Economic Update: Libertarianism Capitalism & Socialism

[@Gigika313]

Capitalism: Not red vs blue, money over you.

[@lesliestenta3084]

A G I agree, but try to tell all the Fox viewers and right wing nut jobs

[@matthewcondie4052]

@@lesliestenta3084 We don't need to tell them: We need to show them.

[@dragoscoco2173]

That is very antisemitic.

[@riz3310]

Propertied owners vs propertyless wage laborers.

[@RFLCPTR]

@@dragoscoco2173 Wtf?

[@_-martin-_]

I love how concise Professor Wolff is. I also love how he sometimes turns Yoda on his sentences :)

[@Shuttlesworth11]

Getting his knowledge and skills for free seems unreaL lol. Love Wolff

[@amad8466]

It's actually a subsidized system. Lots of people pay into these projects on Patreon and through Democracy At Work website so that those who cannot afford it can still watch.

[@Shuttlesworth11]

K Korona what misinformation?

[@psikeyhackr6914]

How much would a K-12 National Recommend Reading List cost? How often do we go to school to pay to learn useless crap?

[@EfeFerich]

@K Korona "Leftists hate democracy" Wow. I'd like to read your next (stupid) insight into what leftists want.

[@devinfaux6987]

@K Korona If you think the DNC agrees with anything Wolff has to say, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

[@ronwisegamgee]

One of the more poignant statements I've heard from the third Zeitgeist film is that whenever people make an argument for freedom (in the defense of capitalism), what it really comes down to is the freedom for them to restrict the freedom of others.

[@Talltrees84]

Like states rights. The right to keep slaves and marginalize nonwhites. The original adherents of states rights were selective in their application. The slave owners used the evil Federal government to expand slavery even in places it was not wanted.

[@cjmacq-vg8um]

there's already a philosophy that does what Wolff suggests. its called equalism; a philosophy I founded in 2005. it divides the world NOT into left and right but into PREDATOR and NON-predator. the predators are fascists and non-predators are equalists. equalism UNITES the non-predators on the left and right against their common enemy - the ELITE ON BOTH SIDES who purposely divide us so THEY stay in power! my ENTIRE channel is dedicated to explaining this UNIQUE and REFRESHING philosophy of equalism. but as long as the ELITE on the left and right continue to DENY ME A VOICE equalism will FOREVER be ignored and some elitist A-HOLE will STEAL the idea away from me and claim it as HIS OWN! I should be being interviewed RIGHT NOW all over the internet and youtube! i'm tired of being GODDAMNED IGNORED! WATCH MY CHANNEL! WAKE-UP AND JOIN THE EQUALISM MOVEMENT! WAKE-UP OTHERS AND SPREAD THE WORD ABOUT EQUALISM and lets fix this mess the elite have made for us!

[@iamchillydogg]

Then that's a defense of statism not capitalism.

[@cjmacq-vg8um]

THANKS everyone for your support of equalism and my equalism channel. TOGETHER and UNITED we non-predators REALLY can change the world for the better and FINALLY awaken from the this fascist nightmare!!

[@SuperDeathunder]

Ronwise Gamgee whenever u feel America is less free than wolfs favorite countries do us a favor and go to Cuba and protest raoul Castro. Let us know how that works out. Oh wait u won’t be able to. Never mind just go

[@elsiegel84]

Capitalist utopia isn't just a fantasy, it's an oxymoron.

[@SpeedOfTheEarth]

+

[@MrHigherplane]

Capitalism is freedom. Socialism is slavery, Mr.segal

[@SpeedOfTheEarth]

@@MrHigherplane BS. watch the video...

[@elsiegel84]

@@MrHigherplane You remain an idiot, Crash, as you have displayed at our every interaction. Do you work for a living, Crash? If you do it for a paycheck you are an even bigger fool than I thought. But that is good because fools are quickly separated from their money. I'm up about 700K this year, and I didn't earn a nickel of it. My money did. That's capitalism. How's your portfolio doing, sport?

[@MrHigherplane]

@Troll Trollsen im a realist.

[@GarrettFruge]

Right-Libertarianism: when Mutualism goes really, really wrong.

@K Korona wrong chump. It's a word made by right libertarians to describe themselves. You moron.

Until you educate yourself you will be rightly corrected as an idiot. The first person to call themselves libertarian was an anarcho communist. The first person to call themselves an anarchist was also the guy in my profile picture. If you don't want to constantly be corrected read the history of these words.

This is how I know you are an idiot. Everything left of you is communist. Pretty freaking ignorant.

[@robinsss]

the original left side of the spectrum was occupied by people who would be called libertarians today : can you present a good reason why the definition of leftism was changed?

@K Korona its cute you can't comprehend not one of the links I've given you. First you said I made up words. Secondly I proved people like Rothbard and Von Mises were propagandists who self admitted that they were using their own words. That's not enough for you apparently.

[@bumblebee9337]

There are no "warlords" in Somalia, only entrepreneurs. Libertarian capitalism rules!

[@GaidexVillerX13]

Capitalist kill unions are warlords. Also terroristic group ten to live their so warlords.

[@technatezin]

@K Korona So why the hell would anyone enforce contract law in an unbiased and fair way to begin with if everything in society is reduced to how much wealth you can get in a bargaining encounter? Wouldn't physical collateral be a much better option as in you offer a member of your family or your close friend as collateral to make sure you hold up your end of the bargain? If you don't honor your end of the bargain you end up with your family member or close friend chopped into pieces and sent back to you. It's much more effective and transparent than a kangaroo court which could always be bought and presided over by corrupt judges and lawyers.

[@technatezin]

@K Korona Again, that assumes that person does a job for somewhat average pay out of a sense of social obligation or duty to their society which is what people working in a government position (judges, clerks, analysts, bureaucrats, ministers, etc...) is doing in a day-to-day basis. In a society where there is no such sense of duty to a community of members with shared common values there's no reason for a person to do that job out of a sense of obligation when he can get a much better return on his investment by joining a violent gang of bandits. Capitalism is at least honest enough to admit that property rights and contract laws need a body of armed men that's paid by the state to enforce in order to function. Libertarianism which does away with the government in the deluded hope that people would honor contract law and work in routine mundane jobs that is necessary to make that kind of legal system function is pure fantasy.

[@technatezin]

@K Korona Minarchism? You mean a small weak and corrupt government that pretends to govern while people under its rule pretends to respect its authority? That's assuming that people respects it as a valid unbiased and fair authority in the first place rather than look at it as just another hired tool of big business. More likely than not people would just see as another competing business or another competing criminal syndicate. You know what a real world example of minarchism would look like? Mexico. The narco gangs in some cases are much richer and have more lethal weaponry than the central government and judges, police officers and other employees of the state weigh their options as to whether or not taking up the offer given by the narco gangs is a better deal than working for government.

[@Mrgruntastic]

Commenting for the algorithm

[@NastyFool7]

Liking; for the algorithm

[@Knifymoloko]

Word

[@thedudegrowsfood284]

please don't hurt me, Mr. Algorithm.

[@staatsfeindlich9939]

I wasn't prepared for the conclusion. Provocative. Somehow I think that could be the way forward.

[@mirsad96]

Libertarians will get triggered and dislike waaay before they get to the end of the video anyway.

[@staatsfeindlich9939]

@@mirsad96 I thought more comrades would get really pissed off at the suggestion. We are all the proletariat!

[@Broham.tar0]

The “Free Market” IS the State y’all. In the words of Senator Nina Turner, “ C’mon somebody!”

[@matthewcondie4052]

There is nothing free about a market. It costs dearly to the planet and the likes of you and me.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@Eugene Fisher The government should determine the best way to get resources in the hands of people who need it most.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@Eugene Fisher Capitalism always need s a state apparatus to protect the wealth of the 1 percent.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@Eugene Fisher the present system can't even accomplish the survival of everyone. A system that doesn't concentrate all wealth at the top should be the starting point.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@Eugene Fisher Do you really think capitalism is the best we can do?

[@Stinky95030]

KZbin stopped putting this show in my feed for about a month or two. I had to come here manually.

[@hansfiene6488]

DIRECT DEMOCRACY DEMOCRACY PARTY THE PEOPLE DECIDE AND NOT THE 1 % THE LIARS THIEVES CHEETERS SHARE IT. SHARE IT LET'S MAKE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE YES WE CAN

The democratic party is NOT direct democracy.

[@dienekes4364]

You misspelt "REPUBLICRAT PARTY".

[@romanyarkov8426]

@ yes comrade i vote for direct democracy. In 21 century we dont need any corrupt parliament government or even a president. Everyone have a cellular phone what for do i need someone to decide what to do

[@FATHOLLYWOODB123]

Although I consider myself libertarian socialist in theory, I compare every day capitalist and socialist societies and countries around the world, the capitalist ones seem to constantly have the better technology, happier people and better quality of life meaning living longer due to not having shortages of food. Until I see evidence of socialism/communism/anarchism working I will not hop on the hype train. I remain a capitalist and practice, possibly a social democrat form, but an libertarian socialist/anarchist in theory! It's always good to have something to look forward too!

[@Ray_More]

Great lecture. As a person sympathetic to the ideas of libertarian Socialism this kind of invitational rhetoric directed at libertarians is desperately needed. I think socialist can win over libertarians with worker cooperative ideas. Wolff's rhetoric around work place democracy as akin to limiting the state in the workplace is great. American libertarians have this notion of limited government where in so far as we consent to central authority it ought be to protect private property / exercise a monopoly on the use of force and protect US boarders militarily. As a Libertarian Socialist I might offer a similar construction in so far as we consent to centralized government it ought be to: promote robust worker cooperatives + workplace democracy/ coordinate a people's military such that the exercise of monopolistic force is a transparent as possible. And ensure a robust social safety net for housing education food and healthcare. Neither of these constructions could be be understood as anarchy but both seek to constrain abuses of authority.

[@kanalarchis]

Surprisingly, you gave a fair presentation of libertarianism in the first half of this episode. Response to your criticisms: 1) The historic fact that capitalism has emerged within State societies has no bearing on anything. Don't commit the naturalistic fallacy which consists in conflating what _is_ with what _ought_ to be. Libertarians want a capitalism (for lack of a better word) like none that has ever existed. An anarcho-capitalism. For that to exist, we need to abandon the institution of the State. We haven't reached that high level of capitalism yet. There has been only some progress towards private property, compared to feudal society for example, or compared to slavery, but we are still part-time slaves of the State and our property is respected only to the extent that State officials decide to not steal it. This has been historically true, but it's not what libertarians want or need. 2) Libertarians are famously opposed to the state monopoly of money. Free banking is the libertarian position. Let money (or many monies) emerge organically in the market, as they did in the past. 3) You say the government controls many things. Indeed. That's what is wrong today. You make it sound like it was necessary for markets to work. On the contrary, markets have managed to more-or-less work _despite_ these interventions. The market discovers something (like a new service), progress happens, and soon the State enters to regulate it, to create artificial monopolies, crony relationships etc., and at that point progress is impeded or halted, and violence begins. 4) You say we (meaning whom exactly?) needed government to prevent us from killing each other and stealing etc. Sorry, but I would expect you to have familiarized yourself with the libertarian view on this. Nobody invited the government. Governments have been, since prehistory, imposed a bureaucratic & political class upon individuals. They have monopolized protection, justice, policing, all these necessary functions which, according to libertarians, the market would have provided much more efficiently, like it provides everything else. This is the gist of anarcho-capitalism, from Gustave De Molinari all the way to Rothbard and David Friedman. If you have not grasped this part of libertarianism, you haven't understood the thing you set out to criticize. 5) You say a free society is a utopia. You're again committing the fallacy that, just because anarcho-capitalism has never existed, it never will. But an airplane had never existed until it did. There is nothing logically inconsistent in anarcho-capitalism that would make it impossible. It's merely a historic fact that we've not overcome the institution of the State yet, and that's the only reason that you have only witnessed _this_ adulterated capitalism, and not the laissez-faire capitalism that libertarian anarcho-capitalists advocate. Also, before a communist calls others utopians, he should pause for a moment. But let's not turn this into a critique of communism. 6) The crisis of 2008 is again a historic event with no bearing on anything. You're talking about the adulterated capitalism that has emerged within statism. This isn't a criticism of laissez-faire capitalism. Libertarians have a lot to say about what caused the 2008 crisis, and the business cycle more generally. 7) You say the USSR and China are, basically, capitalists, because they didn't abolish employment, they simply made the State be the employer. Too many layers of confusion here. If by "capitalists" you mean the mixed economy (not the pure capitalism) that we have everywhere, you are right, the USSR is on the same spectrum where the US is, but with more socialism in the mix. These are all mixed economies, there has never been pure communism, nor laissez-faire capitalism anywhere. Now, if you expect libertarians to praise the USSR and China because they didn't abolish employment and the division of labor and money, but instead forbade everyone except State officials from employing people, i.e. they monopolized all industries by force under State ownership, that won't happen of course. Libertarians criticize the USSR and similar states for being even more intervening into the lives of their subjects than other states. Violent institutions (not just States) are all bad, but some are worse than others. It's good that the USSR didn't enact full marxism, because then even more millions would have starved to death. Doesn't mean the USSR was a good thing that happened to people, or a force that promoted capitalism (not to mention laissez-faire capitalism). Libertarians are very well aware of socialist "anarchists". They don't consider them true anarchists, but that's a long discussion that we shouldn't have right here. By conflating the ownership of an employer over his business with the power of a sovereign, you conflate the right of a person to stay in his property with the power of a band of robbers to steal it. You want to get rid of property rights, which libertarians consider essential for the person to be free. (Self-ownership is the basis of any ownership, including the ownership of means of production.) If you want democracy in the workplace, nobody prevents workers from putting their resources together and forming cooperative businesses that they will run by voting every Friday or whenever. That would be a voluntary association consistent with libertarianism. (Even with capitalism as it stands today you could do that!) But what you truly advocate is not just that. It's for the workers to _take_ by force the property of their current employers. That's theft. Employment is not a relationship of exploitation and violence, but of collaboration and contractual agreement. Employment is voluntary, unlike slavery or taxation. Nobody employs you by pointing a gun at you, but enslavement and taxation happen exactly at gunpoint.

[@JaviEngineer]

Excellent comment, I was looking for something like this. Although I have my dislike of AnCaps as a Minarchist and I usually refer to Federalist Paper No. 2 by John Jay since I feel Ancapistan would be a hyper balkanized region easily taken by enemy Nation-States. Or in David D. Friedman's view of Property Rights protecting Insurance/Security Firms would just devolve into States at some point because parents have to include their children the NAP would be violated forcing their children into such business dealings they may not have wanted to be apart of. And the underlying risks would be Firms going to war (to take out competition). At least that is how I would envision a devolvement to Statism since Humans are a naturally Hierarchical, Social Ape species. These commenters going through your stuff point-by-point are mostly fallacies either ad hominem, red herring, Disproving Anarcho-Capitalist views would require more empirical and biological approach. (Like how all human societies have either a formal or informal Government where norms are enforced either physically or psychologically; thinking ostracism/insult as a form of enforcement)

[@annford6640]

"Like" . . . to infinity and beyond.

[@MegaAlien999]

god damn I love listening to Dr. Wolff. I wish more would be exposed to him

[@dathguy556]

Another amazing video by democracy at work.

[@xavierivarnateson532]

I just want to go on record saying, and I hope others pointed out too. There are two distinct terms roughly you can use the term libertarian. One the distinct American usage ( only going back to the 1950s to figures like Ann Rynd, and Murray rothbard in his more right-leaning later years.) witch advocates some idealized version of capitalist free markets while ignoring the conditions of really existing capitalism. The other ( Which goes back to the 1860s during the first International workingmen's Association. Which Marx and Engels were part of alongside Mikhail Bakunin. Libertarianism in Europe and Latin America was used and is still used synonymously with anti capitalism and anti-imperialism and was also synonymous was association with early confederalist decentralized socialism. Developed by the classical mutualist, collectivist and later Communist Anarchist thinkers of Europe like Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Joseph DeJacques, Pytor Kropotkin, Louise Michelle, Voltaren Declare and Emma Goldman among others. Not to mention the American individualist anarchists of the Antebellum and pre and post-civil War era United States. Those being, Benjamin Tucker, Josiah Warren. Henry David Thoreau and Lysander Spooner. Which unfortunately have only been marginal in American libertarian thought.

[@xavierivarnateson532]

Note: the individualist or mutualist anarchists of the United States during that period considered themselves adamantly to be a school socialism.

[@julieannmyers8714]

I agree... Prof. Wolff should expand on a Part Two to detail libertarianism's European history and links, its history in the U.S. & the post-war impact of Ayn Rand's "romantic Objectivist" libertarianism on American conservatives... and how this became combined with the embrace of the Austrian School by Nixon & Friedman. I would particularly like to see Wolff address the historical links of libertarianism & fascism beginning in Italy at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries... which I think is relevant to the U.S. today. Clarification of the terminology on both sides of the Atlantic is critical... this is where much of the discussion & interpretation of the literature becomes (conveniently) muddied. aeon.co/essays/the-macho-violent-culture-of-italian-fascism-was-prophetic

[@Edgingwithaliens]

My brother is a libertarian and I am a Democratic socialist, thank you so muchfor setting a common ground for the two where you can see eye-to-eye. I never saw it from that perspective and it makes total sense.Thank you mr. Wolf!

[@DavidSanchez-vx4bv]

One way or another, Capitalism will be replaced by other economic system that responde much better to society needs and wants. It should be clear by know that Capitalism is just "another" system and it has clear and intrinsic flaws impossible to "fix" without change it completely . There will be always folks that resist the change, but for the sake of all Human Kind, we MUST find a replacement for Capitalism as soon as possible!!

[@clarestucki5151]

It's not true that "Capitalism requires money to function". It is COMMERCE that requires money to function easily.. People would still exchange their output for the output of other people by means of barter if there were no 'medium of exchange' (money), it would just be a much more cumberson process. Wolff lets his understanding of economic principles be informed by his political ideology.

[@mablebeel1619]

"strong government has been part of capitalism throughout its history... We are often angry at the things we are most in need of..."

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

I believe Dr Wolff says in another video that the gaining popularity of libertarianism is because the false promise of capitalism "raising all boats" has shown itself to be very very hollow so they are pivoting to the idea that it is the government not capitalism that is the problem. This gives them a scapegoat for their own failures without examining the system itself

[@SuperDeathunder]

Del Seibold what problems. We’re the richest country in the world. Our poor have 50 in flat screen TVs and cell phones! We raise more people from poverty in one year than most countries do in 20. I love reading wolfs comment section. It’s where all the retards go to congregate

[@JaBokianism]

Aye that intro instrumental be heavy hitting hardddd

[@Chris-op7yt]

there's a much simpler explanation of libertarianism. one in which the already capitalism corrupted government goes away and the excesses of capitalism become multiplied a hundred fold. no regulation = capitalists do whatever they want for maximum profit without any consequences for deadly products, no caps on costs for products and services and no minimum wage. soon to be followed by massive unrest. not against government but, against corporations, who already pull hard on strings of conservative governments to get what they want. they already want lower wages and fewer worker rights. so what do we think will happen when there is nobody to temper their desires.

[@scobiesview5137]

Richard you are talking to very few that understand anything /care about the politics of their world. I do and I thank you for your analysis. Mark

[@lul6124]

Welcome Comrades to another edition of Economic Update.

[@patbranigan6501]

You do realize that to most of us who listen to this program that is a compliment. The early union movement is what started this movement. CEO's are the most useless people in a corporation. They have everyone else do the work and thought and innovation then they give those employees a pat on the head, and a very minor award of say $500 and then take all the credit and the higher pay and huge bonus' for the millions those ideas created. True innovation comes from the shop floor.

[@lul6124]

@@patbranigan6501 why are you telling me everything I already know?

[@ryanm.6207]

I really appreciate this show, I’m going to sign up for the patreon this week. Thanks for all you do Richard!

[@fernandoprieto1340]

Does this mean taking (stealing) the existing enterprises away from the employers or simply create new employee owned ones to compete with them? Can't we merely do this inside the current capitalist system until employee runned cooperatives put the others out of business or is the game too rigged to do so?

[@ThatOneGuy223]

This really speaks to something I've been thinking about recently, which is that democratic socialists and libertarians actually have a lot more in common than either side believes, but there are some huge language barriers which make constructive conversations impossible. They call issues by different names - a libertarian may see "too much federal power, overregulation, and crony capitalism", where a democratic socialist sees "too much corporate influence in the government, regulatory capture, and uncompetitive monopolies." The two ideologies disagree on the solutions, but they are looking at the same fundamental issues, which means that a constructive conversation can be had. From my perspective as a demsoc, speaking to a libertarian, I agree with them that personal liberty is of the utmost importance. I think the most important personal liberty, is that anyone should have the freedom to apply themselves and work as hard as they want to, and be able to better their life circumstances. To that end, I believe we should have a system which maximizes social mobility, which has been on the decline for the past 40 years. This can potentially open up a discussion about supply-side and trickle-down economics, or paradoxically which regulations and laws are necessary to maintain the integrity of the free market: consumer and labor protection, as well as anti-discriminatory laws are pretty universally agreeable. Regulating or nationalizing industries which form natural monopolies - often utilities and public infrastructure like water and sewage, roads, electricity, or internet service, is also valuable to prevent that monopolization which is an outcome of 'crony capitalism'. Services which are absolutely necessary to social mobility, or 'life liberty and happiness' - like education and and healthcare, should also be guaranteed as human rights. People will agree or disagree to varying extents with all of the above, but I think that there is a real common ground to be explored between socialism and libertarianism. I think that Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard may be interesting to people in this area, because they are aligned with a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders on many of the issues, but their language is much more accessible to the capitalist, conservative, or libertarian dictionary.

[@kenny8351]

'One party system. A Corporatocracy!

[@danieljones9463]

I really feel that these presentations and proposals by Richard Wolff, are very helpful as exploratory and "identification of problems" guidelines, toward the betterment of Our systems of Living. I think he does a real good job of identifying the problems (usually some sort of shortcoming or imbalance in Our social structures) and is now offering NEW things to try to improve Our Social Systems. He mentioned the Libertarian belief in the "strong government" being an "outside" phenomena. I do see a possibility of this "outside influence" on Our Government as coming from the wealthiest Humans that live and operate all around Our Planet. Some of these are "American", but others are not. These 1% have an invested interest in thwarting and even diminishing the Ways of True Democracy in Our Nations. A lot of this "influence" is one use of a lot of wealth, that comes with the self-perpetuating Capitalist Systems. The stronger Capitalism gets the more it seeks to take more for itself and exclude the 99% from Fair and Just Benefit for their contribution to Capitalist successes. With its quest to exclude, or remove, government from the social equation, "Libertarianism" looks to me like some final phase for the establishment of total Oligarchy on Our World. The "Employer/Employee" relationship finally arriving at the devolutionary destiny it is marching toward...the return to Master/Slave.

[@amad8466]

Libertarianism is a religion.

[@sybilcochrane1969]

@redama good one! It's true one must have lots of 'faith' to trust that much in other 'deities', e.g.: corporate oligarchs.

[@paifu.]

Not Liberarian-Socialism (Anarchism)

[@typhoonic]

@K Korona you CAN'T be a libertarian AND also support property autocracy

[@amad8466]

@K Korona It's kinda fun to watch you dance around my point without ever actually touching it.

[@JustinMoralesTheComposer]

Thou shalt not tax

[@danahegna4442]

"I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to, more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe - "That government is best which governs not at all"; and WHEN MEN ARE PREPARED FOR IT, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient." - Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) ['Expedient' is an adjective meaning: (of an action) convenient and practical although possibly improper or immoral.]

[@julieannmyers8714]

Prof. Wolff, please address the American form of libertarianism in the hands of the oligarchy... or as I would call it presently, the kkkleptocracy.

[@celiali7373]

I am very much appreciative of the information you so willingly share with your online audience, and would like to suggest that you do more conversational type interviews, such as the one, here, with Michael Brooks. Your information is extremely important and could become much more widely disseminated if you would get together with other online hosts who value your ideas and would welcome your input. Lawrence Lessig comes to mind. I was introduced to his philosophy on The Joe Rogan Experience. It is nice to see you in a more relaxed setting, where your tone is much less gruff than in your lectures. Please take no offense from this comment, as my only motive is that you expand your audience. Again, thank you so much for all you are doing to open people's minds.

[@allendish]

WOLFF, SANDERS 2020

[@Xenoyer]

I believe that the best way to bring democracy to the workplace is to require 50% labor representation on all corporate boards. Stockholders, by virtue of their investment of money, have a stake. Labor, by virtue of they depend on it for their livelihood, and they devote a major portion of their lives to the business, and because it also affects their family at home, labor have a huge stake in the business too! 50% - 50% Labor - Stockholder Board Reps.

[@pottedrodenttube]

Read State & Revolution comrades

[@danunderwood6240]

Amazing and he nails it! So many in America get socialism wrong. Read the damn books people. Listen and open your mind.

[@matthewcondie4052]

We can do better than capitalism. Change my mind.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@K Korona So should we blame Christianity for the crusades? I'm not convinced. Try harder.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@K Korona both world wars were a competition between the capitalist nations to determine who'd emerge as the global capitalist hegemon. The U.S. won and is now collapsing, bringing capitalism it.

[@matthewcondie4052]

@K Korona I asked for an argument and got insults. We can do better than capitalism.

[@TheDominicProject]

@K Korona "any left winger is stupid". and you think we generalise? U r identity politics thru and thru. Peace and love bro that's my religion. So wait, the U.S waged wars for oil and power. That's capitalism. They also intervened on successful communist/socialist countries so that the public didn't get any bright ideas. Vietnam is a prime example, communist up to the 60s, boom. y has the u.s government intervened in democracy around the world? To destabilise nations, prevent unified opposition to it's control (look at the continued state of Africa, in the 80s Gaddafi was one of the leading figures trying to set up an EU like African/Arab alliance). At this point in time USA is guilty of crimes comparable to Nazis, they have wagered war on more nations in the past 70 years than Germany ever did. soz

[@matthewcondie4052]

@@reddoggie554 The U.S.S.R. was hated by the capitalist belligerents on both sides. Without the Soviets, the Nazis would've emerged as the dominant capitalist power.

[@dediguise0018]

A pleasure to see you take on this topic.

[@itzenormous]

Capitalists (the bourgeoisie) need a big strong state to defend their property rights, and to plunder resources, destroy alternative systems and give fat defense contracts to their kind.

[@aleks484]

8:56 someone forgot to turn off sound

[@slobodanboban8717]

There is also Liberiterian Socialism,that is wery close in program to Democratic Socialism! Just give it a shot,and reed a book Conquest of Bread from P.A.Kropotkin... Its good to know All kinds of Socialism...

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

how is it very close to democratic socialism? dont know men, kropotkin is closer to lenin then to bernstein, easy.

[@GaidexVillerX13]

@@brunoqueiroz2759 Lenin is closer to Neapolitan .

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

@@GaidexVillerX13 you mean the pizza? i dont think i got the joke

[@GaidexVillerX13]

@@brunoqueiroz2759 The French empire /dictator.

[@pottedrodenttube]

@@GaidexVillerX13 the ice cream?

[@jackdolphy8965]

One of your very best installments yet. Thank you !

[@nathanswann1198]

The neoliberal/libertarian daydream is incredible.

[@Broham.tar0]

INcredible is a fair choice of wording. Neoliberal/libertarian daydream = Washington Consensus

[@bradleybriggs]

I should also mention what else was happening during season 5 of NBC's Bonanza -- According to Wikipedia: By 1963, the North Vietnamese had sent 40,000 soldiers to fight in South Vietnam.[61]:16 North Vietnam was heavily backed by the USSR and the People's Republic of China. China also sent hundreds of PLA servicemen to North Vietnam to serve in air-defense and support roles.[32]:371-4[63] By 1964, there were 23,000 US advisors in South Vietnam. In August, the Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred, in which a U.S. destroyer was alleged to have clashed with North Vietnamese fast attack craft. in response, the U.S Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving President Lyndon B. Johnson broad authorization to increase U.S. military presence.

[@bloodbucket2847]

You need to run for president, or someone of the equivalent.

[@august3259]

Something that's on economics and not on bullshit on KZbin. Thank god. Finally

[@prophetoverprofit]

“We give the government extraordinary power by being the only one allowed to print the money” **Cryptocurrency Has Entered The Chat**

[@gaijingirl2004]

Wolff - great video!! As an (ex) Libertarian, I beg you... do an extra video dissecting how laissez faire proponents inaccurately frame "liberty" or "freedom" as "freedom from, vs. freedom to". (You touch on that briefly.) AND - the issue of "invisible economic goods" in any human society. (For instance, free riding on such things as the invention of language, electricity, modern medicine, etc... at ironically the very same time that libertarians claim they don't want 'free stuff.')

[@OldHeathen1963]

Bernie 2020 ~ !

[@richardtt8819]

Keep up the good work. listening to you gives me hope in humanity

[@troywalkertheprogressivean8433]

libertarians complaining about government is like the heart complaining about the brain

[@Soleilune1995]

Well, to Libertarians, feelings do matter more than facts.

[@BeniBalak]

Brilliant and Crystal-clear explanation of a very important point.

[@GR-ji9fw]

Thank you for such a clear picture Dr. Wolff.

[@virtusoroca7724]

Socialism is libertarian: workers getting paid proportionally to their individual capacity (meritocracy), and combining freely the individual property they own by working on it (enterpreneurship) - without state.

[@sybilcochrane1969]

YAY! Monday morning! Time to go to class with Professor Wolff!! Thank you, thank you! I'm a perennial student and this is astounding for me! I WISH I could REALLY be in a university classroom with you as the Professor! WOW! Fun, fun, fun......but my daddy took my T-bird away (in 2008)!

[@nthperson]

I write as someone who has come to embrace principles quite distinct from those of what are accepted to be the core arguments for either "capitalism" or "socialism." The term that best describes these principles is "cooperative individualism." What cooperative individualism asks is -- what system of law, regulation and taxation will secure and protect true individual liberty within a cooperative framework of socio-political arrangements and institutions. A statement of these principles can be found here: www.cooperative-individualism.org/principles.htm There are actually quite a few contributors to the body of analysis leading to the advocacy of cooperative individualism as a replacement platform required for realizing the just society. One of the leading theorists who attempted to build a global movement to adopt these principles was Henry George. His efforts failed to achieve more than some incremental reforms. Not surprisingly, George and his supporters were opposed by both the defenders of the status quo and by those who came to the effort holding to the theories of Karl Marx or others who found in the system of private property, generally, the fundamental cause of widespread human misery. Henry George offered a means of balancing the protection of rights to property with the guarantee of fundamental human rights. In his book "Social Problems," George discussed what he identified as the proper functions of government. The entire book continues to offer thoughtful analysis of the human condition. In response to Professor Wolff's observations today, I offer Henry George's insights into where the public sector responsibilities rightfully begin and end: www.cooperative-individualism.org/george-henry_social-problems-1883-17.pdf Edward J. Dodson, M.L..A., Director School of Cooperative Individualism

[@Deltelly]

Thanks once again for another very interesting show. As someone with a strong libertarian socialist leaning who has tried again and again to discuss with your standard definition (right) libertarians that socialism isn't necessarily the highly-authoritarian, government-heavy versions seen in the USSR and China (with little success as they seem to ignore this fact) I hope you have more luck. There does seem to be a lot of common ground, as you say, and it seems to me that once you have complete individual freedom, which includes freedom from coercion that it shouldn't matter whether a group of people voluntarily decide to set up some cooperative enterprise or not so the right-libertarians should not have a problem with it. In fact I find it difficult to see many differences. Would an economy based on democratic workplaces still be best to use markets for distributing goods etc. in your opinion? One thing you didn't touch on (but maybe have previously) is one of the right-libertarians slogans "taxation is theft". It would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on this as I do have some sympathy for it but while we still have states and governments is there a good way to view taxation that debunks their claims.

[@GarrettMerkin]

Your first point is the most important, in my opinion. Americans have been indoctrinated to associate socialism and communism with the USSR, or China, or Venezuela etc... But those were authoritarian states. Completely contradicts what even just the word "communism" stands for etymologically.

[@Deltelly]

@@GarrettMerkin Totally agree. But when you try and tell them that communism is, by definition, classless and stateless, which sounds very liberal and individual focussed like the libertarians should agree with they either ignore it or answer with incredulity. Very frustrating! Seems to me, as you say, that authoritarianism is the common enemy. Hopefully Prof. Wolff's suggestion will bear fruit.

[@GarrettMerkin]

@@Deltelly Cheers! Perfectly stated, comrade 😉.

[@audiofunkdialect]

I was watching the Jimmy Dora show with Ron Paul on it and I think he’s right we have way more in common then we have different.

[@paulkelly1162]

Lets assume both utopian visions are fully realized. Right libertarians argue that left socialists prohibit free exchange as a possibility, while their system allows voluntary socially in principle. I believe the correct to right libertarians is to say that no one perfectly greer *would* enter a capitalist relation. By definition, being an employee limits you to imitate the desire of your employer. The issue is that both sides believe the problem is scarcity, when it really is about peacefully allocating responsibility as individuals. It's no accident socialism became Soviet style state capitalism. "From each according to ability, to each according to their need" was what archaic people's did--it was on the fear of death. I imagine Marx's maxim could be fulfilled in the same way, in the name of love. The reason why we think this is impossible is because both sides think the problem is about resource distribution of transaction, when it's about opening possibilities for freedom.

[@sail2byzantium]

Dear Professor Wolff, As you brought it up here, something I'd be interested in better understanding is the similarities and contrasts between Anarchism and Marxism. I have found this hard to find on the web (either web content or books), for what I do find, it's just either acrimony by Anarchists on how Marxists are wrong or acrimony by Marxists on how Anarchists are wrong. so it's hard to see esp. where they exactly differ, at least for me, esp. as you note in this video, the antipathy toward the state seen with Marxists--as this is an Anarchist thing too. I'd like something a bit more detached and historical that points to what they shared in common but what then caused their divergences, which describes pretty well the relation between, say, Proudhon and Marx for example. (the historical overview and development seems missing in what I find on the web--as all the diatribing seems to require prior knowledge and understanding I still lack). You seem probably more partial to Marxism itself, based on how you've described yourself (I'm thinking of Chomsky who sounds more anti-Marxist in labeling himself as a libertarian socialist or anarcho-syndicalist), but you do a very excellent job in providing a more analytical and objective history of issues and economic positions, since you're an academic after all, that I'd be very happy to hear what you have to say on this. Thank you.

[@sekyiintsiful1833]

thanks prof. Wolff for the lecture.

[@shelbylongbottom5865]

Can you talk about our comrades in the red and black, and the different types of anarchism and libertarian socialism? Thanks!

[@amandaharig1978]

I highly recommend season 10 of the "Revolutions" podcast. I just finished it. Fascinating.

[@tr5946]

The difference between state capitalism (oxymoron) and private capitalism is competition. In private capitalism, if you disagree with a specific service or product, you can choose to patronize a competitor or better yet, become a competitor yourself. In government run capitalism, there are no competitors to the state. You are forced to accept the terms and conditions set by the state.

[@loganscott814]

What if there are no competitors? What if all the competitors are in agreement?

[@A.W.B.247]

I have heard many others make the critique that Libertarianism as the economic philosophy, is a transitional doctrine coming out of feudalism, where there is no real public sector that benefits the populace, so the impetus is to end their encroachment. Of course to effectively expand and not destroy itself, capitalism needs regulation, so state power becomes necessary, as you state. In reading Marx's critique of the Gotha program, Marx criticizes the Lassallians for both a general advocacy of coops, which he though was utopian and an alliance with those who advocate aristocracy against capitalism, which he thought was regressive. What distinguishes your view from the Lassallian approach?

[@bobpeters61]

Like I've always said: the government that fails to govern the corporate sector will itself be governed by the corporate sector to the detriment of the people.

[@coopsnz1]

Get rid of social democracy in Australia, been voting to get rid if it decades

[@taniahagn4698]

Complete agreement. Thanks Prof. Wolff!

[@thewickedwitchofse8998]

Outstanding. Love Prof. Wolff.

[@matthewrick]

Excellent as always Dr. Wolff!

[@FratFerno]

Another key point of agreement is that this socialism would undermine the state, as inequality and poor product quality would be so drastically reduced that regulation would be pointless. Consumer organizations could take that role as well as the role of keeping prices low (or, through local communist agreement, nonexistent), per the recommendations of Mary Ruwart in The Compassion of Libertarianism. When workers control their own workplaces, they work better with their own knowledge.

[@chcknpie04]

You and Harriet are rockstars to me!

[@notachance1073]

even if you're a hard core socialist once you read Bakunin you will never look back, he's amazing!

[@alexpodolsky8980]

Great short post and up to a point! Many Americans like the libertarians. Let's keep at it. And remind at each corner that Soviet Union had a state capitalism, not a socialism (still the children there had a lot more stable childhood then kids have here, in USA - I can attest to that). And that communism is not a Soviet Union (USSR), China (PRC) or North Korea models, but a Spanish community of Mandragora (Wikipedia) coops, like Harriet Fraad said in last post.

[@christinajonsson7208]

I think Dr. Wolff knows my brother.

[@DrSanity7777777]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron and the term "privatization" was coined by the Nazis. "Within [right l]ibertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors ... Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now." - Peter Sabatini, "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZoGkl5drr6ikhLs

[@warrensonberg8453]

I have listened to the whole talk now and i can say that in my cafe, mismanagement and petty theft are big issues, as well as at this point a failure to recognize that we are all connected to the success of this business. Its seems to me that i who made the greatest sacrifice and investment is now having to again sacrifice my salary to save the business where others are actually responsible for the continued success and refuse to listen to my years of sacrifice and learning to turn around a dire conclusion. so My Wolf please let me know your feelings on this question what and who should be responsible for a business that begins to decline after the creator has retired.

[@GamerParent]

I would like to point out that "Libertarian" is a left wing concept that has been co-opted by the right: “One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, ‘our side,’ had captured a crucial word from the enemy . . . ‘Libertarians’ . . . had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...” ― Murray N. Rothbard

[@dewaynestafford5507]

The way around all this is to not even bother to go against dispute at the top of a corporation because it would not be necessary if they would just simply evenly distributed the proceeds of the corporation to the employees. That way the government and all it's insane rules of gushing up the money to the top can be bypassed. No need to go to War with the government changing the rules as to how many people can run a corporation. All the people who run the corporation have to do is humble themselves as another employee and distribute the income evenly. It is so simple it is almost impossible to comprehend

[@julieannmyers8714]

"All the people who run the corporation have to do is humble themselves"... simple? Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[@scobiesview5137]

The Government prints the money and sets the interest rate? My understanding is that the Federal Reserve is not a governmental agency but a private banking institution.

[@paulvanreesch2493]

Where does it say that in the Illuminatus Trilogy by Joseph Goebbels?

[@Sam.G79]

When you say the entrusting of production, distribution, and control of money to the government, are you referring to the Department of Treasury?

[@tanujSE]

Revolutionary beginning is the actual begining of human beings That's why some people do it

[@MK-oz2lf]

The real libertarians were small government socialists aka anarchists. "Libertarian" was just a polite term for anarchists from liberals in the media used in the 1800s and it was right wing unfettered market capitalists in the mid 1900s stole and appropriated the word to mean people like Murray Rothbard wanted it to mean. Dr. Wolff got it right at the end with his proposal. If "libertarians" don't support worker coops, they are not true libertarians.

[@cf6713]

I disagree with almost everything this guy says, but yes, to not support co ops would be inconsistent, however advocating for first right of refusal and government backed loans for the purchase as Wolff does, does not align.

[@MK-oz2lf]

@@cf6713 It does not align if he is trying to align with AnCaps (who are walking oxymorons) but it does align if he is trying to outreach right wing "libertarians" who they admit get government funded programs such as the police and fireman and public works in order for their to be access and safety and maintenance for their enterprises. Private banks unchecked and unfettered will hinder the rights of individuals who want to start a coop when they see that their allies will be contested in the marketplace. It's essentially discrimination of opportunity and liberty and therefore here is where the state comes in to leverage things out. I disagree with you for said reasons.

[@cf6713]

mooncountry1017 That’s just completely incorrect. A libertarian would argue that a state is necessary, to protect individual rights for sure. However there is no argument to be made that banks would not lend to groups who want to start co ops, the goal of investing is to get a return on investment, if co ops threatened contemporary corporations, it would actually reduce the ability of a standard corporation to receive investment. Banks do not need to protect an asset when the are profiting off of another asset in the firsts assets absence. If anything they would be even more inclined to give out loans even before co ops prove their dominance, it’s called hedging your bets.

[@jonassteinberg3779]

Incredible lecture.

[@Sam.G79]

I have another question. When and where did mankind begin using natural resources,(silver,copper,paper,) and begin placing value on these rescources so that they were somehow transformed into money so that people can buy and sell necessities? If I understand correctly, before any form of economy existed, people hunted for food, tilled their own lands and grew their own crops, and traded necessities instead of buying and selling for profit. Correct me if I am incorrect please.

[@RobotTed]

A call for solidarity with Libertarians. Perhaps they can be saved from the destructive sectarian madness they've allied themselves with... I'm not crying, you're crying. --KZbin should be a co-op! We all contribute Likes, Uploads and analytics! All for one, one for all!

[@g3rch_xD]

Every episode with so much information, and insight, love it! Finaly (again) were talking about the form of Socialism that is in general "red-colored" capitalism. -- we need a new -ism for the social centered reorganisation of the workplace - any suggesttions cooperatism, peopleism?

[@g3rch_xD]

Workplaceism? i'm bad an name-creating :)

[@nyceyes]

There's conflation going on in this video. Libertarianism and Capitalism must be examined as two independent streams of thought, before they are intersected (if they should be intersected at all). (Note: I'm not referring to the Libertarian Party, who I neither follow nor have affiliations with. Rather, the below refers to the concept of Libertarianism as it pertains strictly to the Constitution of the United States, irrespective of party affiliation). Many who identify as *Libertarians* don't necessarily desire unchecked Capitalism by way of less government intervention. Instead, Libertarians object first-and-foremost to the intrusion of God-given rights that the *Constitution Of The United States* confers upon them and upon you. This intrusion, of course, comes by way of sprawling local, state and federal governments, and the laws they enact to *control you, the governed* . Now, a *side-effect* of opposing governmental intrusion into the pursuit of *Life, Liberty* and the *Pursuit of Happiness* , is less control over other things too, including unfortunately over Capitalism. But believe me, your *Libertarian brothers and sisters* don't like the 1% / 99% inegalitarian, winner-take-all economic situation either. They simply just do not have *fine-grained knobs* on *government machinations* necessary to, on the one hand, stem the *legislative erosion of your Constructional freedoms* (i.e. your Liberties); while on the other, *permitting controls* on unfettered Capitalism. Don't allow this to devolve into another us versus them thing, because it's a false choice. Remember: As the cornerstone / foundation of USA, it was first necessary to *assert* what *self-evident Liberty* entailed. The Constitution does this before anything else. After that, subsequent systems, including Social, Economic and Governmental systems could be agreed upon, democratically. Libertarians are open to options, so long as they do not impinge on the crucial foundational freedoms.

[@mattrussell8309]

That's something I've been noticing in Libertarianism a sort of excuse of ridged constitutionalism in defense of the negative liberty private property ownership while ignoring the fact that the founders were landed gentry following classical republicanism that never intended for none wealthy land owners to vote in defense of they're class interests.

[@JP-uq4ii]

Professor, can you talk about the Gold standard that Peter Schiff is advocating.

[@MB-rz4fx]

Interesting theory. As a libertarian, I don't think democratizing the workplace will change anything but put workers in charge and eventually lead to the same conditions or judging by history, worse. If our money wasn't being devalued by the governments and puppet masters, you could all produce savings for bad times. If we had a free market then all the unified workers could walk off the job and with another investor, buy the workplace. Not to mention how to distribute productivity or lack of. At the end of the day there is no perfect system, whatever works for some, doesn't work for others. People need to produce for themselves and have a moral code enough to help each other out.

[@gabrielfrostbrand2754]

To add an important point: capitalists don't just need and coexistist with a supportive state they have an active interest in shaping the state to their benefit. And even if there is no state to begin with for their interests they will just bring it about, albeit in a much more rudimentary form. At least that's what the corporations did during colonisation to better exploit target areas. Therefore the suggested policy of libertarians to "abolish" the state (by whom exactly?) which in practice amounts to abandoning it just leaves it over to corporations to shape and expand it in their interest. But sadly the fact of market forces intervening in the state before the state itself intervenes in the market and in general society seems to elude the regularly. Although to be fair there are also socialists who don't understand that state Intervention isn't always in their side just because it's against the market.

[@itzenormous]

Everyone should read Lenin's "State and Revolution." Understanding Marxist Theory while reading Lenin's great work, will blow a hole a mile wide in most of the Right-Wing critiques of Socialism. Most people on the Right erroneously affiliate Socialism with Liberalism, not realizing that most of us Marxists hate Liberals more than Conservatives do. I hate Liberals for their naivete, their opportunism and their social chauvinism, especially when they denigrate the White Working Class and refer to most of them as "deplorables." SMH

[@bryanbeuret]

Prof. Wolff please them up with a presidential candidate who proscribes to your teachings on economics. If you were to back up Andrew Yang I am sure you would make a major impact on America. I am a college educated voter who is in the top 10%. I am 68 yea s old, I will be ok, but those younger won’t be without leadership like you. Please contact Bernie Sanders and Andrew Yang and get synergy you 3 could seriously make a big big difference. Thankyou, Bryan in North Texas

[@S.A.U.1489]

Economic mysticism is what Libertarianism is.

[@matthewkopp2391]

The old idea of libertarianism was to challenge illegitimate authority. Both state and capitalist. Right now we live within a state system. And corporate power dictates what the state should do. The only competing power that I think would be effective against the unaccountable tyranny of corporations would be cooperative power. I think people interested should just simply start forming cooperatives of various kinds within our current capitalist system in anyways they can. There are many possibilities. But one viable way would be thrift and surplus goods stores especially in an era of internet selling. Doing this well would not merely supply extra income it could also supply access to basic material necessities at far below retail costs.

[@taviyo]

Very enlightening!

[@thomasleion2309]

If you instead take Switzerland for a rolemodel, they have had a strong government all the time...differens is just that they have real democratic system so Government in function system instead "protect" the individual´s selfinterest, right´s and assets

[@jonbo69]

Couldn't find the socialism book on Lulu ☹