Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Ask Prof Wolff: Anarchism, Libertarianism, and Capitalism
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 02. 2022
- A Patron of Economic Update asks: "Prof. Wolff, could you respond to these ideas of minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which way too many people seem to be taking seriously these days?"
This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.
Submit your own question to be considered for a video response by Prof. Wolff on Patreon: / community .
Ask Prof Wolff is a @democracyatwrk production. We are committed to providing these videos to you free of ads. Please consider supporting us on Patreon.com/economicupdate. Become a part of the growing Patreon community and gain access to exclusive patron-only content, along with the ability to ask Prof. Wolff questions like this one! Your support also helps keep this content free to the public. Spreading Prof. Wolff's message is more important than ever. Help us continue to make this possible.
_________________________________________________________________________
Check out the NEW 2021 Hardcover edition of “Understanding Marxism,” with a new, lengthy introduction by Richard Wolff! Visit: www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/richa...
“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.”
Check out all of d@w’s books: "The Sickness is the System," "Understanding Socialism," by Richard D. Wolff, and “Stuck Nation” by Bob Hennelly at www.lulu.com/spotlight/democra...
_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:
Web: www.rdwolff.com
Patreon: / economicupdate
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Subscribe to the EU podcast: economicupdate.libsyn.com
Shop our worker CO-OP made MERCH: democracy-at-work-shop.myshop...
While I think that Prof Wolffs defenition of anarchism is okay, I think, that it is important to note, that (left) anarchists criticize not only state power, but that their goal is to reduce forms of societal hierarchy. That would include patriarchal structures as well as corporate structures, where dynamics of power and force constitute a domination of one human by another. Anarchists are not therefore overfocused on the state and government per se. They can very well be aware that the underlining problem of society is capitalism and that the most totalitarian organisations of a particular society may be corporate reinforced by the state. Therefore anarchists can also agree with Marxists on strategy, but once new forms of hierarchy are introduced such as party beurocracy or state appointed factory leaders anarchists see it as a necessity to criticize those as well
I like your reply and I understand the aversion to hierarchy; however, I do believe in the one-person one-vote of electing leaders rather than having them appointed. I believe you already know that monopoly cartels of the capitalist class have control over governments. It is my opinion that we need to have a socialist government to defend ordinary people from capitalist aggression that has swept away many Anarchist movements and managed a coup under Yeltsin to end the Soviet Union. I did read from the Marxist Internet Archive that the Soviet Union was supposed to hand more power to the people. But Khrushchev decided that it was not going to happen and more or less, pulled the government away from the worker's councils which had more say before he came to power. Soviet history is complex and affects the accuracy of my comment.
this is one of the biggest things that led me to identify if not as a anarchist, as an anarchist adjacent. i believe that many of the things that anticapitalists either promise or at least point to, not only are they stymied by capitalist authority, but by not placing the authority in the hands of those they claim to represent on behalf of. how can you have a ruling worker, if he himself is dependent on "representation" to rule? the rule is then not a ruling worker, but a ruling representative. and many of the supposed claims to getting rid of the class structure have actually fought against this notion of the nonrepresentated ruling worker, such as in the Prague spring and in the Russian revolution the reds against the greens. if you truly believe in the idea that our current system's evolution is limited by tyrannical persons, why would you say that the evolution wouldn't be limited by a still tyrannical person, albeit lesser? it's like many people who leaving their religion, don't understand that what lead to many of the now considered "authoritarian" churches were reformist movements in and of themselves.
@@JohnT.4321 I am not an anarchist myself. I just wanted to elaborate on what was missing for a fair assessment of anarchist thought. Whether one finds anarchist ideology conclusive or not is another question.
@@123456789987o I understand and thanks for the reply.
I like what Lion and Fox says here but how do you get everyone on all levels to cooperate, to be honest, to stop seeking power and status? Local control is possible with social approval and social pressure. But if the playing field gets too big then chaos and unjustness and elitism ensue.
Astute as always. There's also a lot of different kinds of Anarchism, like Anarcho-Communism, Anarcho-Primitivism, Anarcho-Individualism, Anarcho-Feminism, Green Anarchism, etc. There's a very big number of approaches, but normally, the label "Anarchism" referes specifically to those who are against Capitalism. As such, Right-Wing Libertarians are not Anarchists, nor do they refer to themselves as such. Anarchy litterally means "without hierarchy". Capitalism is one form of hierarchy that Anarchists want gone.
So what are AnCaps then????
@@scoobertmcruppert2915 Right Wing Libertarians. As someone else said in the comments, they reclaimed the "libertarian" label after "Anarchists" became villified in the early 1900's, after "Propaganda of the Deed" (killing exploitative capitalists and state representatives) gained the ire of the general population. After that, "Libertarian" became associated with Right Wing AnCap ideology, so that's why most people think of a right winger when we say the word "Libertarian". But yes, they are AnCaps.
@@scoobertmcruppert2915 What the other guy said, but a simpler explanation is this: bootlickers who specifically prefer the taste of privately owned boots
As far as the mainstream conservatives and rightwingers are considerened anyone and everyone left of them is a commie or socialist
@@jaredharmer7047 LMAOOOOOOOOOO
Chomsky's definition of Anarchy is better, I think. He says that authority must justify itself... and most doesn't.
that is a great explanation
Conversations and discussions like this are very important
It's important because this helps address and counteract the hyperbolic generalizations of the left that the conservatives and right wing
Use in their propaganda
Very helpful explanation Prof. Wolff. Thank you for all you do here! Thanks, too, to all of the commenters for providing such rich exchanges of ideas/thoughts.
Thank you Professor Wolff. Is Representative Government, the Electoral College, "Citizens United", and limits stealthly imposed upon choices in elections (either corrupt Red or corrupt Blue) really Democracy?
Thank you professor Wolff for such a detailed description of the anarchists with such different perspectives in our capitalist countries .
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon should be mentioned as well, for he -if l remember correctly - was the first to actually systematize Anarchism into a political philosophy. Despite his host of personal faults, Proudhon was a fascinating writer if not always consistent. Some of his most important books: "General idea of the Revolution", "What is Property?", and "The Philosophy of Misery" can be downloaded for free at The Internet Archive and Google Books.
Once again, Prof. Wolff demonstrates impeccable perspective. The right wing anarchists' fear the power of the government, but they are unconcerned with the power of the corporate state (corporatocracy/technocracy) that absolutely wields the absolute power afforded to absolute wealth. The government is nothing more than a collective of appointed apparatchiks doing the corporate states mundane business. Why can't the right perceive the government from that blatantly obvious POV?
Anarchism cannot be capitalist by definition. The own etymology of the word anarchism means "no-king", while proponents of capitalism accept the existence of such kings named employers. It's a contradiction in terms.
exactly, capitalists are just small kings in their property.
Looks like you figured our why libertarianism is a flawed ideology.
Anarchocapitalists want to sell the world to Jeff Bezos and decree us all free. "I'm a free man, no government rules impinging on me. I work 12 hours a day and my employer won't let me grow a beard or smoke weed."
@@gavinerickson9392 Right libertarian, or Left?
@@LongDefiant Right for the most part.
I think it’s also crucial to talk about different relationships
the left-wing anarchists and right-wing anarchists have with nationalism in order to understand the respective groups’ preference for anarchism.
There is no such thing as “right wing anarchism” period. Full stop. Anarchism is simply not compatible with hierarchal economic models.
@@anthonyfama2134 THIS. anarchism is not at all found by those who seek it in the tepidest meaning of the syllables in the word.
Thanks professor! excellent explaination!
Thank you
I'm sorry that I can't financially help this site-many thanks to Mr.Wolff for explaining complicated things so well.
I like to think of myself as an anarchohumanist. If you can remove state corruption without removing the state, please stand up.
Great video professor Richard Wolff
The problem with Anarchism is that it seeks a level of freedom that is only achievable post Capitalism and even post Communism without using the State to secure that freedom. Libertarians mistrust the State but for some reason they trust corporate powers and the elite, whose power rivals or is the State often enough, to do what is right in some unspecified degree. The State is not inherently evil, and if it can be controlled by the people, it is a net good.
I think the reason why libertarians trust corporate power is because they have the fantasy that one day they themselves will be kings of others…Very much like how poor white southerners supported the confederacy although slavery was bad for their economic prospects.
@@vitico1630 That's exactly it because, frankly, the Kochs created the American Libertarian movement through a sophisticated propaganda campaign. Their father was a literal Nazi by the way.
Nope. Don’t have any love for corporations either.
@@gavinerickson9392 no they didn’t. The American libertarian philosophy goes back to include people like Mises, Spooner, Tucker, Bastiat and many others.
@@ExPwner The Kochs have the overwhelming influence on Libertarian thought in America, irrespective to orthodox Libertarianism.
Thank You again Prof Wolff.
Good definition of Anarchism!
I'm pretty sure that Diego Guglielmi is argentinean as me.
We have a huge push from the extreme right libertarianism into the minds of our younger (mostly male) adults here.
Thanks for the explanation.
Профессор, В. Ленин в некоторых своих работах разоблачал анархизм, как вредное мелкобуржуазное политическое течение для рабочего движения. Ленин говорил, что анархизм не признавал роль пролетарского государства после завоевания власти и построения нового социалистического общества. В то время как сам Ленин учил, что народное пролетарское государство необходимо на этапе построения первой фазы коммунизма - социалистического общества. Опыт СССР показал, что при социализме без государства не обойтись. Спасибо за информацию. Привет из Казахстана.
Great video, it can be tricky to simplify definitions for average consumers, but I think you've done well enough. You always loose a little bit of something, but you didn't leave off anything that's super important
Thank you for these explanations.For me the fog has lifted.
Thanks you 🌎✊️🌹🗽
Thanks for this Prof Wolff, I don't have to explain it to people now I can just direct them to this video.
Pretty sure "Anarchy In The UK" by John Lydon & The SPs was from the left back in 1977
The main point from my POV is this: We can try to run away from our social shared political and economic relations... yet... as history has shown...
'GOVERNMENT' is what YOU PEOPLE DO... IT'S THE POLITICAL ANIMAL of all of us... in order to create a form of SOCIAL ORDER.... a form OF 'ORDER'...'CONTROL...' regardless... as WE SOCIAL HUMAN POLITIAL ANIMALS DO... what WE wish TO DO... so, when anyone argues for a disconnect from the SOCIAL, THE POLITICAL AND THE ECONOMIC... in my view... they are arguing for WHAT?
Whether ANARCHIST, COMMUNIST, CAPITALIST... are ALL arguing for a form of SOCIAL ORDER... the question that is enduring is what will it BE...?
And who decides both individually and collectively on a VERY LONELY PLANET.... WITH A BIG EGO...
This serious question, is an ENDURING QUESTION... is simply... HOW will we DO IT?
This is the ENDURING POLITICAL + ECONOMIC PROBLEM... Thanks Prof. Wolff for this introduction....
Reductionism: quantifying suffering and injustice and minimizing it, is the only thing that matters.
This inevitably leads to Antinatalism: prevention of forcing nonconsenting sentience into the world.
What is that lit up thing to Richard Wolff's right (our left)?
All decisions all choices are political. All decisions all choices are utilitarian: about making the positive outweigh the negative.
Thank you Prof. Wolff. Excellent as always.
One funny quote from Murray Rothbard about Marx.. "Hey, at least he wasn't a Keynesian"..!!!
“[A] Socialist may or may not be an Anarchist, and an Anarchist may or may not be a Socialist. Relaxing scientific exactness, it may be said, briefly and broadly, that Socialism is a battle with usury and that Anarchism is a battle with authority.
The two armies-Socialism and Anarchism-are neither coextensive nor exclusive; but they overlap. The right wing of one is the left wing of the other. The virtue and superiority of the Anarchistic Socialist-or Socialistic Anarchist, as he may prefer to call himself-lies in the fact that he fights in the wing that is common to both. Of course there is a sense in which every Anarchist may be said to be a Socialist virtually, inasmuch as usury rests on authority, and to destroy the latter is to destroy the former. But it scarcely seems proper to give the name Socialist to one who is such unconsciously, neither desiring, intending, nor knowing it.”
~Benjamin R. Tucker
David Graeber defined anarchism as "Democracy without Government", which is a fairly good take.
I think anarchism grows out of the understanding that the root of all evil is people having power over others.
aaaaaaaaa i still haven't finished Debt
Freedom, equality, and solidarity - these are the pillars of anarchism. As controversial as people have been led to believe anarchism is, most people would say they hold those same values... just so long as you have proper licensing and permits of course. 😆
I'm a longtime communist, but I caucus with the anarchists when I'm in imperialist countries because, in general, they are better people than self-described communists in imperialist countries. They demonstrate with their lifestyles that they are far more serious about changing the world than any communists in imperialist countries. The opposite is true here in non-imperialist countries where communists are far more serious and anarchists are generally only found amongst the rich and middle class, and in tourist areas.
Revolution is not possible in imperialist countries, ergo the anarchists there, even though they have no plan to defeat capitalist class dictatorship, still are more prepared and serious about providing actual consequences to the oppressors and their allies than any self-described communist group in an imperialist country. They, far more than phony communists, will be the ones to rock the boat hard enough to summon overt fascism and more mass genocides in the US, which China and allies will put an end to in WW3, opening the path to global equality and sustainable lifestyles.
As an anarchist in the US I think this is a pessimistic prediction but not irrational. I’d like to believe (and will strongly advocate) that some form of democratic social organization replace the US government, but yes an allied takeover from the East is much more likely.
@@jaredharmer7047 Very long before any significant leftward movement could happen, tens of millions of heavily armed non-state/future-state christian fascists would be unleashed to commit the next mass genocides on that land in the name of combating "gangs", immigrants, and the rising crime that will occur as a result of lower standards of living for amerikans due to amerika having the plug that produces its wealth being pulled here in the non-imperialist countries. Just fascists from one southern city could easily take the entire "left" in amerika, which has been infested with culture bought by imperialism, including numerous things that are toxic to effective military strategy. One side heavily trained, armed, breeding for war for decades, the other side overwhelmingly non-breeders and man-haters. There's no serious question about who will win the coming civil "war" in amerika. Only China and allies are both willing and able to stop the next mass genocides in amerika.
"Nothing is more important than stopping fascism, because fascism will stop us all." -Fred Hampton
@@ReparationsForImperialism I understand the sentiment but I live in Utah, the most religious state in the US and even here extremely religious people are a minority in the year 2022, people are leaving religion in droves in the US
@@jaredharmer7047 Yes! The religious are loud but shrinking.
I would like to offer supporting information towards your projection. The early seasons of the podcast "It Could Happen Here", present an inquiry into the rise of overt fascism within the United State. It provides far more compelling data than I could summate in this comment. Though the threat is far greater than any individual can hope to overcome alone, it is still vital to find our place in the fight against fascism in all its forms, to build our networks of support and resistance and make its advance as difficult as possible.
I would advocate for a mixture of anarchism and communism, where the state is focused on empowering the workers to create worker co-ops where they democratically control the means of production. The state must nurture an anarchist social movement that continues to act as a dual power in collaboration with the state. Don't know if I'm dreaming, but this is what's been in my mind lately as I watch Canadian convoy protesters think they're getting rid of all mandates but really are going to get fascism.
Cool video. There are things Marxists can learn from anarchists, and things anarchists can learn from Marxists. We have a lot of important desires in common, and I like to envision a world that allows for both types of societies to exist.
@@chrisj984 It's not a fact, you were brought up that way.. the more money one have, the better person they are, and that people who are poor are lazy and bad persons, while those who are rich are hard working, good persons - that's what your society imprinted in you ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@@chrisj984 "nobody innovates or create just to give it away"
Wikipedia creators, insulin makers, etc.
Profit/competition are not the only reasons people make stuff: necessity, passion, altruism, boredom, etc.
Personnal property is A-okay. Private property not so much, as it is exploitative by its very nature.
@@chrisj984 the reason innovation *currently* is not for the betterment of mankind is because of the capitalist system we live in that forces people to seek profit to survive. It is by working outside of the system that you realise it is not only possible, but it is natural for humans to cooperate. By changing the system that rewards greed and profit for one that rewards cooperation, the table will turns in favor of cooperation indeed.
Private property is property that is owned in order to make a profit, right? Land, factories, tools, and all other means of production/distribution.
In order to make a profit, you have to pay the workers less than the work they do, or make the customers pay more than what its worth, that is exploitation. It is part of the system, whether you like it or not.
@@chrisj984 The goal of capitalism is to maximize capital in the least amount of locations be it people, countries, corporations, etc. It's only natural that any capitalist system tends to conglomerate corporations.
On your rent statement, everyone needs a home and landlords contribute nothing except having the capital first. There is no choice. You buy, you rent, or you are homeless.
@@chrisj984 well, looks like your perception is flawed. there is no difference between corporatism and capitalism, they are one and the same, it is simply a meaningless distinction used by capitalism advocates like you in order to claim REAL capitalism is not that bad. in capitalism, the more profit you make, the more power you have, it inevitably tends towards monopolisation. that is the inevitable conclusion of a competitive system.
There is no "capitalism for the people", as making the most profit possible and helping people are mutually exclusive goals. to help people, you have to abandon making the most profit possible, you have to pay the workers their full value, which renders private property obsolete. together, the workers therefore are the sole owners of their means of production and are paid the full value of their labor: that is SOCIALISM.
your definition of private property is not accurate. a service is not property, it is labour. a property is material, it is tools, land, living spaces, workshops, etc.
you do not perceive rent as exploitation, which is again another evidence that your perception is flawed. if i was in search of a living space, and you or anyone else proposed to offer me one in exchange of a part of my salary, the choice for me is: either i dont have a roof over my head, which can lead to my death against the elements, or i sacrifice part of my savings. it may seem fair enough if you dont have the imagination to think any other ways, but it is in fact a false dichotomy, that either/or situation is bad either way, it is not an agreement on equal footings, i am forced by the systemic and reality's circumstances to enter into such agreement, it is not purely voluntary. same goes for jobs, food, etc. anything that is privately owned is denying others access to that thing, which is the opposite of helping the people.
*"... I don't have, I don't believe in 1 religion or any religion...,* _But I do have the 'faith' to quit 'religions.'_
MFG (1953-2021 or longer)
Imo real anarchists should be purely focused on fighting any and all centralized powers governmental or otherwise (private interests, cultural thought leader etc) anarchy really is insanely based but fuck the ancaps
Ancaps are oxymoron.
@@midnightsun2085 huge agreement friend
But seriously. Murray Rothbard, in coining the term "Anarcho Capitalism" explicitly understood that this term was a bad-faith appropriation, and a contradiction in terms. But hey, it worked when they stole "Libertarian" from us, so why not?
@@anarchisttechsupport6644 How did Rothbard 'explicitly" understand that? I think Rothbard makes it clear that capitalism goes awry when it gets state power. I mean, in his "Founding of the Federal reserve" lecture he shows how the industrial (and banking) cartels could not ever hold together, until they secured government protection.
@@chuckleaf8027 dig deeper, where he explicitly codifies "Anarcho"-Capitalism in his writings. Not some youtube lecture.
The "state is the problem" is not Anarchy. Anarchy is an idea that hierarchical vertical power structures need to be replaced with more horizontal ones, rulers need to be replaced with leaders, and "Anarcho-capitalism" is an oxymoron.
Socialism is the horizontal power strucure you speak of as being anarchism, when the government still exists, but one that actually serves at the will of the people/workers, who hold all the wealth and power. AnCapistan is absolutely a mental gymnastics marathon.
Anarchy-Capitalism ~ *Unrestrained Predation in hierarchical format, where the sole law is that of the apex-predator’s GULLET.*
@@dennisyoung4631 Fair statement. I'll add though that capitalism cannot exist without a state.
@@ProleDaddy true. Not sure where I am as far as naming, but I was -5 on the X axis, and -2.5 or soon the Y. That was a couple of years ago, so today’s numbers are probably a bit more negative. I’m friendly enough to “die Socialismus” that I’m wondering about checking out the local D.S.A. chapter…. And I *really* dislike evil, greedy people - especially when they have lots of wealth and power.
Such behavior is *Morally Wrong.* It is the acme of selfishness, it is unjust - and, worse still, *very* short sighted and imprudent.
It is also foolish as well. If we are ever going to get manufacturing back in this country to any degree at all, (rank heresy follows!) *it may well need the workers, at least in part, “seizing the means of production!”*
I’ve had enough run-ins with An-Caps that I lump them in with “the evil, greedy people with lots of power” mentioned in the previous chapter. Also, An-Cap-itude seems a short-cut to Fascism/Fascismus…
No it isn’t. Anarchy is no rulers. Not anything to do with hierarchy. Anyone who says that they want a society without any hierarchy is lying to you as they would not abandon the parent-child relationship or a team captain to team player relationship or even a group leader to group contributor relationship. And when confronted by this, the leftist immediately says “oh not all hierarchy, just unjustified ones” which is question begging nonsense, since the hierarchies established there are bound by the same justification as employer-employee and that is consent.
That was a very good explanation of the differences between the Left and Right Anarchist. Yes, we Marxist have often allied ourselves with Anarchist against the capitalist class. Oh, I hear the thundering hoofbeats of counterrevolutionaries heading towards this comment section.
Sure that you aren't hearing the ghosts of Catalonian Syndicalists, Makhnovists or Polish Labor Unionists that got executed by Marxists?
@@threeroundslv Could you cite sources? I am interested.
@@JohnT.4321 there's numerous. If you read the history of the Spanish Civil War and about the Syndicalists of Catalonia, you can read about the Spanish Communists who disarmed, weakened, imprisoned the Syndicalists. The Makhnovists, similar story, during the Russian Civil War, groups of Ukrainian Anarchists fought the White Army, as well as the Red Army, both with some success until the Red Army offered a truce to Makhno and the Free Ukrainians, after which they were invited to a summit where most were executed save for a few that escaped. In Poland, following World War II aka The Great Patriotic War, Anarchist Labor Unions helped organize and rebuild Polish industry, until the Soviet puppet state in place in Poland gained enough strength to imprison and execute many Anarchists that were carrying out the will of Labor Unions. During the entirety of the Warsaw Pact era, Anarchist labor unions were suppressed as their advocating for labor reforms was considered "counter revolutionary" as, apparently allowing unionized laborers to have a voice in determining their futures was counter to the goals of the state. There's a wealth of sources on all of these examples, a cursory Google search containing some of the key points I mentioned. Discover some sources and read for yourself. While Marxist analysis is incredibly valuable towards identifying the numerous faults of capitalism, giving a state the same power as capitalists yields many of the same results. Prof Wolff's revolutionary ideas of Democracy at Work shares many of the same ideals as Anarcho Syndicalism.
@@threeroundslv I will google search as you said to do. I don't believe that MLs in the 21st century would kill Anarchist. However, I am not a member of any socialist party. But we do know that capitalists would not hesitate to kill both Marxist and Anarchist if it were legal to do so. When I wrote "counterrevolutionaries" I was referring to those who are pro-capitalists. Nice thing about being a IWW member is that the union will not interfere with the political beliefs of its members. You could call me a Socialist Syndicalist since I believe in Industrial Unionism like Eugene Debs. The Socialist Industrial Union Program of Daniel De Leon never took off and I believe it is because their political structure is flawed since they refuse to engage politically to make gains for the working class. It has something to do with a poodle.
Interesting read by Professor Grover Furr: ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/clogic/article/view/191915/188876
Democracy is direct rule by the people. That includes the possibility of not even having a government, anarchy. Indigenous cultures had no nation states and their concept of government... They were also true socialists, no currency, no concept of ownership including land.
People need to be careful, serious, and deeply historical when conjuring up such a broad and vague term as “indigenous peoples.” It’s a bit sad that we engage in blood and soil rhetoric over and against the reality of outmigration and internal migration that bore within its populations its own “indigeneity” at some point or another prior to the shocks and stressors which have always coerced migration into being. Indigenous peoples had empires, cities, slaves, war, famine, and hierarchy. Not all are fetishistically reduced to some mythical few idyllic tribes, be it in the US or First Nations, or farther afield. We might do well to learn from how complex indigenous history is, as well, and remind ourselves that it is not one divorced from the migrant. In this era of climate upheaval, to ignore or decenter the migrant is to engage in dangerous new nationalisms. Indigenous spatiality isn’t liberationist or very emancipatory, and their own integration and assimilation as semi-sovereigns, at best, into the global capitalist system (as Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz has shown) is inescapably a taint on the fractured reality of land sovereignty movements when all ‘sovereigns’ follow the same logics of ‘development.’
✅👍
💗🍃
Why no mention of libertarian socialism? There wasn't even any discussion of libertarianism at all, just anarchism. And no, 'anarchism' is not synonymous with 'libertarianism'. Simply put libertarian socialism supports the government and government intervention when it supports individual liberty for every individual and opposes government measures when the measures unduly limits individual freedom. Libertarian socialists support public roads because it allows for the freedom of the open road, for instance. But we oppose vaccine mandates because they limit our freedom. Speaking of mandates, why haven't you discussed and voiced your support for the truckers strike up in Canada? And yes, that is a labor strike going on up there where the trucking labor is fighting for their basic inalienable human right of bodily autonomy.
Money itself is socialism. A socialist tool.
Profesor please would you talk about what Neoliberalism and the difference with liberalism?
Dear Fer M,
Prof. Wolff answers specific questions from Patrons of our Economic Update Patreon community each week. Even donations at the $3/month level give you access to this perk, so if you’d like your questions answered, feel free to join and submit via Patreon.
Here’s the link: www.patreon.com/economicupdate
Small donations are the lifeblood of our organization and keep our shows going. Thank you for your support and engagement!
The Socialist Party of Great Britain has the most clear and instructive view on what left wing anarchist society is composed of: the complete abolition of money and that all work is voluntary. The SPGB has been around since 1904. For me, their definition of socialism is an ideal that serves as a standard against which all other positions can be judged.
"work is voluntary"
as an anarchist, this phrasing opens up allllllllllll kinds of slippery slopes. it kinda sounds not too far from "taxation is theft".
@@asuka_the_void_witch You misunderstand what I wrote, or my words were clumsy. It’s an ideal. It’s a normative definition of socialism, not a description of what we typically call socialism. Go to their website and see for yourself.
@@peternyc teh website says "All work would be on a voluntary basis. "
i just find it interesting, not trying to be hostile or anything. i don't have a formulated rebuttal to such an idea either, heh. /gen
@@asuka_the_void_witch They quote Peter Kropotkin on one of their pages.
@@peternyc that's frickin neat!
Can you be a Marxist and an Arnarchist? I'm not so advanced as to know for sure, but I think so.
I for sure do not like representative government much because as soon as a representative gets into power that person forgets all about campaign promises and starts bowing down to authoritarian party leadership in both major parties, who have achieved an elite status. It's that elitism in our lousy two party, and most capitalist system that makes me angry.
I will put my high school educated, self taught mind and life experiences up against both Democratic and Republican leaders who rule for themselves and others like themselves. But I'm looking for something else entirely! I don't have all thecangles worked out. Maybe 8 need direction and further study. There are a few people like me in the House of Representatives who know what my life has ben like in the last 80 years, either because they lived as I have or because they have tried to understand what a truly working class family and individual worker has been up against. That'sca lot,I have to say. Cori Bush is that example. Her knowledge and grit have exemplified the struggle of my life and she hasn't sold out yet. At least it doesn't seem like it. AOC, is more tactical, more educated, more elite and she has sold out several times. She is smart but she sees a path for herself that is very bourgeois. Good clothes,, good food, a comfortable life and modest noise making are her game it seems to me. There are so few who have the idealism, have the love of democracy, respect for the First Ammendment freedoms that allow people like me to try to change what I see as unfair and unworkable and can also conceive of a new direction. Our politicians and our people are very well indoctrinated. So I don't trust politicians who are supposed to represent me but who can't even hear me.
I think a truly socialist kind of economy using Marxist principles is workable but it works best locally, I think. I have not come up with a state structure for nations that is entirely trustworthy. It worked badly iin Russia and it went way off track in China. In recent times both countries have become so undemocratic that if I lived in either place I would promptly find myself in jail or some kind or re-education prison. I think I'm about to end up in prison right here if the fascist goons win the Midterm Elections and the Presidential Election two years later. I won't shut up! Already the Supreme Court, as expected, is throwing the Constitution and democracy itself right down the toilet. Individual freedoms are abruptly being thrown out. Even voting is in such perril I can't even think about the next election. It will be stacked against freedom loving, democracy loving, and forward thinking people. That's clear already and nobody is doing anything about it. The Midterm Elections are already lost as far as I can see because of the fascist upwelling in this most capitalist, very racist and horribly elitist country. Frankly, I'm scared and so should you be afraid too.
So, Professor Wolff and other commentators on this You Tube channel, what is a state government and a national government supposed to look like in a socialist country? We will need some kind of regulation and some kind of central planning but it hasn't worked out well anywhere as far as I can see. Not here, not in Russia, not in China and not in mixed economies that I am aware of. How do we solve the elitism and corruption of representative political systems within a cooperative and truely socialist economy? How do we pay for that political and administrative function if not with some kind of tax structure? Who gets taxed and how? Do goods get reappropriated? From each...to each...that didn't work out wel in Russia or early Revolutionary China. Modern China still has a powerful political eliteand on every level there is corruption and privilege. Everyone hates taxes. Everyone wants the benefits of a regulated society and a more even distribution of wealth, but baically, human beings are greedy and seek advantage over one another. We still have much in common with Chimpanzees. So, what have you to offer? I can't untangle this.
Dear Helen,
Prof. Wolff answers specific questions from Patrons of our Economic Update Patreon community each week. Even donations at the $3/month level give you access to this perk, so if you’d like your questions answered, feel free to join and submit via Patreon.
Here’s the link: www.patreon.com/economicupdate
Small donations are the lifeblood of our organization and keep our shows going. Thank you for your support and engagement!
Libertarianism & Capitalism are basically synonyms for Right Winger (to me anyway). Both tend to believe in ideas like smaller government, "The Free Market", trickle down economics, & only people who can fend for themselves matter & those that can't don't.
I think your hammer squarely hit the nail. I am no expert like the professor, but I did read a couple books trying to explain Libertarianism. Despite the book's gentle wording, I came to the same conclusions as yourself. These are people that don't want to pay any taxes to help folks in society. They use this fancy ideology as an excuse. I've asked some of these libertarians if they could give me an example from history where it's been good for a society. They kinda sorta ignore me or deflect the question. The bad thing is they've got a number of popular Republican think tanks paid for by rich owners of corporations to spew this drivel philosophy. It has worked well for them as it has quite a following. I prefer pragmatism myself. I thank yourself and the professor for your input.
The American version of Libertarianism is as you both have pointed out. It is a group/ideology which is financed by the wealthy-class, right-wing, authoritarian capitalists.
The wealthy-class, right-wing, authoritarian capitalists work COLLECTIVELY to champion INDIVIDUALISM, and they use the Libertarian-Party apparatus to capture the minds of ignorant working-class people who are incapable of comprehending who their real oppressors are.
The wealthy-class, right-wing, authoritarian capitalists who fund the Libertarian Party are the same wealthy-class, right-wing, authoritarian capitalists who fund the Republic and Democrat parties.
These political-party apparatuses are used to delude the working-class voters while the wealthy-class leaders work behind the scenes to perpetuate the rule of the wealthy-class and the subjugation of the working-class.
While the working-class voters are busy arguing over Red versus Blue versus whatever-the-fck color Libertarians use, the wealthy-class team-owners are at work coming up with new ways to continue the oppressive hierarchies of sl@v ery/ feudalism /capitalism.
@@matthewingerson Good points. It sort of verifies that we really have only one real party with some variations. You know. We do have some things in common with the Chinese people.
That is quite wrong. The word Anarchism was first used in the modern sense by Pierre Joseph Proudhon some 200 years ago. Funnily enough, he propagated much the same economic structures as Prof. Wolff, that is an economy based on co-ops. Historically, anarchists have always been socialists. In France around the end of the 19th century, calling yourself an anarchist would get you into prison. So anarchists began to call themselves libertariennes, libertarians. That word was later stolen by right wingers, as was the word Anarchism. Anarcho-Capitalism isn't a thing. It's a contradiction in terms. Anarchists want freedom. Living under Capitalism makes us unfree. So, what supporters of Anarcho-Capitalism want is being free and unfree at the same time, which is kinda stupid.
The reason he mentions Anarchism had a longer tradition than that is that not only most of human history was lived in a state quite similar to Anarchism (primitive mode of accumulation = reverse dominance hierarchy), but also that many revolutions and movements in antiquity, had expressed goals pretty much identical to Anarchism. Heck, although early Christians were not in control of a state, and had all the bullshit about a revelationnary religion, their material structure was one we could qualify of Anarchism.
@@DeathToMockingBirds I don't disagree. Yet Prof. Wolff says there's always been a divide in Anarchism between Anarcho-Capitalists and Anarcho-Socialists which is just not true. That was the point I was aiming at. Heck, even Max Stirner was, in a way, a socialist. He, as I do and probably you too, saw Capitalism as just another system that makes us unfree. And that Anarchists like me want to abolish the state is in large parts due to the fact that Capitalism without the state is impossible. What we need instead is at most a democratically controlled administration of the common good, not a government that controls us.
Wrong. Capitalism brings freedom. Socialism does not.
@@ExPwner Oh, another 15yo Ayn Rand fanboi.
Mr Wolff, the common thread for all of those isms is capitalism. Anarchists seek capital, libertarians seek capital and socialists seek 100% of the capital. Why are you not able to learn this very basic truth?
What the hell does that even mean? 🤣
Post-left anarchy ftw
All my right libertarian friends. I always tell them this and they never have a response.
Me: You believe in small government. Or no government,But this can never happen under Capitalism.
Me: Let me ask you a question. Is capitalism designed to create equality? Or just equality of opportunity?
Them: Opportunity.
Me: OK great, so since it isn't designed to create equality. It will also lead to inequality and accumulation right?
Them: "Either no response or a response of its the people's fault for not trying hard enough"
Me: Okay, so as wealth accumulates, you want to keep your wealth right? But since you have inequality. That means you have instability from poverty. So poor people will soon rise up. So you have two options to retain your wealth. Either hire private armies to kill people (which is straight up feudalism) or you use your capital to Bolden the government up and use the government (an external force) to keep poor people in check.
Them: No response or They say they don't know how to respond, or a small fraction will say "well it's still better than socialism where everyones poor".
As opposed to capitalism where everyone's poor except the capitalists and their top enablers.
Often, given a reasonable implementation (thus far, this seems rare) “socialism” seems to improve the lot of all non-wealthy people as a rule.
Nice straw man you have made against people in a conversation that never happened.
1. Wrong. Capitalism does not need a state as shown by private security and arbitration.
2. Neither. The notion of “equality of opportunity” is just a soft variant of “equality of outcome” without stating it.
3. No, the data shows that capitalism brings more equality than socialism in practice. We just don’t promise it or aim for it.
We must forge and temper the alliance. Anarchists and socialists are two sides of the same coin. To believe that they can survive apart from eachother is to allow capital to win yet again. If capitalism wins again, then we all lose forever.
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Finally , an explanation that everybody can understand.
How can you have a video about anarchy without even mentioning "hierarchy" once?
When you deal with the issues of hierarchy over and over again on monthly videos and assume opposition to hierarchy as a given position.
Because it isn’t the definition of anarchy. The definition is no rulers, not no hierarchy.
@@ivandafoe5451 The definition of anarchy is anti-hierarchy. It is literally in the name. The "archy" of hierarchy and anarchy are the same.
@@ExPwner And this is why ancaps aren't anarchist. They don't know what the word means. As I said to Ivan, the "archy" in hierarchy and anarchy are the same. Anarchy is literally a shortening of "anti" and "hierarchy."
@@Jordan-ub5kw wrong. Anarchy means no rulers. You failed at basic definitions here.
Ask any serious economist about richard wolff, and you will see that the very tiny few ones that know him, know that he is a joke
Yes, exactly.
Why are you not talking about the Canadian truckers. I am a 75-year-old uneducated poverty stricken woman in West Virginia . I have followed you for many years.
If you follow Prof. Wolff then you know he does monthly analysis on current issues, but not breaking news reporting. He will comment on it in due time.
Hey Linda, did you see the recent video Prof. Wolff did on the topic you requested?
Here's a link to the video if you didn't see it. czcams.com/video/zo13VR9C2uI/video.html&ab_channel=DemocracyAtWork
Anarchism at its core is about anti-hierarchy, which means it's against both the state and capitalism. It's also important to mention that worker cooperatives are an anarchist concept.
No it isn’t. Anarchy is no rulers. Not anything to do with hierarchy. Anyone who says that they want a society without any hierarchy is lying to you as they would not abandon the parent-child relationship or a team captain to team player relationship or even a group leader to group contributor relationship. And when confronted by this, the leftist immediately says “oh not all hierarchy, just unjustified ones” which is question begging nonsense, since the hierarchies established there are bound by the same justification as employer-employee and that is consent.
@@ExPwner the parent-child dynamic serves a function. Hierarchical structures only function is to enrich the rulers. Tell me how billionaires are not rulers over workers? And employer - employee dynamics are not actually consensual because the alternative to working for capitalists in a capitalist system is starvation. It's coercion.
@@yungsam64 wrong on almost every claim. The function of employment is mutual benefit. The employee does not want to front capital and take the risk of loss. The employer is not ruling over you because you are free to leave at any time and tell him to pound sand. A ruler is one whose demands are imposed by force. The employer is not coercing you to work, nature is. Literally every economic system requires people to work in order to live. At no point does that make a particular human interaction coerced by his fellow man. The employer only gives you an additional option that you did not have before he showed up. He is not preventing you from working for yourself. You are always free to do that.
@@ExPwner look up worker cooperatives. Those are actual anarchist workplaces.
@@yungsam64 already familiar. Not impressed. And we already have employment that fits anarchy just fine. But I will throw you a bone here since it is worth mentioning: anarchy does not permit the state privilege of limited liability, and therefore a stateless society wouldn’t have the corporation as we know it today.
I told my boss, in a fit of irritation that he was Fascist. He laughed maniacally. He quipped, "Do you even know what that means?!?" I said, "It means you are a control freak." He said, "I'm watching you smartass," and stomped away." I can't figured out why he didn't fired me on the spot. Maybe he took my comment as a compliment.
More likely he viewed you as powerless to change his behavior....as in "The boss isn't always right, but he's always the boss" and "take it or leave it".
I'm just here to read the comments dunking on ancaps
somalia
And yet not a single dunk was found. In fact it seems like they can’t even jump.
@@ExPwner lmao, i saw you commenting on richard woff vs destiny debate video, months ago, why are you so obsessed with Richard Wolf ? go watch some ancrap videos.
@@coelho7156 you just unironically said “Somalia” and thought that you are the one with the upper hand here? That’s a real Dunning Kruger on your part.
It seems to me the only difference is who gets to do whatever they want. Democracy is the only viable system in which the people get to decide and get to do what they want, if a good-faithed democracy based on compassion, discourse and reason is even possible. Ultimately, only people matter. Democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Any economic system that doesn't work democratically is doomed to failure.
Wrong. Democracy is rule by the majority, not people doing what they want. That would be voluntaryism.
The Wikipedia (not always trustworthy, I know, but often useful) article on libertarianism shows that term generally around the world has meant advocating freedom from the economic domination of capitalism, as well as state oppression. The U.S. right wing version that sees economic tyranny as individual freedom is a later development, only popular in the U.S.
Anarchism deals with abolishing hierarchy, there cannot be any right-wing anarchism; US libertarians are free market fantasists, and not remotely anarchist.
No it isn’t. Anarchy is no rulers. Not anything to do with hierarchy. Anyone who says that they want a society without any hierarchy is lying to you as they would not abandon the parent-child relationship or a team captain to team player relationship or even a group leader to group contributor relationship. And when confronted by this, the leftist immediately says “oh not all hierarchy, just unjustified ones” which is question begging nonsense, since the hierarchies established there are bound by the same justification as employer-employee and that is consent.
@@ExPwner Lol, and here come the capitalist bootlickers to defend their facile ideology. Pro-tip, rulers ARE hierarchy, bright boy; if all you've gleaned from 150 years of anarchist thought is "no rulers," just tell us what you want age of consent to be and move on.
@@fencerjared AHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH
@@ExPwner no
@@fencerjared projection from the socialist dipshit who himself licks boots. Not all hierarchies are rulers. Yet again socialists proving that they eat paste.
Prof Wolff describes problems with capitalism but forget problems with socialism (democracy) and thats absence of economic freedom!
Capitalism is the Bane of Humanity.
"And of course,if you could help us financially." To think there are people stupid enough to hear that and continue to take anything you say with any validity is amusing.
Agreed, but as you can tell by the ignorance of his viewers they aren’t that bright.
""B-B-bUt MoMmYyYy!!! PeOpLe ArE mAkInG a LiViNg oFf My CaPiTaLiSm In My CaPiTaLiSm UnDeR mY cApItAlIsMsMsMsMs!!!" 😱
You giant set of 🤡shoes. LOL
The world waits, with bated breath, for the blessings of your upcoming CZcams channel, ye almighty, who deduces and disseminates all things logic and reason. 🤣
Anarcho-capitalism is not anarchism any more than "national socialism" (naziism) is socialism.
Anarchism distrusts the state but is not about the state. You have an excellent understanding of Marxism, but a lacking understanding of other forms of communist and socialist thought which operate on different assumptions.
😂😂😂 wrong on both and ignorance at its finest.
Your description of anarchism really shows a lack of understanding of anarchism, professor.
To put it succinctly, in comparison to marxism, which is an analysis of of the power of economics, anarchism is an analysis of the economies of power.
Our main theoretical focus is on the structures of power dynamics, which economics plays a heavy role in. We are not simply “anti government”. That is “anarcho capitalism” and “libertarianism” which we can all agree is just feudalism with extra steps.
That is because you don’t know what feudalism is.
@@ExPwner no, you just have no understanding of economics.
You could also title this video “ Ideologies that don’t work in practice “
So Ronald Reagan was an anarchist.
This is worthless for understanding anarchism but I've never met a Marxist who understands the basics of anarchist theory so I'm not that surprised. And calling Libertarian capitalists anarchists is like calling nazis socialists.
So factual? Because the Nazis were socialists. That is a fact.
This is a horrible explanation of left wing anarchism lol
You mean Anarchism, period? Thats kinda the root of the misunderstanding.
In formulating "Anarcho"-Capitalism, Murray Rothbard made it explicitly clear that he hoped to steal this language for his own camp. After all, they pulled off just such a theft with "Libertarian" in the English speaking world.
@@anarchisttechsupport6644 yeah I guess and I think both left and right wing anarchism don't make sense ideologically or philosophically. We need a synthesis of collectivism and individualism if you ask me. But no one takes me seriously I'm just a post left Luddite posting on CZcams. Let's get this food sovereignty thing going how about?
@@gekkobear1650 honestly? Its really only in online, academic, or bookclub settings where the ML/Anarchist distinction makes any sense.
With on-the-ground organizing? *Anyone* shows up for the goal. And I do mean *anyone.* But we do the work, usually quit bitching about what clubs everyone else is in. We have shit to do.
@@anarchisttechsupport6644 I will work with literally anyone who will actively pursue food sovereignty goals on the ground this coming growing season. It really helps if we can agree on not trusting the government though lol. Do you actually do tech support? I want to tighten my security but I know very little being a Luddite and all
@@gekkobear1650I try to! In between a day job for health insurance and a meager living on the edge of (more) debt. I wouldnt mind helping out a comrade! I have the same username on twitch where a "whispers"/direct message feature exists.
Usernames there are all one word, and capitalization is neglected. My whispers are open.
Professor?! Seriously?! Right wing anarchism??? Did you do any research? Did you talk to any anarchists?
Seriously, i respect your work but this video is just sloppy.
The world waits, with bated-breath and trembling-anticipation, for the deliverance of your glorious information on the topic at hand. We cannot wait for the unveiling of your CZcams channel, oh great and powerful Tony. We implore you, make us not wait any longer. We're not worthy or your merciful and enlightening presence.
🤡
^^^That's you. You're the clown.
@@matthewingerson wow, you’re smug and self important now arent you? Rather than try to engage in conversation, you spent all your time to type that? For some “random schmoe” who DARE question professor wolff?
As someone who rather enjoys wolffs work and regards him quite highly, maybe i have a right to express my feelings on the matter?
Get bent dude. With leftists like you, the right wing doesnt have much work to do.
Capitalism couldn’t exist for 5 minutes without a strong government to defend the interests of capital
Wrong as evidenced by private security.
@@ExPwner It needs property rights to be enforced. Only the state legal system can do that. And it needs to be bailed out when the whole system periodically crashes
@@kennethmarshall306 again just false as shown by private security and arbitration. See David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom.
Capitalism is not what is crashing. Government policy does. Government cronies do. It wasn’t mom and pops needing bailouts in 2008.
@@ExPwner Ever wondered why right wingers want a strong police force and army.? Marx was right to spot the crisis-prone nature of capitalism, long before 2008. He thought that these criises would guarantee a communist revolution. He reckoned without the state stepping in to save the system.
The government is the problem or the solution, depending on who controls it and whose perspective you are viewing it from. Under FDR the government was the solution. Under Reagan it was the problem. If you are a right winger FDR was wrong and Reagan was right. (For the record FDR was right and Reagan was utterly and completely wrong.)
You are solemnly looking at it from a Liberal POV. The reason why Reagan thought it was bad is way different from a Rosa Luxembourg’s POV…
@@vitico1630 Reagan thought it was bad because government was retraining the rich from oppressing the poor. Reagan was rich and loved the rich and hated the poor.
Nah, FDR was completely wrong. Reagan still a lot wrong but FDR completely wrong.
@@reddoggie554 Reagan was totally wrong. He was the one who made massive peacetime deficits the norm for Republicans.
@@reddoggie554 Reagan was all wrong. He began the farce of the infallible rich. The rich have been gobbling up America for themselves ever since and leaving less and less for the rest of us. FDR saved the banking industry from collapse and Reagan destroyed completely the savings and loan industry.
This guy is so totally stuck in -isms I just feel sorry for him
I feel sorry for you that historical analysis of political movement strike you as valueless.
@@DeathToMockingBirds I feel sorry for you that you're putting words in my mouth
"ThIs GuY UsEs WoRdsSsSs!!!" 😱
*distressed gurgling noises
🤡
^^^That's you. You're the clown.
@@matthewingerson Do you know that dogmatism is supposed to be a step up from cultism?
@@RTDRalph wRapThatDick, Ralph. No procreating for you.
Antinatalism is the 'ism' you should concern yourself with.