Lenin's Question for China: State Capitalism or Socialism?

Prof Wolff talks about the different ways we can understand socialism: is it the government or is it a democratic control of our economy? He then uses a story about Lenin to reflect on the current economy in China. Will they move begin to organize the economy democratically?
"So, you have a mixture of state and private capitalism. But Lenin's question stands. Will you, are you in the process, do you have plans for the transformation of this kind of still capitalist economic system to something fundamentally different. And that fundamental means the radical, democratic reorganization of the factory, the office and the store." - Richard Wolff
This is a clip from the November 2021 Global Capitalism Lecture: China - US’s First Real Competitor in a Century
You can watch the full lecture here: • Global Capitalism: Chi...
Or listen to it as a podcast on your favorite podcast player!
______________________________________________________________________________________
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work.
Become a GCLEU patron on Patreon: / gcleu
Become a monthly donor via our website: www.democracyatwork.info/donate
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Learn more about d@w's NEW BOOK by award-winning print and broadcast journalist Robert "Bob" Hennelly.
Stuck Nation: Can the United States Change Course on Our History of Choosing Profits Over People?
www.democracyatwork.info/books
“Hennelly brilliantly analyzes our capitalist crises and how individuals cope with them, tragically but often heroically. He helps us draw inspiration and realistic hope from how courageous Americans are facing and fixing a stuck nation.”
- Richard D. Wolff

[@notabene7381]

“Slavery was never abolished, it was only extended to include all the colors.” ― Charles Bukowski

[@goodluck5642]

That’s a yikes from me bud

[@rmarbertin8131]

While we certainly do have n* strata - the house-n* and the field-n*, as Malcolm X put it, the varying degrees of suckers sweating blood for fiat.

[@patrickmccormack4318]

Not many quote Bukowski, not may have heard of Bukowski, fewer have listened to Bukowski. Awesometacular quote. Carry on.

[@DualTasticToday]

Yeah And it's called Minimum wage.

[@kevchard5214]

WOW I have said that for years.

[@massimoaccorsi9619]

It should be pointed out that Lenin was certainly proud of the Bolshevik revolution for having ended the war and for having conquered the dictatorship of the proletariat, but he was well aware that, after the failure of the revolution in Germany ,due to the inadequacy of the Spartacist Party of Luxemburg and Liebknecht, Russia certainly could not achieve socialism. In the report of October 29, 1921 at the Seventh Party Conference, in front of the many criticisms about the NEP, he said: "As the Communists consciously point out the problem of the New Economic Policy, there can be no doubt that we have suffered a very serious defeat on the economic front. It's inevitable that there are desperate people, almost dismayed, people who, faced with the retreat, are almost panic-stricken. In the spring of 1921 it became clear that our attempt to switch to socialist principles of production and distribution had been frustrated... The political situation of the spring of 1921 revealed to us that for a number of economic questions we could not avoid to fall back on the position of State capitalism...it's not so much the defeat that is dangerous, as the fear of recognizing one's defeat, as the fear of drawing all the conclusions from it. The only work that our revolution has completely achieved is its bourgeois democratic work. And we have a more than legitimate right to be proud of it."

[@nedludd3110]

My only addition to what you quoted would be to put in context with what Lenin was writing about the nature of the NEP before, during, and after 1921. I think whenever you see Lenin talking about 'socialist principles of production and distribution' or what have you, we have to assume he meant socialist principles of production and distribution [generalised across the entire economy]. He didn't deny that the economy had socialist elements, most particularly regarding land ownership and heavy industry. Likewise, when he said 'The only work that our revolution has completely achieved is its bourgeois democratic work', that word 'completely' is key. Socialism existed, but was only partial, not general i.e. 'complete'. Apologies for exegeting like this (after a while it starts to feel like you're taking Lenin's words as more real than the actual reality his words were in reference to, I realise this). But I think it's important because otherwise it makes it easier to distort things the way Wolff does. The NEP had both capitalism and socialism, to claim it had only one or the other is absolutist. For example, Lenin certainly considered it possible (not guaranteed) to achieve socialism in Russia alone. Thus his notion that: 'Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone'

[@ethanstump]

@@nedludd3110 the thing is though, is now i don't see any successor. which by i mean a partially socialist country actually completing the job. obviously that has to do with imperialism on the hand of the united states, but to progress the ruling worker class, the united states must be defeated, while not turning into capitalism, and the only place to do defeat the united states is china, and they've just turned into Keynesians. my bet is if the development of India get's turned into a worker state, that "might" be possible, but then what's not to say that they turn into a second china?

[@nedludd3110]

@@ethanstump If India did go that way I have no doubt it would become a second China as you put it. But I would contend that China has a worker's party in power, albeit a worker's party comprised of a highly degenerated, instrumentalist, bureaucratic caste. The problems of which are all kind of obvious. I would further posit that although the very top echelons of the party have their vast wealth managed and held (typically) by family members etc, and thus are not as such billionaires themselves, that comparatively minute distinction is at constant risk of melting into insignificance. For now I think there is still a meaningful distinction, although thin. The thing I can really see buttressing this razor thin distinction at the moment is ideology. Hence the huge political drives on Xi's part relating to 'corruption' etc. The trouble being that they create instability, cronyism, and all the rest. Campaigns for ideological obedience cannot replace material interests in the long term because inquisitions don't create faith, only the functional outcomes of faith (a contradiction which can only last so long).So we'll see.

[@paweradnicki5114]

This is not true. There has never been one anywhere but anarchism guarantees true socialism. True socialism is not in the interest of any politicians because in socialism there is no place for the state, the people and their representatives. No state wants to lose its influence. State= evil

[@ethanstump]

@@paweradnicki5114 in the long run, yes a stateless, classless and moneyless society would have to be anarchist. however, while i can sorta explain to my politically unsavvy mom that having workers making democratic decisions for themselves in the workplace and in government is something desirable and not only possible but probable, explaining to her why having no government is in her best interests is order of magnitudes harder. while i believe that anarchism is more desirable, I'm not sure that it's more achievable in the imperial core that i reside in. then again, life is far from certain.

[@joethestack3894]

I was an employee for some decades, and during those times I felt I understood how the system worked pretty well. Although I was on a salary, I understood that my job was to maximize profit for my employer. I didn't have any problem with that beyond wishing for more profit-sharing, and I put my efforts into pursuing that end. I was with one company for ten years, and during my last year there I learned that the company was in the process of selling itself off, division by division, in order to "maximize shareholder value". I was like, hey wait a minute, all this time I've been working to maximize profit for you motherfuckers, and now you're parting out the company? It wasn't that I couldn't understand why they might be doing that, but frankly I felt a little hurt, unappreciated I guess. But hey, that's capitalism!

[@iart2838]

Solutions are fairly simple: living wages, healthcare to all, profit sharing--- all amounts to unionized work force. An elephant in the room everybody is dancing around. All healthcare must be nonprofit.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

I think true a democratic requires more. An authoritarian board of directors is still authoritarian and can plot to wrest the workplace into their hands, just as they did in the US by both destroying political expression outside a pro capitalist (authoritarian) one and then labor. All the blood and tears to wrest enfranchisement into working people’s hands has been lost in the last 50 years. The blood and tears must be shed again, because authoritarians never relinquish power without a bloody fight.

[@owenmb984]

The elephant in the room is the means of production. Until it's out of private hands there is no "solution"

[@ACogloc]

Ah so simple. Just make stuff free. Surely someone will provide it to be nice, worst case we can enslave them.

[@Shaggarott]

Solutions are simple. The hard part is how to get the candy out of the 1% piñata.

[@ALL_CAPS__]

@@ACogloc uh..what? Lol

[@yttean98]

Prof. Wolff, I like to suggest you should really make a trip to China(once the Covid19 cases are under control) for an extended period of time, say at least a few months and study the economic policies/situations/environment there. You will come back with new ideas and info to tell us. I am sure your friends will introduce corresponding academic personnel and public service personnel who can show you what you want to know. Prof. Prasad has good contacts there. The Chinese cadres would welcome fellow socialist/communist. I believe You will learn many things, squash many myths and falsehoods and further expand your horizons.

[@user-vp1vl6yp9t]

NNNOOOOOO!!!!!!!! The west has only one problem that the westerners love Chinese so much that they want the Chinese to be happy so bad that they can't stand to see the Chinese making mistakes. Please, let them, say nothing when you see the Chinese make mistakes. Be silent, let the Chinese pay for their mistakes. Can you do that? No, Americans just can't help themselves, including Prof. Wolff, they love the Chinese too much. Leave China alone, please, including Prof. Wolff, let China does the wrong things and fail. Don't try to understand China, because it takes or wastes your time. Americans spend too much time, energy, money, and even sacrifice American lives to help the Chinese do the right things and avoid mistakes. Inevitably, Americans spend less time, energy, and money to help the US of A. No wonder the USA is having problems. Just imagine, the white Americans worry and care for the black Americans just like they do the Chinese, Marin Luther King's dream had become reality long ago. So, stop worrying about the Chinese, please, including Prof. Wolff, let the Chinese make mistakes. Who cares if the Chinese are miserable. BTW, I am a US citizen and NRA member.

[@TheCheat_1337]

@Gabi Lipede Oh be quiet, you don't know anything about China. Wolff means well and he has good analysis but it is important to remember that there is workplace democracy and co-ops in China, in Vietnam, RIGHT NOW. It isn't just straight up state capitalism and regulated private capitalism. And there were co-operatives in the Soviet Union too, primarily in agriculture (comprising MILLIONS of workers). The Soviet government, as the Chinese, Vietnamese, Cuban governments believe now, always wanted major strategic industries to remain in state hands. And it is likely to be that way until the transition to communism.

[@yezih2694]

@Gabi Lipede China is collapsing. Chinese economic miracle are all lies. Indian is way better than China! USA No.1!!! Do you feel better now?

[@daithE]

@@yezih2694 I mean I'm sure he does. As a socialist I would rather live in the capitalist USA than under totalitarian Xi in China.

[@karlmarx7511]

@@user-vp1vl6yp9t wow what a haphazard argument. In the scope of global economics it does not pay one well to ignore those you compete with. Wolff doesn't try to "solve" their problems or concern himself with china alone but rather economic reform in whatever shape that takes on. This is a matter of meeting real human needs in a very material world while providing the basis for a realistically free and equal society. And just cause you threw it out there I will too I'm a us citizen and an sra member lol

[@gino460]

China has plan for achieving democracy at work in the intermediate stage socialism, which will be after 2050. China is still at primary/preliminary stage of socialism now. The main focus of this stage is still developing economy.

[@cageybee7221]

"you'll have democracy in the workplace eventually just slave away for the next 30 years for foreign capitalists till then"

[@patrickmccormack4318]

"It's an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem." - Douglas Adams

[@revolutionarydragon1123]

Didn't Marx teach us to think dialectically why shouldn't we think about it when it comes to building socialism like every other socialist country does

[@tofolcano9639]

The primary stage of socialism is as socialist as the last stage of socialism though. The stages of socialism are not like the stages in butterfly's metamorphosis where at first it's a worm and then it's a butterfly, the stages are more like those of cancer where at first it is cancer and at the last stage it's also cancer but quantitatively and qualitatively different.

[@cageybee7221]

@@tofolcano9639 that is quite possibly the worst analogy for socialism made by someone who isn't an anti-communist i've ever read.

[@yimenglyu3889]

In terms of changing the organization of a corporation, Don’t put your bet in China. We are still in the early phase of capitalism, doesn’t matter it’s owned by the state or private parties, meaning we are still suffering various early symptoms from capitalism, for example the work environment is just toxic at this moment in China. US and Europe is far ahead of us in that regard. It’s a process to catch up of course. I just don’t think we are ready for Lenin’s question anytime soon.

[@joekelly2595]

Why can't production be reorganized through state ownership (i.e. nationalization) at the same time that things at production and enterprise or plant level are democratized in the way that you envision, Richard? That's what workers' councils or soviets in Russia were about. In the context of war and counter-revolution, Lenin saw that the power of soviets at the plant and district or local level had to be defended in a coordinated way, and once you start talking about coordinated defence you're talking state. Lenin wasn't thinking of "state capitalism" but the power of the workers' councils when he set out on the October Revolution. Once that happened, it was civil war. The war, as I understand it, wiped out so many of the most class conscientious workers that the soviets became an empty shell of themselves, with a void that was left for the state to fill. And it is in that context that you hear Lenin speak of state capitalism. The beauty of Lenin wasn't that he had a grand blueprint that he found in Marx. His Marxism was merely a lens through which to observe what workers were doing, seeing how they were organizing themselves at the plant and district level while looking to secure their defence against counter-revolution.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

It can. See my other comments. But Wolff is a liberal not a socialist. He has an ideological agenda he wants to force no matter if there is a better alternative. Since, his plan is compatible with capitalism, many capitalists financially support him.

[@nedludd3110]

Wolff is loath to call socialised, state-owned enterprises operating on a plan with profits no longer in the driving seat 'socialism' because it contradicts his co op mania. Can sidestep a lot of (supposed) cognitive dissonance if socialism has never existed after all. Otherwise you'd have to explain how a socialist nation/government is still capable of doing Bad Things. Whereas a lot of well-meaning people simply see socialist as a synonym for 'Good'. It therefore being impossible for a socialist entity to do something they disagree with while remaining socialist. I'd be fine with him pointing out his disagreements with (and the weaknesses of) what I sketched above, if he acted in good faith. But it'll hurt his numbers I guess, so here we are

[@ethanstump]

@@nedludd3110 while Wolff definitely isn't as radicalized as he tries to make himself out to be, the ruling class of workers being "represented" by a nonworker representation, means that the ruling class isn't workers. does that mean co-ops are that? no. also, yes, the ruling class of workers can certainly do bad things, especially to the disabled, mother's and children who aren't part of the ruling class of workers. to me a "socialism" that doesn't have or isn't working towards removing that which isn't the direct decision making of worker's, is socialism in name, but not in practice. so many socialists i see and here of in the united states are completely utopian, and have no idea that the dictatorship of the proletariat can't be achieved through "representation". it's almost like thinking of a king "represented" by the pope, is in charge. also, a vanguard party is just another form of "Representation" that subverts the decision making of the average worker into a nonworker representative.

[@nedludd3110]

@@ethanstump Sure, although I'd distinguish between worker representation (in which the workers are abstracted, bureaucratised, and white collar), and nonworker representation proper, i.e. in which the ruling class are simply not proletarians. The difference in other words between imperfect worker representation and plain nonworker (bourgeois) 'representation'. The workers that constitute the former can have all sorts of (legitimate) criticisms levelled at them, but they are not a ruling class as such. You might use terms like 'caste' or 'stratum' perhaps. But not class in my point. And of course representation of any kind without a revolutionary overhaul of social and economic relations is mostly pointless, but that's a separate discussion. Anyway. I think the second part of your post falls into what I said earlier about Bad Things etc. As far as I can tell the utopianism is in the precise opposite of what you said - assuming that socialism can be achieved without recourse to a system of indirect democracy. It's not that I disagree with your point in principle - indirect representation is always at risk of becoming nonrepresentation. But the realities of early socialist society - civil war, economic chaos, etc - seem to place strict limits on what's doable. Surely we need only look at any socialism that gained a real historical foothold (i.e. didn't collapse violently after a tiny handful of years) to see this. I'm not even sure how planned economy could properly coexist with direct democracy at the enterprise level anyway to be honest - what happens if they all vote in policies that contradict each other, as often happened in the Russian Civil War for example? I'm not necessarily sure the problem is insurmountable, but it doesn't seem like it would make it in a survival of the fittest situation either.

[@ethanstump]

@@nedludd3110 1.well, it's a good thing humanity since the ice age hasn't lived in a survival of the fittest world then since they clearly took care of their disabled. which would then make those who are pro-survival of the fittest look pretty dumb that they couldn't even rise to the level of a hunter-gatherer. 2. the PMC is definitely real, but my point was that electoralism is a bourgeoise organization, and that having worker's take it over doesn't lead to a ruling class of worker's, but a new worker-bourgeiose that is more sympathetic to worker's since they were former worker's. 3. real world conditions certainly limit what is possible for sure, but there are differing paths that are still possible within the material conditions, that could lead to a more radical or less radical future. 4. i define socialism as the ruling class of worker's, in which worker's are superior to other classes. historically that hasn't happened yet, so saying that the data is insufficient to draw conclusions is valid. 5. I'm not sure that a planned economy with an owner democracy like the united states can properly coexist either. every couple of years we seem to have some type of economic heart-attack that leaves us off worse than before. and they already implement contradicting policies. I'm not saying that socialism would for sure would do better, but from what I've seen and heard, they do better than what we currently have. and everything else, we are going to have to make shit up as we go along. but we can't do that until we rebel.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

The fatal flaw of Wolffs proposal is the same reason all others are flawed. They ALL rely on the good will of individuals. Such as business owners, workers, representatives, or a political party. The goal of socialism is to have the system governed by principles such as a socialist constitution, not the whims of individuals or politicians.

[@limitlesssky3050]

And who uphold the principles of socialism if not by the good will of the people that made up of the government? You think without the good will of the ruling elites can people's lives be improved? You think without some moral fibers they are willing to create a system that put their head on the chopping block? Of course not.

[@limitlesssky3050]

@@TheBigGSN5 if you get rid of the value of money, people will horde lands. If you get rid of the value of land, people will horde material goods. If you get rid of the value of the material goods, people will horde the source of food. If you get rid the value of food, people will horde knowledge and talents. And even if you are able to get rid the value of knowledge and talents just like in Mao's cultural revolution, people will still horde power. And power will always have value.

[@henli-rw5dw]

@@limitlesssky3050 Well then the key is the selection of good officials. Right now China happens to have selected good leaders. Bear in mind though that when Xi came in, he had to purge a vast numbers of corrupt ones. Overtime, without a doubt China will select bad officials again. How do you prevent this from happening? The idea with a democracy is that people can choose good official. However, they clearly can not and there is no mechanism to cleanse the system once they start passing laws favoring themselves.

[@itzenormous]

Those who have questions about what it is that China is doing, nowadays, fail to understand several different limiting factors that inhibit China's potential to pave the way for Socialism. All of the countries that have revolutions, in today's Capitalist world, are limited by the structure of the World Economy in which they exist. The Chinese had to invite Western Capital to come to China, in order to raise the productive forces within China ... because most of the planet's wealth is controlled by a bourgeois 'Capitalist' class. China has made miraculous advancements over the past 40 years, but its ability to transition to a socialist mode of production (or production for the public good), and to discard the modern capitalist mode of production (or production for profit - which worker co-operatives would also emulate), is held back by the rest of the world. Most notably, the US and Global Ruling Class.

[@henli-rw5dw]

There is no incentive for China to have a socialist revolution. Let capitalism run when it's aligned with the greater good, and stops it when it works against. Having a a mixture of state run and private companies also seems to work.

[@paweradnicki5114]

There has never been one anywhere but anarchism guarantees true socialism. True socialism is not in the interest of any politicians because in socialism there is no place for the state, the people and their representatives. No state wants to lose its influence. State= evil There has never been one anywhere but anarchism guarantees true socialism. No state wants to lose its influence. State= evil.

[@khurmiful]

Chinese leadership has not shown any desire of such steps.

[@Ma_Zhongying]

Can you tell me who the Global Ruling Class are?

[@AB-zl4nh]

Sounds like another excuse for authoritarians.

[@darthjarjarbinkstherealsit6832]

OK, alt hist time. It's 1953, Stalin just died, and you are a 23 years old charming politician who ended up becomming the general secretary of The USSR, what do you do?

[@ysahli]

@Tyrankoos wanted to type the same thing.... The Sino-Soviet split was one of the worst things, that could happened. If I could, I also would try to strengthen relations to PRC. Maybe if both would've had great relations, the USSR wouldn't have been felt apart

[@the1onlynoob]

Even if all China manage to accomplish is to weaken the capitalist hegemony, it would have contributed to socialism far beyond western leftists. When the US weakens, countries like Cuba will get some breathing room, countries like Chile will be able to shift left, the middle-east might find some peace, and Africa can finally develop a little.

[@jonblaze4244]

The Black liberation movement is the US was a huge push for socialism but the US started killing or jailing all the Black leaders. It's a fact the US was heavily involved in the killing of MLK, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton and George Jackson. Or they would just make up crimes to hold other leaders in prison like Mumia Abu-Jamal that are still imprisoned til this day. The Black Panther Party was a socialist party but the truth is never told in the media today.

[@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl]

I think it's a mistake to compare the US and China without several but. Seeing China as some sort of an achievable goal for socialists in the West would be wrong on many points. However, the US has a dying concept of capitalism at his peak of stretching it. China has its economic problems too and democratically seen, it's not a good example of how it should be done if Chinese communists would take the transformation of its country to socialism seriously. Chi remembers me more of Stalin than Lenin and more of Mao than Allende.

[@PoliticalEconomy101]

False. Socialism is when the MoP are democratically owned, controlled, and governed collectively, not individually, of the people, by the people, and for the people. We have NEVER had that in history. What Wolff is proposing is still capitalism governed by the profit motive. The fatal flaw of Wolffs proposal is the same all others are flawed. They ALL rely on the good will of individuals. Such as business owners, workers, representatives, or a political party. The goal of socialism is to have the system governed by principles such as a socialist constitution, not the whims of individuals or politicians.

[@shaykhmhssi3246]

You’re conflating US hegemony and capitalist hegemony

[@rodrigomachado5291]

But many parts of Africa are developing. Thanks to China.

[@georgefurman4371]

I love the progression of your lessons guiding the interested to understand the experiences of the past revolts that are only part of the evolution of the new alternative system humanity needs. The Chinese experience today will play a decisive role in this process of humanity trying to survive the last stage in the decay of the capitalist system giving birth to the new system. Because after all socialism is the new born organism created by the achievements of humanity during capitalism.

[@z-sx]

The shareholding system reform of state-owned enterprise and party building in non-public enterprises might be relevant initiatives in China, to create kind of hybrid system for companies.

[@nasserderakhshan3211]

Excellent explanation.

[@AndrewTate2Prison]

Where's the link to Lenin's talk on this?

[@Who-vt9oh]

I think the state will have to play a major role in the transition from a capitalist mode of production to a socialist mode of production. The state should pass laws making it much easier for worker and/or community owned cooperatives to form, and the state should pass laws incentivizing cooperatives, up to and including outlawing non cooperative firms. I don't think cooperatives can become the norm by relying on cooperatives to organically surpass capitalist firms by simply outcompeting them in the market, otherwise I would think that would already have happened. The workers are not making the transition to cooperatives on their own, I think we need to state to take charge.

[@nedludd3110]

Yeah, this was Lenin's opinion in his essay 'On Cooperation'. He basically said that co ops could be useful in creating socialism, but only when they existed inside a pre-existing socialist framework - socialised factories, state-owned land, nationalised utilities, transport, communication, etc. etc. - they had no 'independent' influence. Co ops in capitalism are capitalist, co ops in socialism are - or at least may be - socialist. But they do nothing on their own. In other words some hypothetical 100% cooperative enterprise society would still be capitalist if more fundamental changes didn't also occur.

[@Who-vt9oh]

@@nedludd3110 I think community owned, not-for-profit cooperatives are socialist.

[@nedludd3110]

@@Who-vt9oh Unless they're an example of planned production at the same time as being community-owned and not for profit, I would disagree. Part of my issue is that I see a plan as necessarily being society-wide to some degree I guess. But I don't see that as an absolute requirement I guess, just a major consideration to take into account. If they are all the things you say, overall I have no major objection to what you say. I still don't think they could transform an economy in and of themselves though, because not-for-profits, being embedded in a capitalist economy (even if they don't engage in them themselves) are completely beholden to bourgeois relations of production, and therefore bourgeois demands. In a sense, they're the inverse of the state-owned enterprises in China, which engage very frequently in capitalist behaviour (commodity production etc.) but are able to override it as they are shielded from the dense network of bourgeois relations that definitely do exist in China. The control of those key, qualitative assets (land, transport, communications, finance, utilities) by the state completely transforms the operation of these enterprises, even in spite of their apparent similarities to a typical capitalist firm. I'm not all that opposed to the notion that 'true' co ops constitute tiny islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism, I just dispute the meaningfulness of it in political terms.

[@Who-vt9oh]

@@nedludd3110 ok, well, I disagree with pretty much everything you just wrote. I guess we just see things differently.

[@nedludd3110]

@@Who-vt9oh That's fine, this stuff is definitely contentious. Thanks for reading anyway.

[@MILES-bc4td]

What do you think about italian "cooperative" company? Thank you.

[@franklikespolitics]

Richard Wolff what book by Lenin would you recommend? Or what book reading list would you recommend?

[@rederickfroders1978]

Awesome, very well said

[@catherinemoore9534]

💯🎯 Clear, insightful and radical.👏

[@FratFerno]

The challenge of mass cooperative enterprise (i.e. socialism) is to collaborate with regional state enterprise (i.e. social capital) and vice versa. Communism can only be achieved through the dialectic of masses/workers and experts/managers, creating both liberation and solidarity.

[@karlmarx7511]

Damn straight comrade

[@MrMatisse22]

Fascinating subject!

[@vicentewu3903]

I watched so many your videos pro Wolff, I have to admit as a Chinese, you are the very few American people who truly knows how the world is running and it's path, you are a wise man, salute!!!

[@godzillamothra5983]

well, Deng Xiaoping said it doesn't matter whether it is black cat or white cat, as long as it can catch mice.

[@tankseverywhere1492]

Deng said that about developing productive forces, He said we have to make Socialism a superior system to capitalism for that we have to develop productive forces, Poverty isn't Socialism, the party's part goal is to eliminate poverty. Deng believed China will be a develop country by half of the next century. We don't know what their next step will be, but for now it's a Market Socialist / State Capitalist ( debatable thing ) economy .

[@yu-jd5jg]

You are right during Deng's time China was very poor and weak. China could not afford to follow strictly the commune system where the people will be still poor and the state still weak. Initially, allow Capitalists to become rich so that the workers' livelihood would be uplifted and the state will have the money to implement its socialist programs. Fast forward today, with the eradication of absolute poverty, China under Xi is now on its next stage of development. Or Socialism with Chinese characteristics where the main aim is the rejuvenation of the Chinese society with common prosperity and a clean healthy strong moderately prosperous China by mid 21st century

[@godzillamothra5983]

@@tankseverywhere1492 Deng was a pragmatic. His goal was to give Chinese people a better living standard, he didn't care what methods he had to use, as long as the methods work. If it meant that he had to introduce capitalism elements into the country, so be it. Capitalism, socialism, they are all just methods to him, not ideology. In fact, the concept of ideology is foreign to Chinese, I think. The closest thing to ideology for the Chinese is probably Confucianism.

[@henli-rw5dw]

@@godzillamothra5983 Why change it if it's not broken.

[@godzillamothra5983]

@@henli-rw5dw well, it depend, it is like when you need to change the oil in your car before your car break.

[@petermanuel5043]

There's tons of co-ops in China, Spain and many other countries. Especially in the agricultural sector. I'm guessing the context of this talk is more specifically for industrial and more commercial sectors?

[@emole9511]

An objective, neutral and clear explanation on Mr. Lenin's big question. Again, thank you Mr. Wolff.

[@iart2838]

problem is that we seperate concepts with clean cut lines. Like seperating biology and chemistry, not effective nor possible. Compelling task for humanity is to merge, pull out the best features of various economic systems and blend them into a healthier, tastier smoothie. Creativity is always the best solution.

[@nedludd3110]

The problem is that after a certain point, the principles of capitalism and socialism are simply mutually exclusive

[@rmarbertin8131]

If China's government fulfills the needs of it's people, perhaps it already is a democracy, in it's own way, maybe not with ballots, but not completely dictatorial either. Idk, I'm American, so I don't really know what an actual "democracy" would look like.

[@fannyalbi9040]

imagine u have 10 hungry mouths to feed in your house hold. how u would rule them?

[@cloudmane4159]

Coop businesses still operate on the basis of profit. This leads to competition(some coops failing and others monopolizing). To make SURE that no worker gets left behind in this type of economy…if its even functional…you would still need state socialism.

[@Rhaegar19]

You would need a strong government to regulate the economy, yes. Every game needs a referee.

[@alex82ro]

Once a few people get very rich, like they did in China they will get more and more political power until they will make capitalism. Anyway, I don't realy understand what is socialism in China. Yes, the state is still very powerful and they can do things that the West can't do anymore and some of those things are for the good of the people but is not like the people have the political and economic power. I'm to young to know but I imagine that people had more power in the Soviet Rusia than in China. I'm beyond pesimistic about China saving us from capitalism. There was a speach of Michael Parenti in 1990 saying that Rusia will change for the better. I think of that speach of when people talk optimistic about the future of socialism in China

[@alone-tt8dg6ic6f]

You are 100% right. This is the core question .

[@user-nv5ix3ib5b]

that's a good question, but not the core. There are more important questions we need to ask. For example, how many lands in a country owned by the top 100 landlords?

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

Wasn't this exactly the issue Trotsky was calling out as the problem in the USSR under Stalin?

[@owesteen-hansen2152]

I don't now. Have to ask Trotsky.

[@psy2mentor]

@@owesteen-hansen2152 Yeah, I'd have loved to have been able to pick Trotsky's brain...

[@mikemurray2027]

No, you're barking up the wrong tree with Lenin's reference to 'state capitalism'. He was talking about the NEP. The problem was that the working class did not know how to trade or produce for markets, so that had to be learned. While the NEP allowed private business to operate, in order to be able to move away from the war economy, the state set up new wholesale and retail operations of many sorts, including large-scale cooperative producers and distributors, which gradually prospered until they simply took over most trade from the Nepmen. And by the time they had done that, the country had got back on its feet enough to launch the five year plans and isolate private business until it more or less disappeared. The Bolsheviks had a scornful attitude to cooperatives because under the tsar they had been more like fleecing operations set up by the bourgeoisie to get peasant produce on the cheap. The idea that the aim was a 'democratic workplace' is a western misunderstanding from the 1960s imo. The democratic element was established in the plans, not in the individual workplace. However, the collective farms did operate as autonomous units that could do what they wanted so long as they met their plan requirements, leaving free a lot of space for producing for markets and fulfilling private contracts with one or more of the larger cooperative or soviet outfits.

[@nedludd3110]

Yeah, almost like Wolff is lying huh He also forgot to mention that socialism existed already in the NEP alongside state capitalism. According to Lenin anyway. it comes down to Wolff's vacillation re China, which has been going on for years - sometimes he'll call it socialist, sometimes capitalist. Only motives I can think of are a) that his understanding of socialism differs from most prominent Marxists and he knows it (which is fine but be honest about it dude), and/or b) that he wants to maximise his audience numbers by masking what is actually quite a major division in the movement. Annoying. You summed the difference up best: 'The democratic element was established in the plans, not in the individual workplace'

[@xiaopengzong6980]

@@nedludd3110 Is he associated with the "Democracy at Work Institute" which sells services to people interested in starting worker coop? That would be a conflict of interest if he is.

[@nedludd3110]

@@xiaopengzong6980 Yeah I guess that's it. His notions also let him sidestep a lot of bourgeois critique that it would be far healthier to tackle head on.

[@limitlesssky3050]

Not only are workers bad at trading, they are also bad at long term planning. Because long term planning requires someone to not work and actually plan with their mind. And they are also bad at managing themselves, because leading and managing requires hierarchy and leadership skills, which something most workers don't value. If a worker were able to fulfill the criteria above, they will stop being a worker and becomes part of the management.

[@xiaopengzong6980]

@@limitlesssky3050 So you are saying none of the workers who do not become a part of the management team are able manage other people? How about those who are able but do not have the opportunity to do so? The hierarchical structure determines that only a small fraction of workers will have that opportunity.

[@bertnijhof5413]

Europe has a partly socialist companies with workers councils, that has to approve some type of the management decisions.

[@bellybutton6138]

China has gone through many empires/dynasties. And we can learn from the rise and fall of these dynasties. In most cases, they fall when (a) there is corruption thereby preventing the distribution of wealth and creating many injustices (b) Lousy advisors to the emperors - they didn't tell the 'truth' and tell to please so the emperors did not know what was really happening on the ground. In short, lack of communication with the ordinary people (c) Natural disasters thereby affecting the wealth and general well being (d) civil war. There so many examples we can currently in the real world so we should study them carefully and not make the same errors.

[@karlmarx7511]

These are not inherent to systemic observation. You are disproportionately removing the responsibility of the failure of the system on the system. If a kid threw a rock at a house and it collapsed would you blame the kid the rock or ask yourself why did this house fall down because of a rock? You seek to repair the failures of the structure itself rather than scapegoat something separate from the real issue.

[@weiskl887]

@@karlmarx7511 You dismiss Historical knowledge, wisdom and lessons too easily. Systemic observation happens when you re examine the causes and root causes of Systemic failure. The Chinese Governance knowledge and history of governance theory is based on Foundation. The cracks you mentioned on Foundational structure has been recorded in Governance theory and philosophy of Chinese Governance system. Alas you put TOO much Expectation of a Perfect system that will never have failure. That is setting in of Hubris, Arrogance and blind faith LOL. Humans run the system. And Chinese Governance experts have long understood failures in the structure. But who can cure a Ruling class drown in Luxury, Exuberance, Arrogance and Hubris when they already has Everything and Reached Pinnacle in Power and wealth? Governing is a Never ending Job of Slogging every single day to constantly search and repair cracks. In addition the Demand is very high in Integrity, Virtues, competence and Knowledge. And this is why Confucius after witnessing countless misery, suffering and degradation of Human Condition come to the Conclusion of the Importance of Human Ethics, virtues and gave the highest importance in Cultivating a wise and honest Emperor and Government officials. Sun Tzu though of Military school came up with the same conclusion that Ruling class spend almost all their time in Developing a Rich state so that the Military option is always the last resort solely for Defensive if at all possible after exhausting all diplomatic moves. The General Yue Fei also make the conclusion that the Country can only be saved if the Emperor and Government officials do not love Money and Over indulge in Luxury, Power and corruption.

[@karlmarx7511]

@@weiskl887 you speak as if my perspective is dogmatic. It is not I assure you. I do not believe in a utopian society but rather a system that functions on the principles of need and equality. There is truth in the thought of that time and it is not forgotten in Marxist thinking but rather developed upon. I believe the systems of governance was necessary and applicable at the time those thoughts were given but I also believe that as society grows and moves its collective behavior us determined by its material conditions. The point of it all is to remove the state apparatus as a whole and replace that with ownership and public participation.

[@limitlesssky3050]

@@karlmarx7511 Government goes in a cycle. It will never truly grow into something else. It can be improved to be more adaptable to its time, but it will ultimately fails. Equality does not ensure the greatest result because no two men are created equal. Discrepancies of intelligence, talents and circumstances will naturally create an unequal results. Only by teaching superior men the value of virtue can they start to protect those that are inferior than them, then and only then the life of the people can be improved. Equality is useless if it does not improve the life of the people.

[@karlmarx7511]

@@limitlesssky3050 and changing material conditions in a system bent on building up off the backs of others isn't virtuous? We can't assign metaphysical circumstances to policy nor structure. This is what culture is for and that is at the whim of the people who make it. Rather physical circumstances need physical responses. I'd argue the reason such men you speak of lived in a funeral society distracted from a concept of today's freedom is that it did not exsist in that time and in those conditions. Today is not 600 years ago and what one is capable of receiving and giving is quite different than what it was then. You take the past as though it's distinct and applicable to now directly without accommodating the development and struggle that has occurred between then an now and what material reality exists now.

[@Fres-no]

we couldnt even agree on who had to replace the water cooler, how would we agree on tenders and such!

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

I think the question should be aimed at the EU.

[@danilospeelman]

In the 17th Chapter of St Luke it is written: "the Kingdom of God is within man" - not one man nor a group of men, but in all men!

[@XiaosChannel]

I think the chinese will say the main conflict of their society today is people's demand for a happier life against limited productivity, and they will ask you back whether democratizing the workplace would achieve that. perhaps it depends on the industry?

[@Artist1974CH]

Words from a guy who lives in Japan where United States Of Amerikkka is occupied there! The same vile, racist country that put Japanese Americans in concentration camps and used Japanese as guinea pigs for two ruthless bombs that murdered innocent people just to cowardly call itself "Warning Russia." Japan is no angel after what it did to the Chinese and asian victims! Japan, one of USA's proud lapdogs, refuses to apologize to the victims of the Comfort Women.

[@jeremyjames8678]

"The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class [not true the party controlled everything]. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry [not true, the real Russian left wing opposed the Bolsheviks]. Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable." - Lenin

[@jameszhou162]

Dear Prof. Wolff, I think the very definition of strict ideology does not apply here. What I believe is a form of pragmatism and long term focus on people’s welfare. For instance, the war on poverty really opened my eyes on the essence of a good governance. This was not a topic of today nor back in 1917. It was discussed in detail in Spring and Autumn period (700 to 476 BCE) by many sages. Sadly humanity’s progress is rather slow.

[@barquerojuancarlos7253]

If you don't have a "science of ideas" or ideology behind your practice, you waiver. Pragmatism has been around since Williams James beginning of the 20th century. Its very American. It only refers to being practical, useful. Likewise Friedrich Hayek didn't have an ideology behind his political philosophy. He only wanted an economic philosophy didn't go to what he saw were the extremes of fascism and totalitarianism. Sounds good, huh? But his philosophy is what gave us "neoliberalism" - This is according to "In the Ruins of Neoliberalism" by prof Wendy Brown

[@user-wp8yx]

Would you be willing to explain a little bit about the war on poverty during the Spring and Autumn periods?

[@devinfaux6987]

What does or doesn't wind up getting considered "pragmatic" is often very heavily influenced by ideology. One of the hardest things to grasp is that it's difficult to see your own ideology and how it influences your perception of the world from inside of it. It's like a fish having trouble seeing the ocean that it's spent all its life immersed in.

[@xiaopengzong6980]

Allowing major strategic industries such as education, health care, transportation, energy to be owned and operated by the worker's of those industries does not seem very democratic to me. How about the society members/families outside those industries? Shouldn't they also have a say?

[@karlmarx7511]

Yeah but that's communism and approaching explaining that to the countries that need to hear it they shut down and go on about how communism is bad.

[@Rhaegar19]

I don't think democracy at work and nationalizing certain critical industries are incompatible. Even some capitalist countries nationalize things like health care.

[@xiaopengzong6980]

@@Rhaegar19 That does not seem to be Prof. Wolff's suggestion. Most state-owned enterprises in China are strategic industries.

[@Rhaegar19]

​@@xiaopengzong6980 Wolff's major objection to capitalism has always been that it's an authoritarian way to structure society. From my perspective, it doesn't seem like China has done much to change this. I don't know exactly what Wolff believes, but I think it fits with this ideology to have state-owned enterprises so long as the state is democratic.

[@xiaopengzong6980]

@@Rhaegar19 If that is true, then he should be criticizing private enterprises or lack of democracy, not state owned enterprises which he called "state capitalism" in China.

[@yu-jd5jg]

In the agriculture sector, Cooperatives can work. Where local farmers share facilities, machinery, and marketing of their products and benefits with the help of the government. But in the high-end products especially new technologies, you would need a group of highly talented educated experts with a leader at the top. Similarly other highly-skilled industries or financial organizations. Remember, many cooks spoil the broth

[@Rhaegar19]

That's fine, but the leader should be accountable to their team. People should follow them because they're a good leader, not because they control capital.

[@yu-jd5jg]

@@Rhaegar19 Such a leader is appointed by the team to take charge. As they themselves know very well who is the most capable

[@Rhaegar19]

@@yu-jd5jg Yes, that would be ideal. As opposed to the person in charge being the one who owns the company because they had more money.

[@jmonserratf]

Is Huawei a coop?

[@grapentine739]

Now its the autocratic employers that are telling us voters what to do.

[@kawishabbasi9459]

Does ‘Democracy At Work’ ,’(DAW)’ believe in private property? which means, does DAW want to keep the corporations as they are, only their working to be changed?

[@patrickmccormack4318]

Professor Wolff, though your questioning was directed at the CCP, we who comment should have a whack at it. For my two cents, we should not expect any group or individual to relinquish control of power/decision-making. Why? Answer: The Human Condition. Notice how I did NOT say human nature. Professor, is might right? "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw Professor Wolff, thank you for posting.

[@Userkzb20253]

If a democratic company can make money and state competitive, then we should be all for it. But can’t it? In a free market, nobody prevents a company from in operated as democracy or egalitarian. If they work, many such companies are in existence now. The real question is why they don’t exist. A better form is probably to share profits, such as the Huawei model or stakeholder model. However, without state support, Huawei like company can’t reach maturity without capital injection from investors and shareholders. Ideology or theory doesn’t matter. What really works matter. .

[@leeeiner7188]

A common denominator between the USSR, China and Cuba is that pre-revolution, the ruling class ruled in part by enforced ignorance. Literacy rates in all three nations were below twenty percent. And you know, of those who could read and write, they were disproportionately of the ruling class. Another common denominator is that in all three societies literacy now tops 95 percent. How is that relevant to this discussion? You cannot have a truly worker-run society with an intellectually hamstrung working class. The "educate" part of "educate, agitate, organize" should not refer strictly to a political education but needs to start with basic literacy, numeracy and critical thinking if the working class would be positioned to directly take the reins of production and commerce. Here in the USA the situation is not as extreme, but still illiteracy and innumeracy rates here exceed those of most developed nations. There is a two-tiered system, with private schools for the offspring of the rich, and public schools for the working class that crank out obedient, indoctrinated workers barely educated enough to keep the wheels turning. Worker co-ops hurray! But there needs to be educational preparation for that to happen without disaster in its wake.

[@comnixx1]

Hope that China will take note of what Professor Richard Wolff had pointed out.

[@fannyalbi9040]

china has millions party members, u think no one in that millions knows economy better? for a start, mr xi is highly educated, no some popularist.

[@shengyingyi4006]

The difference between state capitalism and socialism lies in the different nature of the government.The capitalist government is controlled by capitalists. Even if there are state-controlled companies,it cannot be completely independent of the capital system. However,the socialist government is completely independent of the capital system,and the state-owned companies are not controlled by private individuals. The primary purpose of the company is for all the people,even if it may lose money.The biggest problem in china is how to prevent officials from being alienated by capital and establish a government supervision systerm to further improve the systerm to form a closed loop.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

That's nice. How do you get there? Lenin. That's how.

[@ergofoxxxy]

The CPC study the Bolsheviks and imo, they're on a complex version of Lenin's NEP. The reason why they're not "reorganizing" is bc they tried communes and found that you can't fetishize a mode of production and expect a country to improve. You need effective production. The effectiveness of the production determines if it's helping anyone. China discovered all the communes were doing was sending people running to Hong Kong where they could meet effective production. I don't think they're going to risk it by putting it ALL into co ops. They DO support co ops, but they're not ideologically throwing it all into co ops to appease anybody. They're going to seek whatever the best mix of modes of production is. If it has state owned enterprises with managers in one area and co ops in another and private enterprises in another with managers, they're going to do that

[@johnnychannel7824]

The majority of countries are now having economic of combination between capitalism and communism. You can see in the US, China, Russia and many European countries where many enterprises are controlled by states or the portions of economies are controlled by states.

[@vcab6875]

AVIS Car Rental was employee owned. Terrible service. Don’t change what works.

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

But state capitalism is just a change of actors for the same authoritarian rule. Government is as how many factions decide and how it governs there by.

[@MrApplewine]

You really have to be smart about creating a legal system for democratizing the workplace. If you don't it will be rejecting before ever being adopted or adopted and cause a return to our current system. A lot of the details need to be worked out and explained. I think equal protection under the law and removing some of the asymmetries of the relationship would be a good start to making work humane and just.

[@ozsharpener]

Remember that it is productivity forces which can determine the relations of production, not the reversed. That is also the only correct way to explain the 1976 coup in China and the failure of the Great Cultural Revolution. You can't just put some wishful thinking on humanity, such as "democracy in workplace", over this cold fact discovered by Marx. The historic roles of communist parties of Soviet Union and China succeeded pushing up the relations of production a little further over then development level of productivity forces and they achieved great economic developments. However they never had substantial capability to build an ideal socialist society. Whenever they tried, they failed, as seen in Stalin and Mao's practices, because it was way beyond their capability and the then development level of productivity forces. Different to the Soviet, China has thousand years being an atheist civilisation which gives them a great advantage over the Soviet, that is the pragmatism deep in their culture root. Take that into account, you can make up some great conclusion regarding the way today's Communist Party of China chooses to run the economy, including their cooperation with and constraint to the capitalists within the economy. By far this hybrid system is experiencing some optimal push to development of productivity forces. It might not let you feel quite well because of its capitalism proportion. However, I personally believe that is the best solution they can only choose at the moment.

[@Labor_Jones]

*1st: Electronic Voting* (a separate internet unconnected to any current and limited to the USA) *2nd: LOSS of Voter Confidence* above 85% loses the Elected Official a right to Vote while in Office. *3rd: Criminal Charges* are addressed at the end of each TERM OF OFFICE to ascertain that no mischief took place or the State Populace will make charges resulting in Fees and Jail time.

[@devinfaux6987]

Sounds nice, but I don't think any of the people in the position to implement it actually want anything like that.

[@robertfenn3672]

This man is a smart fellow Mike Hunt hurts.

[@xiaopengzong6980]

State owned enterprises do not equal state capitalism. The goal of capitalism is to maximize the profits while the goal of state owned enterprises is to maximize the common prosperity of the whole country.

[@johnnychannel7824]

State controls economy doesn’t work that why China, Vietnam, Lao abandoned it. I am from Vietnam, I witnessed since Vietnam reformed its economy toward market economy, it works and Vietnamese support it. When state controls economy, the employees don’t have incentives to work hard and creative. Because they know no matter how they work hard, they only receive salary same as lazy workers. That was the main cause that collapsed USSR economy and its survival. China, Vietnam, Lao reformed their economies and they survived.

[@seanlee3863]

Inherently capitalism and socialism all have their strength and weakness. Capitalism is good at producing wealth while socialism is good at redistribution of wealth. So I think it's a good idea to let the capitalists run the private sector and socialism run public sector. It only gets bad when you let capitalists get involved in running the public sector or socialists run they private sector and I'm glad china's got that figured out. So china's system can either be called socialism with Chinese characteristics or capitalism with Chinese characteristics

[@earlfrancis6497]

From what you say there is no socialism system anywhere in the world.

[@praetoriancorps]

Did the working class really ever own the state?

[@yezih2694]

I am a Chinese. My question is how to make the democratic company competitive.

[@karlmarx7511]

There lies a contradiction in in capitalist models as it puts profits as its means to expand. This in turn drives competition in which there is always a loser at the end. Your company may be "successful" but at what expense?

[@owesteen-hansen2152]

Talk with Mondragon.

[@joeawk]

What is in a label? A good cat catches the mouse, black or white, what does it matter?

[@weiskl887]

I remembered quite some time ago an ardent Israeli socialist remarked that kibbutz and communes he ran can Only be a Socialist when you have Money. LOL. Its easy to be a Socialist when you have Money he says to be exact. What the Communist party of China found out after the cultural revolution is that China on a whole is too far behind the Industrialized West and too weak to defend themselves as time goes by without drastic Reform. When your perspective is Survival of the Country then there is no other choice and option but to catch up. Communism worked but as the CPC found out its ONLY up to a certain extent. It no longer serves the purpose of Socialism to reach advanced Nation ladder. Capitalism also worked as the Reform era began but it comes with loads and loads of cost and negative aspects comes with the package. Also NOT able to fix a lot of China's problems. Capitalism also has its LIMIT and ONLY up to a certain extent. What the leadership team knows is the General direction to both survive and thrive is to Common Prosperity or reduce the Income inequality gap. There is NO Textbook on how to reach Socialism without Capital. But the Leadership understands the same Logic that the Israeli Socialist i mentioned at the start. You can only be a Socialist and easy to be a Socialist when you have Money aka Capital. It doesn't mean Capitalism but how to Use Capital to develop a Socialist state. There is actually No right or wrong Economic Policy but who does the Policy benefits. And lets not forget the Hostile Capitalistic West that has never given up hope of Destroying China's economy or owning and controlling it. China is under constant attack not only from the West but Global Oligarchy of all countries and even domestic ones. Its one of the Few last one Standing that has not Sold out to the Global Capitalist and Oligarchy.

[@chriswestwood3289]

State socialism, but economic capitalism.

[@tofolcano9639]

Certainly achieving socialism (the pure ideal some people imagine it to be) is not as simple as implementing X, Y and Z policies, or as driving from point A to point B. Real Socialism though is not a pure idea to which reality has to mold itself to, socialism is just a word to explain a real and existing concept. Reality doesn't have to shape itself to any pure and abstract ideal or else it's "not real". Instead it's our ideas which have to shape themselves to accurately describe reality, or else it's the wrong idea. "It's not all co-ops therefore it's not real socialism" VS. "It's not all co-ops therefore there must be something wrong/missing in my theory" I'd say that there must be a good reason why they all prefer to let all of society democratically plan the economy instead of letting only the specific workers in that factory have a say on what they produce. (I'm comparing centrally planned economies to free market co-op only systems, not sure exactly what the NEP was about or how democratic it was but I believe that China is currently planning their economy democratically) For that reason, in my opinion worker co-ops in theory seem to me like a downgrade in terms of workplace democratization compared to the state capitalism that they all applied, definitely an improvement from regular capitalism though.

[@DrAnarchy69]

Worker co ops aren’t the only type of socialism. Now that’s not to say I disagree with you in that Leninist States and Social Democracies aren’t socialist. They aren’t. But worker co ops aren’t the only type of socialism. Commodity abolition is necessary for disability liberation (among other things) and that necessitates that worker co ops are abolished along with Capitalism. Is that any less socialist than market socialism? I’d argue it’s MORE socialist.

[@benweb1105]

You have not Clearly Understood the Model of Life System! You still see it in 1 or 2 dimensions! But LIFE IS MULTI-DIMENSION SYSTEM. That is why, none of the "Professors" could not directly answer: What is the Definition of "Democracy"?!

[@albertfromgc5599]

So, from what profesor Wolf is saying, the former communist countries remained stuck in a "state capitsm " stage and were unable to progres towards socialism (such as workers cooperatives).What makes him think that the workers would be so smart to realize that a worker's cooperative works better than a corporation?I mean, let's face it.,Richard...the average worker is so stupid that he or she would rather allow himself or herself to be exploited by the corporations and the capitalist state than organize and defend its rights.We are talking about android /facebook generation who is comfortable living in their online illusory world rather than face the tough reality and try to change it.Their "bubble " would have to be shattered first so they would wake up and revolt against the sistem.

[@_M4X15]

I'm seeing more union organizing than ever from gen z. I think thus interconnected and vocal generation has a great chance to improve the working class.

[@irvingclarendon6227]

How are start-ups going to happen under your worker co-ops system? Lenin was wrong and China would make a mistake going down that path. Prof Wolff has a problem.

[@leotrot2071]

democratize the enterprise and the money, or the socialism of the 22th century , will be about the money (supply).

[@thetruthoutside8423]

But would mean that ending the production itself the end of capitalism? I mean, from an existential point of view, do we really need all these products to begin with? We already making a big and negative impact on the natural world and capitalism was and still is the problem not the solution.

[@patrickmccormack4318]

Professor Wolff, if democracy requires 'work' by the individual, when is a society 'fit' for democracy? Throw in the mix the concept of 'liberty', and what value do we attribute to the 'work' of the individual? Consider the ancient philosophy: Might Is Right. BBC Ancient Greece The Greatest Show on Earth - Democrats - 1/3 kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHLOfYeNhrqVfZo "Liberty means responsibility, that is why most men dread it." - George Bernard Shaw Professor Wolff, thank you for posting.

[@markmahan38]

One thing I have found out about China. And do not approve of! Is the long hours and very little time off for the workers. Especially in the private sectors businesses in China. Whom actually work as hard and long as those in the US. But there is a difference, between the US and China. And they also have the problem of the few making decisions for the many. But China also does far far more for their population than the US. But the reason for the long work hours in China. I think has to do more about catching up with the west and surpassing the West. And I can understand this, because the West will do it's thing of making things unequal. And if China does NOT reach parity and beyond. China I think feels that another opium war and century of humiliation will come. Still I think there are better ways to secure China. Than to work the population in such a frenzy.

[@Labor_Jones]

To BILLIONAIRES Zero TAXES is not enough. They want all your Taxes!

[@BL-db6xt]

"It doesn't matter black or white cat as long as it's able to catch mice" (Mao, Zhou En Lai or Jesus/Mohamed whoever) Why should China follow 1 way or another that others wrongly or not wrongly define. China has stable & more competent governance leadership & mechanism who are less disturbed by faked democracy. They will define the Chinese way. Like water flow in Taoism, when hit a mountain it will go around, & the mountains are in fact sources of water. Yellow River, Yangtze Rivers originated from the mountainous Tibetan region. Actually, the Taoist symbol of Universe is a Combination of Yin & Yang, 2 opposite forces. Even in a Yin part there's always exist a seed of Yang that against Yin & vice versa within Yang there is a Yin seed.

[@ricardoflores-oy7mv]

This transformation will never happen as more diverse racial and etnic the population the less .

[@ashm3697]

Worker co ops isn’t communism .

[@VermontSocialist]

This sounds a lot like anarcho-syndicalism.

[@tunuitahitianfire9875]

Market Socialism

[@proletarian13]

Yep.

[@dingjing0105]

I disagree. The fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism is about how profits are distributed, not about how production is organized.

[@karlmarx7511]

Profit is distributed in an equal way as a direct effect of ownership of the means of production. The decision required to do this require a sense of authority in that situation and the only way to keep the interests of the workers in light of the policy is by letting the workers hold the authority themselves.

[@karlmarx7511]

@Class is Fundamental I agree but although they may not be a threat to workers they are a threat to imperialist expansion and world trade dynamics. Hegemony doesn't last forever and chances are the us government will spin china's expansion and growth as a threat to the individual rather than the US state apparatus.

[@karlmarx7511]

@Class is Fundamental subscribed to your channel by the way

[@karlmarx7511]

@Class is Fundamental you been keeping an eye on Syria? Nato alliances are near fracture and the global imperialist front is looking to challenge the us dollar on all front. Whether it gets physical (I think it will) or just an economic front is up to time to tell.

[@karlmarx7511]

@Class is Fundamental I mean the European union is building their own military as we speak. It may be slow and strategic but it'll be the working class that receives the worst of it.

[@huracan0072]

A certain degree of sainthood is needed to achieve true communism. That means, we the human race, are a very long way from it!

[@limitlesssky3050]

You need to become an ant and have a mentality of an ant or a bee if you want to achieve true communism. Sorry if I am unwilling to transform my mind to such an extent.

[@prakorngirodkunkid7877]

I think system that make most people have good standard of living is Best. Teng said Black cat or White cat that can catch mouse is a good Cat. I think " Bezos, Musk own >100,000 million$ while a lot of people homeless " that is not a good System.

[@theodorlee]

Hell no. Chaos and uncertainty are not encouraged here in China, arguably anywhere in the world. Maybe Mao has more confidence for his subjects, yet history shows that he was more corrupt than those who were wiped out. A narcissist leader is always dangerous for his country, particularly when he manages to centralize power.

[@alloomis1635]

Prof Wolff resolutely refuses to recognise the existence of political structure. Which limits his influence on reality. The fundamental fact of human society is 'who decides?' talking about what should we do is pointless if you don't have political power. Aristotle knew this, and Mao said so, but prof Wolff wasn't in class that day.

[@HaraldinChina]

As an employee in a high tech company I find the thought of having to care about all aspects of our company quite appalling tbh.

[@Amfortas]

That's because tech draws autistic types.

[@massimoaccorsi9619]

As for the magnificent achievements of Chinese capitalism for the global welfare of people and workers, I would invite the trumpeters of the so-called CCP to visit the cobalt mines of Congo, where Congo Dongfang Mining International works, to see how much they benefit the Congolese child miners, even under the age of 10 years, who work and die to provide them with the precious mineral

[@karlmarx7511]

Goes to further the argument of why capitalism has an expense and that expense is paid on the backs of the working class

[@ZeitgeisterOm]

If I may I would like to strengthen everyone's understanding of how capitalism is one of the root cause of poverty Martin Luther King's march 30 1967 speech to the SCLC church outlined Three root causes to spiritual moral poverty in America and the world. number one militarism number two racism and the most forgotten about and the least talked about capitalism. Direct quote from Martin Luther King The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and the evils of racism. End quote I am quoting here from the Harvard trained economist Richard wolf Richard Wolff has had a profound effect on my own life if it wasn't for his teachings I would have never found the community co-op that I currently live in which means a great deal to me. Please hold on to your hats this is a fun quote from which Richard wolf but it is packed with statistics and information. These champions of capitalism are slick I'll give them that but here's why they're wrong. Their clever math comes from how they Define poverty. According to the World Bank anyone making a dollar 91 cents a day is considered poor. everyone else is okay but that number isn't actually based on the living cost of any actual person it's totally arbitrary. could you live on a dollar 91 cents per day the United Nations doesn't think so they say everyone would need at least four times that $7.40 cents per day to get the absolute minimum for quote basic nutrition and normal human life expectancy. Using this more realistic number. The number of people in poverty has actually increased over the last four decades to a whopping 4.2 billion poverty has gone up not down.

[@bobcornwell403]

The answer: Of course not. This is why this never works out. Few people have the drive and ambition to set up an enterprise (and, nowadays fewer have the opportunity). I think cooperatives are a great idea, but I don't see a bunch of workers putting in 100 hour weeks to get an enterprise of the ground, then being willing share it with those who came later and work only 40 hours. I don't see things ever becoming equal. This is because people are inherently unequal. Some are smarter. Some are willing to work much harder. And some have great ideas. The rest of us just want to get through life. So, yes. We need captains. And we need crews. And the captains should be rewarded with some extra compensation. But this is not what we have today. Today, profits are more extracted than earned. This is because of a horrific imbalance of power in favor of the commodores on top. They have little to fear from us below them. Now, they are working diligently to destroy the last vestiges of democracy to hang onto their outsized privileges. This was the end stage of communism. And this may well be the end stage of capitalism, a bleak, dystopian future where the days of the typical person are full.of gray, futile toil,with the fruits of it going to distant, unseen masters.

[@BigMikeGuitar]

The self-interested anthill nature of the state, and the autocratic national security state apparatus, reactionary authoritarian personalities, and instinctive tribalism of the state, will always remain hierarchical, authoritarian, and exert systems of structural violence over the means of production. The state will be retained on a war-footing, while it remains compelled by growth, competition, and authoritarian escalation in the evolutionary arms race. Examine the characteristics of the authoritarian personality, which exist at all levels of society, and you will see the adversity affecting transition to socialism. In addition, populations covet sharing a legacy tribal identity so much that despite their oppression and exploitation, they continue to demonstrate unwarranted reactionary fealty to illicit regressive church-state authority; continue to conflate national identity with capitalism, and demonize socialism in association with evil foreign enemies; and continue to covet exalting the sanitized accomplishments of bloodthirsty imperialist national exceptionalism, national innocence, and national mythology, in competition with all other countries. Socialism requires unilateral simultaneous worldwide adoption absent from competition over growth and resources, where if even a single outlier remains, they will remain forever antagonistic to the socialist project. Socialism requires the objectification of human tribalism and self-interested ethnocentrism, nativism, and nationalism; of authoritarian identities and paleo-regressive fundamentalist identities; and the state organization of church-state systems, which demonstrate the prioritized authoritarian institutional hierarchy of militarism, religion, politics, economics, and culture, and that find their expression as military dictatorships and theocracies, including within the faux-secularized Western liberalism model. Within the Western liberalism model, legacy church-state organization, national security state authoritarians, and paleo-regressive authoritarian fundamentalist billionaire identities, have exerted domestic bourgeois faux-democracy during global corporatist imperialism. Socialism requires uncontaminated separation from the Old Ways, and transformative progressive cultural evolution to systems-based science-based eco-socialism.

[@iamstartower]

🍅🍅🍅🍅

[@nedludd3110]

Wolff is twisting Lenin's appraisal of the Soviet economy. If you want to argue that China is state capitalist, fine, go ahead - I think both sides of that debate have credible arguments. But don't lie about what Lenin said. Lenin: 'No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order. But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of *both* capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question. Let us enumerate these elements: (1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming; (2)small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain); (3)private capitalism; (4)state capitalism; (5)socialism.' Compare to Wolff: 'He referred to what the Soviet Union had achieved with the phrase state capitalism, and he was very proud of it. We made a revolution. The state is now controlled by a political party of the working class, by which he meant the Communist Party in Russia. The workers control the state, and the state has taken from the private capitalists the industry. So, we have a capitalism run by the state. It's state capitalism.' See the difference? Wolff lies by omission to distort Lenin into saying Russia was capitalist, where Lenin actually said socialism already existed inside Russia, but was in competition with other modes of production. So he never said the the Soviet economy was state capitalism in and of itself, only that state capitalism was ONE element - a vanishingly small one at that - of a varied economy (this isn't the same thing as the 'mixed economies' Western economists talk about either). Why so many people say Lenin considered the NEP state capitalist **as a whole** baffles me. The Soviet economy was TRANSITIONAL, i.e. capitalist and socialist at the same time (because Russia was so huge and transport/communication links were so poor). So when Lenin says that state capitalism 'would be a step forward as compared with the present state of affairs' (how could Russia be state capitalist if it didn't exist yet according to these people's understanding?), he doesn't mean at the expense of socialism, because in Russia at that time the two were not mutually exclusive. Remember that in the countryside (like 90% of the country) the fastest means of communication the Bolsheviks had was messages hand-delivered by bicycle. You simply cannot be absolutist about an entity of that size. Anyone (like Wolff) that has studied Lenin's positions on this stuff will know that co-ops/'democratic workplace management' did not figure into Lenin's understanding of socialism either at all, or not until the final years of his political life (he mentioned the socialist potential of co ops in 1923 for example). Which is kind of obvious given that he spent most of his leadership fighting a civil war in which centralised state control and military style discipline were necessary to win. Hence his disbanding of the Constituent Assembly after the revolution. Apologies for the long comment.

[@nedludd3110]

@@TheBigGSN5 You're free to believe this and to put points forward supporting your case. You're not free to claim there's 'no argument'. I believe socialism to exist in China, though I'm open to the arguments of those who believe it does not constitute the *dominant* system of the country, as there exist several other modes of production simultaneously (I don't simply mean dominant in the quantitative sense here - as like a percentage of the economy or whatever - but also qualitatively.). But what it does have, as far as I can tell, is a segment of the economy in which firms are operated on a plan (a plan nevertheless heavily designed on commercial lines), owned/operated by a workers party (though an authoritarian, bureaucratic one) which work to dull and deflect the law of value in its operation throughout the Chinese economy (though only sporadically, at key junctures). In other words, my view of the post-reform Chinese economy is roughly equivalent to Lenin's view of the NEP. See how I'm capable of recognising opposing views by qualifying what I say, and being honest? You're acting no different to the idiots who meet any criticism of China whatsoever by screeching that you work for the CIA or something.

[@xiaopengzong6980]

@@nedludd3110 Thanks for the analysis. I have pointed out the socialist and democratic nature of China's agricultural production multiple times. Prof. Wolff keeps ignoring it in his discussion of China's economy.

[@nedludd3110]

@@xiaopengzong6980 No worries man I thought your comments elsewhere were good as well. But I suspect he'll continue to ignore it. You can still have good discussions in the comments so it's still worth responding I guess

[@kapfeng3407]

China has a kind of socialism with Chinese characteristic, it is a mixture of state runs enterprise and private runs enterprise. No matter what it called, China has taken a lesson from the previous failure of the Great Leap Forward and the People's commune in the 1950s. Although the present system runs quite smoothly but the Chinese government admitted that they needed further improvement to face the challenge of the 21st century. Also the Chinese leaders seems more and more lean on the traditional Confucian system which is the main framework of the traditional East Asian political system . Work place democracy seems far away.

[@sanctionskillkids3541]

If Venezuela is the exemplar of 21st Century Socialism I'll keep 20th Century Socialism thank you very much. A planned economy guided by a workers party is what defeated Nazi Germany.

[@christopherwood9009]

State: a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government. Socialism: a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. ("The community as a whole" i.e. the state) Capitalism: an economic and political system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. State capitalism literally means "state non-state" or "public private". It is an oxymoron! What utter idiocy are you on about? How can an organized political community under one government conduct business that is controlled by private owners for profit? Something is either the public (e.g. the state) or private (i.e. not the state).