Is China the Final Phase of Capitalism? - Global Capitalism with Richard Wolff

Prof Wolff explains why China could be the final form of capitalism before societies finally decide to move beyond the fundamental conflict of this system: employers and employees.
"It’s at best one kind of socialism to play around with what is still a capitalist workplace. And it's another kind of socialism that says that workplace itself has to be revolutionarily transformed if we're going to get beyond the burdens, the flaws and the failures of a capitalism that works for ever fewer people." - Richard Wolff
Watch the full lecture here...
Global Capitalism: Challenging Capitalism [March 2023] • Global Capitalism: Cha...
______________________________________________________________________________________
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work.
Join our Patreon community: / democracyatwork
Become a monthly donor via our website: www.democracyatwork.info/donate
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Learn more about other events from d@w: www.democracyatwork.info/events

[@stwadoo]

I'm a Brit with 10+ years living in China. One thing I've noticed here is that the market sectors that trade in the essentials of life are largely dominated by state owned enterprises and the the private capitalist tends to trade more in wants rather than needs. It seems to have the effect of maintaining the cost of basic survival at a very low level. (about 1/10 of that in the UK before I moved) This has huge positive implications in all sorts of ways. High disposal income. Welfare and pension costs. Competitive labour costs. etc

[@rachellee5818]

Thank you for sharing your personal experience

[@abhayalaukik1365]

Sooooo important to point this out

[@treefrog3349]

Very interesting comparative observation. Deservedly unflattering to the American model.

[@titustirop9187]

How it's supposed to be, right? In my country though, the state is plagued with corruption and selfishness, so much so that state corporations do much worse than private, such that everyone tries to afford the private and run away from dysfunctional state corporations that were created to ensure provision of the most needed services. E.g. KBC for information, KPLC for power as well as Public schools and hospitals.

[@peanut0brain]

​​@@titustirop9187 China spent a decade rooting out corruption, catching all the big fish and scaring all the small fish. Before you could bribe a police officer if you got a ticket, or bribe somebody in the motor vehicle office to speed up your driver license application, etc. But no more! The big fishes got executed. Your country needs to go thru the same pain of rooting out corruption!

[@scroopynooperz9051]

Behold, the great Wolff of Main Street. Thanks for the tireless efforts at educating us.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

Economics is a boring and hopeless mess of facts and figures. The reality of Capitalism seems to have to face the concept of Capital, being the measure of value? That is where we begin to understand that Humans do not want to live among a pile of rotting corpses, in growing heaps that surround us. People need to look at the basic concept of Capital as a measure of "Value"..... Once you inspect how Money has been manipulated to get us to our current position, since Sumerians first created Coins, then you begin to notice the flaws of Capital? The ability of Humans to exist, before the first Coins were created, still exists. We just have been trained to worship Coins as if they had become a Deity. Bitcoin Investments appear to be just another Ponzi Scheme. Humans can live without Money. Money is worthless without Humans to covet it. That seems to be the debate that even the impending arrival of BRICS Bucks appears to avoid discussing?

[@BloodHarzard]

@@danielhutchinson6604 I don't think people necessarily avoid discussing it but I think everyone agrees that no one knows an alternative that wouldn't fuck up everything by implementing firmly. In that sense even the most radical communists in China are reformist.

[@danielhutchinson6604]

@@BloodHarzard The end of Capitalism appears to be included in the concept of BRICS Nations uniting? I thought Economics was a pretty useless subject in 1970, as the US was still using Gold Standard Dollars. Students discussing the concept of Fiat Dollars came up with some outlandish ideas that we assumed would never fly..... Look at us now? Most of the stupid ideas we assumed folks would never accept, have become reality. Fiat dollars are easier to transfer as well as to stash. The concept that appeared to be something the Rockefeller Bros dreamed up, and convinced Nixon to adopt, has made their Bank the World's biggest.... We all are beginning to understand that a majority of Humans are not served by Capitalism.

[@genelarson6849]

Wolff truly educates first listen to what he says then take the opposite position and then you can call yourself enlightened

[@genelarson6849]

Wolff needs to be updated first the real estate Ponzi then the construction company meltdown bankruptcy on steroids then the banks oh heavens how will they collect on all those loans

[@davidschneider6306]

I’ve visited China and it seemed as if they try to provide some level of employment for many people. For example the malls have several well dressed people to assist you in finding what you need and many workers cleaning the roads, parks etc. Probably not paid a lot but it is something. In the USA we have an attitude that the economy works best if we have millions of people in penury.

[@AynManRand]

Utterly ridiculous. Nearly every unemployed person here can be employed in some part of the country.

[@JosephYates-dw5gi]

@@AynManRand And many employed people in the US cannot afford to live in a home unlike in China. The most telling statistic is that life expectancy in China is now higher than in the USA and that should tell you which country is functioning better.

[@AynManRand]

@@JosephYates-dw5gi Yeah, "life expectancy" reflects many factors. But if you drive safely, don't get murdered; the US Natural Lifespan is still the highest in the world.

[@AynManRand]

Mexico nationalized their oil some 70 years ago, and currently they STILL don't know how pay their gas attendants, who work for tips. As long as we aren't doing stupid crap like outlawing lightbulbs, people can get jobs.

[@lesliestenta3084]

I remember growing up in Hawaii in 60’s-mid eighties. My dad worked in a bank , we had a great house 2 blocks from the beach, my mom didn’t have to work and she would spend her time driving all over the island to the beaches and watercolor painting. Such a great life and the Regan and neoliberalism in the mid eighties, everyone works, I worked 2-3 jobs just to pay the bills and now life is a pressure cooker, what happened to life , liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I really feel for the young people now, what a shit show.

[@northstar1060]

it seems US capitalism cannot succeed without enormous military market interventions

[@beastmode8203]

Don't worry about that because we're going to go to war with China and then after that it won't even matter anymore cuz no one will be around ☢️

[@HoneyBadger80886]

Military market is the product we are all paying for. And war is how we deplete the supplies. ReStock. ChaChing.

[@qjtvaddict]

Time to abandon it before it leads us to an unwinnable war

[@beastmode8203]

@@qjtvaddict we would rather die in a nuclear war than exist in a world where a communist socialist country known as China is number one and we are not.

[@georgefurman4371]

Exactly. War is to the world community the burden of progress. The capital dependence on war as a political and economic drug used to boost the accumulation of capital and to defeat the resistance of the people is the greatest threat to humanity. It will become the reason , the need for change . The opposition to war must be capitalized in order to end capitalism .

[@Easyly1953]

3 ingredients of success in China 1. Benevolent leaders truly dedicated to the people 2. State overview and planning in macro planning and macro economy 3. Industriou private enterprises guided in the overall vision Another example such success: Singapore

[@stephenyang2844]

Makes sense, indeed DengXiaoping visited Singapore before he setup Shenzhen special zone.

[@melaninbotswana2474]

Botswana 🇧🇼 southern Africa have been trying to do the same and their economy is one of the best in africa developing government institutions that work hand in hand with private interprise. From 1967 poorest country in the world to with zero infrastructure to what it is miracle

[@Andy-P]

Sounds like the Soviet Union

[@just1stone689]

Are you insane? Oh, wait you're a CCP bot from a communist state. Nevermind.

[@ilyanaantonyuk2198]

wont agree on Singapore, its more like money laundering built economy. its pretty miserable to be poor in SGP, as in any other finacial capital (London, NY, HK)

[@physika]

Great video on the 2 types of capitalism as well as socialism using Russia as an example. Regarding China, below are my comments based on what I read directly from Chinese media. 1. Regarding the term " socialism with Chinese characteristics ", it's clear that China is not exporting its ideology to the rest of the world because China always emphasise that all political systems must adapt to the local cultures, just like American democracy is different from British democracy. Also, this term also seeks to inform the world that China is not the former Soviet Union. 2. There are 2 reasons why only the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can manage this hybrid model of having both state capitalism and private capitalism at the same time. Firstly, the CCP does not see itself as just a political party only seeking to stay in power for few terms but actually sees itself as having the moral obligation to uplift the country in the long run, say 50 or 100 years and even beyond. Martin Jacques' description of China as a civilisation state, not a nation state like others, best describes this. Secondly, unlike Western democracies whereby political parties compete for power, the CCP actually absorbs all interest groups including " other political parties " ( I know this sounds very weird especially to the west but just accept it first😅 ) into its decision-making body and then makes decisions that the vast majority of population accepts. In short, political parties in China cooperate, not compete.

[@jgalt308]

Interesting presentation but omitting some key points... Of the supposedly eight non-communist???? parties, none of them is older than 1948. The total membership of all of them combined is less than a million people. As of 2022 the CCP has 96 million members. These facts seem to render the claim that..." the CCP actually absorbs all interest groups including " other political parties " into its decision-making body ( which is true ) and then makes decisions that the vast majority of population accepts." Which makes the other parties "irrelevant"...and "In short, political parties in China cooperate, not compete." which is a ludicrous understanding of the meaning of co-operate. In that sense the Democratic and Republican unconstitutional, hence criminal parties also cooperate in their pay-to-play protection racket...that the vast majority of the "people" accept. ( because they have no choice or understanding of how to get rid of them since they can't read and refuse to learn. )

[@jnmedina8989]

​@@jgalt308 quick question regarding this your point that no political party in China is older than 1948... When was the Chinese revolution again? tysm!

[@JohnThomas-li2vi]

Nice presentation

[@jgalt308]

@@jnmedina8989 You need me to answer that? Why? and your point would be? The eight non-communist parties are as follows: China Revolutionary Committee of the Kuomintang, founded in January 1948, now has more than 80,000 members. It is for the most part composed of former Kuomintang members and those who have historical connections with the Kuomintang. The current Central Committee chairman is He Luli. China Democratic League, founded in October 1941, now has more than 180,000 members, mostly intellectuals at fairly senior levels. The current Central Committee chairman is Jiang Shusheng. China Democratic National Construction Association, founded in December 1945, has more than 100,000 members, most of them are from the economic field or academic specialists. The current Central Committee chairman is Cheng Siwei. China Association for the Promotion of Democracy, founded in December 1945, currently has nearly 100,000 members. Its membership is mainly drawn from intellectuals working in educational, cultural, scientific and publishing fields. The current Central Committee chairman is Yan Juanqi. Chinese Peasants and Workers' Democratic Party, founded in August 1930, it currently has more than 90,000 members, most of them work in the fields of public health, culture and education or science and technology. The current Central Committee chairman is Jiang Zhenghua. China Zhi Gong Dang, founded in October 1925, currently has nearly 20,000 members. Most of them are returned overseas Chinese, relatives of overseas Chinese, and representative individuals and specialists and scholars with overseas connections. The current Central Committee chairman is Luo Haocai. Jiusan Society, founded in December 1944, currently has nearly 100,000 members. They are mostly high- and medium-level intellectuals working in science and technology, culture and education, or public health. The current Central Committee chairman is Han Qide. Taiwan Democratic Self-government League, founded in November 1947, has more than 2,100 members who are for the most part people born or with family roots inTaiwancurrently residing on the mainland. The current Central Presidium chairman is Lin Wenyi.

[@jackanderson719]

Is bribery and corrupting leagel in China like it is in the U.S. ?

[@abhayalaukik1365]

One point i wish dr wolff would comment on is WHICH particular areas china has kept in the public sector. Amazing speakers like Vijay Prashad/Michael Hudson have pointed out that they kept the banks, for e.g., in the public system. There are some key sectors from where the Employers can influence society more than they can from others. And keeping the important ones in the public hands is an important part if this story

[@davegutknecht4926]

Public banking is the key differentiating factor, but Professor Wolff doesn't address it, weakening his analysis.

[@chetdudeweb707]

@@davegutknecht4926 Wolff has often praised the Public Bank in North Dakota as a great example of where banking should be headed in this country. However, he also recognizes that it's also basically capitalist.

[@helpanimals-]

if you want to know / understand China, follow Lei's Real Talk here on youtube

[@nicholascharles9625]

@helpanimals just looked her up and by god is she an absolute lib. Nothing new just because she's ethnically Chinese what she says it meant to be taken more seriously?

[@paulli1535]

Very insightful. I want to add another point to what separates capitalism from socialism: In a capitalism country, the capitalists control the government. Democratic election doesn’t change that reality. The gov still works for the capitalists, because for the most part, one cannot get elected without the support of capitalists. That’s why voters are so frustrated that their lives don’t improve no matter who they vote for. To prevent social unrest, capitalists still have to appease the people with a certain level of social safety net and welfare. In a socialist country, businesses/capitalists don’t get to control the government and governing. Government can make sure capitalism is under control, and serves public goods. If businesses have excess profits, the government will go after them. But capitalism is a necessary evil to achieve economic prosperity. Socialist government wants to make sure the prosperity is shared as broadly as possible. This is the China model. One may ask: if China is so good, why there are still some Chinese wanting to live in America? Certainly capitalist Chinese wants to live in the US. That’s why China has strict capital control, not allowing capitalists to move capital out easily. Chinese per capital income is still much lower than than that in the US and many people are still living a meager life. This is due to lagging of industrialization of China compared with US. But China is catching up quickly and nowadays fewer and fewer Chinese wanting to immigrate to the US.

[@oliverkwok8782]

The difference between China and other countries is that in China the central government leads the country. In contrast, other so-called democracies are controlled by a small group of wealthy people. Candidates supported by wealthy people usually win. China has a meritocratic system, with high officials promoted from below. The Chinese characteristics are actually Confucian in nature.

[@bluewater454]

The difference between China and other countries is that other countries are democratic. China is authoritarian.

[@noneone3310]

good observation.

[@maestoso47]

Meritocracy is not equitable.

[@bluewater454]

@@maestoso47 No, it isn’t. Meritocracy is based on merit, not ideology.

[@vuetube4558]

And that's why China is roaring ahead leaving America in the dust...eventually.

[@tiominhui7576]

China has a bright future because China is open to cooperation with many countries with equal principles and mutual respect and does not interfere in the affairs of other countries.

[@lucfrombelgium5435]

China is not imperialistic i.e. does want neither to dominate neither to be dominated. the american idiom from Rome ' si vis pacem parabellum' is over if mankind is to survive......

[@curious-relics]

So China is the state capturing capitalism; and the US is capitalism capturing the state.

[@465400]

The CCP does not have multiple capitalists intervening with their politics, workers all want the same things, that is, housing, food, entertainment and safety. Now, does Meta wants the same thing as Google even though they're in the same field?

[@RandyHartono]

Chinese 🇨🇳 is the Master of Adapting in any situation and conditions because of the stability of the system FROM THE PEOPLE FOR THE PEOPLE

[@bluewater454]

All dictatorships claim to be “for the people“. Only democracies are “from the people for the people“.

[@kevinschmidt2210]

@@bluewater454 In other words, the US is not a democracy, it is a dictatorship called an oligarchy.

[@amaradumbuya2099]

One part you missed is European countries like Britain and France too had a hybrid system but ditched it

[@data-dylan]

In "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific", Engles seemed to think that a form of state capitalism would necessarily arise because of the dysfunctional nature of monopolies. He envisioned this as creating a situation where capital would become highly centralized and easier to overthrow.

[@gangshan]

China state only owns industry which tend to be monopolistic or affect people hugely fundamental like energy industry and railway traffic business.

[@noheroespublishing1907]

The relationship with Labor and the Soviet state was more democratic than what is being portrayed here, certainly more than Labor and Capital, Capitalism has nearly zero input from Labor at all, whereas the Soviet Workers Consuls had far more input, I mean, even during the Second World War Soviet air force pilots made democratic decisions on the best methods of attack and defense; deciding to strip the planes of equipment not needed during certain times of the day to increase the planes' speed during combat.

[@465400]

And here I thought the real capitalist was not even in the factory. I understand that the professor wants to warn against bureaucracy but that is a terrible explanation of the real capitalist who gets his money by owning the means of production by the factory boss/leader.

[@WileyCylas]

Bright & early with prof Wolff & Co! Thank this channel! Y’all r my family!

[@johnkruk6929]

As always a great pleasure to give time to your wise analyses ,thank you kind Sir . We are truly blessed to have a caring person like you prof Wolff

[@prajnaseek]

Excellent. Now I'm a confirmed admirer of Richard Wolff. When explicitly says that neither the Soviet Union nor China have truly achieved socialism, that socialism requires a kind of grassroots workplace democracy, that is the kind of clarity we need. Well done. No to authoritarianism in any form. Yes to a swift transition to workplace democracy, which is key to any meaningful positive social change.

[@Celis.C]

Your explanations have thus far taught me a lot and even given me some hope. To provide a potential topic for further discussions, what is your stance on country borders? To which degree does their existence help maintain a balance, yet simultaneously prevent proper cooperation between nations? Is a 'united humanity' a pipe dream?

[@zcorpalpha2462]

My family fought communism Don’t fall for it

[@JoseLopez-ys2oz]

Prof. Wolff is absolutely correct! How can you make a “democracy” a democracy? The best way to democratize a “democracy” is by democratizing the work place. That means putting the people in their workplaces in the driver seat to control their own lives. You can’t have a democracy, if the oligarchs control the government. Therefore, the government must culminate its socialist solution to capitalism, as Lenin recognized, by having the workers themselves manage the labor activity. What better way is there to eliminate capitalism from the government? We need to go all the way!

[@cr4yv3n]

So did the workers decide to have suicide nets and 16h shifts?

[@TC-eo5eb]

Prof Wolff has taught tens of thousands of students in his career and he has over 300,000 D@W members. Can you name just one former Wolff student or even one D@W member who has created a successful worker owned cooperative? There are less than 500 registered worker cooperatives in the U.S. There is nothing preventing anyone including prof Wolff from creating a worker owned cooperative. If worker owned cooperatives really worked, why are there less than 500 in the entire country?

[@plasmanip3998]

@@cr4yv3nno… that’s literally what this commenter and Wolfe are calling out.

[@plasmanip3998]

@@TC-eo5ebexploitation is more profitable than no exploitation

[@cr4yv3n]

@@plasmanip3998 but he kept praising "communist" China so which one is it??

[@theprisonerofzenda2862]

✨️It's brilliant analysis. Thanks, Professor Wolff.

[@tschoong3897]

Yes, it is time to look at employee and employer relationships and reform completely the work systems of the world. As China says, the people must be in a position to decide how they will work and not the employers only and the government needs to oversee the relationship so that everyone's interests is looked after.

[@patinalake2087]

Do you realize that the ultimate employer in China is the CCP government, of which the power is more and more concentrated to one totalitarian dictator Xi. This employer is far worse than the US version of capitalism, because this employer controls every fiber of the society. This employer limits some Chinese freedom of residency, their children's education, so to keep China made goods artificially cheap, and suck the demand from other countries with better labor compensations.

[@chetdudeweb707]

"China Says" but is that what China DOES?

[@adamiskandar5107]

@@chetdudeweb707 Just measure the outcomes and you will know who does what one says.

[@chetdudeweb707]

@@adamiskandar5107 which "outcomes"? Capitalist GDP. Total gigatons of CO2. Ginni Index. War spending (China's #2 in that too).

[@adamiskandar5107]

@@chetdudeweb707 You need to be honest and impartial to judge the 'outcomes' I talked about. Otherwise, it could just be left to your imagination, I guess because I am not ready to debate you here.

[@charliedeng6577]

Dear Prof Wolff, you did an excellent job to explain the fundamental shifting occurred in China in the past decades !!! It was actually very painful for a lot of Chinese that most Westerns did not bother to know. Even today, US is still in a much better position to improve the nation and people's life, but I feel that the US government has been addicted to shortcutting and easy painless solutions such as money printing, financial gaming, blaming and childish fighting. Also, US seems just wanting to maintain a unipolar world which certainly can't last long. It's not difficult to understand it. Anyone knows a little human history would know the tendency.

[@Easyly1953]

US in a better position to improve nation and people?? Are you so nationalistically blind? So why wealth gaps widening? Poverty increasing? Homelessness rampant? Crimes and gun violence mushrooming? The list of ills go on..... so , please improve!

[@redneckscumbags4422]

you obviously don't know anything about America. The problem is the America government is extremely corrupt, there is no incentive to improve people's lives, but they do invest alot in wars and corporate bailouts where politicians can launder money and get kick backs. They are also allowed to do insider trading, so they spend more of their efforts passing laws that benefits certain corporate sectors and make $$. Many politicians are worth 100s of millions by the time they retire.

[@rhorizon]

Wolff is part of the widespread tendency in the West to embrace utopian socialism instead of scientific socialism, as explained by Engles. What Chinese socialism has achieved is remarkable, especially when you understand that socialist countries had to develop in a way that capitalist countries never have - without using colonialism, land theft, slavery, super exploitation to catapult ahead. All while defending themselves from the largest imperialist power - via military, financial and media control - in history. Socialism isn't born overnight. Socialism emerges out of profound conflicts and contradictions within a capitalist world system. So far, there's never been socialism set free. There's never been a socialist experiment in the world that wasn't the object of the most vicious and heinous imperialist crimes to try to destroy it and "strangle the red babe in its crib," as Winston Churchill put it. When Wolff says, "Something went wrong with the Soviet system," he's ignoring all of this. He's ignoring the fact that we've only had socialism under siege. In its baby steps. All socialist countries, in order to survive, have had to develop as quickly as possible because if they don't they're going to be crushed. The level of development means they have to take feudal societies and illiterate populations, often without even clothes, and or access to potable water, and make them into a society capable of defending themselves against not just nearby countries, but against the most powerful imperialists in the history of the world. That's an incredible task. It's ridiculous for people, especially from the imperialist core, to go in individually and say "well I think socialism should be like this." So far, socialism means you have to develop the forces of production and defense to such an extent that you can survive. China is doing just that. Its government is run by a communist party made up of 97 million members of mostly working class people who understand the contradictions they must face to develop and protect their socialist revolution.

[@atticstattic]

The CCP is just a softer version of North Korea - it's going to run China into the ground.

[@nicholascharles9625]

Critical support for comrade Xi. "Without the communist party there would be no new china."

[@GamesJoblin]

Westoids like to parrot how USSR "collapsed", it's not just Wolf.

[@j.d.3269]

Very important perspective!

[@p5rsona]

lol nice try mr. Jinping

[@Shining237]

God bless you Mr. Wolff ❤️. You give hope when despair seems overwhelming. Thank-you 🙏💕🕊️

[@Denitakis]

Thank you Prof. Wolff.

[@HarrryClaudeLaBar]

You are clear to me that one should never be afraid to hear and understand others seemingly of opposite is not only well worth listening too but we can learn and grow. Thank you (I'm 74).

[@Marxist2]

I always learn so much, history & many things on the economy & how it works & affects us. Thank you, Prof. Wolff.

[@georgegates526]

Great video Professor Wolff!!

[@ricelaker]

Great video. Confirms what I have thought for many years.

[@blogintonblakley2708]

You need bosses if you are operating in a market economy. Someone has to make the choices about how things are produced and distributed. In a market economy it's always going to be the winners in the market who make the decisions. Over time there will be fewer and fewer winners as wealth pools at the top and the natural monopolization of the market economy occurs. A market economy is by design an authoritarian process. This is because it is based on competition instead of cooperation.

[@blogintonblakley2708]

@@paulwellman1030 Yeah, I've heard of it. They have bosses. Mondragon has to compete, in a market economy. I agree it's much better than a straight up corporation. But it's a unicorn.

[@baraldanny]

Exactly. They are bosses for a reason. You can't make Homer Simpson run corporations! Pareto's principle 101

[@ericpreston8877]

@@baraldanny Pareto was a fascist who was inventing apologies for Mussolini's regime

[@Krooksbane]

That’s why you have the workers vote in their superiors, rather than shareholders/ board of directors.

[@cr4yv3n]

@@Krooksbane uhh no. Workers đó not risk shit. If the company fails they walk to the next one. If shareholders lose all they lost their savings for life.

[@michaelhanson3509]

Solidarity. Thanks DaW for showing us Prof. Wolff.

[@avenacht2302]

thank you for clearing this up.

[@theindian2226]

Thanks, Mr. Richards It was an insightful discourse

[@hasong9692]

Analysis very insightly,thank you,repect you...

[@dennistoft8458]

To completely move beyond the employer/employee conflict in our system, I think that we have to see people less as individuals, and more as parts of a whole (which China to some degree are doing). French anthropologist Louis Dumont has made an interesting distinction between Western and Asian societies based on his work on the Indian Caste system. Dumont talked about 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' hierarchies. seeing Western societies as dominantly 'exclusive' hierarchies and Asian societies as dominantly 'inclusive' hierarchies. This distinction is something that has interested me a for a few years now. So I have been trying to understand this further. One of the things that I have done, was trying to understand the differences from a mathematical perspective, or rather try to understand the differences shaped by two different mathematical ontologies/logics. For seeing this as two mathematical ontologies/logics, I draw on Helen Verran's differentiation between a Western and an African mathematical logic in her book "Science and an African Logic" (2001), where she differentiates the two logics based on how numbers are viewed. She makes a differentiation between a Western science, where numbers to a higher degree are seen as individual numbers excluded from the whole, whereas an African logic sees numbers as part of a whole. As for why I am turning to a differentiation between Western and African mathematical ontologies/logics when it comes to understand the differences between the West and China, I see the African scientific logic of 'numbers as part of a whole' in basically every cultural practice that I have looked at in Asia. I think, that if we want to move away from capitalism, we have to acknowledge this other mathematical ontology/logic, and try to understand how that by looking at numbers in a different manner, we will get a different answer to some questions. Because, as I see it, often when social scientists come with a critique of modern day capitalism, they do so by moving away from a Western mathematical scientific logic, but doing so, without realizing that they employ a different mathematical ontology/logic. By not knowing this, while still doing research within a framework where the Western mathematical ontology/logic is the only one "accepted", one would limit one's research according to the framework, thereby negating the effect of any forms of critique. By accepting a different mathematical ontology/logic as just as scientific, we would open up for new ways of understanding some issues. I would actually go so far to say that the Western mathematical ontology/logic has the most limits. For that is what my empirical observations points to.

[@minhly7428]

Richard, great and wonderful words, knowledge and lessons for our society. Along those words, I would add continuous monitoring and adjustments for the system path and leadership (not government) for the individual as a whole (not as individual).😂🎉😢😊

[@NoThatRyan]

I'd like to hear Professor Wolff's take on the dissolution of Soviet Russia, and what he thinks had the greatest impact.

[@piccalillipit9211]

Im an author on psychology and the collapse of civilisations, living in the former USSR. The USSR was bankrupted by the USA. This was a specific policy of the USA at the time, but it is little mentioned now as the suffering of the Russian people was horrific beyond all comprehension, people sold their children into slavery to get food in St Petersburg, so its kinda glossed over - as is the suffering of the Russian people. The SDI program, or "Starwars" was the specific program that bankrupt the USSR - they could not keep up and were spending up to 40% of their GDP on the cold war at the end. Interestingly the reason China opened up to Western trade was to avoid being the next to be bankrupted - the USA cant bankrupt you if your economies are entwined.

[@nicholascharles9625]

You should read then Chinese account of why it collapsed its pretty good. They've been studying it for 30 years obsessively to avoid it happening to themselves.

[@nicholascharles9625]

@Piccalilli Pit I'm still convinced Gorbachev was a double agent and working with the CIA but at the same time I'm inclined to think the man was just an idiot

[@piccalillipit9211]

@@nicholascharles9625 - CONGRATULATIONS on a true and inciteful comment - a rare thing on YT comments. BTW if you know a specific book on this I would be grateful, I have had to read it from translated 3rd hand stuff of dubious origin.

[@piccalillipit9211]

@@nicholascharles9625 - If you listen to "The Rest Is History" podcast they do a good episode on Gorbachev. "Gorbachev, the fall of the Soviet Union, and the rise of Putin" its called.

[@irajyamin-esfandiary2426]

Great short description.

[@weian9193]

Thank you for your video. It’s really thought provoking.

[@kimly8070]

Thank you Professor Wolff

[@margaretorango8444]

Great stuff proff

[@carmenlajoie2719]

We really enjoy CGTN The Point-Hub-Heat journalist's. Einar Tangan, LiJingJing, Martin Jacques learn so much. Poverty allieviation completed 10 yrs ago, now Modernization Amazing.....

[@longyou8254]

Thx for sharing

[@bassbole]

Professor Wolf, love your work. Would you mind doing a video as to why you feel the employer/employee relationship is part of the exploitative capitalist system? I know you recognize the value of hierarchical structures, so I'm a bit confused as to why you see this relationship as inherently exploitative. As long as the workers can decide where the excess profit goes and what is done with the fruits of their labor (in such cases where a product is produced), and it's not just absorbed by the "employer," isn't this more of a designation of structure more than anything else? It seems to me that State Capitalism IS socialism, in that the defining feature of capitalism (and what makes it so exploitative) is the means of production being in private hands. As you (and of course Lenin, and the Chinese, for that matter) have said, it is not the end goal, but unless and until socialism can win on a more global scale, what else can be done at this point? Thanks!

[@celine_2084]

professor, did you ever hear that company like Huawei gives stocks to their employee to boost the performance of the whole company? I'm eager to listen to your thoughts and comments about this. Is this a new kind of capitalism? or a new kind of way of capitalist organization?

[@brianwheeldon4643]

Celine, it's not new. Germany has done this. It's been common practice in some EU countries. Now in countries like US UK Australia NZ Canada, all the aforementioned, it's a privilege given to CEOs and directors, more or less.

[@peanut0brain]

It's not new. When I worked at E-Trade as a lowly computer programmer, I also got stock options. It's to motivate the employees and give them the idea that they are also part owners of the company

[@TC-eo5eb]

A lot of American companies offer profit sharing. Nothing new.

[@DerSpielMann]

The 3 biggest problems are inequality, inequality and inequality

[@juniorgod321]

Inequality is a good thing!

[@veroniquendambo3242]

@@juniorgod321 👀👀👀

[@juniorgod321]

@@veroniquendambo3242 You don’t think it’s a good thing that there’s inequality between say, someone who flips burgers and a doctor?

[@M.Linoge]

@@juniorgod321 Perhaps there should be some, but not as much as you might think. A person who flips burgers are part of the food distribution. You know, food? The thing ever single person needs every day to function properly? Doctors are great, but they are the receivers of tens of thousands of other people's labor to survive. A doctor needs food, water, clothing, shelter and a safe/stable environment to grow and learn for decades. Decades of which thousands of people have to flip his burgers, build and maintain his house, keep the water running, soldiers have to protect the border, police has to patrol the streets and those in the legal profession has to uphold the law to keep him safe. Physical labor shorten your lifespan and wreaks havoc on the body. Even if they receive the same pay, the man who lives longer, whose work doesn't come with lethal dangers, and/or isn't in constant pain is already unequal in his privilege. People with higher education tend to to delude themselves that they are above all others, until the truck drivers go on strike and everything they take for granted are suddenly gone and they don't know how to survive on their own. A doctor is a luxury. Food, is a necessity. It is a sick society that believes those who uphold the necessities of survival are to be starved, and those whose work is convenient are to be given excesses they can never spend.

[@jgalt308]

@@M.Linoge Yes, one has to marvel at the arrogance of the "intellectuals" who ignore the superior survival skills present in burger flippers, barista's and truck drivers.

[@anhedonic-voting]

Thank you 🌎✊🗽🌹

[@jeffreywillstewart]

I love Prof. Wolff

[@michaelcook5585]

'State capitalism' is a bit of terminology that has very limited utility. It can be used to refer, I suppose, to a situation in which you have socially owned enterprises that are still run in a similar fashion to capitalist enterprise, sure. But the term 'capitalism' implies profit. There was no profit in the state-run enterprises of the USSR, and there couldn't be. Because profit is all the value funneled upward and into the hands of private owners and shareholders. In Lenin's early USSR, the value produced was realized socially. Revenue from state-owned enterprises was used by the state for the public good. That means it wasn't capitalism. It just wasn't communism, either.

[@Glumclam]

Thank you professor Wolf.

[@Hussain_Eidani]

Thank you 🌹

[@trueman9641]

Amazing

[@Joy3269]

May God Bless Professor Richard Wolff For Bringing Out his Wonderful, Genuine, Brilliant & Rational Analysis about Human History. May God Bless him. The World today needs more & more Wonderful, Honest & Genuine Human Beings like him in this World. May God Bless him. Amen.

[@siclusiferx]

Absolutely incredible speech sir ❤ god bless you

[@sgransar]

Excellent!

[@gabrielhartley5213]

I had sent in a question to you regarding Lenin and so was very pleased to see you comment on this crucial feature that distinguished him from Stalin and, now, China. "And it's a question emerging out of both the success CHINA has had in outgrowing private capitalism in the UNITED STATES and everywhere else versus the fact that it has NOT gone beyond what LENIN recognized as the continuing capitalism, and that socialist states now have to, in a way, bite the bullet. They have to understand that is at best ONE kind of socialism to play around with-what is still a capitalist workplace. And it's ANOTHER kind of socialism that says that workplace itself has to be revolutionary, lead, transform if we're going to get beyond the burdens, the flaws, and the failures of a capitalism that works for ever fewer people."

[@yungkunk6287]

But socilisim with Chinese characteristics was first thought up in the early 80's, markets were introduced in the late 70's not after 1989.

[@panzergrenadier90]

there were only pilot regions and cities doing the market economy in the late 70s.

[@acpreysler]

The forever challenge is how to keep everybody in an organization happy. Dynamic adjustment of shared benefits and sustaining viability of the enterprise.

[@Revel136]

Lets hope so.

[@Porelcaminitoyotellevare]

The dialetic of history in one picture, USA is the tesis, The Soviet Union the antitesis and China the sintesis.

[@Waiting664]

She was chinese

[@ernstthalmann4306]

This talk is so high level intellectually. Thank you, Dr. Wolff!

[@Waiting664]

Mental issue little bit starting pray for me

[@albertturkington490]

I don't know if this has been requested before, but if not would it be possible for this channel to do an analysis of the Singapore Model from a socialist perspective. I feel that this would be very helpful as both China and Vietnam have drawn policy inspiration from them, namely their extreme pragmatism.

[@hermanhsu5994]

It got me thinking, since the day we were born having nothing equal.

[@edmond27355]

Interesting facts .

[@johnercek]

The thumbnail for this video was great

[@DungLe-ne9ww]

Much respect sir ❤

[@yingzhang7637]

professor Wolff, you should look into the possibility of giving lecture and your analysis to China' leaders or academics or Chinese public. It is also my view, 1. Soviet Russia had little capitalism before into socialism. Soviet Russia skipped the capitalism, jumped from feudalism into socialism. Set aside the US led West against socialism/communism of which the Nordic countries practise, the W Europe to lesser extend in my eye. It was a social experiment to the Soviet Russia with the costs to itself. 2. Like the Soviet Russia, China never saw little capitalism before jumped from feudalism into socialism that followed the Soviet Russian examples. 3. China also experimented. It did not find a way out of Monarchy. It briefly experimented constitutional democracy by Sun Yi Xian and failed in mainland China; but Sun yi Xian's thoughts were brought to Taiwan. Taiwan become US style-democracy with all good and bad characters. The mainland was in a economic peril during 1949 and 1978. But later started experiment led by Deng, and gradually grew into today's hybrid. 4. Chinese experiment is for the US to watch at no cost of US; only US is fixed at the stage of Capitalism which, in my view leading to the peril of self destruction. 5. Chinese yet to find a way to address the fundamental issues of inequality having two systems co-existed. 6. one would wonder, Nordic countries' system will be a better one? I have lived in W & N Europe for considerable long time. My observation, people were happier, independent of job status, social warefare was more than adequate thanks for the high tax. It would not grow as faster as China though. Personally, growing faster may not be a need. But born in China, the competition is fierce starting from the age of 2. So Chinese does not know how to slow down. It has to slow down by a natural force. Maybe it is coming. Because the young people in China are not as keen to work hard as the older generations.

[@mrki4937]

Great that someone finally explained state capitalism, and why the soviet union never really was communist in Marx's sense of communism, where the workers make democratic decisions about what gets produced, how production is organized, and how the surplus gets distributed. It is interesting to see if the introduction of agile ways of organizing production will be the tipping point to show that if workers organize their work by themselves they make a proof of concept that you do not need employers anymore to keep up production.

[@wtfhah]

Did not Lenin say that "socialism is merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people?"

[@tomsaltsman]

For me, it's all about working selfishly or selflessly, except in the latter one is not expected to deny one's own legitimate needs. In the former, some people are expected...whether it's admitted or not...to sacrifice their basic needs to accommodate the insatiable wants of the selfish. One cannot have a few in perpetual wealth without many others being in perpetual debt. THAT is the basic injustice of the servant/master setup. There is actually nothing wrong with one person at the helm, steering the ship. There are simply many pragmatic, creative, and egalitarian means to accomplish that. I admire cooperatives where everyone knows the ropes of the business because all learn the basic processes of production. They constantly switch roles. Compensation is decided democratically. Whatever method is employed, the basic question must be asked, "How much do we have to sacrifice to accommodate the insatiable wants of the criminally selfish?" Any genuine form of democracy will answer, "We don't have to make ANY attempt to accommodate the wants of the criminally selfish whatsoever. Besides, it's impossible to satisfy the insatiable, to begin with." The current MAGA mess is the insatiable ones losing it all, going off into outer space.

[@KatyYoder-cq1kc]

Yes

[@collinwimbish4516]

China arguably resembles Singapore style capitalism more than the USSR post market reforms but I guess the lines are somewhat blurred between the USSR & Singapore. They’ve gone way farther in terms of market reforms than to Vietnam or Laos. Should’ve just followed kalecki’s blueprint for development instead of embracing market reforms.

[@howardsong1183]

We do learn from Singapore especially at the City Investment Group level. But my feeling that's more micro than macro.

[@noelfalk4283]

Professor Wolff, can you please say something about what I have written below? I would much appreciate it.

[@MarttiSuomivuori]

I actually learned something.

[@wk3hos]

I think a state capitalism is a legitimate type of socialism , because the wealth and power is handle by government not punsh of oligarchs , oligarchs work for thier interest , government works for the interest of the people .

[@baraldanny]

Exactly. Mussolini 101

[@mikeknefaty5056]

Professor Wolf: I am dying to know your idea of how we can go from Employer/Employee, or a hybrid Pulbic/Private to real Socialist system?

[@TC-eo5eb]

Move to Cuba or Venezuela and see how socialism works out for you. Take your pet with you as Venezuelans are eating them due to starvation.

[@alelzarterl212]

@@TC-eo5eb If your Imperialist country lifts the embargo I'll book a one way airplane ticket to Cuba and never look back

[@TC-eo5eb]

@@alelzarterl212 Cuban citizens drive 1950 American made cars. Cuba is not poor because of U.S. embargo. The U.S does not have Naval destroyers circling Cuba preventing Kia, Honda, Toyota, VW, Volvo or any other foreign cars from being delivered there. Cuba is poor because of their government has bad leadership.

[@robertseaborne5758]

What makes the great power struggle between an American led unipolar world order and China led multipolar world order more challenging and different from any previous great power struggle is the massive gap between their respective political systems ie; the gap between a Capitalist neo-Liberalism and a Communist neo-Socialism. Moreover, until a multipolar world order becomes functional with both of these major powers contributing to it, it is difficult to imagine how these two diametrically opposed modern day socio-economic forms of governance can continue to coexist on the one planet; be they regarded by other states as first or second among equals.

[@silverbullet4438]

As a Chinese, I feel in the last 5-6 years China has exposed more and more social issue. ppl, especially young ppl has huge unsatisfication and probably deep anger towards themselves, the society, and the gov. (though parts of this anger was redirect to the US gov since we think they're one of the major reason which put us in this status) I don't feel Chinese rapid grow speed can sustain, things would turn to be very bad before anything become good again. This is why I feel so delusional to see a discussion like. It's like 10-20 years ago everyone think China is a poor country but we know some good thing happened there. Now things become very bad and yet foreigner start to think they could learn some thing from our "success". Back to this vid, I just wanna say onething. The hybrid model, which combines state-owned companies with private companies, is not a deliberate strategy chosen by the Chinese government. Rather, it emerged as a result of conflicts between opposing factions within the CCP. Similar to the Soviet Union, there are factions within the CCP that hold differing beliefs regarding the prominence of Western-style free markets versus socialist planned economies. ppl, including young Chinese tend to think we switch to free-market smoothly, however it's a path full of thronys and sacrifice. That's why we end up with this weirdo model.

[@mrdannyheim6712]

Yeah good stuff there Professor Wolff, however, you could add to it the problem with materialism.

[@hascleavrahmbenyoseph7186]

I'm grateful for your lecture about the changing capitalism. I'm hoping for a particular new 'global economic model' GEM which will literally reverse man-made climate change. Our basic economic model "profit = income - expenses" also doubles as our collective behavior model, and this erroneous definition of profit is the root cause of man-made climate change, because all businesses must, by this definition, avoid and or eliminate as many expenses as is possible. Expenses are the entire environment, including ourselves. I have a new definition of 'profit' that I hope will replace all previous GEMs. I recommend "Profit = our gratefulness and loving care for the environment and sustenance that it provides to all of us". Under the guidelines of our present definition of profit, all efforts to correct man-made climate change will not only fail but will also worsen the situation by causing tremendous damage to the environment and will, most likely, cause a cascade of financial bankruptcies. Nature has an economy, and we are an integral part of nature's economy where we are all paid in full, in advance. Our job 'in nature' is to gain our sustenance without destroying the environment. Under the guidelines of my new definition of profit the environment will become healthier and far more plentiful; thus, we will all be wealthier than we have ever been before. Its thoughtful of nature to make our 'job in nature' or so called 'expense' be our gateway to real wealth. Thanks! P.S. Any feedback will be greatly appreciated.

[@michael511128]

No it’s not the final phase. It’s at the beginning stage of what Xi Jinping pronounced as Community of Life between Man and Nature. The concept encompasses all of humanity, plants and animals, nature and climate change. Already 152 countries have signed up for Belt and Road. Like in China, Belt and Road Infrastructure are largely built by State Owned Enterprises including construction companies of railways, highways, subways, ports, airports, power grid, steel, oil, education, and agriculture. Wages of highly experienced and qualified engineers, technicians and managers of SOEs are still low at about a third of US standard but considering the costs of living and social benefits in China the pay is not bad at all. They get handsome bonuses as incentives too. The infrastructure team is a unique super organism. After roads and electricity, food and education, developing economies will open up business opportunities for the private sector as per designs and utility. Typically China has uses of natural resources, logistics, labour, and market growth. Semi developed and resource rich countries like Saudi Arabia and Brazil can import newer technologies like 5G, EV factory, digital economy, or space tech. China also recently reiterated that each country has its unique situation and therefore there is no standard system. The capitalism problem described doesn’t exactly fit China. First, western capitalism generally means the rich control government and policies to a large extent. For China huge private corporations have little influence in government personnel or election. There are no campaign financing, no private bankers, no Federal Reserve, Chinese banks are all SOEs. No oilmen billionaires and certainly no weapon billionaires. Still, China has about as many billionaires as the US as per Forbes list. Deng Xiaoping decided in 1980 the strategy was to open up China and let a certain portion of the population to get rich first. He didn’t call that capitalism but to make of capital to promote market economy. China was very poor and backward, hardly anyone has traveled outside. More than half of the population were in extreme poverty which at that time meant no electricity and running water and live in huts built with mud. Education level was low. The country must concentrate its efforts to make economic breakthroughs by producing entrepreneurs to take the lead, something sounded familiar as told in speeches by the legendary Singapore prime minister Lee Kwan Yew whom Deng visited in 1978 before his trip to the US and Japan. Huawei was one of the first entrepreneurs that began in 1983. It’s an amazing company perhaps the most respected in China. As successful as big as it is, the founding boss is probably not a billionaire. It’s not a public company on any stock exchange. The majority of shares are owned by about 200,000 employees. It is a renowned big spender in R&D as well as hiring the best graduates and workers worldwide. Besides high tech it does many environmental and social projects that contribute to the theme of Community Life between Man and nature.

[@ronaldpalang3813]

Very strong arguments, but without a good method of changing the ruling few in a peaceful and orderly way, China is unpredictable. Xi is more like Mao than Deng

[@kateoneal4215]

Wonderful explanation of China's pragmatic approach to societal arrangements!!! I hadn't heard about the "Community Life Between Man and Nature"!!! I'd like to hear a LOT MORE about that. From what I've learned, China is a blooming, thriving country. The US is the polar opposite in every way and it's extremely depressing, highly distressing, to live here. (I'd move to China if I was younger and had the means. I'd like to feel deeply happy again.....) Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge with us.

[@michael511128]

@@kateoneal4215 You can Google Community Life and Belt and Road.

[@michael511128]

@@kateoneal4215 Recommend to on KZbin a documentary series Huawei 100 Faces produced by a Japanese director who lives in China.

[@michael511128]

Also excellent early years Belt and Road documentaries by Singapore CNA.

[@jackreynolds8804]

Bravo, I love it when Mr Wolff outlines those broad historical strokes, so many aha moments in one talk!

[@obinnachris5178]

So basically, this is what I learned that there are 3 differing types of economic models. Private Capitalism( basically capitalist government and capitalist workplace) USA 🇺🇸 State Capitalism( basically Socialist government and a capitalist workplace) U.S.S.R./ Soviet Union 🇷🇺 Mixed State and Private Capitalism(Social Democracy) ( Socialist government and with a 50/50 socialistic and capitalistic workplace) China 🇨🇳 Socialism ( Socialist government and a Socialist workplace) Cuba 🇨🇺

[@presterjohn1697]

For a comprehensive look into this topic see a book titled: China in Global Capitalism: Building International Solidarity Against Imperial Rivalry

[@rabuanmantine8522]

US capitalism is not strictly private capitalism as we like to believe. The so many bailouts suggest that socialism also used when capitalism produced bubbles

[@thomasgarrett3397]

What is the FedNow program???

[@musamusashi]

Very interesting reflections that confirm my point: true socialism, let alone communism, was never implemented yet, and may never be implemented.

[@lkchoh1454]

Soviet Union changed too fast in his political system, allowed privatisation giving too many chances to economical external forces, so failed in 1991. While China changed his economics system in regulation term and retained his socialism political system.

[@judithosterman9792]

This was very interesting, but what about profit? It drives capitalism; what role did it play in the Soviet Union? The Chinese government, or CCP, invests vast sums of money in profit making capitalist enterprises, buys up land and property in capitalist countries. How do you think this affects Chinese social and economic policy? Is the government not influenced to act just like any other capitalist would under the circumstances?

[@jazondelta4976]

Prof Wolff, it is strange that you never discussed Huawei in depth while talking about employer/employee topic that you apparently care so much about?

[@christianoquissak9430]

Sir thank you, fascinating. But would you consider that a perfect system would require an quasi perfect moral/respect standard that is not currently found in human nature? As humans the inequality is intrinsic, that person works extra hard and reads a lot, and the other one is pretty lasy and spend most of his/her time on Tik Tok...How could we get rid of employers and employees?

[@weiwei6743]

简单概括中国模式是：新加坡（爹妈政府）+ 苏联（社会主义修正）+ 美国（资本主义修正） + 日本（社会奴隶）+ 韩国（三星国）+ 香港（金融特区）+ 澳门（赌场特区）+ 台湾（芯片特区）。

[@cleanremarks]

This is what I don't understand though: Lenin was CONSTANTLY warned and criticized by anarchists and socialists for helping to build exactly the "State Capitalism" he talks about! I genuinely don't understand Lenin in that regard. He knew what he was doing; he wasn't naïve. He knew that he was converting the socialist movement into a state-controlled regime. The Soviet Union was authoritarian IN SPITE of socialist/anarchist protesting.

[@Huy-G-Le]

The Soviet only adopt a form of state capitalism in the late 1980s, when Mr Pizza Hutt was elected. For most of Soviet run time, they were a Socialist economic model, where mean of economic production are owned by the working population, but manages by the worker state.

[@zdzislawmeglicki2262]

"No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat." Don't be ideological. Be practical.

[@RajendranBalasubramanyamgplus]

The development of China for the past forty years was sustained by the surplus value (in the Marxian sense) generated by the poor working class of China. But that is slowly changing. The working class wants their wages to increase as in India (they say). Let us see how China sustains the growth it had so far.

[@Ryanjelly22]

I dont see this as anything new. What makes this different/better than Scandinavian social democracy? Norway has a similarly sized public sector. China grew rapidly because it was and still is a (for lack of a better word) developing country. Every developing country with competent governance and proper investment grew rapidly. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc all had their periods of rapid "catch up".