Richard Wolff Explains 3 Kinds of Socialism

"I want to go over with you the three major ways this idea of socialism is understood, because those ways are relevant today, those ways are fighting it out amongst themselves in terms of the allegiance, feelings and thoughts of people around the world, and they're going to shape our future."
Watch entire episode:
• Economic Update: 3 Bas...
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work. Become an EU patron on Patreon: / economicupdate
Want to help us translate and transcribe our videos?
Learn about joining our translation team: bit.ly/2J2uIHH
Jump right in: bit.ly/2J3bEZR
Follow us ONLINE:
Patreon: / economicupdate
Websites: www.democracyatwork.info/econo...
www.rdwolff.com
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Instagram: / democracyatwrk
Subscribe to our podcast: economicupdate.libsyn.com
Shop our Store: bit.ly/2JkxIfy
Prof. Wolff's latest book "Understanding Marxism"
Paperback: bit.ly/2BH0lkL
Ebook: bit.ly/2K6iI8v

[@georgejohnson7265]

We can't keep bringing this up enough to prevent the framing and demonization of the word socialism.

[@LjubomirLjubojevic]

Most do not understand that in SFR Yugoslavia there was best socialist mix. Govt or municipality would plan and fund creation of the enterprise/company, based on needs for workplaces and market demands, but once established it would turn OWNERSHIP to WORKERS from that company. Further more, all worker-owned companies COMPETED IN A MARKET! and were allowed to FAIL if incompetent. Price of products was free-forming (but with certain limitations). In Worker/owner/shareholder(while working) meetings goals would be determined and CEO/director was mandated to implement those decissions. If this is augmented with govt/municipality owning shares based on loans given, it could be very effective. Yugoslavia was chocked after Tito died and USSR disolved via MMF blocking further loans under Regans directive and MMF-forced changes to economic model, NOT before.

[@pablotagliani8687]

I agree with you. Participation economy of Yugoslavia was wonderful

[@abandonedchannel281]

Yugoslavia was more Socialistic than the USSR. But not enough

[@thevoiceofthelost]

Yugoslavia was indeed a good example, their methods were way different in many ways, but they also were one of the only country's that actually stayed true to socialist principles and ideas. I would definitely support a Titoist style of socialism.

[@rootin222]

Ljubomir Ljubojevic it was living off of IMF loans Ethiopia was better

[@LjubomirLjubojevic]

@@rootin222 , people only remember economic problems that started only AFTER death of Tito. At the end of WWII Yugoslavis was poor. 1 million dead and all factories stolen or destroyed by Germans. Yugoslavia was classified as developing country. Ever heard of "Marshall plan" for Germany? USA GAVE AWAY $12bn ($100bn in today dollars) to countries of Western Europe, who were lot less ravaged then Yugoslavia. Only option to restore standard of living were loans, and only IMF gave them. Today most countries get IMF loans to run a budget deficit, already in problems. Back then, SFRY got loans to DEVELOP. There is running joke that countries now have no money to PAINT all the buildings, factories, infrastructure that SFRY BUILT! After WWII, SFRY organized youth working/building camps in which youth volunteered they time and strenght for work on building roads and railway, and in return they got work skills certificates, driving licences and rich cultural programs and lifelong friendships, even lifelong partners. Up to 1980 when Tito died, SFRY had average economic groth of 7% , we developed even electronics industry, had strong military industry, built jets, tanks, helicopters, military and civil construction industry building all around the world (many bunkers in Iraq were built by SFRY engineers, huge dam in Africa, Victoria river or lake???), etc. So just using IMF loans (in those days) was nothing bad, it is always how you USE those loans. Rats in our govt only starred to apear and sink the ship after Tito died.

[@WORLDCITIZEN10]

Private market is impossible without compitation,greed and corruption.

[@kylejoseph225]

Do you think greed and corruption vanish under a socialist system?

[@jimbraatz4514]

@@reddoggie554 How are opposing worker co-ops not competitive? How are our capitalist firm monopolies under competition now?

[@jimbraatz4514]

@Frederic Bastiat Yeah lets just let monopolies take over the world and turn us all into debt slaves, that should be fun.

[@jimbraatz4514]

@Frederic Bastiat They called them Robber Baron's dude, you think that it was good for people? You might be the most out of touch irrational person that walks this planet. Our country elected Teddy Roosevelt to knock those bastards down for a reason.

[@jimbraatz4514]

Also the reason prices dropped through the 1800's is because of factories and electric motors, not because monopolies were rigging the market for their benefit. My lord.

[@pusanghalaw]

socialism in various forms (just like capitalism) can thrive within evil empires. doesn't matter what ideology is put to practice if the state wages war around the planet.

[@nthperson]

I am reminded of the case made by Leopold Kohr in "The Breakdown of Nations". No nation should be allowed to control a large enough amount of resources to wage war against other peoples.

[@technatezin]

@Frederic Bastiat So your reasoning is that only old people get sick and injured and the young are invincible until they hit old age?

[@PhenomUprising]

@luvcheney1 But they will benefit from it once they one day need it, while other "mostly ineligible" will help pay for it.

[@nickbrennan3389]

Socialist countries waged war on themselves...on the people

[@Spido68_the_spectator]

Ugh... no. Since socialism gives control to the people, instead of the capitalist class giving an illusion of democracy, wars are far less likely. Why would the population come to decide to reign over the world?

[@RFLCPTR]

Calling Germany a Social Democracy....oh boy...our government is very reluctant to seize apartments in our current housing crisis, the liberals argue that it would be against the law although our constitution gives the state/government this right. But hey, at least Liberals are fine with seizing land for cole mines because capitalism is working great. (The German Social Democratic Party has been dying for years...)

[@coladict]

Compared to how extremely far to the right the US spectrum of political debate is, Germany can very well be considered a Social Democracy.

[@sinthoras1917]

the german social democratic party has been betraying the working class since 1914

[@RFLCPTR]

@@coladict I talk about the mindset. The word socialist is used as an insult too. Workplace democracy is a dream that only one party supports openly and it has only 6-10 percent in paliament, depending on the election. A few months ago, the leader of the youth organization of the Social Democratic Party was criticized heavily by the higher ups of the party for arguing against privatization, for more workplace democracy and for the seizing of unused apartments and houses. That was the moment I realized that I needed to turn socialist and stop being social democratic. Anyways, the German Social Democracy is very weak against companies like Nestlé or the local car industry and doesnt do enough for the environment or to help the millions (around 10 mil as far as I know) living from minimum wage. Thanks Agenda 2010.

[@RFLCPTR]

@@sinthoras1917 Yeah, thats true. R.I.P Rosa Luxemberg and Karl Liebknecht, on that note.

[@RFLCPTR]

@@coladict Also...the 3rd largest Party in Parliament denies Climate Change and believes in the Great Replacement. Oh and they attend neonazi rallies.

[@LeakyBellows]

I'm sure Dr. Wolff didn't mean it, because he's a highly educated man who absolutely knows better, but he's misrepresenting what Communism is here. Saying that Communists want "The Government" to run industry is sending the wrong message. It's true to an extent, in that we do want a centralized authority of some kind to help organize logistics and manage the bureaucratic aspect of things, but it fails to make it clear that the "government" that we want in that position is one that is controlled by and is directly accountable to the people. You're not going to find very many Communists that believe in giving our current Capitalist government more control over the means of production.

[@Seekarr]

I think he is using the American 20th-century anachronistic meaning rather than the Marx/Engels definition. By that definition, communism is really a form of radical right-wing socialism (or socialism, except with control of the means of production in control of an authoritarian bureaucracy on behalf of the people). It's not the only word we do that with, there's the word theory where on one hand people mean using facts and data to explain a phenomenon, while another version of the word means a guess. But yeah, I agree, it is odd that he is going with the anachronism over the more academic meaning. Or maybe his meaning is just not clear.

[@LeakyBellows]

@@Seekarr To be fair, I can understand how a full breakdown of the bureaucratic functions of a Communist government might have ended up being a bit long-winded for this particular subject lol.

[@reubennb2859]

Rhetorically, it's often necessary to throw communism under the bus in order to convert somebody to believing in a socialised economy, simply because the word 'communism' and the commonly associated examples get such a bad emotional response from most people. I agree entirely with what you're saying and the type of reformed and accountable gov actual communists want, but given the extreme cynicism and mistrust of current government it's sadly necessary for us to distance ourselves from the idea as advocates.

[@limitisillusion7]

The problem with communism as you describe it isn't a short-term development. When a government first transitions to true communism, it's practically a utopia. But to stay a utopia is a different matter. That would require a whole lot of intelligent design which has yet to be perfected... What happens when a natural disaster causes scarcity? The scarcity causes fear, and the fear causes greed. Before you know it, people are fighting each other. These are fundamental human emotions that are inevitable when scarcity is present. If you're 5 generations past the communist revolution, then all the people who started the revolution are dead. All the people who truly understand the reasons for the communistic revolution are dead. No matter how many times you write it down, the wisdom dies, only to be reborn again. You can't truly understand the wisdom without the painful experiences that developed it. Communism at its core is unity... Collectivism. Look at all the world's major religions.... They all have themes of unity in them. That's not a coincidence. They're all getting at the same wisdom, and perhaps every religion discovered that wisdom independently at different times, and then wrote it down as best they could in their own unique way.

[@200131356]

Exactly, that’s putting it very lightly when it comes to the second kind of socialism. The Soviet Union had a very centralized government that obvious played a big role in Soviet society. But the government was a government of workers and peasants ie. a dictatorship of the proletariat that overthrew the authoritarian monarchy and their capitalist system. He makes it sound like it was a bourgeois government like the US or something. Also the USSR had a great degree of worker and workplace democracy never seen before. They were the first to have worker councils (Soviets) were the workers took place in elections and direct democracy. The Soviet Union wasn’t just the government ruling over everything

[@zakichoudhary507]

They did #3 in Spain

[@drg4366]

Sad that fascism got in the way. Even if you agree with anarchy or not it would of been nice to see it play out in the real world

[@manuelllaneras]

Dr G it wasn’t only the fascists who got in the way. Anarchy was a threat to the other three factions at play during the Spanish Civil War. The Fascists, the Soviet backed communists, the liberal democratic republic, and their respective allies. They put their war on hold to destroy the anarchist experiment that existed in Catalonia for three years. As opposed to the other three systems, Anarchy is the only one capable of creating a just egalitarian society. The other three rely in varying degrees on authoritarian hierarchies to rule over the majority.

[@thevoiceofthelost]

@@manuelllaneras Very true. They had no outside support from anyone else because they threatened the legitimacy of every other system, including the authoritarian Soviet style system. If Catalonia wasn't destroyed and swept under the rug, it would have spawned more Catalonias all across the world. Hell... It still might... Seems like they only succeeded in delaying the inevitable. The rise of Rojava, and the Zapatistas, and the rising strength of Anarchist organizations around the world, show that the movement was perhaps not as buried as they once thought.

[@zakichoudhary507]

@@drg4366 Anarchism. Not anarchy. Huge difference. And it wasn't the fascists. It was the centrists and communists who betrayed the movement. Read Homage to Catalonia, wicked fucking book.

[@Bmyt612]

Manuel Llaneras hard to actually say they were “soviet backed” considered they sent no soldiers and had to be publicly humiliated by trotsky to give the little aid they did

[@searchforserenity8058]

I can see the third kind would appeal to many. But after witnessing the election and continuing support of Trump, I don't trust many of my fellow citizens to behave with any form of altruism or even rationality. Sad.

[@Fluxquark]

BE Gypsy It's important to remember that many of them were socialised in a very capitalist culture with some horrible ideas and have been subjected to very powerful and subtle propaganda for most of their lives. Had the same people grown up in the UK, they would have defended socialised healthcare because they would have grown up in a society with the NHS.

[@balanmason]

Yeah, because those bad republicans that were attacking the federal building, breaking windows, setting fires and terrorizing innocent citizens. Those damn republicans that want to defund the police and military. I mean who doesn’t want law, order and national defense?? Those damn republicans that want to give illegal aliens healthcare and welfare!!! Those damn republicans that want open borders and unrestricted entry into the US. Can you believe they even want to let thousands of violent criminals out of jail??? Those republicans!! They even want people that get arrested for felonies to be released without bail!!! Fucking Republicans!!!

[@searchforserenity8058]

@@balanmason All of what you said? Indoctrinated nonsense. Democrats weren't burning anything. In fact, none of the graffiti on federal buildings was from BLM protestors either. There are multiple reports that those caught and arrested looting and causing damage were white supremacist and white militia groups. And many of the pictures of "burning" spread on social media were not even from the United States. They were from a protest in Spain and one in the Ukraine. Republicans are indoctrinated sheep. Can't trust anything they say or do. They simply live in an alternate universe fueled by their hate. Sad.

[@piku5637]

Libertarian socialism is imo the right direction to go to.

[@chudpunter]

@Frederic Bastiat In what way is that?

[@chudpunter]

@Frederic Bastiat What isn't libertarian about that?

[@chudpunter]

@Frederic Bastiat What makes those the core?

[@charlenek11]

@Frederic Bastiat no, not when the workers have partial ownership of the organization.

[@charlenek11]

@Frederic Bastiat you're the only one talking anything about confiscation. When workers own shares, they should have a greater say in how the company is governed. The problem is that so many of these companies do not give their workers enough shares as part of compensation, except for the executives who coincidentally happen to sit on the board or whose interests align with the board. And so the interests of board diverge from the interests of the workers.

[@mahgpie]

Great explanations in helping explain the nuances of socialism in the face of far-right politics that frame socialism as communism and demonize anything that challenges or critiques capitalism. Have you considered doing videos with more visual info and not just talking head? Similar to Robert Reich’s videos? Also, have you considered collaborating with Robert Reich to make educational pieces? I feel the two of you would be a great combination!

[@gilmarianimer4926]

@Frederic Bastiat What are property rights, you big smart guy?

[@chrispeacock1257]

Frederic Bastiat Did you watch the video? The first and third types of socialism are market based. No types are against property rights. Even the Soviets (second type) had private property rights. Educate yourself before talking nonsense online.

[@chrispeacock1257]

Frederic Bastiat You know regulation is compatible with the market right? In fact regulation often enriches the market by breaking up monopolies, building competition and allowing market forces to work properly. How about child labour laws? That’s regulation. Should we do away with those laws and allow our children to work on factory floors again? Do child labour laws do away with the market?

[@princeofchetarria5375]

Mix of all three would be preferable in my opinion. Democratically owned private enterprise, alongside some state-owned companies to compete with, as well as having key industries (such as transport, healthcare, energy) nationalised/state-run. And also regulation of private enterprise in some way by the government as well (e.g. making sure wages don't rise above profits like what happened in Yugoslavia, or rules for media organisations so they can't tell bare-faced lies (such as Fox News)). And of course, democratic election of government (that goes without saying I think)

[@hb-nx2em]

Thank you for that. It wasn't clear to me before, even after several videos on the same subject and even by you. lol

[@LeeTy-tu7un]

Thank You for this educational video, explaining different type of Socialism and examples.

[@leroitiaks]

Even though those who argued in favour of nationalisation called themselves communists in some places (USSR, China, etc), they called themselves socialist in Western Europe. I would reserve the term "communist" for people who seek "communism", that is a society without class and government as we know it (to quote K. Marx).

[@RFLCPTR]

In Germany the Term "Communism" is used as described by Wolff.

[@thereisnospectrum]

According to officials of the USSR and China, they never would claim they achieved communism. According to Wolff, the Chinese communist party says they practice "socialism with Chinese characteristics". Your last sentence does not contradict this aim to achieve communism

[@mozearteffect10]

Oh Wow!!! Gettin' Schooled here!! thank you Dr.!

[@DodoDodo-pi1ev]

I'm curious as to how a democratic system within enterprises could be implemented. Wouldn't it require high transparency in terms of what the strategies and plans of the company are? And wouldn't it require every employee to be highly informed and knowledgeable about micro economics and the specific situation of one's company, in order to make educated and considered decisions?

[@nathancabognason6427]

"And wouldn't it require every employee to be highly informed and knowledgeable about micro economics and the specific situation of one's company, in order to make educated and considered decisions?" I would also like to inquire or learn more about this part, for I agree with it.

[@funkygrow8738]

Okay. As an orthodox Marxist / Libertarian Socialist, I have some empathy for the author in trying to make this video as accessible to the laymen as possible, but I fear in his summary he has left out some very key understandings of what Socialism is. By the loosest definition, socialism is any philosophy that applies any critique of Capitalism. But if you could boil down the entire philosophy of socialism into one sentence it would be: An economic model in which there is a classless society, in which only the those who perform labor own the means of production. So I don’t mind his explanations of #1. However, make no mistake, #1 is still a capitalist society. This is adhering to his loose based definition of socialism. Basically this philosophy recognizes that IF we are to live within capitalism, we should strive for a humane and conscious form of capitalism. But again, even the best version of this is still objectively capitalism - NOT socialism. #2 is an explanation of Soviet Russia. Which should never have and never will be a definition of socialism. This is objectively defined as a State Capitalist society. Which like #1, privatizes the means of production to the state - NOT the working class. So again. This does not meet Marx’s definition of socialism. The word “communism” has now become a bastardized word do to the 20th century modes of State Capitalism which appropriated this word from Marx. Now #3 is probably the closest he got to actually getting on track to the ideas of Marxism. But make no mistake - I reiterate that there is NO such thing as a socialist system in which there is private ownership of the means of production. That is why many leftist forums we have adopted the capital S version of the word ‘Socialism’ when we are describing strict adherence to Marxism. And then any other version of socialism which is merely the critique of capitalism is showcased with a lower case s. What 19th century Socialists required to meet their versions of Socialism are as follows. 1. The society must be classless 2. The society must be stateless / anti-authoritarian. 3. The Means Of Production must be owned and operated by those who contribute labor to the value of the good / service being made. 4. Value is created by transforming matter via labor and thus the compensation of the laborer must be equivalent to the value they put into the item. 5. All hierarchal structures in a society must be abolished as they are means of exploitation. 6. Society is a global construct in which all human beings are unequivocally connected to each other and the Earth, and must approach all issues under the scope of the common good. 7. All forms of government must adhere to the ideals of democracy. These are the broad strokes of what Socialism is defined as. And they are pretty rigid. Now implementations of socialism and theories of how such a society should / would look like are strictly in the realm of theory. Also, any such type of socialism that helps in the eventual evolution to Socialism will be regarded as socialism. So while everything the author states is part of socialism. It is not necessarily a good definition of Socialism. Once you get into advanced theory you see all different types of ideas on how to get to Socialism. Labor collectives, labor vouchers and all other interesting takes by socialists over the past 200 years have brought MANY ideas to the table. And I assure you all, there are way more than just 3 different kinds of socialism. But there is only 1 kind of Socialism.

[@chuckpatenaude]

To paraphrase Bucky; i seem to be a Syndacylist.

[@nthperson]

Have you ever given thought to another alternative: cooperative individualism?

[@limitisillusion7]

​@@nthpersonLol... That's called collectivism.

[@nthperson]

@@limitisillusion7 We humans thrive when we cooperate, provided our cooperation also allows each individual to reach his or her potentials. This requires that the socio-political arrangements and institutions of a society secure and protect individual liberty but do not permit the exercise of license (i.e., of monopoly privilege).

[@SuicidelG]

I feel like the problem still is that capital is still involvled in all of these examples. Plus, it doesn't get rid of the desire to continually produce as opposed to produce to need.

[@gelatinocyte6270]

To continually produce isn't a bad thing; it would lead to a post-scarcity society anyway. Look at our world today: we have enough food and a bit of excess to feed the world yet we still have people starving to death. I'm not just talking about third world countries, there are starving people in the first world, too.

[@SuicidelG]

@@gelatinocyte6270 What I meant was, to produce wastefully instead of producing to peoples needs.

[@mohamedelmaazi6725]

I'm no sure that's what Corbyn means for the UK. I think he would recognise the term "social democracy" for heavily regulated capitalist system.

[@TheDIYDen]

Thanks for this, i'll share and try to educate my peers.

[@romulus3345]

Don't forget to also educate them about the 100 MILLION executions that were carried out in the name of Socialism throughout the 20th century.

[@TheDIYDen]

@@romulus3345 You must be confusing greed with political systems, it's ok.

[@abandonedchannel281]

elizabeth tudor You missed the point fool. Should Jesus be blamed for all those deaths? No. Should Socialism be blamed for the 100 million deaths? You get the point, it’s a comparison to point out hypocrisy. When we talk about Capitalism we blame individuals for failures, but all of Socialism gets the boot because of the failures of individuals?

[@romulus3345]

@@abandonedchannel281 You are the clown chasing your Utopian delusion.. Socialist/Communist Governments are 100% responsible for Murdering over 100 MILLION of their OWN citizens in the 20th Century.. You fool

[@jadenmarker8109]

@@romulus3345 I'm not a socialist by any means but with your argument, capitalism is to be blamed for all the deaths in Iraq because of greed for oil. Capitalism is to be blamed for pharmaceutical companies like Perdue purposely ensuring people took opioids to get hooked on their products. In short, I'm not impressed with your argument against socialism since it is polemic, ignorant, and perhaps double-sided since I'm predicting you will say that one can't say that about capitalism or whatever side you're on. We can't blame Marx for the crimes of Stalin and the gulags just as much as we can Adam Smith for corporations making children work twelve hours a day and sweatshops.

[@chrispeacock1257]

For me it’s got to be mainly the third type (anarcho-syndicalism), worker cooperative market socialism with a representative democratic government to lend to coops at low interest rates and provide a strong social safety net as well as help rebuild the economy in times of need by investing in infrastructure and jobs programs (Keynesianism, close enough to the first type). The second type is a little too authoritarian for my liking. There is a case for the planned economy with the rise of AI as they could potentially do the problem solving for us but I worry about that leading to AI controlling more than we can understand and a high risk of hacking. The safest bet seems to me to be a bottom up socialism of worker coops with strong democratic government to support and maintain the economy.

[@Inivican]

I got his book today! This'll be great

[@lindenstromberg6859]

Wouldn't type 3 be closest to the Marx/Engels definition while types 1 and 2 be the revisions? I am not overly familiar to the history of socialism prior to Engels and Marx, but they focused on the workplace and the relationship of people to the workplace. According to their writings, government, in socialist economies, has very little role. Engels wrote that the state was a result of the class system that the country would eventually fade once capitalism was gone. "State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The State is not "abolished." It dies out...Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last, the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master - free." - Engels (Socialism: Utopia and Scientific, 1880) In socialism, class, state, and government wither away as they would serve NO role in the economy. Communism has a mess of definitions. Again, it seems to be a very different thing in the US compared to my own understanding (and it is different in various parts of Europe too due to revisionist history, primarily by the communist party in the Eastern Bloc countries, which I will note only promised communism, never claimed they had achieved it). But I am unaware of it being considered a type of socialism, although I do know in the US communism/socialism/totalitarianism/tyranny are all basically synonyms of each other. I primarily know of communism through the writings of Marx and Engels and critiques/commentaries of those writings; otherwise, Christopher Hitchens. Communism was instead the inevitable destination of human society due to social and technological advancement: a post-scarcity society without class distinction or nation-state founded on the production principle for the creation and distribution of luxuries and goods "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Automation and AI are bringing us closer to this eventuality. The philosophy of post-scarcity via technology and post-class distinction and state/economy has been explored by writers such as Isaac Asimov (Robot Trilogy) and Gene Roddenberry (Star Trek).

[@Seekarr]

He's describing "Communism" in the anachronistic 20th-century form. While it did mean utopianism, it also equated to radical socialism in western spheres. I am not sure the history of the term, but these sorts of multi-meanings are common in post-modern schools of thought, but also prior to that; even different languages use the same word to mean very different things, and it's not just a random homonym, but words that have the exact same root meaning just took on separate meanings in different languages, dialects, and cultures (which is why British, Australian, Scottish, and American English use the same words for different things.). If you watch some of his earlier videos, he explains the history he is talking about. But I agree with your "type 3" socialism, that's sort of the definition that I know it as although I am not sure about Marx/Engels as I haven't really read anything by them outside of a university philosophy class.

[@DavidSanchez-vx4bv]

Keep in mind that an economic system, as the capitalism, is not displaced by others for moral questions... Feudalism didn't replace Slavery for consider having slaves as a bad thing but for its inefficiency and tendency to revolts... The same for Capitalism vs Feudalism... and the for Socialism to replace Capitalism will be based on the balance between good economic efficiency and good social development without the cyclical crisis Capitalism has... so, if the 3rd kind of Socialism brings that to the table, it could be a real successor for Capitalism...

[@wkmac2]

I don't consider myself a socialist but this was very well done and in a short, concise manner. I have an admitted "limited" understanding of the idea of cooperative and worker owned enterprises but in what I do understand, that idea does interest me very much. Thank you Professor Wolff for doing this video. Albeit I'm a skeptic of the first 2 forms of socialism, not that present forms of capitalism are any better, I find myself very sympathetic to aspects of the 3rd form presented by Professor Wolff. From a non-socialist, keep up the good work and discussing this perspective as I may not always agree, I do believe we need a "Freed Market" so to speak or Freed Commons if that works better, where all ideas and concepts are out in the open and are freely and openly discussed, advocated, critiqued with no threat or coercion to silence. This is also what scares the powerful is that we even dare talk to one another in the first place.

[@rhythmjones]

10% of the world's workforce already works for worker's co-ops, which is essentially the same concept.

[@drg4366]

@@rhythmjones Worker controlled and worker cooperatives are vastly different

[@baldkea]

Beautifully explained

[@bttrway9402]

I love professor Wolff, but I find this explanation way too simplistic. I realize he is trying to cram it into an 11 minute video in hopes people will watch. In talking about socialism 3.0 I think it is crucial we discuss several other factors. 1. How do we organize ourselves in these democratic workplaces i.e., do we keep the capitalist division of labour and hierarchical structure which I would argue will have, and historically has e.g., Argentina, the effect of eroding this workplace democracy, or do we organize ourselves in the workplace differently? e.g., balancing our jobs for empowering and disempowering work? 2. How do we compensate ourselves in these workplaces or how do we decide who gets how much of the social output? Presumably we have eliminated the capitalist so we don't get compensated for property. How does output, where I sit in the hierarchy (if we keep it) e.g., manager vs doctor vs nurse vs janitor etc, bargaining power, physical or mental attributes and talents, education, how hard I work (effort), how long I work, how onerous the work is, effect my compensation or my claim on the social products? 3. How do we distribute the social products. Markets? Central planning? or is there another way e.g., participatory or democratic planning. How do the decisions we make in these (and other ) areas affect the goals and values we are trying to achieve e.g., solidarity, equity, diversity, sustainability, innovation, efficiency, justice, freedom, liberty or autonomy... I think these and many other issues are seriously addressed by a proposed system called Participatory Economics, developed and refined over many (30?) years by Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel. It has been criticized and attacked and IMHO defended over this period from both the left and the right but of course you will be the judge of that. Here is a very brief outline zcomm.org/znetarticle/participatory-economics-by-michael-albert/ Here is a much more in depth discussion zcomm.org/life-after-capitalism/ I would love to hear Dr. Wolff's views on this.

[@datashed]

It's really rather simple. Technology can be brought to bear on the issue of resource management and distribution, integrated into the planning and democratic participation framework of the society.

[@atheistgenocideinthebible1102]

Fantastic Video!

[@waldemarrognes8844]

A clear and illuminating lecture!

[@George10767]

Thank you, Richard Wolff. I notice that you gave NO EXAMPLES of the *third kind* of Socialism, and I presume that was because there are none. I was aged 8 in 1945 and grew up under a UK Labour government. The UK contributed to the war but did not win it. We survived it, but there was poverty, hardship and rationing. In 1945 there was a General Election in which the British people rejected war hero Winston Churchill and instead elected a Labour government dedicated to your *first kind* of Socialism. So this is within my experience. People say the UK did not recover from the war until the 1960's. Since then there have been a succession of Labour governments (interspersed with capitalist-supporting Conservative ones). But I believe that these Labour governments became less and less dedicated to your *first kind* Socialist principles and today capitalism reigns supreme in the UK. Does this represent the triumph of (deluded) self-interest over social concience? Probably. But how could it be otherwise? There is near total capitalist control of the press, including the "gutter press" with its daily diet of sex and sport. And its support for nationalism, aggressive Chauvinism, American wars against imaginary enemies and the rejection of genuine international cooperation.

[@limitisillusion7]

Technology is how it could be otherwise. When people realize that scarcity is now manufactured rather than unavoidable, we will move into a mindset of abundance and away from fear and greed. The woes of poverty will spread to those who thought they could purchase safety, and our collective consciousness will change to realize how our complacent behaviors effect ourselves *through* others. If you don't believe humanity can do this, then you manifest your portion of the collective. I'm going to manifest my portion in the direction of empathy, love, and peace rather than greed, hate, and anger. You do what you feel you need to do and own the consequences.

[@murrayeldred3563]

He is NEVER boring!!!!!

[@tc4ltheking]

Hey Mr. Wolff, you probably don’t actually respond to comments. However I was curious to get your take on an idea I had. So to me minimum wage has always seemed stupid since it doesn’t account for how much a company actually makes. So I was thinking, would a better system be one where the law is such, that no employee or business owner can make more then 20%,30%,60%, or whatever percentage you want, then any other employee. Meaning if the CEO wants to pay themselves a 1.2 million dollar salary, they would have to pay each employee 1 million. Obviously this is an extreme example, but wouldn’t it create a system where if a CEO wants to pay themselves a great amount of money, then every other employee would also get paid a great wage. Maybe other people have had this idea and decided it doesn’t make sense. Just had this thought myself, and wanted some input.

[@tc4ltheking]

Correction I meant to say “can make more then x% then the lowest paid employee” Otherwise ceos would just create an escalating pay system of 1 person who makes 20% less then them and so on. Thanks again.

[@et379]

There are already such ideas. It's not usually as low as 20% but it's more like this: CEO can only earn X-times of average/minimum/median salary in his company.

[@OldEarthWisdom]

What about a "Resource Driven Economy"?

[@omarisawesome1996]

The definition that is just regulating private makers makes every country socialist; that makes the definition useless. If the government owns the means of production but isn’t accountable to people, I’d say that also isn’t really socialist. Socialism is WORKERS (not a totalitarian state) controlling the means of production.

[@fattahmoosavi9652]

U are grate 🌹👍R.W.!

[@serjthereturn]

I guess an accurate description of the last kind, a network of co-operatives and local municipalities, would be considered a form of libertarian socialism. Something being practised right now in Northern Syria by the Kurds.

[@manuelllaneras]

serjthereturn yes the third one sounds like a form of Libertarian Socialism or Anarchy. More precisely it has many of the elements of anarchist syndicalism, which Noam Chomsky advocates. Rojova in Syria is the closest thing we have today to an anarchist society. It’s amazing that it is happening in the Middle East, a place where some of the most authoritarian societies exist.

[@serjthereturn]

@@manuelllaneras indeed. A beacon of light in a dark place. Need to protect it from fascist Turkey

[@MoPar7055]

Why does he not give a name to the 3rd type of socialism?

[@limitisillusion7]

The third type of socialism can be considered collectivism from below, where the people organize for themselves without the need for government policy. The dangers of individualism are what all 3 types of socialism seek to avoid. But the success of all 3 kinds of socialism lies in the magnitude of class consciousness. If people get divided, then the first type turns into a vicious individualistic capitalistic economic, which eventually slides into authoritarian fascism by led by a corrupt government who is funded by large corporations. In the second type, a divided middle class (low class consciousness) leads to a vicious authoritarian government, where the authorities *are* the corporations. And the third type is the same as the first, given low class consciousness. *All that matters is class consciousness.*

[@thevoiceofthelost]

In other words, the third type is akin to Anarcho-Syndicalism, Libertarian Socialism, and their practice is detailed in the 1918-19 German revolution, the Spanish Civil War, the Zapatistas in Mexico, Rojava in Syria, and the lesser known Shinmin region in old Korea. Obviously, i am of the third type. They were all very bottom up ways of organizing society and industry. The USSR also very early on qualified as the third type, with their workers councils and democratic control over industry that could have resulted in a decentralized planned economy. It is of my opinion that the third type overturns capitalism far more effectively than the first two, and tends to create more stable and functional societies than either. It is in essence a different system entirely, where as the first two are only ways to control and try to morph the old system into something else, which may explain why they often fail or devolve. Socialists need to break out of the box they're stuck in, and stop trying to morph Capitalism into Socialism, because that approach won't really work.

[@manuelllaneras]

H¥pΣr N¤vα I agree with your assessment. I wish prof Wolff would have delved deeper into the third one and be more clear about what it is. What he describes has a lot of the elements of Anarcho-Syndicalism, but he doesn’t call it by name or stress the idea that in the third case the abolition of Capitalism and the State along with all forms of unjustified hierarchies go hand in hand.

[@thevoiceofthelost]

@Frederic Bastiat Idiocy.

[@thevoiceofthelost]

@@manuelllaneras Indeed, but nevertheless, he still does great work. He introduces a lot of people to the broad idea of Socialism and Marxism in general, he's always been more the economics guy than the theory guy, so it's up to the wider range of experienced Socialists to introduce any newbies who were convinced by Wolff to the wider history, theory, and practice of the third type of Socialism, that being Anarchism and Libertarian Socialism. For now, the movement is growing, and for that i'm glad. We will persevere comrade!

[@thevoiceofthelost]

​@Frederic Bastiat Your "freedom" is an illusion. The concept of freedom means absolutely nothing if one lacks the resources, or time to exercise it, and if you look at the world as it is instead of what your opaque brain thinks it is, you'd see that most do lack the resources and the time to pursue passions and goals. Capitalism does not allow people to be free to act in their own individual self interests at all. It forces the overwhelming majority to serve a small minority's agenda, which is an agenda that directly goes against the public interests. In other words, it forces individuals to act against their own goals. Adam Smith himself pointed out that the interests of the capitalist and the interest of the public are diametrically opposed, and spoiler alert moron, you are a part of the public. It is not in our best interest to work for a capitalist. It is however, in our best interest to unionize and work together as a collective. A collective is composed of individuals who pursue common goals. The entirety of human civilization is a product of collective action. Your bitch ass could not build an entire working city by yourself. Your bitch ass could not build your own house, generate power, grow crops, refine them into food, slaughter livestock, build your equipment, and fix your equipment when it breaks all by yourself, you need help from others. In other words, you need *a fucking collective.* And once you have a *fucking collective,* the burden of labor decreases for every individual involved. With everyone cutting the check of civilization, the price for each individual is significantly reduced, meaning instead of working your own fields, planting your own crops, and building your own infrastructure, you are able to pursue things you actually want to pursue. Capitalism enslaves individuals to the daily grind, and breaks apart the collective, causing a dysfunctional, overworked, alienated, and inefficient society. Capitalism adds to the burdens of the individual, we work 40-70 hours a week until we die because the majority of our productive effort goes into generating profits for some prick. I can tell you don't think things through, you just repeat the shit you were conditioned to say. Welcome to the Brave New World, do me a favor and take ten tablets of Soma and go into a fucking coma so i don't have to acknowledge your existence again.

[@thevoiceofthelost]

@Frederic Bastiat ​ No it would not exist, because there are smarter methods of generating energy. Big oil suppresses cleaner energy sources, and lobbies for politicians who deny climate change so that they can keep their multi-billion dollar industry afloat. Capitalism keeps obsolete industries alive to the point where they wreck havoc on progress, prosperity, and the fucking ecology of our ONLY planet. In fact, the energy crisis could be solved, but isn't because it isn't profitable to do so. After all, you can't profit off of abundance. So instead we gotta pay high as electric bills, and insane gas prices just because the big companies that dominate the energy sector can't easily generate a profit if better methods are utilized. Enjoy those burnouts while you can pal, because thanks to the capitalistic nature of big oil, you're gonna see a lot more natural disasters. And you know what? I hope you live near the coastline, so that you're retarded ass can get washed away in a flood.

[@cscsp]

The government is like a referee. It is there to see that both the buyer and seller are trading on an even ground. The referee is to ensure the buyer is not scalped and the seller not getting paid in faked notes.

[@frequentlycynical642]

A few days ago I thought what Bernie, et. al., need to do is relabel Democratic Socialism to Democratic Capitalism. Get rid of the emotion laden S word. Dr. Wolff describes that in his description of #3 socialism. But I'm also thinking larger, more philosophically, that We the People have the right to control capitalists.

[@elainegoad9777]

Thank you Professor Wolff.

[@pipster1891]

Is this really two days old? I've heard/seen this before.

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

It's a clip from a longer, older show. Lots of them are like this.

[@bwforpeople6686]

Birds have created the words and chickens are debating them. Birds are still flying and chickens are still fighting .

[@user-bo1hj1rx3s]

Hey i have a question. I’ve read some of Marx’s and Engels’ writings but i don’t understand yet how did the term socialism get attached to Marx. I know Marx wrote about the first stage of communism and Engels wrote about utopian and scientific socialism. But i don’t get this connection between Marx’s communism and Engels’ socialism, furthermore the connection between Marx’s communism and the variety of socialism as we know today. Does anyone know?

[@jamesanthony5681]

The definition of socialism has been evacuated of any real meaning over the past 100+ years. Classic socialism or standard socialism is defined as workers' controlling the means of production *AND* the people in their communities in control of their lives. People forget the 2nd part of that definition. Lenin, Stalin and the other Bolshevik henchman called themselves a socialist republic (i.e., USSR) to benefit from the broad moral appeal that classic socialism had in the late 19th/early 20th century. The leaders in the west called the former Soviet Union a *socialist regime* , as a way of defaming ANYTHING that smacked of socialism: "You don't want trade unions/universal health care/employment insurance/etc., -that's socialism - THAT's COMMUNISM."

[@kentallard8852]

the first definition is just social democracy

[@Patrick.Edgar.Regini]

Mr Wolf. I have a question for you. What do you respond to people who say to you; "If socialism is any good then why aren't there any countries who have succeeded at it" or "Look at Cuba, look at the old Eastern block countries, show me one socialist country that has succeeded" and statemens of this nature. I am sick of people saying these types of things at me, which to me are just clear evidence of America's propaganda throughout the west in turning this subject-matter into a combat fight between good and bad, because non of these people ever mention how much the EEUU has influenced the world in suffocating Cuba, leaving it stunted for 65 years now. I'm curious as to what do you say to people who don't even care to understand where Marxist principals are aiming to transform the world? Ignoring them is not an option for me, precisely because I join groups where I run into head on to this world wide spread mentality.

[@jamesanthony5681]

Mr. Wolff would respond by saying that countries in the former eastern bloc, the USSR for example, were NOT socialist regimes. Seriously. The fact that the former Soviet Union called itself a 'socialist republic' doesn't make it so. The former East Germany (1946 to 1989) called itself the GDR -German Democratic Republic . East Germany was neither democratic nor a government of/by/for the people.

[@TheDarkIllumination]

“Governments, if they endure, always tend increasingly toward aristocratic forms. No government in history has been known to evade this pattern. And as the aristocracy develops government tends more and more to act exclusively in the interests of the ruling class-whether that class be hereditary royalty, oligarchs of financial empires, or entrenched bureaucracy.”-Frank Herbert. I'd like to emphasize the fact no government has ever evaded this pattern. What is going to stop this new form of socialism Wolff promotes from going the same way?

[@limitisillusion7]

The mindset that we can do better, accompanied with the technology to provide abundance of necessities to the world. The problem with the various economic structures in the past have nothing to do with the economic structure. It has to do with fear of scarcity. If you remove the scarcity, then the fear diminishes and people don't feel the need to be greedy. Scarcity is no longer a function of our environment. Scarcity is now a choice. As more people understand this, more people will shoot the mindset of abundance.

[@eila2088]

So social democracy with some teeth, Marxist-Leninism and some form of syndicalism/co-op capitalism. Not only is that missing some giant ones (those spooky anarchists are left out for one) but two of the three are explicitly and openly capitalist

[@wilhelmheinzerling5341]

Nationalize energy & pharmaceuticals

[@IndijanacIzGandijeve]

Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had the third way.Explore and read Edvard Kardelj if you`re intersted in. Can you imagine factory where you can drink beer during the lunch time??? Imagine no more:).We had that in SFRY

[@Seekarr]

Is that not normal outside of European countries? =)

[@IndijanacIzGandijeve]

@@Seekarr I never saw factory where you can buy beer in factorys cafeteria and drink it during the lunch time.Except in former Yugoslavia, country where I was born.

[@Glenintheden]

4th kind of socialism: resource based economy, or RBE. And one of the most important resources, if not most important, is human resources. And I fail to see how the 3rd form would solve the current problem of mass underemployment that fails to leverage the talents of citizens to the benefit of society. An example I like to use is AOC; while tending bar and waiting tables is honest work, it hardly leveraged her talent and abilities. And had the incumbent in her district been more progressive, enough so she decided not to challenge in the primary, I bet AOC would still be schlepping drinks. If presumably her employer wasn't a worker coop but became one while she was there, it would do little to solve problem of her brilliance not being leveraged for the benefit of society. There is also the problem of workers who's talents are being harnessed but their job does little for society; jobs like that of the quants who develop sophisticated mathematical algorithms that tell the high frequency trading machines how and when to trade on the stock market. We need a system that does psychological testing of citizens starting at an early age that shows where their aptitudes lie and steer, but not force, them towards public careers already put in place for the benefit of society; it would be like computerized dating for career roles deemed helpful for civilization. From each according to ability, to each according to need.

[@Glenintheden]

@William Davis , All forms of socialism incorporate some elements of communism. The question then is what delineates one form of socialism from another and how does that affect the categorization of any given form of socialism. I believe in the context of the topic of discussion as framed by Professor Wolff, a RBE can be considered a separate form of socialism, that, yes, incorporates a significant amount of communism in its design.

[@Glenintheden]

@William Davis , Communism just means utilizing communal ownership for the benefit of society. Nothing in the term necessarily advocates or demands banning any private property altogether. All societies have degrees of any given design element whether that is free market capitalism or democracy or communism with a great deal of overlap in any given society. But 'socialism' is just a very generic term for any government program designed to benefit society. Communism, then, is a type of socialism. A RBE wouldn't necessarily be a type a communism, but I believe it would be by default of the fact that communal ownership would be the best way to direct resources as needed.

[@bilaalmanselljones10]

What about ROJAVA

[@abandonedchannel281]

Bilaal MansellJones Ya, should have talked about it. He should make a video on it.

[@liesbethdevries4986]

Now relate this to healthy human beings v disordered human beings. The disordered wear the mask of healthy, underneath they are disordered - they are split from their true selves bc of trauma. I think that healthy, non disordered people should be in charge. They are not hindered by unresolved trauma and can lead the work place, the community, the gouvernment without the underlying motivation of greed which is typical for the disordered. In early societies the disordered were not in the center of society, but were allowed in the margin. In the center the disordered created problems, in the margin they couldn't harm society as a whole. Businesses should start hiring people who can work in the center, who work for the cause of uplifting the work place as a provider for all society. No greed.

[@dalisabe62]

The only way to create workplace socialism, the third kind, is to have work co-op funded by taxpayers’ money, which requires that the first kind of socialism first exists. The other possible but remotely feasible way is to create work co-op funded by workers themselves in the form of partnerships, which requires financially more affluent crowd, but that kind of venture runs the risk of evolving into private capitalism, the kind that typically abuses sweat workers, which would take us back to the zero point!

[@siphillis]

It remains funny to me how Social Democracy exists in this quantum state of definitely being Socialism and absolutely not being Socialism.

[@Selkirk69]

Hmmm...my way would incorporate the framework of the first with the tax structure of the '50s. I would tax businesses at 40% UNLESS they use American workers and American materials at which point the rate would be 28%. Capital Gains would be taxed at the same progressive rate as fed Income taxes with a 7500$ deductible.Health Care, Pharma, Energy, Prisons, Education through Ph.D., and Banking would be Nationalized, nonprofit. The trade deficit would be eliminated as in you import $138 billion from us, we import $ 138 billion from you. This would not take place with countries exporting less than 500 million$ to us such as Kiwis from NZ or opals from Australia. Military contracts would allow a 7.5% profit, validated by rigorous actuaries. The FDA and EPA would be totally strengthened. The internet ( the system ) would be a public utility. Infrastructure repair and green energy facilities would be the top priority as would massive public transportation projects utilizing cleaner modes of transportation. We would have mandatory National Guard service for 4 years starting after graduation from high school..8 weeks boot camp then a weekend a month and 2 weeks refresher once a year. but it would only be used for attacks against American soil AND we would end for-profit regime chance...aka..for oil wars. Unions would be mandatory and CEO to worker pay would be capped at 25:1, not the current 375:1

[@mozearteffect10]

Now....where's Ralph?

[@georgejohnson7265]

#TigerPose

[@SinfulSeraph]

Sabby brought me here.

[@DC-wg1cr]

China has the most cooperativized economy in the world

[@200131356]

So is he for a centrally planned economy?

[@jamesanthony5681]

No.

[@200131356]

@@jamesanthony5681Well then what type of economy is he promoting and proposing then?

[@jamesanthony5681]

@@200131356 I can't speak for Mr. Wolff, but my best guess is one in which the working class has a greater say and share in decision making and how profits are distributed.

[@fdagpigj]

are you implying communists don't want workplace democracy? Wat

[@kevinsmith4866]

2 billion people have been brought out of starvation with capitalism. Even if we wher to reset and give everybody a million pounds, we would be back to squer 1 in no time ,because we are all diffrent some people will spend the money while other will invest and build

[@bowlsallbroken]

Marx considered capitalism a necessary intermediate step. It was better than feudalism and mercantilism but it isn't some perfect end point of history that should (or even could) last forever. It's possible that we could have a post-scarcity society some day and this worship of markets just gets in the way.

[@limitisillusion7]

That's a very narrow view of reality. The recent development of capitalism depended on thousands of years of technological developments. We didn't go from sticks and stones and picking berries to microchips and factory farms. The "success" of capitalism relied on *many* other economic structures, most of which were collectivistic. And despite how much starvation we've managed to solve, we replaced much of it with obesity and the accompanying poor health outcomes. We eat plenty of food, but we still fail to eat healthy.... Plenty of macronutrients, but so few micronutrients. Plenty of carbs, but so little exercise.

[@smuu1996]

Well, markets are effective. So I would simply have democraticly owned and controlled companies that compete against each other. Also, a very strong social safety net(like a universal basic income) and more investment would essentially use both the aggressive growth of capitalism and the stability and safety of socialism.

[@Testing725]

democratic socialist is more my opinion

[@jimmiller7584]

Any leftist intellectual or anyone who even spent 5 minutes on wikipedia would have a headache watching this.

[@Digifan001]

Anarcho left sounds good though.

[@bowlsallbroken]

It's a little basic but necessary. There's a dearth of understanding amoung the general public.

[@Zazz_Blammymatazz]

I prefer Canadian style socialism.

[@abandonedchannel281]

Nick Z Canadian here, we don’t have it. Liberals and Conservatives won’t let it happen

[@aaronaragon7838]

Ignore Fred Bastiat. Just a tRoll following Professor Wolf around. Fred's page is fake, too. Probably a fake name.

[@aleksandarsarovic7388]

It is proved nonsense, which does not work. Yugoslavia had self-management of workers, and it had a million problems and finally brought the disintegration of the country. Socialism is capitalism with equal human rights. It means every worker should be able to have any job. So what if thousands of people would like to have one particular post? The best offer will get it. This is the way to go, and it will solve all of the economic problems of society.

[@dominikvonnabehrznik7952]

Only one solution then. We need to reinvent AI that will regulate without a thirst for profit and name it Global Organization Device

[@thevoiceofthelost]

Or we could just govern from the bottom up instead of the top down...

[@dominikvonnabehrznik7952]

that has been tried but then the bottom becomes the top. Power corrupts and bottom and top is only human

[@ironwall4889]

🏴🚩

[@Hayanomie]

#GoogleAndrewYang

[@kofeesala23]

Currently speaking, it is hard for the third kind to work. A real and working third kind is actually the one being practised by the Chinese. In short, Democracy at Work is still a romantic dream. Prof. Wolff has to face this harsh reality.

[@chuckpatenaude]

One word; Mondragon

[@dinnerwithfranklin2451]

A second word Emilia-Romagna (area of Italy). Okay so a few words

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Sorry, but worker co-ops do work. Better than average, usually.

[@padellina9596]

Two points to that “second” in-between socialism: First, I suspect most employees want a good salary that would sustain their lives and allow for some added comfort, and not be bothered with decision making within the company. Second, democracy in a workplace may be a path to the hell - towards anarchy and muddying the purpose of the company. Democracy is a painfully slow process for achieving goals. No wonder all around the world, democracy in national politics faces attacks from populists, asking for empowerment to speed up the development of their societies. While democracy is (still) preferred or at least tolerable in the society as a whole, with its slow pace and complex electoral outcomes, it would kill the economy of enterprises. There, you need a firm leadership and yes, reward it appropriately.

[@EastBayBlue]

Professor Wolff completely fails to acknowledge that people have different levels of knowledge, experience, and motivation. Some are natural leaders while others are more than satisfied to follow. Some work hard while others are slackers. This is the fundamental and insurmountable failing of Socialism. Capitalism with a social safety net will never be supplanted as the best compromise.

[@johnrubensaragi4125]

Workers can vote these people with leader skills to become CEO/board of directors. If in practice these people didn't represent the workers, the workers can vote them out. If a whole country can do this, why a workplace can't? *It's democracy.*

[@limitisillusion7]

Why do you think some people are lazier than others?

[@jamesanthony5681]

He's a smart man. You don't think he knows that?

[@blue46gt]

The bracelet and watch you're wearing look expensive.

[@maximusstirnimus5210]

And?

[@gelatinocyte6270]

Thanks for complementing him I guess

[@dumont7478]

I don't know what Richard Wolff has been smoking, but the "first" kind of "socialism" he talks about- where the government does stuff- is by no definition, and recognised by no one, as socialist. It is just capitalism. This is how governments have always acted under capitalism. This is what happens in the US, UK, FR, GER, everywhere! Under the best circumstances, this so-called first kind of socialism is social democracy, and not socialism. The second kind, seems like socialism. Government acting on behalf of the proletariat to seize the means of production and plan a centralised economy. The third kind of socialism- I have not seen discussed anywhere. It seems like a movement to create co-ops or collectives, and ignore the national and international responsibilities of good socialists.

[@manuelllaneras]

Dumont good point. The first is still capitalism. The third one is the beginnings of anarchist syndicalism. Too bad that he doesn’t go far enough to explain this kind of Socialism from the Anarchist perspective. That perspective calls for the abolition of capitalism and the state along with all forms of unjustified authoritarian hierarchies.

[@theresajandt2775]

Sir Wolff! I know you may be well meaning and a bleeding heart for Socialism and Communism but it doesn't work and I don't wish to live under Communism or Fascism or Socialism! My parents and grandparents and Great Grandparents lived under Capitalism and after world War two our Country was booming! Now it's becoming a THIRD WORLD COUNTRY! So you may be well -intentioned but based on history your explanation doesn't make sense to me! Here's the simple fact! It doesn't work for the working class, middle class or poor or even upper class or rich! Anywhere there has been Socialism if it's lasted anytime at all you will see an underlying capitalistic system that is supporting that system weather they're stealing money from other countries or weather they are getting money sent back to them from people who live in other countries or like you see with the Soviet Union they had a massive black market cap capitalistic system that was more free than the economy in the United States. You also see this in Cuba you have a black market system that is basically the only thing propping up or the only way people can survive under it. Socialism and Communism only harm the average person and poor the most to extremes of poverty. Just like Bidens new Budget ! Three words describe Bidens new budget. Taxes, Spending, Debt!!! Taxes are HUGE in this! They won't be happy until they separate you from your money! Spending increases which lessons the value of your dollar so your working more for less! That's the reality! When you're bringing home a paycheck and your spending is just out of control! The inflationary Corrosion to your income is measurable, distinct and severe and the third thing here is the mounting Debt that also diminishes everything that your working for and also it puts the banks in a bad position! Why do think the banks are hoarding gold.

[@jamesanthony5681]

Let's be clear: What happened in the former Soviet Union, the USSR, was NOT socialism. The fact that Lenin, Stalin and the other Bolshevik henchman called themselves a socialist republic, doesn't make it so.

[@brain0nfire]

Do you you even have a clue that no one in southern european periferic countries thinks Scandinavian countries or France are socialist. They think these countries are much more liberal economically, beyond the socialist label. People seem to argue from their own relative point of view. But this is getting absurd. Scandinavian countries are very much capitalist, and they do have socialist policies. As it turns out, only capitalist countries can trully become socialist. Because socialism requires money, which you won't have if you didn't have a private enterprise culture previously installed.

[@depro9]

During the Spanish revolution money was abolished. 🤷‍♂️

[@brain0nfire]

@@depro9 i said money but I could easily have said resources.

[@depro9]

@@brain0nfire money is abstract and resources are not, so no, not really the same.

[@brain0nfire]

@@depro9 they both often representative of wealth.

[@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt]

Wow!!! Said nothing about surplus value, you seem defensive about socialism. What kind of "Marxist" are you? There is NOTHING good about capitalism, nothing! This is why I am an Anarchist, No Gods, No Masters, Mutual Aid, Direct Democracy! Capitalism is the crisis!!!