Wolff Responds: Why Capitalism is NOT a Market System 

Why?

@john Cenna No, he doesn't really, because economics is a human construct, not an empirical one, and all of what exists now is enabled and maintained by "governments" that have been corrupted and do the bidding of "their masters" assuming one is capable penetrating their rhetoric. (and this is not capitalism no matter how much mental gymnastics Wolff invests in attempting to present it as such.) Wolff ultimately is a distraction from the systemic change he claims to be seeking since it contains no actual understanding of the system he is seeking to change and the hierarchical component that is the driving force behind it, has been the dominant one since the agricultural revolution of the late neolithic which presents a bit of irony in that he references all of them, but fails to recognize that there is no distinctive difference between what has existed and what has evolved from them. Our present dilemma has been compounded by the industrial revolution which has destroyed the ecological system on which we depend, as well as exposing our dependence on continual growth regardless of what economic "ism" may be in place. It is a function of human nature to seek to gain control over those elements of our existence to gain advantage and improve this condition to whatever level we are capable of and this includes overcoming natural impediments and threats as well as those posed by our fellow humans. We have essentially not evolved very much in this sense and the conditions which fostered the co-operative behavior and reciprocal altruism and provided checks against selfishness in exchange for inclusion are long gone, for there is no way to isolate competing groups from one another and nowhere to run to prevent external imposition by forces greater than those we can marshall in our own defense. The appeal of Wolff's message and that of many others is the simplistic naivete with which it is presented, with the suggested moral implications of "can't we all just get along" and the answer to that question at the moment and for quite some time has clearly been no. ( as in all of human history ) His solutions alter nothing in the present paradigm since they are essentially a redistribution scheme which is cosmetic only, and would actually exacerbate our present path and accelerate it, while continuing to rely on the exploitation upon which developed nations depend and this would have to continue to support the standard of living we have grown accustomed to and are even now clamoring for its return. Being unable to penetrate this ( Wolff's ) rhetoric, ensures that the rhetoric of those in control remains even further out of reach and even though it states that one has the RIGHT to redress grievances, this has little impact, when one is directing one's appeal to the actual source of that grievance and it will take far more effort than that being expended by those whose contributions amount to a litany of worsening symptoms while being totally clueless as to the underlying cause. The following articles will help explain that capitalism is NOT the problem for THIS is NOT capitalism. www.city-journal.org/html/fake-capitalism-14790.html www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/10/how-corruption-is-becoming-americas-operating-system.html?Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29 As for the real solutions, they are far more complex than anything Wolff will ever be capable of... The following is the "introductory observation" that is offered in the final chapter of "Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update." "Can we move nations and people in the direction of sustainability? Such a move would be a modification of society comparable in scale to the only two other changes: the Agricultural Revolution of the late Neolithic and the Industrial Revolution of the past two centuries, Those revolutions were gradual, spontaneous, and largely unconscious. This one will have to be a fully conscious operation, guided by the best foresight science can provide......If we actually do it, the undertaking will be absolutely unique in humanity's stay on the earth." William D. Ruckelshaus, 1989

@@jgalt308 it seems to me it's you who's not understanding things here. I tried looking for better answers in the links and yeah... There's your problem.

@@EdwardSkihands Wow, what a detailed examination and illustration of my problem...so much so much that I'm sure it is known and shared by all your fellow cult members. We should all be grateful that you were willing to generously share your seemingly effortlessly expressed certainty.

@@jgalt308 thanks and you're welcome. Seriously, there's so much wrong a vague criticism is all that I'm going to give. It's all based on made up facts that are invented in defense of the increasing wealth inequality

Why? That term was not used...but I guess you missed that.., here, try again. Wolff Responds: Why Capitalism is NOT a Market System

@@jgalt308 defenders of capitalism often cite the "free market" as the redeeming quality of capitalism. OP probably wrote what he did in the context of an argument with such a person.

@@holleey Well, I guess he can clear that up if he wants to...but the effort of precise language and clear definitions do not seem to be the point of most discussions that take place in the democracy that is the internet...but rather the exact opposite with as little effort invested as possible.

@@jgalt308 "The free market" is a phrase that used synonymously with capitalism. Since markets are not actually the defining characteristic of capitalism, nor are markets really "free" under capitalism, referring to capitalism as a "free market system" is actually misleading in more ways than one. Get my meaning now?

@@keving5564 Which would be to say that it is an element of capitalism and since this is NOT capitalism and markets are also NOT free, your use of either as a description of what exists is simply incorrect. Of course, you seem to be crediting Wolff for this understanding, and I would agree with you, this makes him incorrect also, but he has always been so...and his understanding rests an alteration of what capitalism is and distorting it beyond all recognition. His error is his continued failure to recognize that whatever economic system he is talking about, how it operates and who it serves has always been determined by those who are in control of it since they are the authority and exercise the "force" in maintaining it...what is different about the present iteration is that in the past the corruption of government came from within the system ( the central authority ) where the wealth and advantage was concentrated, whereas with the emergence of banks, beginning with the Medici's in Italy in the 13th century, the accumulation of wealth became possible from outside this authority, and began to compete directly with it, while the advent of "industrialization" expanded the possibility of this accumulation of wealth to more outsiders, each of whose interests required the continued corruption of "this authority" to protect their advantage. One might therefore contrast the "rhetoric of capitalism" with the "rhetoric of government" and recognize that what exists is no more capitalistic than our government is one "of, by and for the people with liberty and justice for all." So whether the problem rests with "government" or "corrupted government" it is with the "state" that the problems lie, and it is here that one's efforts, understanding and energy must be focused. In this, Wolff is simply misdirection and distraction and one of many factions whose disparate interests, serve to maintain what already exists and ironically do most of the work in maintaining those divisions, essentially self-sabotaging their own efforts in the process.

Good point.

Where can I read more about this specific feature of "free" trade?

@@Dsonsee Hi. I'm going to post some links. (it's a lot of reading, and I recommend a whiteboard to keep track). ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership#:~:text=The%20Transatlantic%20Trade%20and%20Investment,trade%20and%20multilateral%20economic%20growth.&text=Negotiations%20were%20halted%20by%20president,trade%20conflict%20with%20the%20EU. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_and_Progressive_Agreement_for_Trans-Pacific_Partnership (This is in effect now.)

@@Dsonsee You can also just go to each country and search their equivalent of the USTR. If you want to see what a "Free Trade" arrangement does, look up the old NAFTA, and then the "new" USMCA.

@@milesobrien2694 Is there any piece that touches on the specifics of free trade restricting market availability for the consumer?

@adam riddle look at the uk friend...they are banning it. How long will it be before they do it here too? If they hadn't already they probably will eventually once the initial brainwashing wears off

At the time I wrote this there are two replies, one from adam riddle and the other from Kasadoll. One of them is polite and adds to the conversation, the other uses an insult "retards". For me personally, if I have something to say that I would like to be taken seriously, the LAST thing I would do is insult my audience. I hope this helps one of you.

@@tomholy nicely said. an argument is lost the moment someone resorts to insults. adam did not even made it past his initial comment...

adam riddle Imagine if you had two opportunities for employment: 1. A corporate enterprise where you make $10 per hour snd no other benefits and have no vote in what the enterprise does. Or 2. A democratic cooperative where you had a vote in the enterprise and you made $30 an hour plus benefits because you do not have corporate shareholders taking the majority of the profits. Which employment do you choose and why?

Other systems are against their agendas.

You are wrong capitalism and feudalism are the same .Also in my opinion capitalism started a lest from the time of ancient Phoenicia .i am ready to Debate you on this topics

Kobe mop, about freakin' time the stinging began.

kobe mop Only the stupid ones. not the ones smart enough to understand that the correct term is "FREE market economy", NOT " market economy".

@@clarestucki5151 The problem is free market is a myth. That is just the song they sing as they each try to own the monopoly. The award goes to the corporation that has enough power to control how "government intrusion" hurts the competition. Then we have segments of the economy where competition does not occur. Look at the insurance industry, or the petroleum industry. They clearly do not try to compete. There is too much concert in their actions. The consumer has to pay for it.

@@clarestucki5151 You refer to the 'free money markets' where the barrier to entry is that only the hyper wealthy or banks or similar can play. Try to enforce transaction taxes on the free money markets and see where that gets you. Everyone else pays direct tax on income. Only the hyper wealthy pay negative tax. In nature there's no free lunch no matter how wealthy you think you are. Check out the dinosaurs, Rome, Greece, Britain... I could go on.

@@brianwheeldon4643 What the hell are you talking about? I did NOT refer to the "free money markets". What does that term even mean?

Here on peronia, we think the same.

Definitely agree, but a revolution (or some form of disruption) has to take place first, I think, to remove the current system because, sadly, I don't see a 'seamless' transition.

@@cosmicviewer477 Nothing is ever seamless. You gotta break a few eggs, etc. But... I am hoping for some evolution instead. Peace, Love & Groovy Things has been around a LONG time. We will see.

Government regulators n politicians will veto what you suggest. They are all well oiled with campaign donners's money.

Worker Co Ops and community banks also exist. No one is stopping them in a capitalist environment. Please check Amul in India. Very successful and very good quality but even they have a structure and they are also kind of a monopoly. But if you see even in a capitalist society such things work. You do not have to force it.

No he isn't. He can't even debate an economist with economics and resorts to psychology which even he doesn't know either.

Free markets equal invisible, pink unicorns.

Ken Semotiuk ?

It is a system of distribution. How are you going to distribute if things are not produced. It is FREE market system. He deceptively left that because he had to misguide you. Capitalist serve the market not the people in the organisation. This is not good stuff from this man. In socialist or communist country they don't serve the market at all and that's why people end up poor. Every country knows Capitalism is a money generator and it is the best. Please try and understand and not be misguided

Nobody remembers

The internet has not been around that long.

algorithms sealed our fate adjusted perceptions removed the right Hemisphere empathy is not profitable

The longer this goes on, the more brainwashed the people get.

@@feriafyre It is by design The book PYSCOPATHIC EPIDEMIC ..gives the who, what, and more importantly the why u s. we are falling.

Gertcha I think those are tools, the item on the far left looks like a wrench to me (albeit, a very large one). The third one looks very similar to a dipstick. The middle one, though, doesn’t really resemble a tool I am familiar with.

Great observation. I was unnerved by the snarling and myopic presentation.

Thats wild... he was gettibg worked up a bit too..

And nearly every company operates in this fashion. There's very few decent companies left to work for and then ts only getting worse.

Glad you're retired. The Manifesto has this passage I think about a lot. "The lower strata of the middle class - the small tradespeople, shopkeepers, and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasants - all these sink gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialised skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production. Thus the proletariat is recruited from all classes of the population." And this one "The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers."

@adam riddle why are you here? I mean, it's great that you're listening to an intelligent man like Professor Wolff, but you haven't seemed to learn anything. Or perhaps you're in the comments to feel better about yourself and didn't actually watch the video? Sad, either way.

@adam riddle U R a swiss army knife ! You need no support. No, no, i am not a cog in the corporate gear. Team, what team ? divide and control. forget feedback, managers do not want it

@@dogeyes7261 Resonates for me. Here check this out: SEPTEMBER 21, 2020 The most memorable pages in Das Kapital are the descriptive passages, culled from Parliamentary Blue Books, on the misery of the English working class. Marx believed that this misery would increase, while at the same time the monopoly of capital would become a fetter upon production until finally “the knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated.” hint hint, two class system, neoliberal (capitalist) KILLED the middle class rich / poor Employer / employee Bourgeois / labor Lord / serf Master / slave In Marxist philosophy, the bourgeoisie is the social class that came to own the means of production during modern industrialization and whose societal concerns are the value of property and the preservation of capital to ensure the perpetuation of their economic supremacy in society. CAPITALISM IS NOT DEMOCRATIC AND IT IS BROKEN as in: you are labor babe, sorry ARE YOU THE EMPLOYER OR THE EMPLOYEE ARE YOU THE BOURGEOISIE OR LABOR ARE YOU THE LORD OR A SERF ARE YOU THE MASTER OR A SLAVE Can you quit your job ? retire ? No, then you are labor, make that a slave. LOL when can you retire ? $10B AT 3.65% = $1M PER DAY $365M PER YEAR $1B AT 3.65% = $100K PER DAY $36.5M PER YEAR $100M AT 3.65% = $10K PER DAY $3.65M PER YEAR $10M AT 3.65% = $1K PER DAY $365K PER YEAR $1M AT 3.65% = $100 PER DAY $36.5K PER YEAR $100K AT 3.65% = $10 PER DAY $3.65K PER YEAR What is wrong ? well punk, are you a slave ? That's right the Capital brings the relationship of power, class division if you understand it as so. Capital is not only that described by prof. Wolff but also political power that is needed to maintain it, the superstructure. So for example, in 2008 the Gov. could have instead of giving the billions bailout "almost free money" to the financial system, actually financed(bought) part of the debt of the people who bought the houses or whatever. Even if the price was too high, the effect would be exactly the same(maybe better for the bubble) for the economy except that the power would go to save the people and no the rich capitalists who made a lot on the financial system. The money would come exactly from the same place, but without people have lose their homes, etc. Unfortunately, that irelative power. Capital is power,as much any previous class system we had. The only difference is that the previous systems used a form of violent dominance over the lower class, while Capitalists uses their Capital and power to create their ideology, including that fake story that says everyone can be rich is just a matter of hard working or good entrepreneurship. got your rice and beans ? 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

I'm pretty sure nobody said capitalism=markets. Capitalism is a system based on market trade of products and private ownership of capital. Markets can exist in a small form even under Communism, markets by themselves are not Capitalism lol. I have seen more left-wing ideologues conflate capitalism with markets when they were trying to prove the USSR is capitalist because 4% of its economy had international trade. Too many people conflate capitalism with employment. Being employed has nothing to do with capitalism, you can be employed in a Communist country.

W what's your notion is, BUT... too bad, the Capitalism and it's capitalists capture and got control over the presumably free market? A million dollar question, should a system encourage and works for the people OR should the people work for the system to benefit those who presumably controls the market??? Then again, to consider the short n long term effects/benefits of the systems to the people as a whole(in parity)....... if not, where's the free market n it's purpose??? The strong/rich survive while the weak/poor dies in the present free-market? Than obviously, the system failed in a whole as presumably believed?/!.

Yeah, the problem is how do we get there from here. The Capitalists will fight to the death to stop it

@@KznnyL then death it shall be 😁

Yes, Squirrels don't pay rent and the experts are baffled.

@@KznnyL just like they're doing in Belarus.

Why wasn't it free?

@@catvideos9956 Ask Richard Wolff not me

@@beno1658 thanks, that's something to chew on, interesting ideas, kinda like what a democracy should be!

@@beno1658 Your living in fantasy land. As a capitalist I'm going as much automation as possible! Forget employees, they have no value. They do nothing but cause inefficiency and if a decision needs to be made, then I can do that.

No problem.... truthout.org/articles/capitalism-is-not-the-market-system/ But the problem is, it's all bullshit, and neither capitalism nor the free market required by it. So you might want to consider these bits also. www.city-journal.org/html/fake-capitalism-14790.html

Dirk Knight having a system that works for you does not make it a good system, why would I want to use a bad system?

Money doesn't need to exist in a country where everybody works for each other. There is a group in America that do just that to a certain degree.

Like Wolff, you require a better understanding of history.