+Evelyn Dieppa When did he explain HOW TO TRANSITION TO SOCIALISM? He made the same hollow arguments purest have " IN PERFECT SOCIALISM" while in the same breath say "capitalism is not perfect". But in practice that would mean any form of socialism would be just as imperfect If he truly explained every thing it would be an honest IN PRACTCE the choice is imperfect socialism Vs imperfect capitalism
He explained everything? All I could think the whole time he was telling unsubstantiated stories was, "When is this guy going to stop telling stories and explain what socialism is?". And he never did. Seriously, if you want to hear what actual economic analysis sounds like, go to fee.org or like them on Facebook. You may not agree with them but you'll at least see what real economic insight looks like. They talk about actual economic ideas and policies and how they believe these affected the economy at various times through history. They talk about concrete bills and laws that are referenced and can be further researched. They dig much deeper than anecdotal jokes about how people are greedy. Seriously, just humor me on this one. Explore the other side of the argument. Go to their site and read any 5 articles and note the difference in the way the information is presented.
My high school hired sports coaches to teach history and social studies. Then I got to college and yeah, there were people like this who actually gave a shit about what they lectured.
@@shnglbot I would argue capturing the state is still important in the implementation of anarchist ideals, just to prevent the state from undoing your reforms
@Cecilio Stazio i don't know why anyone would want to undercut worker coops as the writing-to-action for socialist implementation, as this entire presentation is about the transfer from capitalism to socialism with worker-coops as the means to weaken capitalists' power over workers as the state seizes all inelastic markets. The interrupting audience member seemed more interested in a biblical recitation of Marx's work rather than a presentation on what socialism is, and how we should achieve it.
@@stephenwithaph1566 Right Marx obviously didn't say worker coops right? But he was making an interesting point in that restructuring labor to be decided by the masses before revolution or evolution would mean that you wouldn't end up with state capitalism but instead actual socialism.
@@robertdobert4714 Worker coops are essential to ensuring that your com.unity gets what it needs. Learn what a worker coop is. Nor is marx the golden standard of idea.
This guy does sound like he's talking to a bunch of dummies. But when you're clearing up American misconceptions I suppose that's the best way to do it. Love this guy.
It was really refreshing as a guy that never had the ability to find something dumbed down enough to understand, it's always "great theoreticals" and lots of complicated words
Being of the left can be thankless and tiresome. Every now and then it helps to listen to someone else state the case for socialism, as richard wolff does so simply but eloquently here, as it reignites and reenergises and makes you remember why you identify as a socialist in the first place.
I have to admit the left has begun to really push me away on social issues. However im still a socialist in the centuries old sense of the word. When did this social justice insanity get lumped in with this? Its going to knock the S word back down in the states just after we finally got the concept to have some mass appeal for once!
Erik The Bread i think right now in the us it has 100 meanings. I mean trade union socialism but now ive settled for within a regulated capitalist framework which i suppose makes me technically a democratic socialist since im no longer advocating capitalism be replaced by an entirely new system called "socialism". That explanation work for you? Cuz bernie sanders "socialism" isnt socialism either. And you have anarchistic, liberal, marxist, authoritarian and many other versions of this concept as well. I basically narrow it down to two relevant potential types for basic conversation: the kind thats inside capitalism and regulates and protects workers aka social safety nets etc. and the other kind is a replacement for capitalism. I like the idea of workers ownership of the means of production very much but it just will never ever be an acceptable view for most americans since Marxism couldnt even take root during the damn great depression on any kind of relevant scale here. Besides, we are good at capitalism. Its brought is unimaginable positive results. If we can offset the negative ones i see no reason to replace it with something that isnt even really tested and merely an economic theory. And economics has never seemed a solid science at all. They still cant solve the boom bust cycle yet keynes is out even though its the best answer we had so far to see it work well when put in practical use. So regarding my revisionist leftism....ill take what i can get as a realist who knows how americans feel about liberal democracy and capitalism...its the one country that cant take these concepts out of their almost religiously accepted (subtle yet totalizing) ideology. And to be honest its been good to us materially. Spiritually however...
@@polarnj Nope. Because respecting trans rights, gay rights etc, has nothing to do with socialism. Though, given that it's an economic system based on helping people, unlike capitalism, it has more to recommend it to the open folk. The Liberals. The left.
@Winston Smith Feudalism is closer to end-stage capitalism. a minority of people with all the power and wealth. Only this time without god. Socialism might not be perfect, but at least the aim of it is the people.
+RandomnessMaster believes the guy interrupting the Marxist was annoying... Actually the guy interrupting the Marxist was the early-warning to the drooling morons sitting there wondering how a fucked up self-serving cart-rider is peddling the European cure for Americans brought up with the ethics of hard work, clean living, and an honest day's pay for an honest day's work... I believe that if you force yourself to watch the entire bull shit session, you'll find at least three perfect examples of Wolff's absolute contempt for anybody daring to point out the absurdity of socialism...
+Il Pirata -- Me? No, I wasn't there; however, in the event I *was* there... it would be fairly safe to say that I would be respectful of Mr. Wolff's right to make a complete idiot out of himself -- then, I would have respectfully shown facts that would have made the audience aware of the fallacy of socialism... e.g., socialism is fantastic and works wonders for the drooling morons subscribing to it... that is, until the drooling morons run out of other peoples' hard work and responsible management of their money... make sense? In the event it doesn't make sense to you, then imagine yourself being the one having your (hard earned) money stolen from you and given to a lazy cart-riding morons because it's the right thing to do... and if you don't pay up, you go to jail... ponder that in a real world sense before you make an ass out of yourself in a response... just sayin'
FLOYD DEWD Well, that's almost impressive, especially for one who displays more than a healthy touch of the "drooling moron" themselves. Well done you, in convincing yourself of your intellectual superiority you've also managed to convince others of your lack of it. Swings and roundabouts, right!?! I know how much your type loves, nay needs to have the last word, but this is where I leave you and your tail to it. Knock yourself out tiger, chase away.
He is talking about workers managing and running their own business, so they wouldn't run out of anyone else money it would be their money to manage in the first place. You sound very foolish.
I thought the same thing. The good news is that it's on RU-vid so anyone can watch it. I'm actually 18, so at least it reached one person who's considered a part of the youth. However, while I'm going to share this speech as much as I can, not a lot of people I know want to listen. :3
DR Dan I worked for USA corporation and it sucked. You have not much of a clue. Wolff describes your sort of conditioned American. Sad but true. You will have to work hard at it.
At the 30 minute mark where Wolff argues that publicly owned (state capitalist) enterprises are there to not necessarily be efficient and turn a profit but to provide a service for the public good hit me like a ton of bricks! It makes so much sense, if you take the post office or the railways that's a natural monopoly for the state to have control over as there can't be effective competition in a sector that is a structural monopoly that will refuse to , for example deliver post out of the way to more rural people of which it isn't profitable to do, the only way for everyone to have access and not be ripped off by the capitalist holding a private monopoly is to embark on a state capitalist monopoly instead which is not beholden to the market. We have a big problem with our privately run railways in the UK ripping us off blindly as its a monopoly and the consumer cannot choose to take another train and is forced to pay the highest fares in europe for a truly awful inefficient, garbage service, as there is no competition to spur the industry to provide anything better. Therefore it is most sensible that the railways come back into state capitalist ownership. Now whenever I hear the right wing talking point that government run anything is garbage as its not cost effective I will always think back to the fact that the government is providing a service in which they are not ultimately affected by the survival of producing a surplus as they get their revenue from taxpayers and spend that money on the public goods and services which all citizens need access too, so it doesn't matter that the state service is not perfect because the market will refuse to operate that service effectively itself, or not without the consumer facing a even worse alternative.
A more likely cause for less-than-stellar services under government funding is lack of funding, especially under more conservative governments. It's not because they don't have competitive forces requiring them to provide better and better services.
Jess Poisl You're welcome.. If you can find the time, check out Socialism for dummies part 1 : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ysZC0JOYYWw.html and this great socialist idea about "worker self-directed enterprises" I find very inspiring : ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-BDiDt74Fyss.html And if you live in the US.. please vote for Bernie Sanders in the primaries..
Pretty Awesome Oh I did, :) that was also enlightening. I want to watch them both a few times so it all sinks in and I can get clearer about it. I will check out the other video as well. AND I plan on it. I feel that Bernie Sanders is the first politician in my adult life to actually be a normal person. He's not a political dynasty, he's not controlled by big money, and he's straightforward and honest about who he is and what he represents. It feels very transparent to me. I hope he can strike a chord with Millennials, I feel there are a lot of us out there just looking for an honest reasonable conversation about what is wrong and how to go about fixing it. I'm only 32 and I'm exhausted on politics and feeling like I never have a true voice. All of this brings back a bit of my 20s college optimism. I hope it builds as time goes on. It's going to be an interesting few years.
Jess Poisl I sooo agree with you! I'm 44 years old and I just got a political boner watching this: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-n6HGzP671hA.html. Even Obama did not get me this excited! We are talking about a political revolution here... and it feels like it's now or never.
Pretty Awesome Haha yeah, it's great. I hope we are at tipping point. It's most likely going to get worse before it gets better, but I really really hope we can finally pivot as a nation. The little people are getting fed up with corporate money in politics. I think that message has been clear for a while. It's wonderful that he's filling auditoriums.
I do feel your sentiment, but voting for a republican if Bernie does not make it in the primaries would be voting in a whole bunch of republican judges into the supreme court.. because after 2016 a couple of them are going to retire.. and we don't wanna have more republican judges appointed for life in the supreme court.. so...please please please vote for Hillary in the primaries if Bernie does not make it.. It would save us decades of decline and struggle
The saddest part about this comment section isn't all the whiney capitalist supporters, it'd fact that their arguments are sooooo stupid it's almost amusing.
Curia Regis It's easy to sit there and blame that failure alllll on socialism, like a twat. But did you ever really look into how those nations fell? Has socialism failed every time it was attempted? Mostly, yes. Is it socialisms fault? No.
Curia Regis I'd love to hear why Capitalism is good, not many people can actually defend a system that benefits the few and burdens the many, so please, inform me.
Curia Regis Considering I grew up in Texas, USA. (USA being the heart of the Capitalist machine). Having very well educated Conservative Christian Right Wing parents, as well as being upper-middle/upper class (depending on your definition), and I believed that garbage until I was about 16 or so. So yes, I see it from their perspective, and their perspective is fucking despicable and garbage. I don't give a shit about what anyone else said to you, and I don't give a shit about what you said to them. You obviously like Capitalism, ok, so how is it better? Fucking hell you are thick.
Curia Regis I don't care what people said. I'm trying to have a discussion with you, but you keep pulling a Politician and changing the fucking subject man. So go on, why is it so much better?
Much of this video is painfully repetitive with Part 1 of these videos. If you've recently seen Part 1, you can safely skip to the 22:59 minute mark and pick right up (and still there are redundancies). Or better yet, if you've not seen either, skip Part 1 and watch this video instead -- you won't miss a thing.
Congratulations to Prof Wolff for an extremely edifying lecture on a complex subject. I've been aware of US reactions to the word socialism & their myriad connotations but have never been able to put into words. Much appreciated.
THANK U, PART ONE WAS AWESOME. Part 2 was EMENCE! I just shared BOTH on Facebook. They won't listen or take the time to educate themselves, to every word of this LESSON, as I did. Being a Union Leader, Now Retired, I GET IT SO DEEP IN MY SOUL.!Peace,J Biondo
Excellent free university lecture. Prof. Wolff is the best at popularizing economic analysis that is realistic, compared to our usual capitalist propaganda in the USA.
He does a fairly good job at putting it in terms that people that have no exposer to socialist ideas can get a handle on those ideas and then if interested can pursue it further. This as the title says is socialism for beginners. I am sure if he had to he could up it several levels. Also if you interested look up David Harvey, he does chapter by chapter lessons on Marx's book Capital, Volume one.
Well not everybody agreed on seizing the state, there was a major split within the sosialist movment between marxist and anarchists. Anarchists wanted to abolish the state and decentralize power, and organize this decentralized society through direct democracy, and through unions ect. give workes the means of production. To be honest after seeing how socialist states never leave the capitalist state level, I think anarchism is the way to go. I dont trust the state with such a major task. Another point is communism is stateless, why centralize when the end point is to decentralize, seems almost like a step back to be honest.
Very interesting lecture, definitely a great way to learn about economic structures. As an italian i was particularly touched and saddened when he mentioned his hope for Italy was for a strong left to take action. Instead we got Salvini.
UPS and Rail is Ineffective While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal healthcare, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.
Many thanks! It helps to lay down theoretical foundation underneath my understanding of socialism. it helps me explain to the righties what is and what isn't socialism. P.S> Unions are a form of the works taking over some organizational control over their workplace. Trade Unions are socialism and unions are what built the American Middle Class in 1950s-1970s.
Hahahaha some of the audience couldn't hold it in, and the volcano inside them erupted and they yelled out interrupting Dr. Wolff. They're so manipulated by the system, they boil over whenever they hear something they've been told not to agree with. If you don't agree, just walk out. Or you may ask questions and remarks after the presentation. Yelling out in the middle shows the lack of manners, professionalism and basically, education.
To think I started this series thinking that being well versed in Marxism since forever I'd learn little from this "socialism for dummies class"... Since this is still an appropriate title, sort of, it's all the more humbling...
I think, the basic question is how to balance "I" and "we" in a modern society. Both socialism and capitalism come with industrialization and are ways to manage it.
This was great but I wish the audio for the questions was better or that they were CC'd. It's an old and common complaint though, and no reflection on So I Say. Thank you for the upload.
This is interesting. Not what I thought I would find out. I"ve been raging about how communist the govenment in the u.s. seems to have become, being very negatively effected by it (and a state government)at this time. Alot of this actually seems to be what the founding fathers desired for the people. To be free to do what you think best for your situation. I can't see them even having a problem with a group of people having a coop if they so desired it. Their point was to keep the government out of a persons buisness and let them do as they desired as long as they didn't tread on anothers right to do the same. The idea of social capitalism seemed to be quite strange when I first heard of it but Mr. W olff cleared it up nicely. Seems like that's what is happening now in the U.S.. This really seem that it would be more effective on a small scale than on a large one. one problem I woud have is if the government was to force people to do it. It will really work best if there is concent amoung the members. It actually sounds like a good idea to work together as a group and decide together about the logistics of a buisness. "And they were all republicans". I have never heard of the invasion of Russia by France, England, and the United States. Not even a wisper. I am suspicious about that. He said it in the first video. Another problem is human nature. The founders understood that it is almost impossible to get any two men to agree on anything and often passions flare. There are people who want only power over others. These individuals would have to be eliminated if such a system were to be able to exist on a large scale society level. It gives me food for thought.
The "invasion of Russia" is more commonly called the Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War. The Allies initially invaded to secure the eastern front, but it later became a war on communism which the Japanese, in particular, were intensely hostile to. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War The point of socialism is to give the power and the wealth to the people who actually do the work, and remove business owners with fantastic wealth from wielding too much power and hoarding resources. It doesn't force people to go to work, or to do anything. It merely redistributes wealth and power. Socialists view fantastical wealth as a type of theft from society. No one gets rich on their own. They get rich by exploiting the people who work for them. Socialism also does not preclude the concept of incentivisation, that is a common misconception. Workers would be free to expand their own wealth through production. There will always be a measure of inequality, but with Socialism all the power would remain with the workers, while minimising income disparity.
In the early bit where he's talking that the socialists were in agreement of seizing state power only really applies to a certain part of socialists. Anarchists who were also socialists disagree with both of these methods. They thought that the seizure of state power through revolution would result in a authoritarian regime that wouldn't end up socialist (they were right, the USSR was state capitalist, just as he explained in the first part) and that electoral politics wouldn't work because it would inevitably result in the political parties becoming more and more diluted to then fundementally support the status quo (which is also true. The social democratic party in Germany which was radical socialist initially has been watered down to the moderate left party today). Instead they argued for the unity of means and ends and the building of dual power to achieve that. Basically you build a new system alongside the old while working to get rid of the old, rather than adopting the system and building it afterwards.
@ 35:15 Mr. Wolff mentions that control of production is the means of equality. "We have to look at how we organize production." I think another element is needed in order to have equality.. All private mineral rights must be turned over to public ownership. Private persons, corporations and businesses would have to obtain their raw materials from the publicly owned reserve of Nationalized resources, and pay the public a proper value. All recycled materials would be returned to public ownership.. Oil, gas, metals, stone, and even the rays of the sun should fall under public ownership because humans did not put them there. The resources were always there from the beginning. I think the means of production should remain in the private sector. The owner of something like a factory would own their property and machines. They would decide what to manufacture, within government regulations, i.e. can't make an atomic bomb factory without government oversight. Then the capitalist will not fear the state "taking all their stuff". The factory owner would have to purchase their materials from the public stockpile at a fair market value. Energy and mining companies would compete by bidding for contracts to extract the publicly owned resources. Their purpose would be extraction, not ownership of the extracted material. The public still owns it until some private citizen purchases a quantity from the public stock. The factory owner would have to bargain with the private citizen for their skills & labor. The right to collectively organize a union must be protected. The institution of a single payer system of health care would help the employer offer a better package to their employees because both would be taxed fairly for a single payer medical system that is far more cost effective the the medical insurance company schemes we now have. There has to be a proper minimum wage also. I believe in the statement I heard that "No person working a 40 hour a week job should be living in poverty." Better yet, no person period should be living in poverty. That can happen if they are given support provided by the natural resources rightly owned by each and everyone of us. Nationalize all natural resources to help bring about social equality.
"What everybody agreed on [...] is for the socialist to grab the state" I'm pretty sure there is a non negligible faction of socialist that wouldn't agree... Oh yeah, the Anarchist ^^
Here in Mexico we have two mayor state capitalist industries: Pemex (oil and petroleum) and CFE (electric supply). Both are state-owned private companies, and even we have a holyda the 18th of march to celebrate "petroleum expropiation day", in which we conmemorate the day a law as passed that stated that all petroleum in Mexico was exlcusive to Pemex.
The ending was interesting...Capping it off with an example of "socialism in action": 1. Make 6 figures as an employee of a capital enterprise in Silicon Valley. 2. Set aside enough of your 6 figure salary so that you have a cushion for living expenses and for 3. Startup capital to form a corporation with like-minded venture capit-... cooperative workers.
Employee owned business seem to be a good idea, I do business with several of them and they are productive and deliver a good product, co-ops, still ok but not as good an idea in practice. Which ever model is used, letting the employees vote on most or every aspect of the business, product, marketing, design, etc. is a really bad idea in practice. If an employee's expertise is not in marketing, are they the person you want contributing to marketing decisions? The same goes for all other aspects. Specialization is a very powerful, successful production and business model. The "egalitarian" business organization model kicks that huge benefit in the head.
HotMustard I'm totally with you on the the almost evil methods business's can use to boost their profit margins at the very deliberate harm to their customers. Business's as well as people need to strongly hold to the rule of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." On one hand, we do need to look out for our brother at least some. At least have some concern for their best interest and well being, not just treat them as something to be exploited for profit. The flip side of the coin is our entire modern world with all it's advances in quality of life for the masses is the result of ambition and people seeking profits. With out the drive for profit, we'd all still be living in grass huts scratching flees. I would very much like to see changes but we must beware to not throw the baby out with the bath water. One of the problems I find in the socialist/egalitarian theories is they are not remotely realistic. If a society had only uniform, moral, average people to work with, the egalitarian model might work. But people are a bunch of self interested, thuggish, short sighted, (did I say self interested?) brutes. No amount of social engineering will ever rid the human animal of this wholesale baseness. Any viable economic system must deal with this reality.
@ 29:00 Mr. Wolff speaks of how the European Union wants Greece to sell off publicly owned assets. Where have I heard of similar things? It seems like that is something like the Roman Empire used to do to provinces. It seems that a lot of the Roman tactics survive to this day, and that is a problem.
The interesting thing is that every successful example of "socialism" the speaker mentioned was completely voluntary. That being the case it seems it can be implemented without the initiation of the use of force ie government and then by all means go nuts if it helps us move forward it can run alongside capitalism and outcompete it.
Just a few examples of socialism in existence in the USA: public libraries, fire departments, police departments, public schools, public parks, the post office, Amtrak, public utilities (sewer, water, etc.), recreation centers, farming subsidies, co-ops, community gardens, and many, many other examples.
dunkafelic Unfortunately free health care is an evil step too far. My hard earned tax shouldn't go near helping aid my fellow countrymen in their time of medical need, no, it should go to defense for bombing more foreign lands! Fuck yea. 'Merica.
+Chris Daily It's not "socialism" according to the strict definition (it doesn't really exist, like pure capitalism doesn't exist), but those are all based on a socialistic model, as opposed to a capitalistic model. They are examples of how we've integrated socialism into our capitalism (there's always a balance between the two in practice).
+Chris Daily Uh not exactly. Not everything's always going to be either black or white. There's plenty of gray here. It's okay if you choose to oversimplify things out of convenience or necessity though. It's your life buddy.
Wolff's discussion of worker collectives. I'd ask, how is this different from the Yugoslavian implementation of collective factories? And how inefficient and wasteful they were? I don't say that to denigrate the old Yugoslavia. Merely to point out, those collective factories with democratic institutions deciding output and management goals, really didn't produce effectively. I point to the Yugo car. Which was junk. It really was. And I also don't say that as a conservative. This really is a problem with Wolff's proposal.
No, they actually can't deal with that reality, now 4 years later imagine say Musk tesla owned by all his employees, would they look at space travel or would they disagree, one vision one goal sometimes is tge only way for companies to progress.
His final argument at the 1 hour mark is absolutely ridiculous. He claims that silicon valley engineers are communists when they create a partnership yet he ignores that they intend to hire others that they will pay a fraction of their own wages for. He claims they rebelled against capitalism, but the reality was they rebelled against a COMPETITOR. If that is his best argument for communism/socialism, then capitalism is what makes socialism possible. And the individual search for profit, wealth, etc. is what drives the ABILITY to have socialism.
yeah thats a common problem for people who are just getting into it(like me). Im pretty sure all political theory books and essays are like that too, because in 8th grade i read the federalist papers in my AP government class and couldnt understand a fucking word lmao.
Angel Ortiz Wolff would get murdered. I've watched several hours of his videos and have yet to hear him talk about economics at all. No substance, only anecdotes without sources.
I agree, Shapiro use a lot of talking points, regurgitated junk from the media. And Shapiro doesn’t know what Socialism is. Wolf would make this kid look like a fool as he done with other kids similar to Shapiro in the last 30 yrs.
I dont live in America, but I'm really curious about the future of socialism in America. Given that socialism has been treated in America in a radically different way than it has been in Europe for the last century, and given the rising interest in socialism by young people, I would like to ask the question to Americans: do you see around you a rise in socialism/socialist thinking/conversation about socialism?
I took the the time to listen to both parts. I now have a better understanding of the reasoning or lunacy of the socialist ideology. He talked about the differences in Marxism, socialism, capitalism, state capitalism, and the democratic workplace. He spoke at length on the debate of the methods to achieve socialism either through revolution or evolution. Revolution is war involving murder to steal the power and assets of those that have to distribute to those that do not. IMMORAL!Evolutionary method as explained was to achieve power in government through majority vote to do the same thing as promised to steal wealth and distributing through the working class who would now be in charge of production and in sharing the profits. Those who previously owned these companies would be ostracized and sent on their way. This happened in Venezuela where the businesses were appropriated by government elected into power. IMMORAL! He touched on Co Ops. The beauty of the freedom here in America is that we can gather with other like minded people to form a cooperative enterprise, or consortium whereby the decisions on production and devision of profits could be made. In this model all things being equal each member would have to share in the investment, expenses, profits, and any potential losses. None of which he mentions or probably understands. The Silicon Valley companies he talked about at the end still had to operate in a capitalist model by employing workers to make the products. Profit sharing in this model is only a benefit and not socialist as he explains. I did not buy what he was selling and make no mistake he is profiting from his opinionated lectures and writings. The only value from the last 2 hours of my life that is a takeaway for me is this: In America we have the freedom to assemble. We can join together as suggested with co-ops. This can not be forced or enforced by the government to shift in totality this system of socialism where the workers will dictate the production of goods or services. Only the consumer can dictate which system is better as they have a choice on what goods or services they will buy. The consumer decision making is formed around perception of quality and value of the product and of the quality of customer service of the company, small business, sole proprietorship, or CO-OP. The customer/ consumer is the common denominator. Not the government, not democratic majority, not socialism and certainly not the hated capitalist 2%. The consumer.
I find it amazing that there are still so many people defending this absurd ideology in the 21st century... Not even with the writings of Soljenitsine, Orwell, Huxley... The examples of the Nazis, the Communists, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Vietnam, Angola, Mozambique, etc... Redistribute the wealth to those who don't want to do anything and you lose all the wealth and productivity! That's not state capitalism or whatever terms they come up with to hide socialist failures. It's a pretty idea and we sure can take some concepts out of it towards a social democracy based on capitalism, but that's about it. In a 100 years we will still be discussing this even with more 100 years of socialist failures around the world.
@@MrTiagoTnT people still fight, rather than defend this idea, because it has never yet been achieved. Your comment makes me wonder if you actually engaged at all with the point of this lecture. Marx’s ideas have yet to be realised. A world of free access, common ownership is possible and a necessary progression from capitalism for humanity and the planet. Capitalism is the failure.
@@mandybruce9540 "Marx's ideas have yet to be realised" is an argument used by so many... But are you really trying to tell me that socialist/communist regimes never adopted his ideas? Of course they have. The ideas just don't succeed and take away all the competition, changes and evolution that comes from the struggle. If you equalize everyone in terms of value to society, without a real correspondence, the ones that really add value will withdraw from actually contributing something. Why give my all if I stay in the exact same situation as the guy who doesn't give a shit? Why accept the injustice? And how does the system plan to actually motivate the ones who don't care? By forcing them? Send them to Gulags or concentration camps? Execute them? I definitely think Capitalism is, at least for now, by far the closest regime we can get towards meritocracy. Sure, it's far from perfect but still... the closest.
@@MrTiagoTnT yes your probably right, past revolutions have adopted Marx's ideas but for various reasons they where never able to bring them to fruition and create the society based on commonly held infrastructure, production for use and free access that Marx envisaged. In such a society one would contribute whatever skills they had to the common good and be rewarded with all their needs met. If people don't wish to contribute, they don't have to. It's my belief than more than enough would contribute because we are social beings, we want to help each other. Currently so much time and labour is expended administrating money. If the market system was gone, we'd all have so much time to get on with the socially necessary work and provide for ourselves with ease, rather than waste so much of our lives chasing bucks around.
I work for a worker own co-op and I think it is a very bad way to organize your business. Any systems which don't accept or clarify private property don't work well. It only works with a few workers.
+Mary Peeples I think you have discovered the KEY to the whole thing. Anyone who says you don't need socialism is a fool. Anyone who says you don't need capitalism is a fool. The main problem is dogma. People become dogmatic in their respective left versus right views. A balanced mixture of both systems where you encourage enterprise mixed with social responsibility ( decent wages /conditions etc is the best way forward. Unfortunately , each is as BAD as each other. the UK became almost a socialist state by the mid seventies . What was the result ? The UK became the international laughing stock. The sick man of europe. We became strike bound and hopelessly inefficient and had to go begging ( we were a once great power ) to the IMF for a bailout because were BANCKRUPT . It took a very right wing Lady to sort us out. But will we never learn ????
That’s untenable. They cannot coexist. So long as capitalism exists, it, by its very nature, will cannibalize any socialist tendencies in the system as soon as possible. Reagan, and Bush, Paul Ryan, they each represent capitalist attempts to strangle the public gains of welfare, social security, and healthcare (not that the ACA’s socialist). And while capitalism is trying to reverse public gains, it’s simultaneously shifting more weight onto the boot on the neck of the working class.
@@isaacdavid765 - Good post. We need money out of politics so that the minority Capitalists cannot take away legislative power of the humans which is needed to regulate the Capitalists. We are getting dangerously close to being too late to do this.
My final conclusion of these 2 videos: 1. if it was failed socialism, he says it was not socialism... It was capitalism. 2. He never explains HOW socialism works. And 3. He has no example of socialism as he explains it working (except on some very small scale) 4. This is basically just a capitalism bash session.... My search for an explanation of how socialism works and how it's better continues....
spldrong By no means. Socialism would be the collective ownership of all those assets by the workers themselves without a hierarchical buisness structure.
spldrong The largest current example would be Rojava, in the kurdish areas of northern syria. However, to become a large-scale alternative, it needs to become a global system, like capitalism currently is.
1. Socialism pre-existed capitalism, which is largely based on individualism and freedom to work for whatever you choose to work for, given other people's desire to pay you. 2. The "losers" of capitalism? What? The only people who don't succeed in capitalism (in terms of strength of wages, and standard of living, and you could even include life expectancy) were people who didn't work at all. People who do work, regardless of how low their wages, are getting better over time in all three of those categories. That is a fact, not an opinion. 3. Feudalism is essentially what Socialism used to be, but without the "good intentions" that socialists claim to hold. 4. PRODUCTION IS NOT A SOCIAL THING. It is an individual thing. For sake of discussion, if I produce grapes, and you produce socks, do you get credit for my grapes? No. Bug off. Those grapes are mine, and those socks are yours. There is a difference between an aggregate of universal production, and actually having everyone be responsible for other people's production. Finally, our current system (in the United States) is not free-market capitalism. It's not even capitalism. What it is is cronyism and protectionism. Where the state gives permits to certain people while denying market access to others. This protects certain businesses from competition. The confusion over whether this is capitalism or not derives mostly from two factors: 1. Most people don't know how much the government regulates already, and hence believe that this is all a product of corporations, when it is in truth a product of lobbyists and the state. And 2. Because despite all the regulations we have in this country, we are unfortunately the most accurate example of what capitalism looks like around the world. The unfortunate truth is that most people confuse accuracy with precision. Accuracy just means you are the most alike given all other economies available to compare to. Precision is a purist outlook, which compares the nation to the theoretical example of what capitalism would be. If you were to ask how precise America is to capitalism, an honest man would agree that America is not a precise example of capitalism, and is a precise example of protectionism and even mercantilism in many respects. So when people say "America is capitalism, and capitalism has failed" I generally roll my eyes because their definition of capitalism is more accurate than precise, and therefore most likely uninformed. Fight protectionism. Fight for free markets, not for additional lobbying and bureaucracy. Such things are the downfall of nations on the brink of free societies. To fall back to the darkness of trusting the state would be to crawl back into the feudal past from which we came, and where all attempted examples of socialism have crawled back to. Thank you for reading, if you did.
Ricky E "Fight protectionism. Fight for free markets" The only sensible thing you wrote. The rest was misinformed and inaccurate. You should have also wrote with the above and nothing else: Fight to stop appropriation of commonly owned wealth by private organisations and people.
Roy Hammel " technically capital is the means of production," Oh my God! Basic economics..The factors of production: 1. LAND - which is: land, all resources under, the seas, seabed, the electromagnetic spectrum. 2. LABOR - human physical and mental effort. 3. CAPITAL - anything man made. You need all these three to produce.
Ricky E That is 100% false, if this system of capitalism has shown anything its that nothing is equal, only for those with the monetary wealth. If your lucky enough to work for a good employer yes, capitalism is working, but if you have a shitty employer and can't afford to eat properly, than no, the system is not working. so there is no equality there, and have you done any study on wages? there not getting better, only because people are fighting so hard are they raising slightly in certain areas. When were talking in terms of the country as a whole, we have a ways to go
Out of all the ideology in the capitalist world, perhaps Marx had the best basic fundamental argument. The new truth facing the world however, is that we have moved into a technological golden age. With technology, comes the loss of jobs, and the proletariat is losing ground due to the nonacceptance of the change that is happening around them. It is becoming increasingly obvious that capitalism is dying, and the proletariat is no longer necessary. The lumpen now becomes the new revolutionary, that given time will have a great advantage. Perhaps when we as a human organism come to the realization that the current state of affairs offers no other alternative except to embrace technology as the new working class, we will begin our long overdue journey into the new age.
hmmm, how would Vietnam be classified in its road to Socialism? Evolutionary or Revolutionary? I mean, when the Viet Minh revolted for freedom against France, the Indochinese colonies broke apart and the communist party created North Vietnam which I would see as evolutionary, however North Vietnam reunified Vietnam through war against South Vietnam and backing the revolutions that took place there which I would see as revolutionary. Any thoughts on this?
When he mentioned Silicon valley at the end and how computer geeks had created what Marx envisioned without even knowing it. And they were republican! That blew my mind! Maybe that is a way to convert some lunatic right-wingers. We need them too. He didn't mention which company it was but he mentioned it in another interview and i know it well. I believe he is talking about Valve Corporation, The makers of the Steam game platform.
The problem with America is that it seems that whether or not a socialist would or would not be better for the country is beside the point. Although since its unsuccessful people in that country who are often leftists (due to the hierarchy of the capitalist opportunist way) they provide no role model for many citizens (not that Mormons or the Bush administration do either necessarily to everyone) although fewer people are apt to be attracted to a socialist than a general conservative for the reason that the successful people there rarely ever would be one
I too, am American . Self taught History and Open minded to any idea considered taboo to the normal. And I have one question, do you think, if we would have transition into a Communist or Socialist state. We would have the right, to do what we’re doing now without censorship? Example, me watching this video about Socialism . Yes I am aware RU-vid/ Main stream Internet still has censorship and restrictions. But if the United States was a Socialist state, and I was curious to another form of political party. Would I be able to self teach through outlets via RU-vid .? BTW, both part videos have taught me a lot, and I find the original Marx ideal to be beautiful and comforting. I’m still now just self teaching myself about politics at age 25 . So.... wish me luck lol .
I am endlessly inspired by you young people who are honest enough to look beyond whatever the "Corporate owned State" want you to see. "curiosity is the wellspring of intelligence". *WE* *WON!* Bernie Sanders *WON!* WE got his message OUT! *THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!!!* M4A!!! . TAX THE RICH!!! . TUITION FREE EDUCATION!!! . LIVING WAGE LEGISLATION!!! . GREEN NEW DEAL!!! *WE* DID IT! *THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!* Not MY opinion; just LOOK at what is happening in the Streets! Bernie Sanders has *EMPOWERED* *THE* *PEOPLE!!!* WE ARE THE REVOLUTION! WE ARE THE CHANGE! www. PatrioticMillionaires .org
By reading the comments I see that the americans are still confused - he should present libertarianism and liberalism as precursors to capitalism to make this more coherent. It's not just Capitalism Vs Socialism, there are other choices and a wide spectrum.
I love these talks and appreciate Mr. Wolffs efforts here BUT why is the audience so dominated by older people? If a shift towards socialism is to be the future we have to guarentee that the torchbearers are being included in informative talks like this. They have to know the score before the knowledge passes away
1:07:00 "Everybody is equal" Until after six months only four of the ten friends do most of the work and decides to not work with the other six anymore.
@@Tetragrammaton22 The purpose of my comment is to highlight how reality works compared to a naive dream. Some people will take responsibilities that others won't. So sharing the power over the business equally in the long run probably won't work.
@@Erikaaaaaaaaaaaaa They don't have equal pay at Mondragon. Wikipedia: "At Mondragon, there are agreed-upon wage ratios between executive work and field or factory work which earns a minimum wage. These ratios range from 3:1 to 9:1 in different cooperatives and average 5:1."
@@erikwallebom Nobody said anything about equal pay. You're the one saying that coops don't work because the majority would choose to screw over the minority. That's not the case at Mondragon.
Billsthename It doesn't really fit into either camp. Single-payer would be a socialist style system, but on its own wouldn't make the US a socialist society. State capitalist health care would be if the government ran all the hospitals and employed all the doctors but we paid them for it like we do now. Universal health care as it stands now is still private capitalism, just with more regulation slapped on top. Still plenty of room to lobby for favors and tax breaks.
Roy Hammel Shh shh shh, I'm a socialist commie hippy tree hugger. And I think single payer health care might actually be state capitalism. I don't think the government can truly be socialist unless it employed everybody and gave them all wages that is a percent of profit. Now I can be a nuisance and call people out when they call Obama a socialist.
Billsthename Great question! Universal health care is a social policy not a state capitalist policy. However, if the type of universal health care that is adopted has all the doctors as employees of and the hospitals and pharmacies owned and run by the government, that is what becomes a state capitalist implementation of the social policy. The social policy of universal healthcare can be implemented in ways that are not enterprises owned by the government and the government is just the "insurer" for healthcare with the doctors, nurses, etc. operating facilities and enterprises "owned" and operated as cooperatives.
