AskProfWolff: Why Free-Trade vs. Protectionism Is Not Our Fight
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2024
- Learn more about Prof Wolff's new book, The Sickness is the System: When Capitalism Fails to Save Us from Pandemics or Itself. Available now!
www.democracyatwork.info/books
Submit your own question to Prof. Wolff on Patreon: / community .
AskProfWolff is a @democracyatwrk production. We are committed to providing these videos to you free of ads. Please consider supporting us on Patreon.com/economicupdate. Become a part of the growing Patreon community and gain access to exclusive patron-only content, along with the ability to ask Prof. Wolff questions like this one! Your support also helps keep this content free to the public. Spreading Prof. Wolff's message is more important than ever. Help us continue to make this possible.
A Patron of Economic Update asks: "The two main positions on this issue are of course protectionism vs free trade, but I am confused because I've heard socialists advocate for both positions. Bernie Sanders has repeatedly condemned free trade deals like NAFTA, citing all the job losses that it created. Naomi Klein has spoken of the success of developmentalism in Latin American countries like Chile decades ago, with policies such as high tariffs, a focus on industrialization, and generous subsidies and social spending to aid growth and keep people afloat. However, on the other hand, I've heard Professor Wolff and other left wing and socialist people condemn economic protectionism because it creates international tensions and can raise prices.My main question is, is there any real consensus on trade on the left? And if so, what is it?"
Follow Wolff ONLINE:
Web: www.rdwolff.com
Patreon: / economicupdate
Twitter: / profwolff
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Subscribe to the EU podcast: economicupdate....
Shop for EU merchandise: democracy-at-w...
Working class "has no dog" in capitalist fight. We have to deal with root problem - capitalism itself.
Actually the working man has his very livelihood at stake!
@@daniel8728 No, it does not. No matter how you support domestic capitalist, he will sell you off at first opportune moment. You have to fight against both. How? Survive, read Marxist literature and be ready. In the States, you guys, can arm yourself to the teeth, second amendment.
SovetUnion63 you too miss my point. First and foremost a nation must do what’s best for it’s own people. If yesterday it was Capitalism, but tomorrow it should be Socialism, so be it. No matter what, a concept, system, plan, or theory must come after the needs of the people. So in this scenario, protect the immediate needs of the American workers, while planning the changes necessary for long-term interests.
@@daniel8728 I do not understand what you mean, when you said " a nation must do what’s best for it’s own people". It is a very slippery slope. It might be considered as nationalism., but communists are Internationalists. NO matter how dire was situation in USSR, we always helped out comrades around the World. Only when we began think like you, when USSR collapse.
SovetUnion63 may be that’s why it failed? I don’t think a nation must give up it’s national sovereignty to become Socialist. We need not take all from others who failed. Only the good things
From Marx's essay on Free Trade: "If the free-traders cannot understand how one nation can grow rich at the expense of another, we need not wonder, since these same gentlemen also refuse to understand how within one country one class can enrich itself at the expense of another." Some people say Marx supported Free Trade in his speech but they evidently never read it. He only says he prefers free trade over protectionism because the free trade will show the hypocrisy and failures of capitalism quicker.
a clearly accelerationist stance then actually
@zeppo shemp the most influentual coherent political philospophy can't be irrelevant, no matter how opposed you are to it. and it's not a dead end, on the contrary, mainstream economics have proven to be tautological
It could be of some help if you would just care to check your beliefs. The "real" norvegian Nobel prizes are of disputable fame and value. The so called "nobel" economics prize is a fake: Sweden corporate heads and bankers give it to academics or others in their taste, not on your behalf for progress.
@Asskhole Snarkerson Well my take on fairness and Capitalism is that it can only be fair if we are all entrepreneurs. Just start studying the tax code and you will realize were not on an level playing field. Not even amongst entrepreneurs, let alone private citizen's. Why should large corporations have more tax credits available to them then smaller corporations? Bottom line is the capitalist's would freak if we all worked for ourselves. You see they hate the idea of fair competition. I think most marxist's believe that capitalists would not be able to compete on an level playing field. I suspect they are correct but the arguement is academic I think. I don't see where you get the required capital to convert most large corporations into worker co ops.
@Asskhole Snarkerson If you bother to read what I wrote you WILL Quickly realise that I never said anything about government other then that maybe it's not in the interest of society to tax large corporations at an larger rate then smaller ones.
Some domestic capitalists use protectionism to strengthen themselves, and after they are strong enough, they support imperialism and subsequently free trade.
Sheer opportunism. Like a guy that votes for the socialist party as long as he's poor, and votes for neo-liberals when he became wealthy. : )
I've been studying economics and the idea that protectionism protects domestic national bourgeois while free trade helps international bourgeois means as long as capitalism exists we don't need to say a world. Personally under socialism I think we would have free trade as exploitation would be done away with.
What about the effects of free trade on unions and wages?
"Free" for the capitalists. Never for labor
Good question. My quick take is the only reasonfree tarde hurts those who work is precisely because of the employer / employee division in the workplace
Noh Buddy sometimes free trade does involve labor moving over borders. This is also terrible for wages.
Nicolas Martin oh okay let’s just end capitalism real quick then 🙄 yeah, obviously. But free trade and open borders are still terrible for unions and wages. Many socialists are afraid to speak about this.
@@sgtpepper138 Agreed we can do better than capitalism with unions and coops. And socialists and labor activists are often the ones warning in a rationnal & calm way about the effects of free trade, delocalisation and immigration on the balance of power between employers & employees
Our fight should be for FREEDOM and NOT for government of either monopolizer of violence. We should be free to trade, free to choose, free to buy and free to sell.
Theoretically, could free trade vs protectionism still be a thing in some conceivable socialistic economies?
I believe it totally would. We need to write him for a more satisfactory answer.
Socialist economies would have equalized, homogenized working and social conditions and wages. Free trade in such an environment wouldn’t be for profit but for increasing efficiency at making societal progress. Like in a family or community or nation where ones are skilled/experienced in baking bread and pastries, while others are better at growing the crops or produce construction materials etc.
Think Soviet Union during the 70s aftrr Stalin's death.
@@kulturfreund6631 But wouldnt that entail that all raw materials and products be produced domestically? So if a cooperative that produces lithium batteries, and all revenue goes to the workers, needs raw materials, they'd have to get the lithium from home or from foreign sources. Does that mean buying the lithium from foreign sources would be forbidden? (That would be protectionism). What if there was a source of lithium domestically but the workers could get it cheaper from abroad, would they be prohibited from doing so?
It just seems to me that if all you're doing is changing who the owners of an enterprise are (from capitalist owned to worker owned), you're just changing the group of ownership but would still face policy decisions of protectionism vs free trade. I could be totally wrong, but just curious.
You could be right that natural resources of raw materials in one country are more abundant/ easier to explore than in an other and therefore be cheaper, or think about countries that have nothing of a of certain ores, oil, timber, fertile soil etc. - That would in fact be problematic even between socialist countries, but I think there would be some regulations and agreements possible to settle a just distribution, like within one country richer states and counties pay more to the national budget to aid other less prosperous regions.
Natural resources anyway aren’t man made and shouldn’t be claimed as a commodity belonging exclusively to a particular person or group of people, including companies, corporations or other bodies like states or nations.
Silvio Gesell was a self-taught economist and theorist who is said having developed a way between capitalism and communism. One of his postulates was that people are different, including more diligent than others and therefore shouldn’t obliged to have the same income than everybody else.
Therefore he said that everything one builds or grows on a land property should belong to the one who produced it, yet not the land itself. The land should belong to the community and be leasehold.
Also an interesting idea to help mitigate the wealth inequality I think.
Protectionism isn't only a fight between two set of capitalists. It's also the industrial knowhow of a country and it's about whether it's sustainable socially and ecologically that local jobs are moved to developing countries.
Thank YOU ProfWolff
When thinking about how trade could be organized among a league of socialist countries, the only reasonable mechanism that comes to mind would be something along the lines of Keynes‘ international clearing union or the more modern Flassbeck/Bofinger approach or what Varoufakis says.
I don’t think Wolff is evading the question at all. We are living under capitalism, so the question “should the left support free trade or protectionism” is being asked in the context of capitalism unless stated otherwise. In this context, Wolff is right: it’s a lose-lose situation for the working class. I’d also be interested in a video about free trade vs protectionism in a socialist context, but that’s a different (if related) topic.
Interesting question! I think many would want to have an even more elaborate answer on how trade would look like in the socialist system you envisage. Some practical examples (applying the new socialist system you suggest) to support the claim that protectionism vs free trade is less relevant. It seems to me that the lack of trade was a significant challenge for the USSR. Though it still seems that a largely planned economy can tackle the issue with free trade vs protectionism better, than to maintain markets, but with worker co-ops. I'd be very happy to hear arguments against. Thanks for this video!
Socialist Eastern Europe had one very hard burden that kept its living standard below the developed western countries, and that was the aftermath of Worldwar II, which killed and paralyzed by far more people and devastated more of the land and infrastructure there, than in Western Europe, left alone the US.
Connected to this issue was that socialist East Germany (the GDR) had to compensate and pay reparations for the destructions caused by Germany as a whole, while West Germany (FRG) had a somewhat smoother treatment from western allies, which was very advantageous for a new start. Apart from that Western Germany received many hundred thousands of refugees/migrants from Eastern Germany. Entrepreneurs, Academics, Engineers, skilled workers which helped to boost their economy, while the East lacked them and began to bleed out. ...In order to stop the drain and syphoning of the workforce in 1961 the so called iron curtain and the Berlin Wall were built.
There are other very important facts of injustice which distorted the competition to the benefit of West Germany, like the retransferation of Nazi-Gold from Argentina in the 1950s or the Marshall-plan credits. Nothing of all that came to reach the GDR.
The reason why western workers and employees had a better living standard during the time of the cold war was the fear of western capitalists that their workers could fraternize with the East and adopt socialist ideas. Therefore western workers were treated with more care and respect and received more benefits than nowadays in order to demonstrate that capitalism works much better for them and thus to discredit socialism. Since the USSR is gone this looming structural threat to western capitalists vanished and it’s exactly since then that they‘ve been kicking their workers‘ butt again.
@@kulturfreund6631 Thanks for the detailed, but efficiently summarized reply! What you write is very consistent with the (little) I know, and have experienced myself. It was interesting to learn more about the challenges of DDR, and I must admit that the movie "Goodbye Lenin" is what has mainly formed my image of that country.
What I wanted to say with my previous post, is that Prof. Wolff is probably right about that we could build a socialist economic system where the protectionism/free trade is not an issue. One could even imagine a world where nation states cease to exist and all of the global economy work in great unison, not to produce profit, but to achieve better and sustainable living conditions for people. But in reality, these socialist societies would face the challenges, which you mentioned, that previous socialist states did. Which is why It'd be interesting to hear how Prof. Wolff would tackle the challenge of protectionism and free trade. DDR The former socialist states implemented a "reverse type protectionism" to face the challenges you mentioned, while other parts of the world, instead excluded socialist states as trade partners, which hindered their economic development. Of course there were also other, complex factors that both hindered and stimulated economic development in the socialist states, but this topic is of course enormous.
There were prolonged periods when the USSR was isolated from world trade by western powers. In such conditions, normal markets cannot operate. This was one of the reasons overall economic plans became necessary - they had to rely on their own resources.
Though of course capitalist markets were not an answer to Russia's economic problems, but in large part the cause of them.
Thanks for clarifying that, Prof. Wolff.
I always thought it a somewhat strange question on the political compass test and didn't like how I could only choose between free trade or protectionism. I chose free trade because I reflected back on Donald Trump's protectionist policies against China and how it led to everyone paying more for goods overall.
One problem with free trade is that the deals we make with other countries don't actually give free trade. The U.S. gets the worst end of the deal. One thousand pages or more to write a free trade agreement lets us know the agreement contains more than a simple free trade agreement which should be a one page agreement.
Totally ignored how workers are impacted overseas dissatisfing
There are no workers when everyone is an owner.
@@jasonxwillby271 wouldn't everyone still be a worker too
@@conorbuttimer6243 do you mean the poor treatment of workers overseas? If so the general consensus is that there is no ethical consumption under capitalism. The only way we can reduce this is stop letting capitalists ship jobs over seas, the simplest way to do this is to have primarily worker co-ops, as workers won't ship their own jobs over seas. This would reduce the exploitation of those foreign workers albeit not completely.
@@martinfoley1905 exactly the opposite actually workers overseas are much better off in sweatshops than substance farming lax labor laws and natural resources are often thier only comparative advantages economically the fastest and most environmentally friendly way to develop poor countries and lift people out of destitution globally is via free trade arising from market structures.
@@conorbuttimer6243 nobody is being lifted out of poverty by working in sweatshops, the sad truth is that people in working in Chinese sweatshops will have to eventually fight their oppressive government. We can't to much to help this.
In a truly democratic system, power is as evenly distributed as possible. Centralization is the basis of Authoritarianism, regardless of the economic system. Therefore, decisions on trade in a democratic system would be made at the local level, for the most part, and on a larger scale only for specific purposes, as agreed upon by the participants in those larger scale projects.
So were actually existing communist countries protectionist or free-traders? Why not Fair trade? Some sort of compromise. Dr Wolff is just evading the question. Socialist countries will still need to either trade or be protectionist. Its not only goods that are traded globally, but also money, capital, education, and labor.
Yes, we should write him and ask him for more details here, because I believe that it's a rather important issue.
I guess the guideline would be that you shouldn't trade with exploiters, same as now you shouldn't trade with war criminals, or for blood diamonds. The condition is not economics, but ideology., because trading reinforces behaviours both on the production and consumption of goods.
I wrote a comment on this question just in the thread above, in case you like to read it.
Under global capitalism, most international trade has biased exchange rates of use value vs. exchange value vs. actual price in different places around the world due the economic hegemony of major capitalist states. Trade between socialist states should in theory be based on the fair exchange of social necessary labor time spent on the goods and services, multiplied by a mutually agreed coefficient adjusting the technological advantage, which should eliminate the problem of protectionism and over accumulation of capital while helping the less developed regions. However, in practice this was never achieved among the socialist states in history, for example, within the Comecon founded by the USSR.
In reality, communist countries were isolated from world trade by sanctions, embargoes, the whole range of things still being used today against enemy countries. They do not present a fair comparison for that reason. But, I would say that obviously socialist countries would operate fair and cooperative trade systems.
Capitalism is hurting the majority of us. It is now time to reflect on a change for our future.
We are not free to trade with Cuba. We were not free to trade with the USSR during the cold war. Funny how politics dictated whom we were free to trade with.
Free trade push the salaries down. That is a fact. International competition among countries for a trade surplus push salaries down under the argument of the need to increase competitiveness, especially in undeveloped countries. Neoliberalism (free market capitalism) is terrible for the working class, especially the working class of undeveloped countries.
The working class are both producers and consumers. This means that the exchange become mutual to both parties (countries). The issue is, yes, shifting industry's since they cause unemployment but also employment to rise at the same time. Restricting trade is coercive, authoritative and self serving as no one but the protected entity benefits. This is a scheme for crony capitalism.
Good explanation Prof Wolff....I learn something today...
How will worker co ops improve this situation? Wouldn't there still be problems with free trade or perfectionism as you still have local businesses and trade?
You've conflated free trade with monopoly. Perfectionism is part of our nature, it's not a problem until it's given excessive power.
@@jasonxwillby271 I meant protectionism, sorry.
What makes you think I conflated free trade with monopoly?
@Alexa M Germany also has other things, like a more democratic electoral system through proportional representation, as well as greater worker rights and a stronger safety net (including free higher education and public health care). Co-ops are only one reason why Germans have a higher standard of living than most Americans.
There are always losers and winners in free trade. But undoubtedly, it's the global economy that benefits. Protectionism should only be used as a short term solution to smoothe out the negative effects
I am not sure this analysis is complete without considering if the trade is balanced or is only occurring through the act of continuous increase in debt. If the later you potentially have an issue of long term instability vs short term profit.
No point in protecting a market from foreign competition if the market is exploiting our work either way.
RIGHT!!!
In a socialist system wouldn't protectionism be better for worker co-ops?
Yes
The workers should decide together on this issue and maybe try and lobby their choices to politicians. Though I can't imagine them going against protectionism since it directly affects their pay. And relocating (home+work) abroad to sell their labor for even lower prices makes no sense whatsoever.
Worker co-ops would be exporting trade goods and not jobs, and importing raw materials as needed.
Not very true for the peripheral countries. The peripheral economies usually stand no chance in competition with imperialists. Corporate organisations like IMF enforce free trade policies in third world countries in order to exploit them. Marx was talking about trade between France and Germany, you are talking about trade between US and China, while I'm talking about trade between US and Bolivia or between France and Algeria. If we want to make life better right now, this is an important thing to consider because free trade KILLS developing countries.
Marx was not really arguing that free trade was better, just that it was more naked and would make capitalist exploitation more obvious to workers. I think there's some truth in that when we think about the post-war protectionist societies, which were stable and more equal, compared with today's widespread turbulence and discontent.
Imported goods should face the same level of taxation and regulation as locally produced product. This includes allowances for the same minimum wage (should the imported product pay a lessor minimum wage, it should be taxed to make up the difference), environmental controls, local state and federal fees and charges, to local and imported compete upon the same basis. Also all taxes should be paid at point of revenue, all companies offshore costs claims, should have the profit on those costs, paid at the source of revenue, the point of revenue generating the needed infrastructure and socio-economic structure needed to make that revenue profit. No shifting of profits should be allowed, all profits on the product, including those profits on imported elements, should be taxed locally.
Inability to substantiate foreign costs and profits, should result in that cost being ignored and fully taxed at the point of revenue, they must prove it with their foreign tax returns, failure, they lose the tax deductibility of that cost.
How do you do this so that poor countries don’t get hit with the brunt of this?
I think the problem with this argument completely ignores the effects "free trade" neoimperialism has on developing countries. It's a very domestic and Global North focused response.
We need tariffs on all imports with a supply chain that disrespects labor rights, environmental safety, and does not pay a living wage + overtime.
In short... "A plague on both your houses."
I think it all depends. Third world countries doing it to protect their industries and gain economic independence from developed nations is all fine.
Not so much for the US or UK etc. Tariffs are just a regressive tax that hurt the poor, not to mention the threat of retaliation.
Then there's also local protectionism, which I also approve of i.e. the Cleveland model: where local authorities and anchor institutions procure locally, especially from co-ops, instead of out of town. If helps develop the area, especially if it suffered from capital flight previously.
No it is not. Protectionism in small countries is even worse! This way people can't EVER afford quality imported goods (tech, medicine, etc) and are forced to literally eat sh*t & DIE!
Mr. Wolff explained everything right - this is a fight between two hyennas and we are a piece of meat - sheep they are fighting over!
@@Grafomanokrasto How about de-linking?
www.zedbooks.net/shop/book/delinking/
@@Grafomanokrasto No small countries need it to some extent or else they will just get flooded with better goods from developed states, not allowing for local industries to grow
@@avinashreji60 and ? At the end of the day, who gives a fck about local industries? Only local capitalists, 99.9% of people won't ever see any profits of it.
It would be interesting to hear where Prof. Wolff would stand on Tariffs if A capitalist market was maintained with the overwhelming majority of production coming from worker owned Co-Ops. I'd think atariffs would be needed unless a simultaneous global standard for a living wage, benefits,sfety and emissions standards were required for all businesses importing their goods to the U.S.A. or they'd be undercut by companies paying lower wages and having less overhead due to lack of regulations even if they were foreign Co-Ops doing the importing .
Professor Wolff, assuming we can move beyond capitalism and reach the goal of socialistically run enterprises in each country, wont there still be identical responses by these companies, to competition coming from abroad? An enterprise in one location will not want to be undercut by like enterprises elsewhere. Ownership and control may change hands, but the fundamental problem of competitiveness remains.
Yes, I have the same question. Trade is a separate topic with respect to the organization of production. He has made this distinction in the past, so I am not sure why he's being so cryptical here.
That's an interesting question. But a lot would depend on the nature of the government itself and how it deals with competition between enterprises. Just because you convert to a co-op system (in whole or in part) doesn't mean you can dispense with government. And how much authority will any such government have? And what will be the scope of its authority ---- will it be national, state-wide, or local (or some combination of the three)? All these issues will have to be dealt with at some point.
That's still capitalist thinking. We don't need to operate in profit-orientated markets. It would be crazy to plan a system of coops and then simply have them operate capitalistically. There may be sectors that can operate in that way, but there would have to be overall democratic control of the economy or it would not be socialism.
Makes obvious sense really.
I have no problem with capitalism. I do have a problem with unrestrained capitalism.
But surely, free trade vs protectionism would still be an issue in an economy where all businesses were workers' coops. Surely, the issue goes beyond capitalism into questions of empire, nation states and all the rules made by the powerful that preserve our power as we extract wealth from weaker nations.
Should developing countries increase trade protectionism?
Thank you for illuminating Marx's Free Trade argument, Professor! Admirably lucid.
Wolf showed that he puts the concept of promoting Marxism and attacking Capitalism above the question of what is better for the American people.
Defeating Capitalism is best for the American people.
Matt Erbst the short term and long term survival of the American people come before a system, theory, concept, or construct like Capitalism or Socialism. The people must always come first
Well in this day and age capitalism ain't doing so well.
you are brainwashed idiot. anybody arguing for capitalism is either greedy or completely stupid. those are the only two choices I'm guessing that you fall into the latter category. 😜
intuitionz a personal attack is the last resort of a man without a valid argument, and the first resort of an idiot🤓
Free trade destroys the tariff system. Mr wolf. America was in much better shape regulating imports through Tariffs. Look at the 50s and 60s we had tariffs that funded the federal government.
Tariffs don't fund the federal government because the U.S. has a sovereign currency. At the federal level, the U.S. can generate all the funding that it needs. It's only at the state level that monetary limits exist.
You sound like a modern Neoliberal or republican. Back in the 50s and 60s we had a strong manufacturing sector and exported our products around the world which created a strong Middleclass. We also protected our Labor force w stiff fines on employers hiring undocumented workers from Mexico And we had Tariffs which helped fund the USFederal Government. Fast forward to 2020. No stiff fines on employers hiring undocumented workers from Mexico, No Fair Tariffs on imports to protectect our Labor Force. All Gone! Just a Fascist shithole of a country. Thanks republicans and neoliberals.
But it was the right-wing that tore down tariff barriers and destroyed capital controls. And they did it because by the end of the period profit rates were falling and the relative wealth of the richest was slowly disappearing as opportunities to invest shrank.
Are you aware that Yugoslavia - of all socialist countries the one which came closest to worker self directed enterprises - was ripped apart by that very question? Pretending that this is just a fight among capitalists is multiple levels short of a good analysis
just when you think you have it figured out, Prof Wolff comes with some good good Marx wisdom
Wisdom is knowing Marxism does not work.
For the most part. Those who watch and listen to this channel will get it. But unfortunately the people who watch here, are litimted in numbers. And those who buy into the scam. Are the ones who get the support from the government. I a very limited way, but enough on the face to keep them in support of capitalism.
Great exposure as usual prof!
If the economists finances are working for gv understanding exactly what they do then they will be able to to getting. If import prices go up and export send down then they will find a way. Logic professionals are very poor.
So Marx was too much of a coward to take on this issue that would still exist in a socialist nation
Left wing? Is right wing. Trump was the most protectionist president the US had.
I always love his videos, but isn't he dodging the question here ?
Even if you go beyond capitalism and achieve a democratization of the workforce, you'll still have to determine what you're going to do with what you produce, and thus whether you want to favor export or not.
It seems to me that it's a legitimate question to ask no matter what the economic system is.
I dont think prices would differ that much between 2 socialist countries for that to be a problem
If you're surrounded by people who need your product, there is no doubt. If your product is not a necessity and sells more abroad, again there is no doubt. Where is your doubt?
Good call bro. Socialist countries will still need to either trade or be protectionist. Its not only goods that are traded globally, but also money, capital, education, and labor. Were actually existing communist countries protectionist or free-traders? Why not Fair trade? Some sort of compromise. Dr Wolff is just evading the question. Sometimes I imagine Wolff having an evil laugh after he posts a video saying "ha ha I got those suckers."
@@jasonxwillby271 I can imagine a situation in which even among socialist countries you can have a country producing at cheaper costs with respect to another one, so I don't really see why Wolff considers the issue of free-trade/protectionist as something intrinsically connected with capitalism.
Suppose you only have coops. Well, even in that case, a foreign coop might end up being competitive with respect to the coops of your home country. Then you'll have to discuss free-trade anyway.
We can look at history and see how trade has been conducted between socialist countries. I'm no expert, but I'm sure it was not done on a basis of profit-seeking commodity exchange. It would have been done as part of both countries economic plans.
Thanks for another interesting video Professor.
Sound like two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for dinner.
Marx describes the world nicely, but does not give the (right) solution.
What is the right solution? What are the problems that need solving?
Marx says that the means of production should be owned in common. What's wrong with that?
Im hopping workers were listening. Very good explanation.
I knew that's what you were going to say Wolf.
Greetings members of the Wolff cult.....
"The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable.
"
"Under capitalism, man exploits man; while under socialism just the reverse is true.
"
"Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists."
"The great dialectic in our time is not, as anciently and by some still supposed, between capital and labor; it is between economic enterprise and the state.
"
"It has been the acknowledged right of every Marxist scholar to read into Marx the particular meaning that he himself prefers and to treat all others with indignation.
"
“The problem is not economics; it goes back to a far deeper part of human nature. As people become fortunate in their personal well-being, and as countries become similarly fortunate, there is a common tendency to ignore the poor. Or to develop some rationalization for the good fortune of the fortunate. Responsibility is assigned to the poor themselves. Given their personal disposition and moral tone, they are meant to be poor. Poverty is both inevitable and in some measure deserved. The fortunate individuals and fortunate countries enjoy their well-being without the burden of conscience, without a troublesome sense of responsibility.”
"One of my greatest pleasures in writing has come from the thought that perhaps my work might annoy someone of comfortably pretentious position. Then comes the saddening realization that such people rarely read."
All of the above....John K. Galbraith
Shareholder Capitalism’s Ugly Legacy
Posted on September 29, 2020 by Yves Smith
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/09/shareholder-capitalisms-ugly-legacy.html
Interesting, corporations aren't even made for profit, they are much more similar to socialist organizations than capitalist ones.
@@grimreaper492 as noted in the article.....
Why do so many corporate boards treat the shareholder value theory as gospel? Aside from the power of ideology and constant repetition in the business press, Pearlstein, drawing on the research of Cornell law professor Lynn Stout, describes how a key decision has been widely misapplied:
Let’s start with the history. The earliest corporations, in fact, were generally chartered not for private but for public purposes, such as building canals or transit systems. Well into the 1960s, corporations were broadly viewed as owing something in return to the community that provided them with special legal protections and the economic ecosystem in which they could grow and thrive.
Legally, no statutes require that companies be run to maximize profits or share prices. In most states, corporations can be formed for any lawful purpose. Lynn Stout, a Cornell law professor, has been looking for years for a corporate charter that even mentions maximizing profits or share price. So far, she hasn’t found one. Companies that put shareholders at the top of their hierarchy do so by choice, Stout writes, not by law…
For many years, much of the jurisprudence coming out of the Delaware courts-where most big corporations have their legal home-was based around the “business judgment” rule, which held that corporate directors have wide discretion in determining a firm’s goals and strategies, even if their decisions reduce profits or share prices. But in 1986, the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled that directors of the cosmetics company Revlon had to put the interests of shareholders first and accept the highest price offered for the company. As Lynn Stout has written, and the Delaware courts subsequently confirmed, the decision was a narrowly drawn exception to the business-judgment rule that only applies once a company has decided to put itself up for sale. But it has been widely-and mistakenly-used ever since as a legal rationale for the primacy of shareholder interests and the legitimacy of share-price maximization.
What kind of nonsense is this? Let me explain economics with the help of Marx.
Dear Richard, with all due respect, your recent video featuring a vegan activist was utter drivel.
Don’t get sucked in
Declaring your contempt for unity is not drivel? Oh the irony!
Leftwing politics is about fighting systematic oppression. The commodified treatment of animals is nothing short of systemized torture.
Animals deserve positive rights, they are conscious beings with emotions & often do suffer needlessly.
So are bugs and plants. You have to draw a line somewhere. Im not saying were, but at some point you have to decide which lifeforms are acceptable to kill
@Christopher Stanley if you can be sure you're you're causing unneccesary suffering, dont do it. Plants may or may not feel pain, we may never tell. A cow? Yes, a cow feels pain, thats pretty clear from behavioral response to a punch in the throat.
Also, less plants die if we eat them rather than feed em to animals so either way eat plants.
This is so basic.