if you see GULAG also click the link
@Broc felix As if listening to conservatives would be any better. They literally lie about almost everything and whenever they argue, they always use strawmen arguments
@@martinko4086 SOCIALISM IS WHEN GOVERNMENT DOES NO IPHONE
@@hades2679 Socialism is when KGB take you and your god to GULAGS to work your ass off for free .
@@martinko4086 THEY WILL TAKE MY SON??! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!1!!1
Democracy. Imagine that.
Democracy can alter the Constitution completely or remove it based solely on the interpretation of people's experiences and subjective feelings. And a republic however we do not see a wavering of the people's Constitution, and very little modification of the rule of law, it's for this reason that democracies transition to tyrannies and dictatorships. They've been tried before was very ill results
@Frederic Bastiat Top 10% exploits the labor of the bottom 90% for 200 years. Also owned slaves against their will.... Who's Tyrannical???
So you're advocating what exactly. Imagine you think one person can eventually accumulate everything and leave everyone scraping by we tried that it was called feudalism and we know how that ended. Also if you think abortion is a sin don't allow your family to participate. Religious tyranny is also a thing as well. I also don't think abortion is a good thing but I will not oppose my will upon non believers and also your defense is to use an illogical solution to an already deeply corrupt system is to make you're situation worse shows a profound level of ignorance.
I shouldn't have to post this people should understand the concept of the system they live in.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.
(Welfare of the United States)
We live in a society. Your wants don't out weigh the needs of the country.
Real patriotic btw
But I'm an American, I have no concept of democracy!
@Frederic Bastiat A nation doesn't exist without people and random events occur that need a national response just 1 example: Cholera first appeared in the United States in 1832, apparently arriving with European immigrants. Cholera is a disease that is spread by drinking water or eating food that is contaminated with human feces. People who contract cholera generally suffer from severe diarrhea, vomiting, and cramps.
Seems you don't care about having a healthy population... Fascinating guess when sh*t hits the fan and your family starts dying figure it out yourself am I right???
The "list" 😂
I mean, in the early Soviet Union (up to about the mid-50s), the workers could literally hold a vote and fire their boss, but okay, lets say they changed nothing and talk about this as a new idea. I'm down for that. As long as it builds a democratic workspace and overthrows the nightmare that is capitalism, you can call it whatever you like. Lets just get it done.
@Frederic Bastiat no just you comment. he said nothing about business at all
@Frederic Bastiat Workers can legally buy businesses, but they were robbed of the wealth required to do so.
@Frederic Bastiat _"Currently, in 18th century, there is no law prohibiting people from liberating their slaves and there is no law prohibiting people from acquiring slaves, so everything is fine when it comes to our laws and slavery. Feel free to convince your master to liberate you, work hard, and buy your own slaves."_
If you want to call people retarded, you might want to consider not making dumb arguments.
@Frederic Bastiat ^ This guy has never had to work for a living.
@Frederic Bastiat Using the word "retard" automatically invalidates everything you say lol, you petulant amoeba.
Capitalist workplaces are inherently totalitarian in nature. Workers should have a say in how the business is run - end of story. Companies can afford to pay workers far more, but they don't because they're greedy scumbags. The workers themselves should make the rules. The more profitable the company is, the more money each worker will make, so they will be incentivized to work harder and make smart decisions. Right now, workers don't have that incentive - if the company makes no money, they won't benefit 99.9999% of the time, and if they do benefit, it's a meaningless amount.
Thus, worker-coops will be even more successful than corporations are today. If the company is producing something that is no longer in demand, then the workers can vote to start producing something else that is in demand. Worker-coops are more flexible.
For example, look at Mondragon Corporation in Spain. It's far from a perfect worker-coop, but it's a hell of a lot better than a normal corporation. The top executives can only make a certain amount more money than the lowest paid workers. Mondragon has been very successful throughout its existence. They frequently change what they produce if something is no longer in demand. The workers directly benefit if the company makes more money, so like I was saying, the workers are incentivized to make the company more successful.
It's far from perfect though - unfortunately, they exploit cheap labor in third world countries. That's what happens when you have a worker coop that has to compete with capitalist businesses - the workers in Spain put themselves first, of course. If our economy consisted of mostly worker-coops, this wouldn't be so much of a problem.
Thank you, professor Wolff, your voice has become very important for our understanding of what’s happening today and to help us to find a way forward.
I have long been in favor of worker owned businesses, which actually exist right here in the U. S. unbeknownst to many people. Thank you Professor Wolff. 💕
lets list some examples for fun, either for-profit or non-profit. I'll go first: Publix Grocery Stores
@@rckoegel King Arthur Flour
Winco is a grocery store that is employee-owned. It's the only business I know that is.
Bob's Red Mill (I think) is another one, and they're in Oregon.
My American friend’s company is an employee ownership company in LA. The founder died and successor is my friend not the son of the owner. He told me there was incentives for taxation too.
Richard, please go on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
@Mm Mmm I thought of that too, but hoping he wouldn't catch on who Richard really is until he was 5min in.....
@Mm Mmm joe "im so left im basically a socialist" rogan
Quick sum up:
1 is regulated market capitalism
2 is planned state capitalism
3 is nonspecific socialism
Wolff is interested in the specific direction socialism will go. Will it be market socialism, planned socialism, or mixture of both?
Any system that requires constant growth is incompatible with ecology, so market socialism, while better than capitalism, is not a solution in and of itself.
A combination of 1. and 3. I think capitalism at the moment has disenfranchaised large parts of the workforce. Cooperatives would be a great solution to this alongside a regulated economy..
Canada and Scanidavia used to be mixed economy countries type of socialism not their now type A he explains, but a very construtive model that make thise countries grow and develop in all aspects making them still now the best places to live in the world. Check that out, of course there were a lot of co ops and strategically aspects of the economy owned, controlled by the state like oil, gas, electrical, water and highly regulated financial and banking systems, to protect its people. Free medical abd education. And regular restrinctions in the rest of the economy and society. There was un some versions of this a protection of the countries producers of produce, farm, and dairy and of industry to fully develop the domestic production, independence from other countries.
3rd is basically a form of anarchism.
I like a mixture of 1 & 3. It reminds of the type of Socialism Oscar Wilde proposed and it seems likely to happen since automation is a big focus.
#3 is not new, but the oldest. Before Marx made his mark.
It's new to Americans though.
@@DiThi Actually, before the Anarchism has been key in the USA for quite a while. Anarchists were a big part of the early push for syndicalism, including participating in the IWW. The late 1880's, well, they were a key time for the likes of anarcho-communism in the USA with greats such as Lucy Parsons and Emma Goldman. That said, being an anarchist in these times was of course very against the system, bad arrests and executions were a thing. Lucy Parsons was implicated in the Haymarket Affair, widely considered a frame up, and was executed. The Joan Baez song "Here's to you, Nicola and Bart" is about two actual anarchists that were falsely convicted of murder and executed. The red scare also caught up the anarchists, probably earlier than the communists.
@@GroundHOG-2010 While the concept is really old, this is mostly a new "rebranding" that has to be done to have any amount of success. If you talk anyone about anarchism, communism, unions, syndicalism, etc, their brains shut off and probably spew some cold war propaganda.
However "democracy in the workplace" sounds so new and so different, Bernie's proposals for that effect were labeled as "moderate" by opponents (and healthcare for all is "extreme left", go figure).
@@GroundHOG-2010 Not to mention the massive Utopian movement and communes build all around the US in the mid-1800s. Utopian Socialism, especially Ownenism, directly developed/evolved into the Co-Operative movement we know today.
@@DiThi "It's new to Americans though." i think you misspoke, the US is fairly new to socialism, generally speaking, as the US is new itself. Many American tribal nations were very socialistic, as have been others on other continents. Socialism has proven itself to be a highly functional system, but it has, unfortunately, been corrupted by greed time and again throughout history.
Super great lecture by Dr. Wolff as usual.
social democracy isn't the same as democratic socialism
It is tho.
@@rocketsniper8726 Social democrats want to maintain a capitalist economy but provide welfare for the public through wealth redistribution. Democratic socialists want to democratically reform the economy into a socialist economy where the means of production are publicly owned. These are not the same at all
@@ascii_9727 Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats are the same in Bernie's book.
It's about policy, not labels. Bernie's policy goes with your definition of "Social Democrat".
@@rocketsniper8726 yes which is why I believe Bernie advocates for social democrat policies. This has nothing to do with labels, I'm simply acknowledging that two different things are different
@@ascii_9727 That's all well and good.
Tbh with bernie and corbyn, they do have policy ideas that allow workers to take control of the means of production.
@Cian McCabe looking for that in reformists and electoral politics will get us nowhere, imo. Much of the work must be done by us; reformists will help by lifting the foot off of the unions and other groups that will help us achieve socialism.
@@oscarstrokosz2986
*E X A C T L Y!!*
We should push for protection of worker controlled business while we regulate business.
@Cian McCabe That's impossible when it comes to Corbyn as long as UK stays within the EU as such laws conflict with EU corporatist laws.
Labour either needs to be more socialist and pro brexit or anti and just be soft socdem.
oscar strokosz Idk about Corb, but Bernie certainly doesn’t want to rid capitalism. He just wants to give concessions so the people in power won’t be lynched by workers sooner or later
So eloquent a speaker, no wonder why I Have Become a disciple. As a lifetime socialist, at 77 years, I now have better tools thanks to professor Wolff.
Speaks volumes really, given we're going back to Victorian capitalism.
thank you!! Libertarian socialism ftw
Yugoslavian Titoism rises once again.
Titoism was under dictatorship.. Libertarian socialism is about horizontal power (anarchy), so this comparison feels a little disingenuous. You wanna maybe elaborate?
@@liamabean3532 the workers could vote for their bosses. So economically it was very equal but politically it was quite authoritarian. Even so, Yugoslavia was one of the better developed countries in Europe before it broke apart under ethnic tensions.
So I suppose where I am coming from is that it is not sufficient to retain political heirarchy while simply overturning economic heirarchy.
Similarly, with the USSR, it is not sufficient to retain economic heirarchy while overturning political heirarchy.
Both need to take place simultaneously.
@tiglath pileser
Very true. I should have worded "political heirarchy" better - it should have been "political autocracy" where the political class was not democratically accountable, while the economy was democratically accountable in the case of Yugoslavia.
It was the lack of accountability in the political class that ultimately doomed Yugoslavia to civil war. Tito just barely kept the people from each other's throats, and once he died, there was no more glue holding the house of cards together.
I do think that political heirarchy is necessary - but it must be democratically accountable. While other countries may not have the historical tension of the Balkans, walking that line between regional autarky and federal co-ordination has never been easy, and always there are the ambitious in the ranks looking to expand their powers in one way or another.
I think that economic heirarchy could be overturned with co-operative enterprise and democratic planning but again - systems must be in place to avoid concentration of power.
Welcome to 2019, just like 1919, where conversations like this are being had once again. We stand at the end of the end of history.
he doesn't describe libertarian socialism in the video.
Millions of people need to see this. It might just change the world. Thank you so much for these important videos.
Intro sounds like Prof. Wolff is about to drop a hot new single. Love it.
That was very educational! Thank you DaW!
boy, you are brainwashed …
Richard Wolf for president 2020
Gman Singh, Richard Wolff can be president in your Muslim country so he can destroy your Islam . Marxist are atheist !!
@@martinko4086 Babe, don't embarrass yourself, the muslim your judging him as by his profile picture is a Hindu/Sikh guru from India, even his last name is Sikh. Gawd, get educated.
@@juveriya2622 your "guru " from India is an IDIOT . in general, India is a SHITHOLE of the world , poor , dirty and STUPID !!
@RUSSIAN ROBOT yes , for Russian federation ONLY !! Your Russia has very low average wages , actually below Romania. Stop that socialist brainwash .
Thank you Professor Wolf for producing this video on the various concepts of socialism. You have sparked my interest in understanding global economics. I appreciate your in depth explanations!
Check out Mike Maloney video on history of money
Asking a socialist to teach you about economics is like asking the devil to teach you about christ.
This wolf is a dog.
Actually i should say, a wolf in sheep's clothing.
@@Cdghjryhh intellectually immature illogical drivel. Apply your thesis to anything else...it doesn't work. Best wishes. FreeJulianAssangeFreePalestineFreeUsAll.
@@jimmycorkhill1390 a socialist calling for freedom? Ha
@@jimmycorkhill1390 also dont get what you mean by applying my thesis to anything else
Sanders/Wolff 2020!!!
Sanders, A.O.C.
Or better yet wait until we can put a communist in, why do we keep saving CAPITALISTS?
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart DuckDannyDiddleDart
@@floridaflyfishing3457 okaaay?!
Live vegan dude!
@@fuckfannyfiddlefart I only eat meat that I have killed myself
@@floridaflyfishing3457 I only eat people I've killed myself.
I find it entertaining that I am able to listen to this program while at work. Truly it is Democracy at Work.
It's been a day. Thank God. Some sanity. #dinnersoundtrack ;)
The reason Socialism is taboo is the same reason a catholic school (or any other religion) wouldn't necessarily deep dive into other religions. Loads of challenging questions where a pebble could turn into a mountain. One of the reason people don't answer the door to Jehovah witnesses.
The reason to not open the door on JW is that they will out and out lie about their religion, use any method to rope you in, one was telling me about all the single ladies in their church.
I do open the door to them for 2 reasons: - (1) I understand how my faith or lack of works and (2) I actually know a lot of them though work. They no longer bother to recruit me. ( My mother on the other hand... )
I don't open the door cause I roomed with a quasi-ex JW who wouldn't open the door when others visited, or he would send his wife to the door and they'd refuse to talk to her.
I have other examples of reasons not to open the door.
I always welcome them in and talk with them. The local JW's have banned them from coming here anymore though. Every single individual who has come to speak with me turned apostate immediately after, so they won't let them come here anymore. It's sad. I miss their visits.
Treasury Secretary? This guy? Anybody else agree?
Or Labor Secretary!
Excellent. So interesting and informative. Thank you.
Like to wish a fellow comrade a happy 22nd birthday :)
Happy Birthday, peep :)
*NOOOOW I get why the channel is called “Democracy at Work” ;) clever!*
The first one mr. Wollf is talking about is called etatistic or administrative socialism, and it was also the first step in creating true socialism in Yugoslavia (that followed truly Marx and Engels theory). Interestingly, Sweden was interested in the fifties in Yugoslav socialism and issued whole Program of Yugoslav Communist Party in Sweden. Etatistic socialism in Yugoslavia in first 5-10 years after the 2. world war obtained financial and material base for developing true socialism of Marx.
I brought to Mr. Wolf attention about Yugoslavia socialist system , it was one of the most advance system World ever seen , Yugoslavia did not failed because the system but because interferences of the special interest , Salute to you :)
@@plutoniusis : Oh, lovely. Yes, Yugoslavia was destroyed by fascist emigration. They start infiltrating society after Tito died... a place called Medjugorje was installed first, in a form of pilgrimage. Interestingly madona decided to apear just after the death of president Tito ...before she was shy haha... Through that chanell came money and fascists, like reverse ratlines ( escape routes for fascist, nazist and their colaborators...organized by Vatican). Thanks for a support for Yugoslavia 👌
You explained how the capitalist class fights against the Democratic Socialist governments, but you forgot to mention how the international capitalist class also fights against the Communist countries. Socialism doesn't operate in a vacuum. The communist countries had to be authoritarian in order to protect the socialist system. They also had co-ops and some of the worker participation that you mentioned.
Newcomer here, like the strong focus on theory. Really like the short break for pacing. Love the ideas!
THANK YOU PROFESSOR WOLFF, WE WOULD NEVER HAVE HIT 25 PERCENT WITHOUT YOU! WE'LL CHANGE PEOPLES LIVES FOR THE BETTER, TOGETHER!
I would love to see a whole program dedicated fully to the 3rd Way.
3rd Way is what most of the world has nowadays. People only argue about the smallest of details in the political world when it comes to 3rd Way economics.
Thank you Professor. I'm brazilian and been learning a lot with your class!
Excellent description and analysis of "socialism" and three major incarnations of this economic organizing ideal.
I generally support the 3rd option, but I'm uncertain about how effectively it can be applied in a factory/mill environment. It makes perfect sense in a small co-op store, but in a facility where tons of material are produced daily and the need for decisive decisions made by formally educated specialists is apparent (example: having an HSE Manager that makes sure the facility doesn't violate EPA regulations, perhaps with a veto power). Perhaps a factory environment could use some sort of Republic system...
#3 PLEASE
I suggest reading the Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin, alternatively look up "life under anarchism" by a Channel called Non-compete, it goes into the specifics of how police/gov't/workplace/etc
That was wonderfully delivered. So many CZcamsrs come over quite stiffly as they are simply reading, out loud, directly from their written word/s.
The trick is using the first type of socialism to hold capitalism in check, and protect the third type while it establishes itself. We should push political leaders for government incentives for cooperative business.
Douglas Phillips
Yes, with more cooperatives there would be more power to worker-citizens and less to corporations.
But if you use the first version it never becomes the third version.
There are some already, incentives and support, I forget the name, but the gov just denied an attempt to defund the effort. Passed over the article like 2 days ago, you could probably find it if you look. There are also non-gov agencies that will help organize and fund co-ops. You just gotta get started and look for the means.
I could listen to Richard all day. I've been debating with pro capitalism folks and doing badly. Upon watching this great video I feel more confident. Thank you Richard for enlightening me.
My observation is this, a socialist will hold the ladder whilst someone more in need climbs , a right winger ( English Tory/ Republican American ) pulls up the ladder after themselves once they have climbed , A capitalist makes sure there's not enough ladders.
You describe self-care and mutual care, necessary and highly functional personal characteristics (psychologically). Selfishness, a sign of dysfunction, as excessive self-focus causes harm in general. And abuse, habitual harm of others, usually as a result of inaccurate beliefs; here it might be: there's only so much room for success, so I can't share any with anybody less I risk losing it myself all together.
Selfishness and selflessness exist on a scale, where self-care and mutual care exist in the middle, and the others towards each extreme. Abusive behavior has a tendency to occur where people behave more selfishly, but there are usually other factors to consider. In any case, outwardly abusive behavior is the more damaging behavior here, as it can persist to affect many more people more harshly than more minor selfishness or selflessness (the later mostly only hurts the self, but tends to benefit others).
If we want a functional society, we must create an environment that breeds highly functional people rather than highly dysfunctional ones.
Just thought I'd elaborate on your observations, you get no argument from me.
This made so many things clear. Thank you prof wolff and team D@w, what a wonderful work you guys are doing.
I feel the 3rd version of socialism is by some referred to as anarchy.
Arnold Van Kampen anarchy requires no state
Reuben Thomasson ur right. just depends on what you mean by state. words are confusing.
Thank you for saying "patreons" the way you do.
This presentation may not do justice to those socialists who are against state planning but go beyond mere employee-owned businesses - among them, Karl Marx. To quote economist Andrew Kliman:
“The notion that ‘socialism equals state ownership, planning and control’ was alien to Marx’s conception of socialism - more precisely, was alien to his conception of what he called communist society, both in its initial phase and its higher phase.”
czcams.com/video/qyFMKiHFZXg/video.html
Wolff doesn’t discuss the system of labor certificates proposed by Marx and more recently outlined in some detail by computer scientist Paul Cockshott.
the third kind of socialism aka anarchism/libertarian socialism call it what it is dude
masawe mcfranco
He acts like the idea of workers and the community having direct democratic control of work and distribution is something new but libertarian socialists have advocated for this for a very long time. This is how socialism/communism was originally envisaged if I’m not mistaken.
I am surprised that Prof.Wolff never mentions Peter Kropotkin. I feel like Wolff's ideology aligns more with Kropotkin than Marx. What do you think?
@@lifeingeneral4508 Yes it aligns pretty well. Witch is not all that surprising seeing as there is massive overlap between the more libertarian tendencies within historical Marxism and the bulk of Anarchism as it was understood in the 19th and 20th century. That being said i think hes made a deliberate editorial decision not to mention any of this, largely as a branding exercise for his brand of marxism.
The only version I'm interested in.
@@lifeingeneral4508 Prof Wolff has stated that, beyond Marx, he was heavily influenced by the work of Althusser.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Althusser
czcams.com/video/TeHye7P3RSA/video.html
Is there a way you can interview Andrew Yang? I want to see you two have a conversation.
All of Richard Wolff's videos should be mandatory by law within all high school curriculum for the good of the country. It's never too late.
so the 3 types are 1. govenment planned economy. 2. government owned economy. 3. direct democracy in the workplace which may be government owned or.privately owned.. There is a fourth idea, and that is community owned and controlled via direct democracy, which is the type of socialism I support.
you mean anarcho-communism? I'm with you, comrade, however, I wonder the efficiency of dealing with while having imperialists pour in through drains. the only way is through laws that dictate there be no hierarchy, meaning no one can themselves vote into becoming, and the slowly but surely becoming more hierarchical. there must be laws against and in, my view, a vanguard party to be the physical representation of these laws. sort of as a body of intellectuals to act as a barrier and the means, to ensure that laws that become, do not violate said constitution of an anarcho-communist society. or as better put the social contract.
I'm a Mexican-American, I have the dual citizenship and all, meaning that I have both an American and a Mexican passport. I do enjoy traveling and I've been very lucky to be able to visit lots of countries and the Mex passport has come in handy when traveling to places that America isn't crazy about & vice versa... Among other destinations I've been to Cuba, China and Russia (Russia during the world cup)...
I apologize for bursting the socialism/communism bubble so eloquently narrated by Dr Wolf here but that economic growth + government distribution/rations he talks about in Russia and China and how they've successfully reduced poverty is a mear fairytale as far as the regular, every day folk are concerned in these 2 countries. The poor citizens are barely making it, barely able to make ends meat (meat isn't even an option most of the time).
China's economy has definitely grown exponentially in recent years (not so much currently) but the beneficiaries of said growth are a very, very few in the stratospheric top echelons of government, while the other 99.5% lives in utter poverty, in a state of scared, paranoic, controlled, poverty... Always dreaming of the chance to one day have what the western tourists who visit them so take for granted... and yearning of living to see the day their communist way of government dies, it's truly sad and disheartening to hear them tell you their stories (sometimes in tears).
Same exact thing in Russia, with the only difference being that the top .05% are called oligarchs and they are not necessarily exclusively top gov officials. But sad stories from the everyday common folks.
I mean in America we've got the top 1% f*cking us over in a capitalist economy (capitalist as in open internet, HBO, bbq sundays, SUVs, video games, fashion options, happy hour & legal weed) but the alternative Chinese, Russian, Cuban version is practically the same, the top f*cking the common folk over, only that it's just the top .05% f*cking you, not the 1% only that in a much worse fascist, totalitarian, authoritarian, communist, dystopian dictatorship. Personally I'll take the Capitalist Pigs option any day of the week! I mean, honestly, open internet, HBO & Sunday Bbqs make the getting f*cked part a little less painful.
Oh! yeah... Something else those 2 communist regimes have in common is that they do tend to enjoy applying the fascist, authoritarian hammer on their people who live in a perpetual paranoid state of want.
I won't even include Cuba in the discussion because it has all of the bads as the first 2 but without the so called "national economic growth", quite the opposite! Unfortunately, the lovely people of Cuba do suffer poverty in a much-much harsher way, the government rations are ridiculous, they're even offensive and that constant state of want is elevated 100 fold, just as is their state of paranoia, fear and hopelessness, my heart broke several times a day as I spoke with different people.
Ironically, I actually considered some shape of socialism as a potential viable option to capitalism, but time, travel and experience have made me change my mind and almost disregard it! It sounds good on paper but when applied to human nature it utterly fails, that's why no county has actually made it work in the last century & change... and the few who've tried have gone off the tyrannical, monstrous deep end.
The only version of socialism that I may still see as having a chance is Europe/Scandinavian style democratic socialism championed by Sanders here in the US but I'm not 100% sure it would even take off in American society.
Until then I will have to continue to adapt and apply Churchill's take on democracy to capitalism: Capitalism is the worse economic system, except for all the others.
I support a combination of the 3. Have a welfare state have a centralized planned and also have worker cooperatives as some parts of the market. Restaurants hotels department stores I think they our best as worker cooperatives however there are some things that I think of centralized plan would be best for in the economy.
@itsinmyvein I support a centralized plan and I think it's good for some things however some luxury things I think cooperatives are better like in restaurants or department stores but I think the scientists the engineers housing groceries I think that would be best under a centralized plant
@itsinmyvein well I'm open to ideas but I do feel a planned economy is better however cooperatives are best in some parts of the economy. I have a long list of ideas and would be happy to hear yours
We seriously need awareness and education from the opposite end of the spectrum of Economics... We've heard and read everything under the sun about Capitalism. Socialism needs a chance to shine. Prof. Richard Wolff, please visit the Joe Rogan Podcast regularly once every month and educate the world about Socialism, Communism, Economic Democracy, etc, etc.
What do you think of Trump Socialism ? Trade War Protectionism and Corporate Welfare is it good ? or is this Comunism?
DEMOCRATIC SYNDICALISM . WORKER VOTES IN THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION. ADDING THEIR VOICE
@Frederic Bastiat intellectually immature illogical drivel....with a nasty touch. Why not grow up and state your case properly why you believe your nonsense to be the case like an adult would? Best wishes.
@Frederic Bastiat congratulations on your job...it's not a place I'd work...but that's what's great about freedom. Now, given rights is better than stealing....it isn't stealing by definition....unlike colonial theft that led to the genocide over the planet by a relative few rich groups that indentured their own plebs to slave for them. If you'd have listened to wolff before, you'd know...if you could understand, that he stressed not forcefully taking anything. All those companies and jobs that left the USA/uk etc from the seventies could have stayed if the workers and communities supported the take over of the redundant/closing factory to be left to waste.....that's not theft...that same principle can still be applied or used for new/upcoming companies...now who is the retard....rhetorical question. Best wishes.
@@jimmycorkhill1390 Don't bother man, these people aren't serious. They don't actually care about liberty for all, nor the full implications of the non-aggression principle. Look at how conservatives reacted when AOC (an employer) decided to (slightly) flatten the pay rates for her aids and intern so that everybody got a living wage, they called that socialism! I guarantee you that if a worker-owned McD's gets formed and competes with McD's these people will take some issue with it. It's all about the benjamins.
So yea don't bother. Maybe go make that socialist McD's or whatever happen and make these people squirm! :D
This is an important video. These distinctions are unfortunately not always made by the supporters nor the detractors of socialism. Libertarian socialism is the way forward! Thanks for all your hard work, comrade Wolff!
In Europe the idea of socialism has been around for more than a century, so let me add a few details: the first kind of socialism he's talking about arose in Europe after ww2. It's referred to as SOCIAL DEMOCRACY and almost dominated politics until 15 years ago. The second kind of socialism was PRACTICED BY COMMUNISTS during the first period of the Bolshevik revolution but was soon reformed by Lenin who allowed private ownership to some extent for ordinary citizens. This was called REAL or EXISTING SOCIALISM and was a social condition that COMMUNISTS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR THE TRANSITION TO A CLASSLESS SOCIETY. That's why the two terms are often wrongly treated as identical. The third kind of socialism he's talking about has to do with the people's OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION which is inherent in all radical left and libertarian traditions. This aspect has also been the focus of anti capitalist criticism of the economic organization of countries who's economies are organized according to the model of existing socialism.
@tiglath pileser Interesting comments. Well, I'll have to argue that social democracy is the most free market friendly interpretation of socialism wether one likes that or not. I'm not the guy who buys into that "communists want to take everything we have" theory but I still don't get what your point is regarding personal and private property. Finally can you give us any example of MOP ownership in socialist countries? In my country right now there's only one factory run by it's own workers and interstingly their effort is only supported by far left parties and the anarchist movement.
@tiglath pileser We can definitely agree that social democracy is in no means anti capitalist. Regarding MOP ownership, I'll have to stress that joint ownership by the workers reflects the first phase of the Bolshevik revolution and was suppressed later on by the reforms of the early twenties. For what I'm aware of joint ownership was also practiced during the Spanish revolution and in China for a small period of time, right after the revolution's victory. The idea of having a state apparatus claiming to represent the workers interests and their ownership of MOP is highly problematic and the purpose of the above video is to stress that such an institution is inherently dysfunctional.
@@georgegkoutis1271 I disagree. Mutualism is the freeist a market can get. Not social democracy.
@tiglath pileser a Marxist would say that. An anarchist would not.
@@sugarshane8622 you people have got it all wrong! The definition of "free market" is "an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses". In other words the free market is a synonym of capitalism and I'm misunderstood if you think I advocated for a free market in social democratic context previously.
Thamk you Prof. Wolff.Agreed 100%.Das ist genug fur heite. Gracias A todo.
I wish Professor Wolff would discuss the inspiring socialist revival of the village of Marinaleda.
*thanks Matthew for mentioning Marinaleda as another living attempt of people themselves in aiding each other, taking control of their lives, sharing what they have, refusing to let profit dominate their lives, and doing all these actions whilst trying to always recognize that power corrupts and should always be put in the hands of community instead of the moneyed and the already-powerful!
*taking inspiration from articles showing their struggles and successes!
freepassenger.com/en/the-truths-about-spanish-communist-city-marinaleda/
roarmag.org/essays/marinaleda-spain-communist-utopia/
czcams.com/video/XmKXEEUhG6E/video.html
...and many more! ^^ SOLIDARIDAD to many peeps all over the world already making worlds of LIBERTAD!
Having Wolff in office with Sanders is similar to the correct choice of Bran as the Iron King. Knowledge of historical pros and cons is a great way to weigh current choices and the “has this worked out historically? Or what have been this things pitfalls?” It’s impartial
The basic ideal of Socialism is that the means of production should be owned and controlled by those who do the work, whether the work yields product(s) or service(s) or both. As such, the first and second types here presented are not any sort of Socialism.
The first is Social Democracy of the welfare state sort, a mixed economy with some elements of Capitalism and some elements of Socialism. This is Centrism in its actual manifestation, unlike Neoliberalism (some proponents of which refer to themselves as Centrists), which is actually a form of Corporatism and thus Extreme Right.
The second is State Capitalism, a scheme devised by Stalin and emulated by Mao to change the economy from a largely feudalistic one to a capitalist one, since for Marx and Engels Socialism was supposed to be a transitional economy from Capitalism to Marxist Communism, so Stalin felt that he needed to force Russia into a form of Capitalism before he could implement Marxist Socialism as the bridge to Marxist Communism. If one wanted to be generous, one might describe this as a mutation of Marxism.
Only the third is Socialism, of which there are several types. I would be interested in hearing Richard Wolff discuss the various types of authentic Socialism (Democratic Socialism as such rather than Social Democracy wearing the name, Ecosocialism, Cooperative Commonwealth Socialism, Syndicalism, Market Socialism, etc.) in terms of comparison and contrast, rather than the various things which are *_called_* "Socialism" but are not. Remember what Machiavelli wrote in his commentaries on Livy about appearances versus reality. I can *_call_* myself "Mary Queen of Scots," but you don't have to play along.
First concept is basically Social-Democracy, Second concept is a really good example of a simple explanation of what socialism mostly means/planned economy communism, third is basically Democratic Socialism/Workplace Democracy and socialism. Grest video!
13,208th view. Almost to 100,000 subscribers. More people need to hear Dr. Wolff.
Charity S , over 100 000 idiots .
@@martinko4086 I've since revised my thoughts on Wolff's p.o.v., but I am still a far Lefty with socialist and capitalist leanings and am pro Reparations.
The third option is available everywhere. It is called Cooperatives, you can start one in a small place such as a restaurant. See if it works, it will depend on the type of persons involved, not all persons are prepared or want to be owners ( profit an losses alike). The US socialists should start this type of businesses to prove they can work.
4 Dislikes... That was from Ratheon. GM . Rush Limbaugh, and Nancy Pelosi HAHAHAHA
Not neoliberal Nancy, the savior of capitalist hero Trump!!
No it’s from the people that support real socialism instead of all you bourgeois utopians
Rosa Luxemburg wrote in her celebrated brochure Organization Questions of the Russian Social- Democracy that "historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee."
I really like her writings also Anton Pannekoek is very interesting as well. Also like the writings of Robert Owens & Charles Fourier the 2 who created the concept of worker cooperatives. 👍
Option 1 - Social Democracy
Option 2 - Communism
Option 3 - Democratic Socialism
After being a Social Democrat most of my life and always having rejected Communism, I have recently become convinced the only way forward is Democratic Socialism.
Democratic Socialism is just Communism with extra, often counterintuitive, steps.
Professor Wolff seriously needs a lesson in Modern Monetary Theory. His belief that the government needs revenue to spend on resources and programs falls into the neoliberal doctrine asking the question, "How are you going to pay for it?" As the sole creator of currency, the government creates money by simply spending. When the government taxes, it results in destroying the money supply in the private sector. The main reason for taxing is to create a demand for the currency.
liked
subbed
rung the bell too!
The most comprehensive lecture on socialism I have yet seen. Thank you professor Wolff.
27:00 , it's simple, we choose anarcho-communism.
Employ worker cooperatives and full democratic procedures in every aspect of the society, and then you slam that directly into the central-planned system, centrally planned by a few specialists, voted on by all, funded according to your votes rather than funded whether or not you consent.
Read "after the revolution" by Diego Abad de Santillian and "Conquest of Bread" by Pyotr Kropotkin. Both are fairly short/easy to spot read/skim
I don't think so anarcho communism is the right definition although the term exist. You are basically starting pure communism.
central planning on the scale of nations we see today would not mix with anarcho-communism imo. that would just be state communism under a one party state (essentially, what china was before it allowed for private enterprise but after the communist revolution)
That is literally what the USSR was lol.
thank you Dr. Wolff
What is needed is a cross between Type #2 and Type #3. This is what Lenin and Stalin originally envisioned, but saboteurs and Anti-Communists within their system prevented the Worker Soviets from ever gaining the amount of power which was intended. Indeed we do need to transform the workplace and eliminate the anti-populist ruling class, aka Capitalists; but in the beginning stages we will at the very least, need some sort of administrative body at the top to coordinate the transformation of society.
Doing away with the Capitalist Class, which has a tendency to corrupt the institutions of government with their undue influence, will go a long way toward making sure that the democratic government, which we elect, will serve the interests of the public.
The eventual goal, though, is to transform society into Full Communism, where an open society can handle all of its own problems without the coercive force of any government. Communists and Anarchists are on the same page in the bigger picture, because they both envision an equal stateless and cashless society. (As an interesting side note, isn't this what a lot of misled Libertarians also envision?)
Instead of political propaganda, this came off as insightful and thought provoking. It would be interesting if google allows this to be advertised (ie suggested), and in doing so, started a genuine grassroots conversation on the difference addresses. I doubt they would allow that to happen.
True genius. How do we implement it?
Overthrowing the bourgeoisie (owner class) is the only way at this point. They won't give it up without a fight.
@@jaym10918 We can't just decide to take it? Start voting for what we want in the companies we already work for; votes organised by the workforce. How could they stop us? Anyone under the glass sealing should understand the benefits of listening to an organised collective of people who want the best for a company that wants the best for people who make the company. Just by ignoring them. Am I chatting crap?
@@em3mny - I agree with you that in theory it is supposed to work like that, but unfortunately, we don't live in a democracy where the voice of the many is heard. In terms of them stopping us, I would contend that for the last 40 or so years, they have succeeded rather immensely in crafting a narrative that keeps them in power. I really hope you're right. The 2020 primary (NOT the general election) will be a great test of that theory. If the DNC succeeds in getting their anointed candidate through the primary, I fear that after the system collapses, the next candidate will be an extreme fascist (basically Trump with an actual brain). Either way, it's not looking good unless we get major change in the next couple of cycles.
All 3 exist (Taxation welfare state / safety net) (Laws and regulations) & (Unions & Cooperatives) The thing is they are eroding away. 🤷♂️
Start a cooperative business LLC with a handful of trusted colleagues in an area you think will be fulfilling and profitable. Succeed in your business. document the cooperative process so you can train others.
A point on the third kind of socialism, it doesn't stop exploitation between companies. John Lewis is a company set up this way in the UK and there have been cases of them using exploitative tactics against suppliers and subcontractors. Some kind of regulation between companies is still required, as long as labour is plentiful.
#3 sounds a lot like Yugoslavia under Tito, does it not?
Yes! Mr. Wolff should be more informed. ;)
This nice video was not only illuminating personally, but also helped me understand the misunderstanding with some "opponents of socialism"
Free market Industrial capitalism with workplace socialism in a representative democracy is exactly what grew the U.S.A. into a powerful country.
Debt finance corporate Kleptocracy destroyed it.
Thank you for this masterclass on socialism. Extremely informative and perfectly delivered :)
Well made video and i think you managed to not trigger any Libcucks or Tank Enthusiasts
Thank you Professor Wolff. I learned a lot today.
Love Professor Wolff!
Guys, please dump that super cringey intro/outro music. It sounds like Lil Wayne teamed up with a baby crib company to drop a rap melody for infants..
I know you wanna make Progressive politics and economics hip and everything...but that ain’t the one.
Thanks for the great work you’re doing, your videos give me hope in a time where that’s a scarce commodity for workers!
8:30 Professor you are mistaken here, communists far predate the USSR and have been its earliest critics.
To quote Marx himself:
"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established , an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." --- The German Ideology, 1845
The same way "socialism" has had many meanings, "communism" had too. Wolff is catering to the most common meaning of "communist" on the west. He didn't say the term was born there, just that it was used for that purpose. Even if people don't know the actual meanings of "socialism" and "communism", people do understand the latter is a more extreme version of the former.
Kind of inaccurate, but useful for explaining these ideas to as many people as possible.
True, tho I'd argue they didn't get solidified as being not interchangeable until that time
@@DiThi "The mirage of alternative institutions can cause us to lose sight of the main problem, to bewilder us in the murky world of choosing the product that we like the most, the way we would most like to be exploited, the ethic that is always most advantageous for us whenever we participate in speculation and usury, the sauce in which we have decided we should cook whenever it does not occur to us to attack either private property or the privileges of those who rule over us because … where would we prefer to deposit our money, where would we prefer to work? If we do not ask ourselves the right questions we can end up swallowing the hook and to forget the fact that what is necessary is to continue fighting against money, against work and against all oppression." - - Terra Cremada
Thanks for educating me. The scales have fallen from my eyes. I sometimes dream what America could have been if socialism prospered.
The solutions are so simple. Mutual cooperation. It has always worked and is the reason humanity has achieved so much.
I'd be very interested to hear Mr. Wolff's analysis of socialist Yugoslavia's economic system. As I understand it, it was quite similar to your interpretation of socialism and it could be enlightening to hear about how that economy relates to the American context.
You can hear THE BITTERNESS & RESENTMENT in his voice, and see it in his eyes
Great lecture. Wish I could talk and explain things like him!
This was good! People are extremely ignorant of all economics regardless in general both capitalism or socialism or any market whatsoever. So ignorant most people think the stuff is too complex and just don't bother understanding it. Thus it becomes dogma. And we wonder in the US why we have a second gilded age underway in a retrenchment of robber barons, and foreign policy around the world look very similar to that of the early 20th century that gave us a series of depressions and two world wars.
I've always been a socialist at heart but have struggled to defend the failures of socialism.. Richard give us great insight into the possibilities of socialism going forward...
Thank you, Mr. Wolff. Your work is of utmost importance.
Your third type of socialism was introduced by Josip Broz Tito in SFR Yugoslavia, which was called "worker self-government". This form of socialism enabled workers to participate in the division of labour and participate entirely in the workplace collectively. It was a system starting at the grass roots level, from down-up. Workers would decide who gets employed, management and every other aspect of enterprise. At the local level people would elect the council representatives to manage local issues and vote for county, regional, provincial and republican representatives. Event hough the system is called socialist or some suggest communist, representatives were always supposed to be elected to represent the view points of the voters. However, with the devastating effects of the First and Second World Wars, whereby 40 percent of the male population in certain republics Serbia and Bosnia being whipped out by Austro-Hungarian. German, and their puppet fascist sympathisers Mussolini's forces and the Croatian Ustashi and their Bosnian Muslim followers, organising, elevating literacy and bringing people out of tremendous poverty took 20 years. By the time self government was introduced (1974) corruption and nepotism were rife. However, self government creates huge social opportunities and liberties for people. Small private businesses started to thrive, many workers had free housing or were given interest free loans by their companies to build or buy houses, workers and their families had access to company resorts around the country for free. Education and Medicare was free for all. There is plenty of literature on Tito's form of workers self governing socialism.
In addition. I may add, Tito's socialism allowed its citizens the freedom to travel anywhere and go anywhere. They could travel to Rome, Paris London New York or Moscow or Beijing without restrictions.
However, the problem was that the West saw this form of socialism as a real threat. It was a system that was an a real alternative and had the possibility of working. The West could not afford to have their own citizens even think about something like this, let alone aspire to this. Thus, they did everything to dismantle it. They destabilised the country by spurring ethnic rivalries by promoting ultra nationalists, Albanians in Kosovo, NAZI sympathisers in Croatia through the Vatican and Muslim extremists in Bosnia through Turkey. They would label these peoples as moderates and the rest communists through the mainstream media to gain sympathy towards disembowelment of SFR Yugoslavia. The rest we know.
Hello from Russia! Socialism is society without private property on means of production,but with money and distribution of goods proportionally of labor. Communism is society without private property on means of production and with equal distribution of goods. Sorry for bad English.
That should probably be the only definitions, but politics have made it very complicated. So we have to defend a new "brand" of socialism to distinguish it from common concepts people have and avoid irrational rejection.
What do you think of the USSR?
@Divan Selev: Hello to you from ex Yugoslav. ;) Just to say that we in SFRJ had also small precentage of private property upon means of productions. In crafts mostly. And small busineses who actually cooperated with big, like in building ships, or with firms that mainteined comunity houses like electricians, hydro instalaters (sorry don't know exact word), carpenters... In agriculture also, like small farms that sold their products to big cooperations, etc. :)
@@DiThi : How about humanism? Anyway, Marx said that Socialism is humanism in practice. I agree with that. Unfortunately, capitalist regime spoiled ( made dirty) socialism with its propaganda. I think we all shold be propaganding socialism...make small posters and distribute it all over. Not words, just strong pictures. If word socialism is discusting for someone because of capitalist propaganda...we could call it humanism or ... ?
@Ron Maimon : Unfortunately people think that socialism abolish private property. But you know, I wonder what people really own in capitalist regime. It seems to me that people who own their houses (or a flat) are rare. Or have busineses. It would be nice if prof. Wolff investigate that. In capitalism they certanly do not own profit - boss does. In Yugoslavia, you could own a small busines, you owned your house, you had a permanent tenancy right to a flat where you lived (you couldn't sell it, just change it for another if you had to, because flats were buildt from a housing fund in which ALL people put money), you could privately own land up to a 10ha (bigger than that was concidered big busines), you could own weekend house... And it would be good to convince people that there is private property in socialism. :)
@Ron Maimon : Thank you for your thoughts. I didn't understand that about giving power to a small cometee in a party. But, about small cometee in a party, for example in Yugoslavia, party didn't have so much power as you might think. Companies that was social, I mean in hands of workers who work there were very autonomous. Workers decided what and how to produce through their delegates, council, and they give only 30% of the earning (profit) of company to the state. Workers self governed their society, not political party. I admit, I don't know a situation in USA or in other similar state, but you are right capitalist on power shall not stand aside and watch people gaining power. ;) Actually, sometimes I think that they are only ones that see world in such way as battle for power...people just want to live like human beings and not to exploit other human being. But that is acase for psychoterapists haha. Life can be so easy for everyone if just some people would stopped thinking in some grabing way. :)