This subhuman pos didn't offer any empirical evidence to prove his claims... I recently signed a labor contract and nobody is stealing money from me, we agreed on the payment you imbeciles.
That is still just a CLAIM or SUBJECTIVE OPINION that does not prove a crime had been committed, I signed a contract and I get paid what I agreed to you subhuman imbelice! I AM NOT ENTITLED TO ANY MORE THAN THAT! I do not own the MoP and I don't have to maintain or manage any of that I just clock in, do my work and leave... fucking sociopathic morons!
For the record, that diagram was just a sketch and not to scale. The average worker doesn't take home half the product of their labor. The average worker takes home about a tenth of their work product.
@@juniorgod321 It's not a lie. I'm not a Marxist. Since you want to make this about you, what percentage of their labor value did you pay your employees?
@@2sudonim That depended on the job! Right now, I pay them about 70% of what they produce (it's actually lower because I'm not counting expenses). And since you claimed that wasn't a lie, where did you get that number " one tenth"? Please, send me a link proving that wasn't a lie!
He is probably one of the stupidest ever professors ive ever listened to! At 6th minute I stopped 😂!! Managers do not produce value 😂!! What ,? Value is only produced by muscles and keeping boxes in the air?!? ... basically you can substituted every day!! ... then also, why does he also get a salary?! He is just talking, isnt he ?!? Where are the tools and goods produced by him? Cant see anything physical... so stupid guy ... Thats why its so easy to understand right now that how the neo socialists are so stupid people 🤔! Case closed for me... thank you!
@@elisagolli4213 you've entirely missed the point. The point isn't that sales managers don't deserve pay the point is that the scale of pay should be flipped. Labour who produce the products should have more than those who do not produce anything. Here's a better example, Alan Joyce the CEO of QANTAS airlines rakes in about 14 million a year. Now why the fuck does he get that much over pilots, stewardesses, baggage handlers who actually make the whole thing work. For the record I'm not a marxist or a communist. I'm a socialist in the truest sense. I still believe in a meritocracy but the system is severely flawed as it sits.
@Phone Account That's not how the word "production" is used in this context. Production refers to the addition of value to a product. A sales person doesn't produce customers. He introduces the product to the market, in the way which is most likely to sell. He produces customers in the same way that you produce a video on RU-vid by turning the video quality up. I haven't produced any value, I'm just palleting what's already there in a different way - in the case of a sales manager, in a way that will make the product sell in the market. All of the customers, the exchange, and the selling of the commodity are facilitated by the market itself.
@Phone Account What the fuck are you talking about? Who said that they're not human, or that they don't deserve pay? We live in a capitalist system in which every person who works under a company should get paid because if they don't they'll starve and that's not good. My point is that sales managers don't produce any value. This has nothing to do with whether or not they deserve to exist, or if they're human. Honestly, you're just pulling shit out of your ass and claiming them to be my opinion. As for me being a communist, again where are you getting this from? In what world is explaining the views of a Marxist economist to someone who didn't (and based on your response, still doesn't) understand them the same as supporting communism. If you tell me that fascism is about globalisation, I can correct you about fascism without being a fascist myself. But of course, because we seem to disagree that makes me a filthy commie in your eyes, as if we're still living in the 60's. And these are the same people who will claim that the left demonize everyone they disagree with by calling them Nazis. To be honest though, should I really have expected anything better from someone who thinks capitalism is based on consent? Consent involves a choice. You have the ability to say yes, or to say no in a consent based system. What is the result of I don't consent to participate in the market? I die, that's the result. Great consensual system you've got going. When a rapist holds a gun to the victim's head and the victim complies that's also consent, right? And the ironic thing is that you claim communism to be analogous to rape.
def abc educate yourself some more and realize this has been tried before. Many times. It doesn’t work. The reasons are clear if you really do an intensive analysis on what Marxism is (collectivist) vs the actual way we as humans think and act (more individualist). You can’t maintain enough individual rights and liberties in a marxist based society, and it eventually eats itself in the form of corruption, poverty, and death.
Hey Workplace Democracy! Why not post links to the original lectures so people who are more interested can get the full lecture? It free, pass on the knowledge - you know that is what Dr. Wolff wants!
Although I understood most of the marxist economics systems, I never understood how ridiclous the idea of not having a socialist economic system right this second actually is, thank you for uploading this.
XD You can’t be this sheltered. When capitalists fuck up, they lay off or take benefits from workers. The owners have all the power. Why would they decide to hold themselves accountable? Fuck reading Marx. Do some research on the Great Recession. Look into the Therinos scam. Research how Microsoft became successful. Then me with a straight face that Capitalists are taking risks.
I love how this guy is actually getting paid to explain to millennials that the employer makes more than the employee. I mean give this guy the Pulitzer already. Speaks as if he discovered the theory of relativity. Like no shit dude.
Austin Russell Bustamante Spoiled White guy 20 minutes into a class: “I understand everything the teacher is saying. This is stupid. What is he going to do? Build more complicated ideas on top of simple premises? What a hack.”
In his opening argument he essentially claims that management structures provide zero value to a company, product or service. Not only that, he claims they actively skim off and reduce the total value. My belief is that there is value in organizing and managing labor and making a business more efficient. Why is that something that socialists or communists discount? Does having a management structure increase the quantity and quality of cars produced, and decrease the cost of raw materials? That is an essential question which must be both posed and answered if his opening argument is to have any merit whatsoever. Also, why should the layman be able to have an influence on decisions that have a great impact? By definition he is blind to the vast majority of the impact of his decision and a knowledge of the variety of complex factors which he needs to make a resonable one.
This guy is a complete moron, and watching idiots like him prattle on, it becomes very easy to see why socialist and communist countries fail. He has no respect or understanding for the role of management in a business. I'm the IT manager for a medium (becoming large) publisher. I started on the bottom rung, producing content for our publications and websites, but now my entire role is working out the intricacies of our IT landscape, and developing tools and software that allow others to produce the actual content. Making the fleet run more efficiently is my role, in a nutshell. Without people like me, the wheels fall off immediately, and the company collapses. Forget growth. But have a listen to other lectures on why communism fails. Invariably, it's the 'problem of knowledge'. The workers take over, and they produce all this crap, but they have no idea how much to produce to keep the lights on, nor any way of understanding how to make the process more efficient. Like you say, the workers, by definition, have little to no understanding of the broad picture.
What Wolff was saying around 10:00 about profits buying the political system to keep the capitalist system going -- that all breaks down when people refuse to predicate their vote on their perceptions of how their peers will vote. Buying a pedestal (i.e. a party nomination) for a politician to stand on doesn't do much when the people on the ground don't care who's on the pedestal. And why should they? One vote is never going to change the outcome of an election, after all. But it will either entrench or erode the system of conformity-based establishment politics, depending on how sincerely each voter is voting, and yes, it does work at the individual level, unlike voting on the assumption that the election might come down to one vote this time (it won't, and your "responsible choice" will be a wasted vote). There are two ways to convince people not to consider how their peers are voting when determining their own vote: convince them of the argument that I've been making (which may be difficult because not everybody can hold more than one thing in their head at once), or convince them that there's no way to reliably predict who their peers are going to vote for. This requires that psephology be corrupted in a certain way. Although it's important to give honest answers to survey questions about what policies you support, it's very important to lie on survey questions about which candidate you plan to vote for, and it's important that a lot of people start doing this. If the pollsters' predictions are off by a mile every time, the status quo breaks.
Insofar as the owners of the material means of productions concomitantly own the mental means of mental production, the "values" of capitalism will continue to be internalized in our society. False consciousness is still with us; indeed, it is at its apogee despite the growth of new media and greater access to information. Send this video to ten people and, I'd bet, nine of them would say "so what." This is what must explained. I love, LOVE the work of Professor Wolff. I wish he'd spend some time discussing the ideological apparatus that is in place, a reality-distorting apparatus that is numbing an alienated populace to no end. Without such an understanding, the nuts and bolts of capitalist exploitation falls mute on the ears of people incapable of understanding their own economic and social interests.
I agree with you, can you suggest me some readings or videos about this ideological apparatus that you mentioned here please, would like to learn more. Thanks!
+Ali Mohamed Louis Althusser was the preeminent scholar of ideology and the State. This essay, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," is a nice place to start: ghostprof.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Althusser-on-ISA-and-RSA.pdf A more quotidian explanation of ideology as it relates to American politics is Thomas Frank's "What's A Matter With Kansas." He shows how Kansas voters systematically vote against their own economic interests. Richard Schmitt''s "Alienation and Freedom" is not necessarily about ideology. But I think he demonstrates why ideological distortions are so commonplace in capitalist, consumer societies. Alienation is the 'condition for the possibility of' ideology, I guess. I hope that helps.
Without surplus how does the capitalist pay taxes? How does he buy the building where the work is done? How does he pay the light bill? How does he pay for employee benefits? How does he buy the raw materials? And after he makes enough money to pay for all the overhead and pay the employees…what happens if the products don’t sell? What if nobody buys the car? Does the assembly line worker suffer? No. He gets his $20/hr regardless. Absolute worst case the company downsizes or closes and the assembly line workers have to get another job. The capitalist loses everything. That’s why the capitalist makes more money than the assembly line workers. Risk. A concept I’ve never heard this guy acknowledge.
when we say the workers decide what to do with the surplus profit that does include taxes, under a more socialist framework when you have more say in the decision making as a worker you are incentivised to use that for the good of the company too, there are many democratic ways in which a workplace can be set up...also workers do suffer in the case of the products not selling and people making a net loss coz they'll get fired. Not only that, when you talk about the risk a capital owner takes you forget to address the risk a worker takes in case they get fired, they literally have no say or control over when they get fired, and on top of that they also don't have much control in the workplace either...also you haven't addressed that at the end of the day the capital owner risks becoming a worker again because they know the conditions the workers are dealt...it's also not easy at all to "just get another job" because if it was easy there wouldn't be much risk for the capital owner because then they could just get another job when they lose their capital
Spot on. I was wondering when he was going to get to that too! The capitalist takes ALL THE RISK, which is why he controls THE PROFIT. Also, at no point did I hear him mention who actually owns the company: if the Board owns it, then they can do as they wish. A trucker, drives products to market, but it doesn't mean he can tear out the alternator from the factory truck and put it in his personal truck "because he owns the company". The trucker creates value by transporting products to market, for which he is compensated for his time and effort, but he doesn't own the products that are being transported, that belongs to the company owner.
They are employees who do not produce. They keep, distribute, and catalog records. That’s not the same as building the actual chair or car or hamburger or software program.
Everyone who uses facebook is a surplus producer (their personsl data is a surplus) but they get paid nothing besides the servoces that facebook offers. They do it voluntarily. Should facebook be required to pay its users?
No one. And no one takes a risk at running it, and no one knows what to do when something goes wrong. And they all eat toothpaste they’ve produced because none of them could sell it.
He forgot to mention multi million dollar automation systems, electricity, water,million dollar or more building construction costs, forklifts, trucks for delivery, security, insurance and workman's comp. You think the workers can pay that? Some businesses don't see a penny for years in order to pay off all the debts for the things mentioned above Now go look up by percentage who pays the lions share of taxes in America. It's NOT what you think. The top 1% pay 42.3% of all taxes paid and if you expand that to the the top 10% pay 73% of all taxes taken if you do top 25% it becomes 89%. So the poorest people pay around 11% of the taxes and most get them all back with refunds. Use your critical thinking skills and don't just listen to ranters. Do better and research.
on the flipside, you wouldn't take the job if you could earn more in some other way, so at least in that sense its win win. but in reality its lose-win because the state suppresses unions. coercion is the antithesis of voluntary exchange.
+Peter Miller Saying "no" to the land owning class, if the violent punishment is "homelessness" (or whipping, prison, etc) is not voluntary. Confederate slavers didn't hold guns, 24/7, to the heads of their slaves. They had guns & weapons, had police to enforce their opinions, etc. Both situations are fully involuntary.
Peter Miller Grats you're anti capitalist then. And what was that nonsense about states suppressing unions? Without state enforced labor rights, union achievements in their battle against capital can only be as much as capital is in the mood to permit. Because at the end of the day they can simply say "no union workers allowed on our private property". There. End of story. Union crushed. As has happened throughout labor history. The state has only suppressed unions by upholding capital's already existing control of industry.
@@Tesla_Death_Ray Capital doesn't have control of industry if you don't have the state enforcing labor rights (unions are force). INDIVIDUALS will have the right to choose who they want to work for and so they exert a part of the control.
Two popular strategies: 1. Lay off workers and increase the workload of remaining workers with little to no increase in compensation. 2. Replace existing workforce with cheaper labour, likely through outsourcing. Those strategies are popular because there's really only 2 ways to improve profitability: 1. Increase revenue by either a) Increasing product price but retaining/increasing number of units sold or b) Selling more units at the same/higher price point. Due to a competitive market, increasing revenue is not easy because then company has little control over whether consumers will actually buy more. 2. On the other hand, decreasing expenses is 100% controllable and actionable by the company. The largest expenses for most companies are typically rent, payroll and cost of good sold (raw materials). Rent is hard to decrease because moving facilities incurs more expenses you would save by staying. Cost of goods sold can be lowered, but it typically means creating an inferior product which could lower revenue, making this move counterproductive. Payroll is the most malleable. For low skill labour with weak or no union support, the employer can impose significant pressure on those workers with little risk. The supply of low skill labour is far greater than the demand, so these workers have low bargaining power. These strategies are somewhat risky for many small to mid sized companies. But the largest, most profitable, too big to fail companies can abuse them with little repercussion, especially during a recession where the worker's bargaining power is further diminished by a weak economy (less purchasing power and employment opportunity). This is why the banks that caused the 08 recession posted record bonuses to its top executives. In these circumstances, capitalism rewards incompetence because the economy (ie society at large) has become completely dependent on large corporations to exist, instead of the other way around. I'm not sure if socialism is the answer, but the current system of capitalism will only accelerate income and wealth inequality and make society more savage and uncaring towards one another.
Wonder how much that university makes compared to the professor lol the worker takes no risk… why is he in a university and not independently teaching easy to stand on your soap box when you’re not taking the risk 🤯
I have this page vol on max and the other program as low as possible and the difference is still mutually unlistenable. Otherwise seems like a noteworthy talk.
Because it is complete bullshit. Wolff's entire argument stems from his ignorance of economics, which is pretty hilarious because he's apparently an "economist." I've seen him make this same point over and over, and it's ridiculous each time. He always says something like "when you negotiate for your pay, let's say it's $20/hr, the only reason the capitalist can pay you that is because your labor generates MORE than $20/hr, otherwise the employer wouldn't hire you." This is logically incoherent. It's just wrong and indefensible. What is generating $20/hr is NOT simply the work of THAT LABORER. It's the work of that laborer mixed with everything else that went into creating and running the company, which includes the contributions of the owner. For example, if I build a machine that produces shoes at a rate of $100 worth of shoes per hour, but I need somebody to pull the lever every few minutes to generate a new pair of shoes, and I hire you to pull that lever. You're not generating $100/hr. It's you plus the machine. The concept Wolff is talking about is Marginal Product of Labor, and a real economist would know that the marginal product of an additional unit of labor is NOT the same thing as what your labor is "worth." He's just wrong, plain and simple. It just sounds good to people who are either a) dumb or b) already inclined towards being sympathetic to Marxism..... but I repeat myself.
@@zacharylarue7939Jesus Christ are you serious? You could've figured this out with a 2 second Google search. Wolff is using the plain meaning of productivity. Productive= literally produces (commodity) Unproductive= doesn't produce (commodity) That's not to say that unproductive workers don't contribute. It just means that they LITERALLY do not produce the commodity that is being sold.
@@Mark-zk3gu why is that distinction important in any way? Silly leftist word games. Ok some people literally have their hands on the product. Others market it. Others do payroll. All add value. None are more special than others other than the value they provide.
@@zacharylarue7939 Jesus Christ x2. Google is your friend. "The labor theory of value (LTV) is a theory of value that argues that the economic value of a good or service is determined by the total amount of "socially necessary labor" required to produce it." It's a theory of COMMODITY value. You need to pay people to do payroll, but they're not adding any value to the commodity. The business may make more money from marketing, but that's not because the commodity becomes more valuable. It's because advertising increases the demand for your product, so more people buy it. This is excellent for the owner of course, because now they can hire more productive workers.
Why are y'all even commenting if you haven't sought to study Marx? PRODUCTIVE labor: makes (PRODUCES) the commodities (the PRODUCT) UNPRODUCTIVE labor: does not make (PRODUCE) the commodity (the PRODUCT)
If I were in that class, I'd raise my hand and ask "sir, if managers aren't necessary for the means of production to succeed, then why do the greedy owners trying to maximize their profits bother hiring and paying them?"
Ohhhhh, I would’ve been picking him apart constantly to where he’d kick me out of his class. He’s talking about making Gumbo by explaining the pot. There are ten thousand other variables happening here. Typical communist BS. Think of this - let’s say GM gives all their profit to the workers. What happens when a $10 million dollar piece of equipment takes a dump? Are the workers gonna pitch in to replace it? F NO! “MY MONIES MEH!” These corporations gamble BIG! They’re constantly re-investing and GAMBLING on more efficient, safer practices. I worked at GM (outside contractor) and the workers are treated pretty good for a decent wage. Communism, you are nothing! Humans are less than shovels or hammers. It’s slavery…..
The good thing is that no one gets to earn their actual worth. The boss or the owner has to give some of it to the workers, the investors, the government, the overhead. Yes, the owner usually takes home the lions share of the proceeds but the owner is also taking the risk.
The only entity not taking some sort of risk is "government". Regardless of success or failure, the startup of a company requires things like zoning permits, business licenses, retail licenses, regulatory fees, filing fees, etc. The government profits, either way. In the rare chance that the business does become a success, then additional tax revenues are collected, etc.
@@timdake That depends upon the situation, the government has invested in numerous GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) that have failed and lost money. Solyndra is a good example, they went bankrupt after receiving over half a billion in federally guaranteed loans.
Means of production? Don't laborers produce all the value and so are the only means of production? Can't you just 'seize' yourself and leave your job and still make the same amount of money?
Love listening to the talk, but if you want to keep all the products of your labor under a capitalist society (barring taxes), you actually can, it's called freelancing and it pays more but it can also be more difficult to get work and can be extremely competitive. However, if you want the CONVENIENCE of a steady paycheck, and you are WILLING to impart your "surplus labor" to an employer that has essentially guaranteed work available to you, then that's called a voluntary contract and honestly sounds perfectly good to me. Your surplus labor is exchanged for the convenience of steady, reliable work and income.
"Steady" "Reliable thats a good one by that do you mean giving wages so low that we have to subsidize them with our taxes? How about employers cutting wrokers hours to avoid paying out benefits? So not only are you getting paid less than what your labor produces with most companies but you also get your hours and benefits cut as well sounds great right?
Are there any videos from Wolff (or anyone else really) explaining why the capitalist class doesn't deserve the profits? A fairly easy argument could be made that they deserve the profit because they invested the capital to create the industry in the first place (I have my own thoughts on this, I just want a vid to show friends)
Insofar as investment is a form of work (requiring effort, research, etc) that is productive, it deserves to remunerated. Capitalist profits are another thing. Capitalist profit (ideally speaking, while many capitalists also work, for our purposes we are assuming that capitalists are hiring managers/intelligentsia to do the actual work for them) is, in the words of Thomas Aquinas, "getting something for nothing". It is getting something (rent, interest, usury) merely for owning an enterprise/thing under the law, which means that the source of capitalist profit is the state (and its violence), which guarentees the appropriation (for the capitalist) of the product of labor produced by people who actually work and labor.
just beacuse capitalist are who have the coapital and we come from a medieval society and who only have the capital in it is the feudal class and the burgoise married with them or State holders (warlords etc), at least in the countries who hadn't a democratic rev like 99% of the countrie; that's why they don't deserve the money.
This video is answering your question. What Capitalism sells is a product. Even a service like health care is a product for Capitalism. So basicaly the workers are those who make the product. They are the ones that use the tools to transform resources into products and they are the ones that put their effort in the creation of the product. Thats why someone who doesn't participate in the creation of the product has no reason to get somethng out of it. That means that share holders, managers and the rest that put no effort in creation of products, deserve nothing from the product generated wealth.
For the second part that refers to them puting the initial capital. That only happened because of the previous economic-social system of feudalism. Those who had the power to invest (still not by wealth generated by them ) where the ones that had people enslaved to work all day (Feudalists) If we go further back we will reach a point where people got separated into classes due to the "form of the enviroment". And these classes where the workers who did all the production, and those who gave orders but never participated in any production. And that's the answer to the question
The employee's labor is meaningless without a job to labor at, without equipment to use and supplies that are need to produce a product. The owners/investors have provided that. Working with someone else's equipment doesn't mean u magically own in now.
Production....work...your mind and body are what they need without it how does production happen? Both must work together yet the worker who MAKES SURE THE COMPANY RUNS gets no say
Let's say, the capitalist has $1000 and used it to purchase labor and machines. The workers and machines production is sold for $1200. The capitalist keeps $200 to consume and reinvest $1000 in machines and labor. Labor and machines again produces $1200, and the capitalist keeps and consumes $200, reinvests $1000 This cycle repeats. Until the capitalist has consumed all of the original $1000 value. By what right does the capitalist continue to keep and consume the surplus created in the labor process? A: none. Injustice is baked into the nature of exclusive control of property.
@@davidgalazin4014 "Until the capitalist has consumed all of the original $1000 value." Wrong, because contributing $1000 at point A is not $1000 of value into perpetuity. Literally no one risks $1000 into a business and then says "oh, it's great that the business used my money for years on end and didn't fail! Guess I'll just take that same $1000 that I could have spent anywhere else and gotten something for it over all of these years and only that amount since I never actually added anything by contributing the use of my $1000 all this time." "By what right does the capitalist continue to keep and consume the surplus created in the labor process?" False premise. Labor did not create the "surplus" here. Capital did. Learn time value of money. There is no injustice in private property.
@@davidgalazin4014 - The "right" comes from the simple fact that the capitalist took the risk, and invested the initial $1,000. Is it really that difficult to understand?
I don’t understand if the professor is shining a negative light on capitalism or not. I don’t feel the workers should have a say in the direction the company takes itself as that’s not what they were hired for. They agreed to a contract where they would be paid a set wage for a specific amount of hours. End of story. If they want an increase in pay, they have several options. They could either fight the corporate life and work their way up the ladder to a more senior position, find another lower level job with another company that pays better (this is also what keeps workers’ wages reasonable because of competition) or they could start their own business if they want to receive all the capital that they have created. Overall, you have two avenues in capitalism you can choose in gaining money. You could either work for someone else for a set wage, with that wage being guaranteed at the end of every 2 weeks. Or, offer a product or service that fills a need in society and run that business for a higher return profit, but with the price of much higher risk that your business could go under. Unlike socialism, for the most part in capitalism, if you work harder than the next guy, and make good decisions with calculated risks, you will be able to make more money. No matter how hard you work, in socialism you keep that same wage.
Capitalist here intentionally watching videos on Marxism (I’ll informed opinions are what make the masses so foolish) and I can firmly say that I still share my viewpoints on this and would have contention for every single one of his points. I understand the impulsive appeal but this really falls apart after any level of analysis, ESPECIALLY on an economic basis.
Really? How are workers are not paying themselves out of their own surplus value that they create from their surplus labor? And how there is not an entire global upper class that sustains itself through this theft? What are the origins of capitalism? And how did theft of tribal surplus around the 1st agricultural revolution align with the further expansion and complexity of hierarchical class structures?
Wouldn't having workers take on all the responsibilities of management just create a ton of more labor for the workers? Especially if decisions have to be made democratically, what if people just don't agree on what the best course for the business is? And if they make the wrong decision and the business fails, who is liable for that? When my retail store went out of business I lost my job, but at least my personal finances didn't take the hit of that whole company going under. In that situation I'm actually glad that I didn't own the means of production, because I could cut ties and walk away from that job without any personal consequences.
You could have a manager paid the same (or basically the same) as everyone else. But he didn't say the managers (and adminsitration, "clerks" here) weren't necessary, or had to be done away with. He said the board of directors and shareholders being the ones who decide is the problem. In a cooperative socialist business, you would have managers and clerks, just they would be elected by the workers and could be removed by the workers, their pay voted on by the workers. Also, trading a portion of twice or three times the income you take in currently to have to make decisions on the general budget and direction of the company should not be a problem (i.e. if the company fails, you'd only be losing money you currently don't have, which is given to the overpaid managers, board members and shareholders.
@@8DX - Do you really think that the average, hourly worker on the factory floor, will do anything other than look out for "themselves"? Do you think for a second, that he (or she) would give the same rate of pay, to the guy who sweeps up the floors? There is a hierarchy of responsibility, for a reason. 1. Do you think productivity will increase or decrease, if every person in the company were involved with every decision being made within the company? 2. Why is it that you think managers, board members and shareholders are "overpaid"? Do you even understand that "shareholders" are investors?
@@timdake 1. My metric for success is not productivity under capitalism. By capitalist metrics the financial sector is productive, landlords are productive, sweatshops in the global south are productive. The relevant measures we should be interested in are worker safety and satisfaction, work-life balance, the use-value (material cost/lifetime) of the products, reducing financial stress and poverty, increasing opportunities for children and creating the conditions for a rich cultural life of all members of society. 2. Yes, shareholders/investors are overpaid by definition, because they produce nothing and do no work. To the degree managers or board members do administrative work, they are doing some labour (although in large companies the majority of that is done by middle management and company bureaucracy), but not 100s of times more than the actual labour force - they work much less hard that those who do the vast majority of the actual necessary productive labour. Also yes, it's been tried (relatively few times, but still) and worker-run factories where everyone takes part in the decision making are better than strict hierarchies - which exist primarily to funnel money upwards and stop worker organising. If you'd read any anarchist or labour-organising literature you'd know that the way workers operate under capitalism - which intentionally divides and alienates them from each other and their workplace and teaches them that this is the only way society can be operated - doesn't mean that's the only way things have to be. Workers who learn workplace democracy and who live it, will reap the benefits as well as gradually becoming better at it and feeling less of a need to "look after no. 1" (since everyone would be in it together).
@@8DX - You don't seem to grasp that fact that not all people have the knowledge needed to be involved in all decisions. You also seem to think that factories spring up from the ground, magically filled with all of the necessary tools, machines needed, to provide the completed product. The simplistic books, written in the 1830s-1840s, have absolutely no bearing on a modern society, or industry. The entire ideology is based on envy and repression, with the intent do divide classes and prevent (or at least discourage) upward mobility. Anyone with half a brain, should grasp the fact that people/workers will put out the least effort possible, if there is no motivation to do do otherwise. Once you take away the motivation to actually be productive, the productivity will cease. This is why communism and socialism have always and will always fail.
So .. students paying 40-60k$ a year to a school to fund this guy salary to tell them they get exploit by capitalism ?? So why his getting a salary ?? I russia education is free so why the university or the students need to be exploited paying so much money ? He should work for free according to this equation.
If you agree to work for $20 an hour then you are implying that your time, or at least the time your willing to spend working is worth less than $20 an hour. Yes the company benefits by extracting more value than they pay you, but you receive more value than you believe your time is worth. This could become a toxic system on the whole if there is little job opportunity, but in the US prior to covid most cities were experiencing difficulties in that companies were struggling to find enough talent. What is hurting is the fact that there is a glut of people with low value college degrees and massive debt often working jobs in fields with nothing to do with what they've studied. This situation is killing entrepreneurship and career advancement, the keys to a healthy economy. Its important to note that the problems mentioned weren't created by evil capitalists, they were created by government garuntees for student loans and a culture that promoted the idea that going to college with no plan and taking on huge loans was a good idea.
You do get paid what you're worth in a capitalist system. The profit is the employer getting a return on what he brings to the table. Suppose you work in a bar: doesn't the building itself mean something when it comes to what is produced? Doesn't the electricity than runs the lights etc? This is the value that the employer brings to the table. It is not surplus value but rather value coming from production that wouldn't be there without the businessman. There are lots of example: a trucker with his truck, an office worker with his computer. Their production would be a lot less without these things. Maybe Wolff did roast capitalism but I don't know: I could only bear watching the first two minutes of this video.
no, you're misunderstanding what he saying. It's impossible for you to get the full value of your labour when you work as an employee at a capitalist company. If you want to get the full value of your labour, then you have to become an owner. if you shovel a driveway for $100, you have $100. If you're an employee and you're shoveling that driveway, you produce $100 with your labour, but you'll be lucky if you get half of that amount. That's the point. we're talking basic math here. Capitalism Isabel capitalizing on someone else's labour. Why does a Dairy Farmer have cows? Why do beekeepers have beehives? People have employees for the purpose of extracting wealth from their labour. If you take 50% of the honey from the beehive, the bees have to work 50% longer in order to replace what you've taken. That's why we still have the 40 hour work week after a hundred years. that's why we saw the Advent of the billionaire class rather than a reduction of working hours. Since 1950 productivity levels have tripled! Where have all the wealth gone? To the owners of capital. if you don't want to be human livestock, then you have to become an owner. Very simple. It's not rocket science
@@michaelmappin1830 I do understand what he's saying, he's just wrong. Just because the employer takes a share of the earnings, it doesn't mean you aren't getting the full value of your labor. If you're shoveling a driveway and the shovel belongs to the employer, they deserve some of the earnings. "That's why we still have the 40 hour work week after a hundred years." It could be that there's more stuff people want to buy and so they are willing to give up some of their leisure time so they can buy those extra things, no?
@@izdatsumcp , no, he's not wrong. the thing is, the owner of the shovel gets wealth without having to do any work himself. That's why we have an environment where most of the wealth actually goes to those who do not work. Capitalism is about owning for a living. people should have to work for a living. Living off of others people's labour is extremely repugnant. That's a form of recidivism. The portion of money that the worker loses to the owner of the shovel, that money pays for the shovel many times over. If the worker had had access to his own shovel in the first place, he wouldn't have lost that wealth that went to the parasite. Capitalism is literally economic feudalism. The richest members of society end up owning most of the capital in the world. Therefore they get most of the wealth produced by labour without having to do any work. That's why the two richest people have almost as much wealth as the poorest half of the American population and why the eighth richest people have almost as much wealth is the poorest half of the Earth's population. it's only possible for a human being to convert so much of their labour energy into wealth over time. even with labor-saving technology is not possible for any one individual to convert their labour into a billion dollars. Even if you could generate $100,000 a year with your labour, it would take no less than ten thousand years to accumulate 1 billion dollars. but under capitalism you can own most of the shovels, railroads, Labs were people get their blood tested, and that way you can charge money every time someone gets a blood test or buys toilet paper. when you buy toilet paper, your money should be going to the worker that produces the paper in the first place. Not some rich shareholder. You shouldn't have to pay extortion fees just some rich person for the privilege of being able to wipe your own rare end. chances are the shareholder never even step foot in the factory or even knows that exists. anyway, what Richard Wolff is pointing out is that when workers own their own factories or businesses, and that business produces a million dollars in sales, that money stays with the workers. but when employees produce a million dollars at a company such as Walmart, most of that money goes to someone else who didn't even work. capitalism is literally economic feudalism and severely suppresses both negative and positive freedom. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4xqouhMCJBI.html the type of socialism that Richard Wolff is talking about is economic democracy. workers getting together, pooling their resources so they can buy their own shovels, and that way rather than losing many years of their life making money for other people, paying for that shovel a thousand or a million times over, that wealth goes to the worker who actually worked for it in the first place. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QG0FhpGdFwc.html that's why it's possible for an assembly line worker to make $70,000 a year at a socially owned company but not at a capitalist company. in regards to the 40 hour work day, yes, people are buying more stuff. But the 40 hour work day, yes, people are buying more stuff. but they're not consuming enough stuff that would require people working 40 hours a week. Industry can't even come close to operating at a 100% capacity. most of what we produce needs to be thrown away in order to keep people working. planned obsolescence, perceived obsolescence, invidious consumption, Etc. 99% of our labour energy ends up in the landfill within only six months. even if we had a 10 hour work week, we would still be able to produce far more than we're capable of consuming.
@@michaelmappin1830 You're still talking as if the worker produces everything himself. He clearly doesn't. You say that IF he had the shovel, he wouldn't 'lose the wealth' the supposed parasite. This clearly means that the shovel contributes to what is produced and so the worker doesn't produce everything. Also, you assume that no-one had to work to buy that shovel in the first place. Capital is just people's savings and mostly comes from labour. If you want economic democracy, go have it. No-one is stopping you from forming a co-operative. Is planned or perceived obsolescence a new thing? Or invidious consumption? If not, there is not reason it would have any greater effect than decades ago.
It’s not that you are remotely “ripped off” it a false and cultured sense of entitlement. You produce thing with support of funding and opportunity that he assigns zero moral or tangible value…. The processor ignore all other factors and only the hyper focused individuals perception value of work compared to a perceived “product”. He is critically dismissive of complex skills and diversity of skill required to manage or operate a business. The concept here panders to fouls with “have Not syndromes” with over simplified logical fallacies. The moral is, No one owns you anything and you are lucky for opportunity capitalism creates. Any thing else he is selling is a lie. Marxist ideologues, historical precursors and socialism have breed evil that destroyed societies from ancient times til now , harmed and killed more humans that any over ideology.
It’s not enough to say there are problems with capitalism, you have to clearly define the better option. If it’s so easy to make money running a business, go start one! Pay your employees what you think is fair and see how long it lasts. Funny how socialists are ALWAYS the people with zero business or wealth generation experience. Once you’ve been in those positions, it’s very clear why workers aren’t paid more. That’d make the product more expensive and/ or put the company in a position of extreme risk should something impact sales.
The is one major point he completely leaves out that does not make this "the logical conclusion." If you make $20 an hour, you must produce more than $20 an hour. Yes, that is true. However, you are not producing $20 on your own. You are given tools, which you did not pay for. There is synergy among team members, who you did not hire, nor train. There are sales people selling stuff, that you are not selling yourself. I could go on, but you get the point. Also, someone (the owner) paid for all of these things in the first place and took the risk. 2nd point, although something I do not want to take away from the first point: if you could make more than $20/hour with your own tools, etc, you would. You wouldn't take that job. He makes his points using fairy tale scenarios...not reality.
I don't think it's even necessarily the case that the worker has to produce $20/hour. That's incredibly difficult to predict and measure perfectly. The capitalist takes a risk hiring that worker. For example, with a restaurant, there could be cases where the staff is paid even when there are no customers and the restaurant is just bleeding money. If we take a burger flipper, even someone who flips twice as many burgers might not be as valuable as one who flips half as many if the former is difficult to work with and hinders the productivity of the people around him while the latter is a great team player... on top of the fact that it's not guaranteed that every burger flipped will be sold to customers (very often some will have to be thrown out).
No, he doesn't leave that out at all. You just didn't listen to the full lecture. It doesn't matter whether a company is privately owned or socially owned. Of course the tools and materials have to be paid for. the point is, if you don't want to lose years of your life making money for other people, then you have to get your own tools so that you can keep all the wealth that your labour produces. Otherwise, you're getting ripped off. That's the point he's trying to make.
@@ExPwner It's literally a science. That's probably why you're failing to grasp it. Either that or it's because your salary depends on your not understanding it 😉
If your labor produces 20 for the company, you shouldn’t get 20 in return. The company provides you the resources to make that $20. Without them, your ability to do whatever task is relatively arbitrary without the means to accomplish it. So when investors come in and supply capital/money, which is really just a tangible exchange for labor, so really they are putting their labor into this with RISK(which employees shoulder none of) then they should deserve a reward for that. That reward is dividends and stock. The problem with Marxism is it oversimplifies complex problems and consistently fails to take certain things into account. There isn’t even an economic basis upon which you can make a claim that Marxism is better. You can only really make misguided moral and philosophical ones, both of which are typically rooted in idealism and don’t take into account the way humans actually think and operate.
That doesn't negate the fact that if workers acquire their own capital / Factory, then they can keep 100% of the wealth at their labour produces. That's the point. If you're working as an employee, then you can't. Obviously you have to pay for your own supplies and tools, it doesn't matter whether the factory is socially owned or privately owned. Everyone understands that. You're stating the obvious. You really think that Richard Wolff doesn't understand that? Actually, he explains that in detail. Watch the full lecture. Anyway, again, the point is, if you don't want to you lose years of your life making money for other people, then you have to become an owner. Yes, that means taking risks, buying your own material and tools, Etc. Where do you think those things come from, the tool tree? You think the capital comes from the money tree? No. Obviously all wealth comes from mixing labour with capital. Maybe you should ask professor Wolff to give you private lessons when it comes to economics 101
No wonder you're so confused when it comes to basic economics and math. You're watching too many Thomas Sowell and Milton Friedman videos. Those people are paid propagandists.
@@michaelmappin1830 They already get 100% of the wealth that their labor produces without owning the company. What labor produces is not the same as what the company produces, dumbass. Quit accusing others of not knowing basic economics when it's you that doesn't get it right. YOU are the paid propagandist. Quit projecting like a fool. Wolff's entire argument stems from his ignorance of economics, which is pretty hilarious because he's apparently an "economist." I've seen him make this same point over and over, and it's ridiculous each time. He always says something like "when you negotiate for your pay, let's say it's $20/hr, the only reason the capitalist can pay you that is because your labor generates MORE than $20/hr, otherwise the employer wouldn't hire you." This is logically incoherent. It's just wrong and indefensible. What is generating $20/hr is NOT simply the work of THAT LABORER. It's the work of that laborer mixed with everything else that went into creating and running the company, which includes the contributions of the owner. For example, if I build a machine that produces shoes at a rate of $100 worth of shoes per hour, but I need somebody to pull the lever every few minutes to generate a new pair of shoes, and I hire you to pull that lever. You're not generating $100/hr. It's you plus the machine. The concept Wolff is talking about is Marginal Product of Labor, and a real economist would know that the marginal product of an additional unit of labor is NOT the same thing as what your labor is "worth." He's just wrong, plain and simple. It just sounds good to people who are either a) dumb or b) already inclined towards being sympathetic to Marxism..... but I repeat myself.
@@michaelmappin1830 The labourer does keep 100% of what they produce. The labourer doesn't produce everything the business is able to generate by using their labour. Businesses add value from their other assets to an employees labour; their brand reputation, business relationships, intellectual and physical property, etc. The profit a business can derive from hiring an employee is due to the value of what they're contributing to the equation.
That's reversed. The wage is always chosen first based on the surplus value that is desired. Otherwise it wouldn't make any sense, wage isn't set after a commodity is sold. Learn what Absolute Surplus Value and Relative Surplus Value are.
I am not economist, but based on his words what i think...we need the "platform" and "infra structure" to be productive enough to make 20€/hour. Making a car being in labor differ in terms of quality of contribution and work when one is designing the aerodynamics or sensor systems. Clerks , managers and sales men are part of infrastructure to sell the stuff : you don't make cars to be used all by your family members..... May be the most practically effective incentive exist to utilize available potential is by providing "as much you do (qualitative & quantitative) so much you gain" ......
Communism isn’t the answer. But not allowing people to get ridiculously rich is something that needs to be explored. No one should have that much power, to force continued cooperation instead of an engulfing. Focus points however are unavoidable, and communism is just greater concentration into an even smaller group of people, consequently with smaller scope due to where they’re standing, which results in poor governance and miserable people. So the answer is some decentralization so groups can take care of themselves but with a ceiling to prevent power imbalances. The smaller the groups the more power in the average persons hand, naturally.
He is also a massive hypocrit for talking down on managers and clerics. He is a white collar worker just like them (though he adds even less value). What he omits is: SL--->taxes--->Richard D. Wolff He also lives from other people's surplus. But that's ok.
@@cyruslupercal6087 A. He is a professor of a university. B. Surplus Value take from laborers is ALOT more than laborers have to pay in taxes. BUT business makes workers fork the bill of business taxes from surplus labor why? Because bosses don't produce value unless it's an owner operated place where the owner is a producer of the commodity
People in the United States generally pay more in taxes for less, so in the long run people in the US already pay more taxes, but most of it goes to random shit that most people haven't even heard of (except the military). The people have no state health care and no free college, but even a broke embargoed place like Cuba has free healthcare and places like Germany only cost a few hundred dollars a year in fees for public college (no tuition). Billions in taxes go to corporate subsidies and things like that.
@@ExPwner It's all taken from workers by capitalists except the surplus they put back into variable to pay the worker. The entire operation is paid for by what the workers produce. Maybe the difference is you are playing an apologetics game and we are not.
I'm all for having an open mind and I like most aspects of communism, it's certainly better than capitalism, but why are Communists always so angry? It doesn't help sell the ideology. I guess wanting to sell something is inherently capitalistic though.
In what ways is communism better than capitalism? Are there any examples of a thriving, prosperous, vibrant communist economic system, anywhere or at any point in time, in history?
puro catio , point is, that this idiot Wolff teaching lies , should be removed from schools and take to labor camp in N korea so he can enjoy his agenda in real life in Socialism / communism .
Sounds nice, except this debate was solved nearly a century ago and has been thoroughly summed up and discredited not only in dozens of failed practical application attempts, but a neat little thing called "the calculation problem". Essentially, bureaucracies cannot determine price, nor wages, nor distribution of surplus in an efficient way. They just can't. What does the cleaner get paid? The receptionist? How about the engineer that doesn't actually build the product but is critical in the product design? How about the IT staff? HR? Accounting? The line workers decide what all these people get paid? The line workers decide what proportion of surplus gets spent on expansion? Do they decide *how* surplus is allocated in capital expansion as well? Really? The guy that didn't even graduate high school decides that? So who's actually producing the product while the management team is sitting in a 10,000 seat stadium explaining what working capital means to a bunch of guys that have difficulty with basic algebra? I mean, talk about something that's easy to understand, if anything it's the absolute absurdity of that concept.
No one is really having the debate your describing anymore. Now its about taxing wealth to fund programs that give people access to education and health care.
Phone Account The important thing to understand about market socialism is that it’s not a centrally planned economy supply and demand still regulates pricing. The only big difference is mandatory workplace democracy.
I took my time to watch this video, it's all BS and if you believe that the only value is created by the workers then you need to start a business. Experience is the best teacher.
When you start a business you are a worker. The interests of small capitalists are very much aligned with the interests of the workers (staving off starvation and exposure to the elements, not destroying your ecosystem). Compare to the interests of a capitalist (Maximizing profit, at any cost, RIP Boeing whistleblower). You see the difference yet?
The conclusion is false. Ignoring the oversimplifications of the corporate system here, some very broad stroke reforms are possible, without throwing capitalism itself under the bus, if you can actually harness the power of that universal suffrage. Most people do not seem to mind that a company exists to generate profit (surplus labor), or that the average employee is only a cog in that kind of machine. It is the issues there at the end of the lecture -- sending development out of the country (importing labor) and corporate political lobbying -- that break the otherwise acceptable system of capitalism. More the latter than the former. When corporations are not restricted in their participation, as such, in government, it is no longer merely a capitalist economy, but corporate oligarchy.
The problem I see here is that the trend where corporations become more and more involved in politics seems to be a natural one in the system itself. I live in Portugal, a relatively leftist country by European standards, and even here there seems to be a growing tendency for private corporations to take over most political debates. Since the Carnation Revolution, most parties seem to be leaning towards the right. The supposed "center-left" party, called the Socialist Party, has more in common with its supposed center-right "opponent" than with its own ally, the Portuguese Communist Party. And you see this precisely in its decisions to give more control to corporations over business that should be left to the state, not less. I see this all throughout Europe. Because in this system growth is of paramount importance, and making any sort of policies that do not benefit corporations in some way ends up hurting the country's economy. Countries are dependent on corporations, and in this way corporations have all the power to become more influential.
You are really missing the entire point. Not only are non owner-operator owners and others like BODs not needed, they make it all cumbersome and less efficient. Surplus already creates wages. Take out the unneeded owners BODs and make them employees that work, and make employees owners. A co-op. Make ALL workplaces completely owner operated, and let the workers handle production and distribution. That's the point. It's the ONLY democratic way. The enlightenment didn't go far enough. Liberté, égalité, fraternité
@@whatabouttheearth I'd agree that cooperatives are great for any large-scale production, but you have to remember that people are worse than cats in terms of herding. If it's something they really can't do without, you can probably get most to sign on, _if_ they're already pressured by scarcity or price-gouging. However, if the scale of the industry is not too large for anyone to easily compete with, capitalist ventures will always arise and undermine it using loss-leading competitive tactics, which work great on the average person who either can't comprehend long-term consequences or has difficulty resisting immediate gratification.
@@crimsonmask3819 Let's think of every last hypothetical to defend a murderous thiefs system historically originating from force and displacement off of land. It really is just "this is the status quo that I know and I'll defend it to the death". Pretty much moral cowardice.
Boy I wonder what his paycheck looks like? I wonder where all the students tuition goes. I wonder who changed the lightbulbs, sweeps the floor? I wonder how his books get published? PS .. BTW, The New School, the place he's currently teaching has a tuition double that of the national average.,... just saying.
If he didn’t have the position he did, then no one would listen to his critique. That’s not his fault, that’s the fault of how capitalism has made us value ourselves and others. Money give him a platform and prestige, would you watch a cleaner lecture about the same thing, or would you say ‘he’s just upset cause he didn’t make anything of himself’ Be honest with yourself, you can survive within a system whilst criticising it and seeing that it thrives on exploitation. It’s not hard, you don’t have to be a cheerleader of everything you benefit from.
What does any of that have to do with the argument? What does selling a book have to do with the argument? Writing a book is an example of earnings. Having employees produce as much wealth as possible while you pay them as little as possible, that's an example of capitalism and profit.
@@michaelmappin1830 Wolff's entire argument stems from his ignorance of economics, which is pretty hilarious because he's apparently an "economist." I've seen him make this same point over and over, and it's ridiculous each time. He always says something like "when you negotiate for your pay, let's say it's $20/hr, the only reason the capitalist can pay you that is because your labor generates MORE than $20/hr, otherwise the employer wouldn't hire you." This is logically incoherent. It's just wrong and indefensible. What is generating $20/hr is NOT simply the work of THAT LABORER. It's the work of that laborer mixed with everything else that went into creating and running the company, which includes the contributions of the owner. For example, if I build a machine that produces shoes at a rate of $100 worth of shoes per hour, but I need somebody to pull the lever every few minutes to generate a new pair of shoes, and I hire you to pull that lever. You're not generating $100/hr. It's you plus the machine. The concept Wolff is talking about is Marginal Product of Labor, and a real economist would know that the marginal product of an additional unit of labor is NOT the same thing as what your labor is "worth." He's just wrong, plain and simple. It just sounds good to people who are either a) dumb or b) already inclined towards being sympathetic to Marxism..... but I repeat myself.
Let me break it down real real simple: Essentially all forms of real socialists (including anarchists, aka Libertarian Socialists/Libertarian Communists) believe that the ALL work places should be owner operated. They also believe that capital accumulation and all forms of undemocratic taking of ones surplus, should not exist because it creates a global class hierarchy which leads to oppression, domination, "haves and have nots", masters and rulers, etc. on a global social level...and these things are the root of an extremely large part of humanities problems.
Richard Wolff made a great point that workers must produce more than they are paid. If they did not, there would be no reason to run a business in the first place and we would all be worse off. The other flaw in Woff's argument is that although managers do not do physical labor, they are, as he admits, vital to the operation of the business. And by being vital to the business, they do produce value and enable the workers to do their job. I do agree in theory with the idea that workers should have a say about the money, but that didn't work so well in 1990s Russia when they tried "insider privatization" where 51% of shares were held by workers. Good theory, but productivity and organization was run into the ground.
Ben Chesterman, NOT every government is the same , however in too many cases government look for its own self interest and than takes the measures to quiet uninformed masses .
@@coopsnz1 Business tax is absolutely not 50% in the US. I think corporate tax is around 8% and they get billions in government subsidies. I don't believe Australia is that progressive
PRODUCTIVE labor: makes (PRODUCES) the commodities (the PRODUCT) UNPRODUCTIVE labor: does not make (PRODUCE) the commodity (the PRODUCT) "Proletariat", "working class" etc is different. If someone owns the means of production to pay workers a wage with the surplus value that the workers themselves created than they are NOT working class. That is also called the "employer class" and we ain't talking managers. But even the very basics of Marx get more complicated. To Marx there were 3 basic types of capitalism in his time. Industrial capitalism (M---C (L/MP)---C'---M) Merchant capitalism (M---C---M') Money lending capitalism (banks etc) M---C (L/MP)---C'---M': Money (M) is invested in means of production (MP), and a commodity (C) (the productive laborer), to increases value by making another commodity (C'), which is sold for profit (M'). It is that increase in value that derives from the productive work or the laborers that creates the surplus that the worker is not paid. And it MUST be more than the worker is paid or there is no profit...and than part of the money that the worker created goes to pay the worker. M---C---M': This is basic "merchant capitalism". Money (M) is used to buy a commodity (C) than is than resold at a higher price and a profit (') is made (M'). ------------------------------ WE'RE NOT REALLY TALKING ABOUT JOE AND SALLY WHO OWN THE LOCAL CORNER STORE Break it down to its most raw essential elements in the simplist form: I have $10, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I made $5 in total profit so far...who's paying the worker now? I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I made $10 in total profit so far... who's paying the worker and the means of production now? IT'S THE WORKER! I the boss am now paying the worker his own wage from his own surplus value, and I am paying for the means of production from his surplus value. THE WORKER IS NOW PAYING FOR EVERYTHING AND I PROFIT. There is an entire upper class that not only lives from this surplus value, they dominate the world.
If you buy an apple then the following statement is true: The apple is worth more than the 5$ to you and less than 5$ for the seller. Maybe in a few years you'll go through another economic breakthrough and learn the concept of trade.
@@michaelmappin1830 wrong. Quit spamming your ignorant nonsense and take a lesson. He just debunked your entire ideology in one paragraph. You don't even understand what the argument is or what subjective value is. Watch, you'll say next "of course value is subjective. What's that got to do with the argument?" like you always do because you do not understand the crux of what he just said.
@@digppa25 , no, it has nothing to do with the argument. Richard walk is pointing out that when you work at a Cooperative you get 100% of your labour value. But when you work at a capitalist company you do not get 100% of your labour value.
@@digppa25 , for example, let's say you shovel driveways for a living. Each driveway is worth $100. When you do the work yourself, you get the full $100. But if you were to pay someone to do the work for you, you couldn't give them the full $100. Because if you did, then there wouldn't be any profit in it for you. That's what capitalist companies are all about; profit. The workers have to produce more value than what they get paid for. But at a worker Cooperative, the workers are doing their own work. They're not capitalizing on other people's labour. That's why they get the full $100, just like when you shovel driveways yourself. That's the argument!
You don't have a choice to not work in a capitalist enterprise. The contract is just you agreeing to get fucked because the entire system condones thievery. Break it down to its most raw essential elements in the simplist form: I have $10, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit, I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I made $5 in total profit so far...who's paying the worker now? I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I use $5 for means of production, I use $5 to pay a worker to make a commodity, I sell the commodity for $11, Making $1 profit. I made $10 in total profit so far... who's paying the worker and the means of production now? IT'S THE WORKER! I the boss am now paying the worker his own wage from his own surplus value, and I am paying for the means of production from his surplus value. THE WORKER IS NOW PAYING FOR EVERYTHING AND I PROFIT. There is an entire upper class that not only lives from this surplus value, they dominate the world.
Again , if your employer gives you $20 /hour that is what your labor is worth , regardless if you make a profit/ deficit for your employer . You do not own the land , the factory, You did NOT negotiated sales and delivery of the product, you do NOT have CAPITAL invested in the business etc .. You as a worker has NO rights to any profit / deficit , but you have a right to wages you negotiated before you start working . NOBODY owes you a JOB or GOOD IDEAS !!
@Jason Weaver Yep. The idea of surplus value comes from the labor theory of value, which states that labor is uniquely important in producing (kind of how the physiocrats thought agriculture was uniquely important to the economy) and that, implicitly, other resources such as land, capital and knowledge play no role. Even if you added all these resources into the equation, it would still be wrong, as value is determined by the consumer and not the producer.
* He doesn't explain what Necessary Labor and Surplus Labor are, at least not after the video begins * When he says hiring someone for $20/hr and the business getting revenue of $20/hr from your input is the break even point for the employer, that makes sense. I'd like to know how an employer could accurately calculate how much your labor alone contributed to the company. * When he says getting paid more than what the business gets our of your input is never going to happen, I think that's false because some people are hired under the expectation that they'll have a certain productivity and it turns out they're lazy or alcoholics. * He says managers don't provide value to a company. But if that's true, why would the owner hire managers? He says "you need all these people if the company is going to work, but they don't produce any value for you." That's a contradiction. * He says that the more the managers can save on taxes, the more they get paid. But that's not the job of managers, maybe one manager in the finance department can work on that, but that's all. Why is the owner being so generous to all management for the work of one person. * He says clerks check whether workers come in on time. Where I work, my manager monitors my hours. Is that different in other companies? In any case, he implies that that's not productive, but it's necessary. What does that mean? Seems like a contradiction. * He says part of the surplus value is distributed to the shareholders. But shareholders provided a service that he's not recognizing, which is lending money to the company. Lending money to someone comes at a price, like any other service. He doesn't even attempt to explain the value of shareholders. * He says part of the surplus value can be used to invest in the company, and that's still exploitative. Does that mean that in a socialist society, a group of workers who decided to invest in the capital of the company would be exploiting themselves?
In case anyone wonders the same things as this guy, I thought I would address this point by point in order to help you understand better. "He doesn't explain what Necessary Labor and Surplus Labor are" - Necessary Labor is the amount of labor a worker has to do in order for him to produce goods worth what the employer pays him. Surplus labor is all the labor a worker does beyond the necessary labor. Although Wolff does not mention these concepts by name, he does mention that there is something as producing more value in goods than the employer pays you. This is essentially the same concept and gets the ideas across that he wants to get across while being less wordy. "I'd like to know how an employer could accurately calculate how much your labor alone contributed to the company" - Employers in general can already assess what kind of wage someone is worth such that they can still make a profit from their labor. Otherwise employers wouldn't hire people. In order to do that, employers must be able to assess what that threshold is. So in society today, employers are already capable of doing that. "people are hired under the expectation that they'll have a certain productivity and it turns out they're lazy or alcoholics." - And do you know what happens to people that produce no profit for their employer? They get fired. Only employees that produce a profit for their employer are kept employed. It would be ridiculous to claim that employers keep employees employed that produce a loss. So in practice, yes, employees can not find a steady job in capitalism in which they are paid the same value or more as what they produce. "He says managers don't provide value to a company. But if that's true, why would the owner hire managers? "He implies that [managers are] not productive, but it's necessary. What does that mean?" - You confuse value with goods or services. Managers can certainly provide value to a company, but they do not produce any goods. They only manage the production of goods. This is what Wolff is talking about when he says managers aren't productive. They do not produce goods or provide services to costumers through labor, like most employees do. "maybe one manager in the finance department can work on [saving money by reducing taxes]" - You are confused as to who Wolff is talking about when he is talking about managers. Specifically in this case he is talking about the managers that are in charge of allocating where the profits of a company are going to be spend on. Obviously if the taxes a company paid are reduced, the managers that allocate the profits have more profits to allocate. And it should be obvious that managers allocate a lot of the profits of a company to their own pockets, either through crazy high salaries or exuberant bonuses. "Shareholders provided a service that he's not recognizing, which is lending money to the company." - I do believe that shareholders should be compensated for lending money to a company, and so does Wolff probably. However, the question should be whether or not the current compensation they get for being shareholders is a fair one. It would appear to me that shareholders in our current society have grown richer and richer, while the wealth of the working class has remained stagnant. If you were to argue that the compensation shareholders get is fair, it must certainly be true that they continue to provide more and more value to companies in comparison to workers, since the gap in wealth between workers and shareholders has grown. Such a crazy assertion is completely unsubstantiated. Shareholders have not found any crazy new investment tactics that made them somehow vastly more proficient at being shareholders. The reason the wealth of shareholders has drastically increased in comparison to workers is that they get disproportionately compensated for the value they provide to a company. In other words; Shareholders get paid more money than the value they provide as shareholders is worth. What Wolff is arguing is that this disproportionate compensation should be halted somehow. His solution is through co-ops, but there could be many other possible solutions through legislature that would make being a shareholder less profitable. "He says part of the surplus value can be used to invest in the company, and that's still exploitative. Does that mean that in a socialist society, a group of workers who decided to invest in the capital of the company would be exploiting themselves?" - The reason Wolff calls it exploitative, is that the decision is not made by those that made the surplus. The workers created the surplus, yet somehow the managers decide what happens to it. This is Wolff's definition of exploitative. So yes, even if the managers decide to invest the surplus back into the company, it's exploitative. Wolff would argue that this is true, because it should not be their decision to make. Then on the flipside, ofcourse if the workers who are responsible for creating the surplus decide to invest it back into the company it is not exploitative. It should be their democratic right to decide what is done with the profits.
>He says part of the surplus value is distributed to the shareholders. But shareholders provided a service that he's not recognizing, which is lending money to the company. Lending money to someone comes at a price, like any other service. He doesn't even attempt to explain the value of shareholders. HAHAHAHAH that's the biggest joke I ever heard so far. You think shareholders provide a service??? Wtf are you talking about. They just provide capital that's necessary for production in return for profit, but that's not a service they are doing. It's not work or labor. Yes, capital is necessary for any business to grow, but the people who own the capital aren't. There's a difference between the capital and the owners of the capital. Companies only need the capital, not the person who owns it. So capitalists and shareholders are utterly useless. And no, nobody deserves to get paid just for owning property and capital. People should only get paid based on their work. So fuck shareholders they don't do anything. They just act as a useless middle-man that gets in the way of workers accessing capital that's necessary for production. They're parasites that leech off of other people's success.
Invokes Marx at 30 seconds.... so this is where we're headed. OK... 0:41 We don't "all know" this. We feel it. Huge difference. I can't believe I had to listen to this much BS just to get to this point. PLEASE understand who you are praising. This man's wikipedia entry has him born on April 1st(I realize this is out of his control but the April fools joke is too rich to resist) He's in Yale at 25. No prior dirty capitalist work history listed. I was working in the real world for 9 years before I went to (and paid for myself) college. Gawd!! 2:30 the camera pans back to see the black board... what's there? Taxes, managers, clerks, "slaveholders" for the love of God, and "ace of capital" whatever that is. Where is the building that the employee works in. I'm sure there is a payment attached to that. What about COGS (cost of goods sold) that the employee used too make widgets or whatever? 4:17 Where did the board of directors come from? Surely they didn't just sprout from the soil did they? Could it possibly be that they invested their money in the company so the company could pay for COGS and and a workforce? Could it be that the board did so because they believed that the company would make money for itself AND them? After all, why invest (gamble) unless you thought there would be a return? And YES THEY DECIDE. It was their money that either got this venture off the ground, or kept it going in hard times ALL THE WHILE supplying jobs for those employees that this man is teaching to be ungrateful.... holy shit I can't believe this retard an audience......whew! OK 5:00 Managers. I'll admit there are those types that sit in middle management and do little to nothing and collect a check. I deal with them on a daily basis. What managers are SUPPOSED to do is take care of those areas of business that one man cannot do alone. For example. There are 24 hours in a day. minus 8 for sleep if you're very lucky. That leaves 16 hours. Lets say you only spend 4 of those being with your family, friends, or yourself. I mean you have errands to run right? So realistically your average entrepreneur OF ONE is spending 12 hours being production, sales, and accounting AT A MINIMUM!!! There's marketing, figuring and paying sales tax, time on the phone. THIS MAN HAS PROBABLY NEVER DONE ANY OF THESE THINGS! 5:45 Managers get paid to do all the things that need to be done because there is LIMTED TIME in which to do them. THAT'S THE VALUE!!! Time IS money!! I work a job. I also own my own business on the side. I do all of it and friend let me tell you, you can only go so far without any help. This man is a charlatan of the highest order selling you marxist snake oil and taking guaranteed student loan money in exchange. 6:00 Do you know anyone who wants to pay more in taxes?? I don't I want to pay the least amount possible. For pete's sake I don't want to over pay for anything!!! who the F does? 6:10 if they do their job right "clerks" why he uses this name is a mystery but whatever. "clerks" are HR Human resources make sure that the people who work at a job are getting treated right. They also try to weed out the lazy screw balls from the employees who actually WANT to work. This man paints them like smarmy hall monitors... clearly he has never had a job and appreciated it. I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS DOUCHE GETS PAID TO TALK ABOUT THAT WHICH HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE OF
Well said! My goodness I said the same thing you said at the end (before I saw your comment) this dude is actually getting paid to state the fcking obvious. Thanks for laying out all the reasons this guy is an idiot.
Identity Crisis Design When I was roofing in the summer. I was like “Man I’m so grateful a small number of people who don’t contribute anything control the entire economy. I’m glad they have so much money, half of them can go to Epstein’s island and no one gets charged.” If you have a job, own a small business and still have enough time to throw a tantrum in a comment section. You probably aren’t doing that much. Richard Wolff came from a poor family. And worked his ass off to get a doctorate in economics from Harvard.
@@wearealreadydeadfam8214 Your argument is all emotional, presumptive, and full of self pity. How much time did you think it takes for someone to "throw a tantrum" in the comments section. I mean maybe I've got my wires crossed but it IS called the COMMENTS section? I mean holy shit, look at you going and leaving a comment with all the time you have to yourself. All I did was listen, note the timestamp, and oppose the point. Not hard. Did you research this guy? Did you research my work for that matter? Goto idcrisisdesign.com (Which I pay for and learned to build) and see for yourself. All that art, and body work is 100% mine with no handout from anyone. You have 3 subscribers and no content. At least look the guy up on wikipedia and do some basic math on his dates and the amount of time he has spent in the halls of academia learning how to repeat Marx (who never had a job either). He basically went from high school, to college, and stayed there. Lots of hard work I'm sure. Hate your position in life and blame it on someone else if you like. Meanwhile the rest of us will have blown past you and scored.
Identity Crisis Design Wolff definitely makes more money than you. He’s just a respected economist and author. He should do something honest. Like paint skulls onto Harley Davidsons. All the starvation and theft under capitalism is justified. Because you can paint a picture of DeadPool on someone’s Mustang. You’re a fucking artisan. Not bourgeoisie. Marx had factory owners in mind. You can keep your garage, dude. It’s not economically important enough to facilitate exploitation. XD
This is so awful to see this guy spread this nonsense. Yes, he nails how Capitalism works. It is a good thing. No one is exploited. No one forces anyone to take the job. Why doesn’t the worker just start their own business or collective and keep 100% of their economic output? Why don’t we see that anywhere that is remotely sustainable? Because it goes against economic realities. Marxists are fighting gravity and try to find ways to disprove it and create a world that isn’t subject to the gravitational constant. It is a fools errand. He ignores all that went into building the factory, coming up with products, the engineering, the middle managers that keep the factory running, and all the people that put up the money to build the infrastructure necessary to build the products. All the worker does is show up. They have ZERO risk. He isn’t necessarily wrong about how things work but his conclusions are typical Marxist drivel that has never worked in the real world. It has always ended in a pile of dead bodies.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics. I have worked many different jobs with many different salaries. Not one of these I could have earned the same amount of money working on my own. I didn't have the resources. It was my employer that provided the facilities, the equipment, the customer base, and the know-how that allowed the business to make money. I voluntarily traded my labor for the resources that the employer provided. On my own, I wouldn't have been nearly as productive. I would have starved. Voluntary exchange works. Richard Wolff has never run a business. If he had, he would see the world differently.
Wolf is amusing discussing with passion the “inherent great logic” of Marx’s ideas. Except for one fact - we tried that system and not only does the theory not work, we go backwards and we end up murdering a few million people or they starve. Not much of a surprise given Marx came up with his utopian manifesto in his twenties sparked by discussing injustice over beer. Sounds like all of us when we were at university. Wolf also forgets to mention a few key points, namely risk and the fact that the majority of people can’t figure out what to do with themselves, let alone try and lead a company or a department. Any worker is free to start their own company, and take on their own risk with their own ideas. If the company takes a loss, employees still get paid, the shareholders do not. When the company goes bankrupt, the shareholders lose their capital but they can’t go after employees for their past paid salaries.
@@anthonyesposito7 no, meaning they have less money than when they began. The worker can find another job and has just as much money as when he started. The owner will be in the hole.
For y'all who refuse to study anything before ignorantly commenting: PRODUCTIVE labor: makes (PRODUCES) the commodities (the PRODUCT) UNPRODUCTIVE labor: does not make (PRODUCE) the commodity (the PRODUCT) "Proletariat", "working class" etc is different. If someone owns the means of production to pay workers a wage with the surplus value that the workers themselves created than they are NOT working class. That is also called the "employer class" and we ain't talking managers. He probably explains it elsewhere but in reality the unproductive workers are getting squeezed also to increase the surplus value, even though they do not make the actual commodity. A primary aspect is that if the bosses and owners were workers and the workers were owners and true democracy was implemented in the workplace in the form of ALL workplaces being owner operated than it would be better for EVERYONE. And we are talking about ALL workplaces but the main focus is on the largest employers and big corporations.
