“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” JK Galbraith
When people get it out of their heads that we exist to become rich and lord it over everyone else, then we will be able to progress. The goal of existence should be to enjoy life and pursue knowledge, to discover why we exist in the universe, but, instead, we waste our lives and resources competing with each other in senseless, endless wars based on greed. The human race must get over its sheep-like subservience of blindly following the lead of pathological psychopaths or we will destroy ourselves.
Competition has nothing to do with anything. Unless you're talking about running, or some other physical feat that has no use outside of the Olympics for the viewing pleasure of the masses. Who was Tesla competing with when he gave us just about all the technology that our present world lives on?
Jay Johansson you sound dumb...lack of competition creates laziness. Lack of competition creates a destruction of society. Socialism has always led to chaos and a total obliteration of the economy, resulting in a country totally in the hole with everyone living in poverty. Ever hear of Capitalism, buddy? Capitalism IS competition by definition. You seem confused..there will always be individuals with motives to pursue great things however, as a society with too much comfort by the government, it just does not work that way.
That Guy A good analogy with capitalism is the game of Monopoly. What happens in Monopoly is that someone always winds up with all the property and all the money. That's the end result of capitalism, or any system of wealth accumulation: an oligarchy controlling all the means of production. Competition is stifled and society regresses into a feudal-like system of government. Today, inherited wealth has given a small number of mega-wealthy families, sixty two, more wealth than half the world's population The trend gets worse with each passing year. www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined
This week in the UK, The news has reported: Average wages have increased and weve grown at 0.5% The recovery continues. Translation: The top bit got richer, the rest didnt. what used to be called devine right by kings and lords is now called trickle down economics and is in full swing. There is no recovery without maintaining the status quo. I am 33, recently unemployed, bright. With no future and fading hope. Born to a hardworking poor mother and father who will die with nothing, having done nothing because they could do nothing but work to pay their debts. Only to be followed by their son, who will have been forced to do the same and earn even less. This economic system doesn't need fixing. It needs burning to the ground.
Kelly Pratt "Concise", "clear", and "Balanced" in the sense that he left out the extremely damning aspects of socialism that honest economists have proven for about a century now; in the sense that he confuses what capitalism actually is, and certainly clear about how in love with coercion and statism he is; in the sense that he clearly doesn't understand the arguments against socialism, evidently to the point where he couldn't even honestly discuss them at all. This man is either completely ignorant, or has quite the agenda to fulfill.
MrLibertyFighter Public roads, Public Police, Public Fire Department, Public Parks, Public Libraries, and The Census Bureau use coercion and statism? What arguments against socialism are you referring to?
I have to say, GRITtv is really one *hell* of an intellectual channel. Far more informative and down to earth than the traditional mainstream media and its journalism. Keep up the great work.
The economic history of the United States: 1670-1775 popular capitalism; 1776-1912 central bank-robber baron industrialism; 1913-62 Federal reserve banker technocratic oligarchy; 1963-2007 plutocratic corporatism; 2008- kleptocratic neo-feudalism
Bigbadd Woofe watch this video on YT- 'Gary Null with Chris Hedges, May 6 2015' Gary tells the truth about your savior Bernie starting at about 20 minutes in. But you should watch the whole thing. 58 mins.
FAT MOON INFREQUENT Hit a nerve huh ??? Did you watch the video ??? Pure truth, isn't it great ??? Did you vote for Obumer ??? ' Change you can believe in'...Yea...He gave us the NDAA... So you are going to vote for another Liberal Democrat communist who supports the zionist genocidal terrorists ???
dan12959 McCain, Hilary or Romney would have followed the same policies. The NDAA had the support of conservatives and the corporate state. As Hedges has stated, those who get elected are little more than marionettes. The DEEP STATE runs the show.
FDR saved capitalism, but it was not apparent for years after the Great Depression because that economic disaster wounded America so deeply. WW2 got Americans working frantically producing arms & ammo, the impetus to kick-start us from our doldrums of depression. Post-war America was an era that enabled capitalism to flourish while retaining many social programs and gaining new-found affluence & prosperity for the working class. Income taxes from the rich were much higher than today, and America was still building its infrastructure with tax money, first-rate public services for rich and poor. I'm old enough to remember that era well from Truman's presidency & afterwards. That was truly a better time to be an average American. What we had then was a Social Democracy! Eisenhower, a *Republican*, presided over a Social Democracy! It worked then, it can work again! Bernie Sanders remembers too!
SIMKINETICS And even before WWII it was making a difference when he implemented various work projects. Specifically, my great grandparents and grandma and great aunts and uncles were living in a shack in Idaho during the late 20's and early 30's until FDR started various works projects which introduced a cement plant in their small town where my great grand father was able to get a much better paying unionized job and he immediately built a modern house complete with electricity, sewer, water works, heating, insulation, etc. Was it not for the various social compacts of FDR such as legalizing collective bargaining, Keynesian economics by introducing works programs which added electrical power by building dams, roads, ports, water works, electrical distribution, etc. our history as a country would have lost its democratic government becoming autocratic with an economy of either communistic or fascistic qualities. A terrible state of affairs. And most would have been worse off. Socialism implies democracy as well as collective and private markets. Socialism is a mixed market structure that meets the complexities of reality to optimize liberty, advances technology, and increase standards of living by ensuring such productivity gains from technology are optimally distributed among everyone in society. Where this individualistic obsession comes from is primarily nut job libertarian writings from Ayn Rand and followed by nit wits like Milton Friedman who unfortunately was accredited with In Memory of Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on consumer propensity to spend models which have since been discredited and revamped because his model was wrong, Paul Volcker, Allen Greenspan, and several other people who came to power in some form or another. The individualism attempts to tell people to be more self interested, as if that's something someone needs to be told, to be more selfish as we're inherently so. The entire libertarian individualism ideology is utterly ridiculous, and only obviously leads to tyrannical autocracy no matter the economic structure.
jmitterii2 Well written & poignant! It appears that you've seen through the smoke quite clearly. This libertarian trend has been presented as somehow projected from personal liberties to corporate liberties and a flat tax! What the evil spawn of a John Birch Society founder, the Koch brothers, are selling is ideology that only serves their class of billionaire kleptocrats & their lackeys at the expense of everybody else! The Kochs hijacked the Tea Party and more. Their brand of laissez faire means 'less fair'! As for Austrian School or the Chicago boys versus Keynes, there's a decided advantage to emphasizing infrastructure building when the economy slows to a crawl. Milton Friedman and company should be seen as business economists who seem naive about social dynamics & economics for workers. I see a great need to push the nebulous & often dated study of economics much more into the realm of science with maximum transparency. So far, economics seems more like a black art. Thanks for your insights!
SIMKINETICS We can all thank Nixon and the Republicans that have followed in power for the demise of this country. They're doing nothing but dismantling any safety net for the average american by reducing taxes on the rich, thereby choking money out of programs leaving them defunct and belly up. I want my tax dollars to work for EVERYONE'S benefit that has a need. Not for well to do individuals, corporations and more loans for professional sports team stadiums. Let these rich cocksuckers risk their own money for a change.
***** The question might arise whether capitalism was worth saving, or even a matter of what capitalism actually is or was. Should we consider monopolies as the inevitable result of capitalism? Should we consider the functions of the Fed to be capitalistic in nature? Is price-fixing really capitalistic? My main contention is that FDR was mistakenly considered anti-capitalist. I'd also assert that pure (libertarian) capitalism is unsustainable, and that FDR found ways to accommodate it in a hybridized form. Today, what we have is hardly capitalism in the sense articulated by Adam Smith.
It is a dangerous thing when a populace is not educated about the issues and given freedom and ammunition to think critically but are instead guided by taboos.
Yep, and you can see it all over this comment page still.. even on videos explaining socialism, that'show bad it is.. these people are like flat-earthers, afraid to progress..
My past experience of American tv unfortunately means I'm anxiously awaiting Bill O'Reilly to suddenly burst in shouting and smiling inanely as he tells everyone to shut up.
GRITtv Capitalist or Socialist its the same BANKERS that OWN the WORLD! THE ONE THING THEY HATE (THAT STANDS IN THERE WAY IS AMERICA) are CONSTITUTION!! THE NEW WORLD ORDER! IS AFRAID OF ARE GUNS?
***** Your right I did make a mistake "are" should be"our" but you missed my point,and your statement about warheads is really fucking stupid! There is a New World Order and its coming for you, I hope you have a bunch of kids and grandkidsl They will need slaves!!
If you use aggression to make profit you benefit yourself by harming others. You don't create wealth. You simply take it from someone else. But if you use mutually voluntary exchange to make profit you benefit yourself by benefiting others. Mutually voluntary exchange includes gift giving and trade. Both participants gain something they value more than the thing they voluntarily gave up. A charitable donor values the satisfaction he or she feels from making a positive impact on the lives of others, more than the money or time he or she invested. Voluntary customers value the things they buy more than the money they spend. Voluntary product and service providers value the money they make more than the products and services they offer in exchange. In this way a mutually voluntary exchange (in the absence of aggression) creates wealth by improving the lives of both participants. In other words both participants "profit" without harming anyone. In fact, the more they help others, and serve the needs of others effectively, the more market share they achieve, and consequently the more profit they make. This is not the magical hand of Adam Smith. It's the nature of mutually voluntary interactions. It's the nature of a culture that no longer tolerates aggression. Profit is not the root of all evil. Aggression is. (I mean "evil" not in the religious sense, but to mean something that needlessly increases human suffering) And no organization commits more aggression than government. If a socialist community was completely voluntary, it would qualify as a mutually voluntary exchange. But if a socialist community forces people to participate, then it's just another system based on aggression.
Dan Shielding Beautiful post! I would only add that "The Invisible Hand" is exactly what your post describes: how the market functions (and thrives) based on voluntary interactions between millions of individual actors, each doing what is in their own self-interests to do -- something which no planner or group of planners could ever possibly dream of doing.
Dan Shielding What would the outcome be if in extreme situations when e.g. someone owned everything at first, would everything turn out just fine in the long run?
David Stanley When a customer purchases a retail item via mutually voluntary trade, both the seller and the buyer increase their wealth. Wealth is not just money. It's anything you value. If I value the information in a book more than the $20 I paid for it, I'm wealthier as a result of my purchase. Win win. Likewise, when clients hire vendors (via mutually voluntary trade) who live in a different country where there is a lower cost of living, both the clients and vendors increase their wealth. The vendors are paid money they value more than the time spent, because that money can be used to acquire things they value more. The clients acquire deliverables they value more than the money they spent. Both are wealthier as a result. Win win. On the other hand, if vendors were forced to work by nasty people to avoid some kind of physical punishment, that would not be mutually voluntary trade. That would be slavery. In that case, the fruits of their labor would be taken against their will as you eluded to. Slave master wins. Slave loses. Win lose. Also, if the "retailer" was a coercive monopoly, using extortion to force consumers to pay for it's products. And in so doing, forcing all competitors out of the market, that would not be a mutually voluntary trade. That would be extortion. Coercive monopoly retailer wins. Consumers and other retailers lose. Win lose. Please tell me you can see the difference between these situations ;)
GRITtv he barely touches on Bernie Sanders. This title is slightly misleading. Great video nonetheless. I particularly enjoyed learning about some of the surprisingly rich history of socialism in America.
You have audio problems. I have everything full blast and can hardly hear either of the two talking. I clicked on another video and wad blasted out of my seat, as I had forgotten to turn it back down, so it's not on my end.
I think the problem is that people in this country tend to be taught that socialism automatically means state ownership and control of all means of production. By that definition, pure socialism is at least as bad as capitalism. However, within the basic framework of a capitalist economy (which I think fits human nature best) we need much, much more in the way of socialistic policies. I think my brother (a corporate COO) put it best, when he explained his views on a better system. He pointed out that corporations are machines which can be extremely good and being productive and profitable, but are incapable of truly worrying about long term societal consequences. He supports Sanders because he WANTS his business to be highly regulated, so that he can keep his job without having to make choices that he sometimes saw as (at best) morally ambiguous. As it stands now, as he put it, he is like the boy with his finger in the dike. When the figures say it is best to employ Chinese prison labor (literally - prisoners) all he can do is try to argue to his board that it would be bad for public opinion if it were found out, and that they need a better alternative. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and he spends many of his days walking a tight rope, trying to do what he thinks is right as much as possible, without ceding his position to someone who simply doesn't care about right and wrong.
Pat Doyle Exactly. And they forget that we aren't pure capitalists in this country. We're a mixed market. The only countries that were pure economic structure generally are failed states. Secondly, they confuse socialism with autocracy like Russian and Chinese Communism was or is. And many one the far right don't understand, liberty means nothing without economic ability to enjoy such liberties. And economics isn't something done in self interest alone. Then there's the disconnect from what makes various markets more efficient for various sectors. Free market term is rather vague and useless in understanding what markets are efficient. The underlying markets are competitive markets, collective markets, and a mix of regulated toward competitive markets. The 3 primary types of markets work better than each other under certain circumstances that violate competitive market principles, the inevitable concentration that occurs in any market where competitiveness diminishes as production tends to consolidate without proper rules and regulation, and where essential services and sectors with economies of scale generally natural monopolies like electrical distribution, water works, sewer, garbage, transportation including roads, ports, bridges, etc. tend to do better in a collective market. Essential products and services include food and medical sector. A prime reason food sector on both supply and demand side is subsidized (socialism) in most countries including ours is that crop failure and famine usually results into a collapse in a nation. Medicine doesn't follow elasticity of demand where price influence demand, people will pay any price to not feel pain from injury, to recover from illness or injury, or just simply not die. Same with our fire services (socialism) that we do have. Even education in all countries including ours is initially collective with a choice given you have the choice with mighty pockets to pay for your own private school. People try to make things black and white, over simplification. When reality isn't that simple. You don't tell H2O to quit being so fickle in being a the universal solvent and having such ranges in acidity and alkalinity, the water isn't going to listen to how you wish the water would function, no matter how much you just say it is so, it just ain't. Mixed market socialism is the best, its a mix of private production regulated by democratic means and at times collectively owned and operated by the locality and state often being assisted by private suppliers too.
jmitterii2 Well said! A Republican friend of mine summed up the ignorance of many Americans in one sentence. He said, "We're a democracy, our government is capitalist, not socialist - read the Constitution!" No matter how many ways I tried to explain to him that socialism and capitalism are economic systems and not forms of government, and that democracy can work with either, AND to tell him that our Constitution is silent on the matter of what economic system we use, he could not see it. To an extent, I could understand. People our age grew up in a time when everyone from our teachers, to the news media often used the phrase "communist governments", and "communist/socialist nations" generally only in reference to the Soviet bloc and the Chinese, Cuba, North Koreans, and North Vietnamese. So the terms communism and socialism became synonymous in the minds of whole generations with evil dictators. On those rare occasions that a country like Denmark might make the news, no one referred to them as a "socialist state", even though they are.
+Pat Doyle "our Constitution is silent on the matter of what economic system we use, he could not see it." Perhaps he could not see past the profit loss statement if he were forced to cared about people and the environment. You are right in that Socialism has been embedded in people's minds as evil and made synonymous with communism (especially during the 1950-60s - the House Un-American Activities Committee hammered a fear that many older Americans still feel today). Times are changing - more and more young people seem to be shedding the prejudices of their elders and seeing that if we don't change our current economic course - individualist or socialist - we are all going down on the same ship.
mreclecticguy I agree 100%, and I am sad that it is my generation that seems to be the problem. Our growth seemed to go from the "Summer of Love" to the "Me Generation" in the 1970s, and it seems to have stuck there.
The planning aspect is critical to understand here. There is a significant difference in the planning that occurs in a corporation versus that which occurs in a society (always through government). That difference is that the company operates not on coercion through the force of law (the theft of taxation to pay for "social" programs for instance), but on the voluntary interaction between it and its potential customers (assuming it hasn't been granted a monopoly by government). Therefore, the planning requires one to convince the consumer that the voluntary trade is worth their while. Sometimes this can be deceptive of course, but in a free market, competition will shut such a company down if it doesn't shape up. On the other hand, the government's coercive programs have no incentive whatsoever to be competitive, because by definition there is no competition, because "consumers" (tax-payers) have not been given the choice to support or withhold their support. Denying this crucial aspect causes about every single economic ill that you can think of in society.
I learned more info that is important to me (dare I say others should know) IN 30 minutes than all the funny and entertaining 'Will Rogers' like commentators. Thank you - Sharing ! - - marv.
Do you think it is fair for the super rich to skate by on paying a fair share of taxes when the very country they used as a platform to gain their wealth is falling apart and needs money to rebuild the infrastructure? This includes roads as well as the internet that you use daily. If you want to be so selfish why not go live off the grid in the South American jungle somewhere where you can do as you wish without any of the amenities you take for granted every day! i don't mind paying my fair share of taxes because I want to make a contribution as well as enjoy the riches this country has to offer!
I'm venezuelan, socialism is a beautiful idea when is done in the hands of capable and sincere people. Sadly in our country that didn't happen. We are far of being a socialist country, it's only propaganda.
Despite Sanders describing himself as a democratic socialist. he is actually using the term incorrectly(Along with countries being labeled as socialist when they are really socially and economically liberal). Which often confuses a lot of Economists and Sociologists. The way people throw around the term socialism is frustrating. Socialism is used in almost the same way the word theory is used in everyday speech. when we really mean hypothesis. maybe not the best example. but the definition of both words are not being used correctly by the average person. Including the guy explaining what socialism is..... Don't let anybody try to smear Bernie as a Socialist or a Democratic Socialist. Bernie believes in capitalism properly regulated for the general welfare in a democratic America. He is a Social Democrat and right now, Social Democracy is what America needs to cure many of her ills. We are not going to become socialist country just yet. we don't have the technology nor the science yet to implement true socialist practices. these things all work in stages. it just so happens that now is the time to be making the transition.
I agree with you on this. I'm not sure why Bernie persists in defining himself as a socialists. All leftist politicians are very aware of the differences. I think the reason he embraces socialism is because he did so very publicly in his more radical younger days, and he doesn't want to have to argue these facts now.
Logic, Reason, and Evidence What I interepreted from him was basically this: *I've been in academia my whole life and don't understand shit about how the world works, so therefore capitalism is evil and we should be a feel good society where everyone is equally poor, so no one can feel better than the other*.
MagnaThor He never makes a logical argument. He argues rhetoric. The fact he is a professional economist is frightening. An economist is supposed to describe how the world works, not prescribe how they think it ought to work.
Logic, Reason, and Evidence When it comes to Econ professors, I think they just find these rare loonies to put them on tv and other media outlets. I took 7 econ classes in college (it was nearly my double major),and I never had a socialist economics professor. I also asked my friend who is finishing his masters in Econ and he said none of his econ professors have leaned left, either. It just makes no fucking sense. Basic economics will tell you a free market is the obviously better option.
From Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man' (1791), "Mr. Common Sense himself. "When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may that country boast its Constitution and Government ... And to proceed a step farther in this climax, will he say that to provide against the misfortunes to which all human life is subject, by securing six pounds annually for all poor, distressed, and reduced persons of age of fifty ... is not a good thing? ... It may be considered as an honor to the animal faculties of man to obtain redress by courage, and danger, but it is far greater honor to the rational faculties to accomplish the object by reason, accommodation, and general consent." This was written by an English born immigrant to America, who wrote in favor of revolution against "monarchy" not just one form of it in particular. He fought in the revolution, and gave first hand accounts. He sat next to the average of the mass majority of them who fought against "'monarchy." They wanted a republic governed through democracy, and T. Paine explains it, republic consists of the institutions of governance which are 'a public matter,' that is are owned by the people who furnish it with funds, the citizen. Democracy is rule by the people, except that in so large a country as a America (before skype), all it's citizens could not gather in one place to discuss policy and vote on legislation, so we hire representatives to present our grievance and demands (except those are at present co-opted by a global menace known as Zionism). Thomas Paine spoke with the average Continental Soldier, debated them, drank with them, fought and survived by them, and he and his comrades were Socialists, long before the term was coined, they called it "Common Sense." What man could say these things are not a good Idea?
General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev takes a day off to show his mother his city mansion. Later in the afternoon he drives her in his limousine out to his country dacha. That evening they are served a sumptuous dinner. After the servants clear the table, Brezhnev leans back in his chair and boasts, "Well, Mama, what do you think? Has your son not done well?" His mother nods, and says she is impressed. But then she leans toward him and whispers in concern, "But Lenya, what if the Bolsheviks come back?" The thing that all socialist governments have in common - is that the bureaucrat "planners" aren't accountable to anyone. With very few exceptions, the result far worse corruption than is possible in capitalism. An interesting article on the issue of Scandinavian "socialism": thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/
Wolff explains it all so clearly. Capitalism is just a nice name for childish and solipsistic SELFISHNESS at the expense of whomever happens to get in the way - people, the environment, or the entire world.
hifibrony I'd love to hear you defend that accusation. I'm afraid you're mixing central planning and statism (a requirement of socialism) with capitalism.
hifibrony Again, the language of socialism is rhetoric. Working for another's benefit, um, used to be called slavery. i guess slaves were excellent socialists, they understood the fruits of their labor were to benefit everyone.
***** Your argument is asinine. There's a difference between forcing someone to work for no pay and adopting socialist policies that ensure that all workers are paid proportionately for their work and are able to live with financial stability and security. Don't be mad just because people's attitudes are becoming more compassionate and pro-human. A society founded on selfishness is neither intelligent nor sustainable. P.S. Really, slavery is more akin to a radical form of capitalism where even HUMAN BEINGS can be seen as property.
CaptainBlackSparrow That's what you think socialism represents, compassion? If it's compassion, it's extremely misguided to say the least. How do you figure you can force someone to pay for someone else, whatever it might be, and feel justified in calling it "compassion"?
Dr. Richard Wolff hits the nail on the head with this passage, "I think for socialists, it's been, "of course, the planet has to be taken care of," that's part of what it means to take care of a society, is to preserve your relationship to nature. The private capitalist is not worried about the society -- that's what capitalism is -- and that's why capitalists have an instinctual resistance against ecological and environmental thinking: because it's very close to the old socialist idea that what ought to be decided is what's good for the community as a whole, rather than what makes money for a minority."
I am from Alberta We have NOT suddenly turned into socialists, we were just sick of the old government that was in power for 44 years! We are just starting to realize what we have done to ourselves. The NDP are unelectable in every Canadian province they have governed. My province will be no different, I shudder to think of what they are going to do to us.
As far as Capitalism being selfish and anti-social, as Laura Flanders claims, there have been degrees of Socialism in history that have been not only anti-social, but downright anti-HUMAN. The extreme Socialist experiments of the USSR, China, Eastern Europe and Cambodia come most immediately to mind, as does the National Socialism of Nazi Germany. All of these societies were marked by hostility directed against certain segments of their populations, such as the Jews, or the Kulaks, or independently-thinking intellectuals and artists, or the less extreme Democratic Socialists. These societies were also inflicted with mass death and misery caused by extreme brutality and gross incompetence of their respective governments in their quest for central control and planning.
davidfrom74 Marxism is the means of production put into the hands of the workers and that's socialism. In those countries, did workers have the means of production? No, the state did. They are state capitalist just using the banner of socialism to gain support
Their system is not the problem. What is a major problem is the US, CANADA, UK, unbalancing their economy by applying economic sanctions and trade embargos...!
this country was not meant to be a ''capitalist'' central society...it is based on liberty and freedom of the individual, To some that means making as much fiat currency as possible, but to others it means owning 2 acres a garden and a goat. To say that our constitutional republic, or rule of law and not man, is a greedy 'capitalist' society, is a profound misunderstanding of the ideals and true spirit of the constitution. If you read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, you'll understand that we've been a long long way from original intent for quite some time.
IQ is more closely linked to GNP than 'education' is. Western 'education' is about teaching a belief in authority and what to think and not about teaching students how to think. The belief in an overbearing totalitarian state, like a socialist one, is the product of generations of instilled authoritarian 'education'. A truly educated person does not believe we need a mommy state bossing us around and controlling every aspect of our lives. An intelligent person knows the state needs to be small or not at all because we are fully capable of cooperating voluntarily to provide our services, security and a healthy, sane society.
I'm am assuming that I am not as educated or as well read as this professor, but after hearing this man on this you tube video, it remind me of the following quote from a Mr. Muggeridge of ... educated himself into imbecility, ... Here is a fuller statement from Mr. Muggeridge. "Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and laboring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.” - Malcolm Muggeridge
It's a commodity as you call it so that there can be competition. You think the more the government pays for and controls education the better it will be. But as we've tried that over the last 10 years and our scores have continued to go down...
Just discovered Laura Flanders through my interest in Prof Richard Wolff. Another unsung hero of the resurgent Left in the US. From the UK, Viva La Revolucion!
I always love "Socialism" expoused by College Professors who earn a half-million dollars a year and in the same breath ask their students why their tuition is so high.
Andrew Bacon The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary of a University Professor was $75,430 annually as of May 2016. The lowest-paid 10 percent of all University Professors earn less than $38,290, while the highest-paid 10 percent are paid more than $168,270 per year.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary of a University Professor was $75,430 annually as of May 2016. The lowest-paid 10 percent of all University Professors earn less than $38,290, while the highest-paid 10 percent are paid more than $168,270 per year.
I was so happy to hear John Nichols mention Thomas Paine near the end of this episode. Anyone who thinks that socialism is foreign to America need only go back and do some more research about the values and ideals one of the most important founding fathers of this country. Tom Paine was way ahead of his time.
Working Together (Cooperating) on our Biggest Problems is Not a bad thing.. (The UNITED States).. 'Socialism' is going to a Cocktail Party.. Capitalism leads to Tunnel Vision and Misses the Bigger Picture of Human Evolution completely ..! (How much money am I worth..? Screw everyone else..!) Try building Hoover Dam or the Railroads, or any Infrastructure without the Citizens Cooperating Together on some level.. Wake up..! Evolve to Love (soon as your able).. Take care of each other.. (it doesn't hurt that much, really).. Blessing to All.....
Anti-social, that's an interesting term. I thought these very things when my someone close to me described what he thought was the purpose of running a business in the first place. He said the main reason to run a business is, "To make money." That's it, that's the primary goal. Don't worry about the thousands of people you employ to keep your business working; the important thing is to personally make a profit. If you can make even more profit by making the business fail but end up taking a large profit from the result (venture capatilism), then so be it, you're making a profit, and it doesn't matter if the people you employed are now out a job and not able to feed their families and pay the bills. I was astounded! It's the most selfish thing I've ever heard!
***** The term "to make money" is not at all as sinister as you make it out to be. Let's think for a minute: what does it take to "make money". First off, you have to make an investment, which means you, or someone else you can convince, has to come up with money to undertake production of a good or service. So let's talk real quick about where money comes from. First, let's make sure we define money: a representation of stored wealth, accepted by the majority of people as a representation of time and energy spent to produce something productive, and therefore a valid means of exchange for a wide variety of goods and services in the marketplace. So, inherent in this definition is where money comes from -- notice it does not come from putting a nice arrangement of ink on a piece of paper or cotton and then duplicating that process millions or billions of times, it comes from productivity, it is honest. Nor does it come from the dictates of planners or well-meaning community-oriented citizens. Nor does it come from laws or taxes or regulations. Productivity. Ah, but you would be wise to notice that productivity is only one half of the equation, someone has to buy the results of that productivity with their productivity! For that productivity to do any good, it has to be of value to other people. This is interesting, because when one person values the productivity of another person, they exchange effort for effort, mutually benefiting through a completely voluntary interaction. So this brings us full circle, we have MADE MONEY. Did you see how? Even though the goal of the business owner was to "make money", this fundamentally meant that he had to please and benefit somebody else. ***It should be noted, as mentioned earlier, that fiat money does not well represent true wealth produced, as it's value can be easily manipulated by omniscient central bankers. This is a key reason why something that requires actual time and effort and ingenuity is best used as money, a good example is the mining of gold or silver, of which both resources have a number of other reasons why they function well as money. But the key takeaway here is that it is as honest a representation of productivity as one could hope for on this planet. And hopefully now it is clear as to why that is the case.
MrLibertyFighter I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear. "To make money" I understand is not a sinister endeavor. What I meant was that Trump purposely made decisions that led to his companies down falls that resulted in thousands of lay offs. Venture capatilism example, he profited from those losses. Whenever a business lays off people due to bankruptcy or whatever, I think about the people that were providing for a family, etc. So the way I see it, Trump doesn't care about others; he only thinks for himself. He let the companies tank, and the way he said it in the Repub debates explains it clearly: he took advantage of the laws (never mind the people working for him) and made huge profits.
***** Ah, no worries! Well sure, in that case, he has generally relied on laws and regulations and government favors to get where he is. I wouldn't refer to him as a capitalist at all, maybe he's done something validly on his own, but it's a tangled web to try to unweave. Judging by what he's said in debates so far, and his actions prior to running, he has little understanding of liberty and what the proper role of government should be in defending that liberty. I've read a couple articles that argue pretty convincingly that his mindset is fascist. Not that he has a coherent belief system that guides him...that's just sort of the system that best describes his actions.
1:25 in and she finally finishes introducing the guest. This format needs work. Plus this country spends more per capita on education than almost any other nation with the exception on Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg, so when you lead with, 'we need to spend more money on education, herpa derpa derp', you've already lost the argument. Education reform is needed you boob, not education funding.
Good show, but can you balance the main sound between the talking heads and the end-of-segment music? The latter ends up booming way too loudly so i turn it way down, then the talking starts and i can't hear what's being said so have to turn it up again. Nuts!
Education is declining because of the centralization. We need to have interested in students who are taught in a non-standardized way. I'd opt for home schooling, and most definitely NOT public school. The solutions are not in socialism. They're in DE-centralization. We have to stop thinking about WE. We have to work out our own problems.
Timothy O'Brien No man is an island. Each man is to be an end in himself. The Western tradition. *WE* might agree. The Washington Establishment does not appear to know or to care to know. They are not *US*.
Timothy O'Brien Home schooling? How prey tel do you expect that to work when both parents are working to keep the bills paid? The public education system worked quite well for decades until Republicans started meddling with their standardized testing for funds, giving parents the option for school vouchers to send their kids to these privately owned Montessori schools. Basically what this is leading to is a bad education for the masses and a pro-business anti-sharing mindset for the well to do that never want for anything.
*****. I have a friend whose children are all home schooled. One just graduated Harvard last year. High schools in Camden, NJ, fail to graduate more than 50% of their seniors and a poor percentage even get to senior year.
HerzWatIThink is it that home-schooling is better or is it the fact that home-schooled kids are more likely to belong to more affluent families than public-schooled kids the reason?
A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need-MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action. This is the very definition of TYRANNY. \\][//
The Bentham Affair 2Many “debunkers” maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious “proofs” below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:
Millette Chip Study Debunked and Buried: RIPWhen Dr. Millette´s preliminary report first saw the light of day in February 2012 - about 18 months ago - the JREF crowd heralded the report as the ultimate debunking of Harrit et al.(2009) who document the discovery of active thermitic chips in the WTC dust. When Rev. Chris Mohr delivered the report to his followers at the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, he announced that, “..the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”. But the report never made it to the publishing stage, and 18 months constitute enough waiting to confirm what we have suspected all along: Dr. Millette cannot publish the report.
+Willy Whitten The vital need of roads, fire departments, the police, the military, anything public and federal, anything payed for with taxes and provided for by the government, all that socialistic stuff, right?... Why should`t healthcare and education be part of that list? Doesn`t America deserve that?
A note of admiration from the UK. The two gentlemen interviewed here, especially the first, present ideas so lucidly and interestingly, and it seems to me that you Americans are just better at that than we are. I think it's partly because we British just don't like to say what we think.
Capitalism is NOT a central bank! Capitalism is NOT crony capitalism. U wanna paint ur socialism with a capitalism paint brush and say see it doesn't work. It doesn't work because of UR SOCIALISTIC IDEAS THAT ARE USED BY PSEUDO CAPITALISTS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS!!!!! That's NOT capitalism. U think gov bureaucrats can plan were resources should go in the economy better then entrepreneurs who saved resources????? The reason why entrepreneurs are making mistakes such as the housing and nasdaq bubble was because of cheap money from central banking. Low interest rates encourage speculation rather then savings. Savings is what allows investment. U reward wild speculation into investments that would have NEVER happened in a true free market. That's what caused 08 not capitalism. It's sooooo obvious. It's no harder then a basic algebra equation. Ur stuck on simple arithmetic. Simple sheeple.
PaleoAthletics you are stuck on the lies you hear. The 08 scam was due to the banks using taxpayer money. They used farmers home loans for mortgages for welfare recipients.
Pam Bass Stuck on what lies? How about you actually make a point. The bankers can print money from no where. They are backed up by the tax payer. That's where income taxes go, to pay the interest on the loans. They didn't wait till the taxes came in to loan the money. Farmers home loans? Do you know what fiat money is?
Dave Strickland You live in the equivalent of a U.S. state. When you vote your vote goes into a far smaller pool of votes then does mine. You have a far more educated society then I live in. In a free market interest rates follow the economy NOT government decrees. You didn't even understand what I said and then you say I'm lying? Reread without your tinted glasses on. Wake up a little bit and realize that size of government and concentration of power has a huge influence on whether or not socialism will work. Neither socialism NOR the free market will work when central bankers are sucking our productive capacity like a tick sucking blood. They are parasites. Lied to? You little douchebag. Shove your rubbish up your arse. Socialism that you think is working for you is only working BECAUSE of fiat money. But the loans will come home and blow your shit up just like Europe.
Dave Strickland How about you start by showing me what part of what I said is a lie. How about you use your brain and your overwhelming genius to use my argument and pointing out what part is wrong. Here I'll help you. Tell me what part of this you don't understand or WHERE I'm wrong: "U think gov bureaucrats can plan were resources should go in the economy better then entrepreneurs who saved resources????? The reason why entrepreneurs are making mistakes such as the housing and nasdaq bubble was because of cheap money from central banking. Low interest rates encourage speculation rather then savings. " Go ahead I'll be waiting.
Dr. Wolff states that central planning is essential for a good community because capitalism focuses the planning on the benefit of the few; He gives an example of a CEO controlling his company. However this view is very wrong. Two examples: First, capitalism is not synonym to large companies but rather free market. Second, central planning becomes more difficult and long to execute when done in large scales. Socialism should always be seen as a threat, since its practice all over the world does not make those countries better.
Mr. Wolf, and Ms. Flanders, please consider discussing the book “Democracy in Chains” by Prof. Nancy McLean. It is both frightening and extremely pertinent!
I'm put in mind of a Ukrainian Professor who emigrated here after the end of the Cold War , to which he said that , "for almost 100 years now socialism has been tried and everybody says they just don't get it right , well after 100 years maybe it's not worth a damn ! How much more time do they need" ? I'm also reminded of something Ben Shapiro said about people who endorse socialism is that , "none of them have ever lived , nor do they want to live in a modern socialist Nation" ! Above-mentioned quotes are paraphrased , however there seems to be a singularity in meaning !
A modern day socialist is someone who has absolutely no idea as to how they would dispense wealth equally in a country of 100 million + people. A modern day socialist is someone who sits back and says "HEY, I COULD MANAGE THINGS MUCH BETTER THAN CAPITALISTS CAN." and goes on to "light a bowl".
Socialism certainly differs from a CEO planning for the "community" in a corporate society.The difference is choice. In socialism, you have no choice, you have options of a pre-chosen field. Socialism is not benign, it's actions that never stop. As an example, Social Security was not intended for the entire population, and yet here we are. You CANNOT opt out of it and what you have are credits, not cash in your account. Check for yourself. Collectivism, which includes Socialism. is a dirty word because it undermines choice and the option to say no,."I will not participate, thank you very much.". Obamacare (ACA) gives someone the option to opt out,...for a price. Imaging that, You must pay NOT to participate is a social program. I'm sorry, but there is a streak of arrogance and destructive nature in a socialist society despite it's name. Voluntary participation, as in a community supported agriculture(CSA), is my preference. "Socialism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory". That's my 2 cents.
+Ted Apelt, UA-cam Won't let me reply to your comment. Apparently 500 is the maximum number of replies... Your question was "So what then caused the disaster starting in 2007 and continuing to the present day?" I'm guessing you're referring to the economic crash we experienced in 2007. Economic instability over the last several years has been caused by many things (people, actions, systems, policies, crimes, etc.). One could easily fill a textbook responding to that question. In the interest of time, could you please tell me the specific cause you are most concerned with?
It seems very difficult for some people to understand that capitalism is not free enterprise. Capitalism is economy run by big capital. If an individual operator can be thrown in prison for growing a plant, or carrying it around, or selling it, that is not free enterprise. When your access to nature is cut off in any way, or your autonomy over your own body is not complete, then you do not live in a system of free enterprise or free anything-else. You are commodified as a body for labor, and as a gaping appetite for the consumption of products and dollars. Only with some type of social-orientation in our politics can we have and continue to develop healthy, vibrant communities.
Venezuelan socialism and Cuban Socialism are quite different. Venezuela has a more watered down type of Socialism, in which several parties are allowed, there are still elections, many companies are allowed to function (Although usually under heavy regulations). Freedom of speech is threatened in both Cuba and Venezuela, but in Venezuela you will get in far less trouble because of it. Venezuela still has one TV channel that openly speaks against the government which has survived due political pressure. 40% Of the Venezuelan parliament is anti-socialist and some states get away with anti-socialist majority. In the past elections, the now socialist regime won BY A HAIR, something close to 51% I am a Venezuelan immigrant, and i lived in Venezuela 16 years of my life. I also had family that had gone to Cuba and they tell me how it is over there.
More from Richard Wolff at www.democracyatwork.info. Many podcasts that are just as interesting, and important. Dr. Wolff is a great teacher that is very necessary these days. He offers all of the information on the above mentioned website for free as well.
"No recovery in the near future" doesn't resonate so well in 2020 as it did in 2015. He counts on capitalism having a financial crisis "every 3 to 7 yrs", and that's a big lie.
He dodged the question about describing the differences in socialist countries. He debunks socialism at 10:36. This is literally how a socialist society operates except, instead of shareholders being ancillary to the elected board of a corporation, the populace becomes ancillary to the elected officials in control of every corporation. The criticism at 12:25 is a strong case for import taxes (among other taxes for detrimental income sources) in a capitalist country. It's a weak case for socialism.
"He debunks socialism at 10:36. This is literally how a socialist society operates except, instead of shareholders being ancillary to the elected board of a corporation, the populace becomes ancillary to the elected officials in control of every corporation." Except Richard Wolff is a market socialist. He believes that workers in companies should own a portion of said company.
@@hobbso8508 Interesting. Under capitalism, you can start a cooperative. Under market socialism, can you create a business as an individual without any government involvement, and own, control, and earn money from it like capitalism?
The "definition game" is played by socialists and conservatives alike. But over the decades the term "socialism", which may have several minor definitions, has ONE clear common definition. It is ownership by the state. I prefer Winston Churchill's definition..."Socialism is the philosophy of failure..." Capitalism (which we do NOT have in the USA) is simply another term for "free markets". "Crony capitalism" is something we should all oppose.
I enjoy listening to Prof. Wolff, but I'm not sure he fully understands Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, or any of the other great free-market economists. Smith certainly didn't believe in only looking out for yourself. He believed the basis of all morality rested in the human capacity to feel "sympathy" (his WC) for others. Hayek never denied the existence of planning in a capitalist economy. He wrote a great deal about the difference between socialist planning and capitalist planning, and why socialist planning so often leads to impoverishment.
I am not alone in my dismay with how things are going.
8 років тому
The main problem with socialism is what Hayek pointed out: prices. No Government or burocrat can efficiently determine the price of products, because this is the result of individual desicions among sellers and buyers which nobody can guess previously
+Rosa Maria de la Pena GarciaPHD the government doesn't have to set prices. Nobody is saying get rid of business and let government control the means of production. All we are talking about is giving people access to things that nowadays pretty much everyone needs to be better prepared for a whole world view and perspective.
If you want socialism you can have it. Just stop pointing guns at everyone else. Comparing the "planning" of individuals to state socialism is disingenuous at best.
I COULD SAY THE SAME THINGS ABOUT FOOD, INTERNET, TRANSPORTATION, TV, CINEMAS AND NIGHTCLUBS. It is the quintessential social thing that brings people together to connect with each other. I WANT FREE STUFF -- -- GIMME GIMME
The sad part is that a lot of the people watching this aren't from the United States. Richard Wolff is popular on the Internet, but I wonder how many of us are from Europe?
How do people not understand that without our capitalistic system we wouldn't ever have the Internet, youtube, or the iPhone I am writing this comment with. So would you prefer free healthcare, food, housing, etc... And not have all the amazing technology that even the "poor" in America get to enjoy every day.
mrsideshow You are awake, and that is refreshing. I just wanted to let you know that albeit we few, you are not alone. These poor people will most likely never wake up or see why free everything is evil. They will still be together and talking about how great it is going to be in their new homes that the socialists promised them while they march into the gas chamber and think (a little too late) ..."wait a minute... this is not the fancy new penthouse I was promised". I still hope that some of them will give up their selfish thoughts and wake up.
You should team up with Bernie !! It would be great to have more decent, wise and courageous people work in team to make this world a better place !!! ;-)
When humans are threatened with extinction, only then they galvanize into a united force, as in China, India, USSR etc., but the most important difference between socialism and capitalism, is the evolution of the 'one party system', that enables bold decisions and correct errors (self-error correcting system). That is the secret of the success of Mao, Deng and Xi and the reason why India couldn't make such headway. Great talk, Laura.
dharmayourkarma Well even if he was, what would the difference be? Communism (as seen in Russia) was simply a militant let's-get-it-done-quick take on socialism.
Logic, Reason, and Evidence This is called the slippery slope argument, good job. You know what, capitalism is the path to complete anarchy for that matter.
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” JK Galbraith
When people get it out of their heads that we exist to become rich and lord it over everyone else, then we will be able to progress. The goal of existence should be to enjoy life and pursue knowledge, to discover why we exist in the universe, but, instead, we waste our lives and resources competing with each other in senseless, endless wars based on greed. The human race must get over its sheep-like subservience of blindly following the lead of pathological psychopaths or we will destroy ourselves.
competition is a good thing. we should compete to benefit society.
Competition has nothing to do with anything. Unless you're talking about running, or some other physical feat that has no use outside of the Olympics for the viewing pleasure of the masses. Who was Tesla competing with when he gave us just about all the technology that our present world lives on?
Not when people are treated like filth & trampled on.
Jay Johansson you sound dumb...lack of competition creates laziness. Lack of competition creates a destruction of society. Socialism has always led to chaos and a total obliteration of the economy, resulting in a country totally in the hole with everyone living in poverty. Ever hear of Capitalism, buddy? Capitalism IS competition by definition. You seem confused..there will always be individuals with motives to pursue great things however, as a society with too much comfort by the government, it just does not work that way.
That Guy A good analogy with capitalism is the game of Monopoly. What happens in Monopoly is that someone always winds up with all the property and all the money. That's the end result of capitalism, or any system of wealth accumulation: an oligarchy controlling all the means of production. Competition is stifled and society regresses into a feudal-like system of government. Today, inherited wealth has given a small number of mega-wealthy families, sixty two, more wealth than half the world's population The trend gets worse with each passing year.
www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jan/18/richest-62-billionaires-wealthy-half-world-population-combined
This week in the UK, The news has reported: Average wages have increased and weve grown at 0.5% The recovery continues.
Translation: The top bit got richer, the rest didnt. what used to be called devine right by kings and lords is now called trickle down economics and is in full swing. There is no recovery without maintaining the status quo.
I am 33, recently unemployed, bright. With no future and fading hope. Born to a hardworking poor mother and father who will die with nothing, having done nothing because they could do nothing but work to pay their debts. Only to be followed by their son, who will have been forced to do the same and earn even less.
This economic system doesn't need fixing. It needs burning to the ground.
ArmyOfAll u and millions others
We have our own Burnie Sanders in the UK, a guy called Jeremy Corbyn. The Westminster elite is having a huge panic attack at the thought of it.
Another great man
The Absolute Boy
@MajorLeague not talking about you
@MajorLeague Well constructed and thought out argument as usual mr pleb lol
@Fred Krissman Different place altogether jeremy would be linched in USA
What a concise, clear, balanced contribution by Mr. Wolff about socialism.
Kelly Pratt How very concise of him to not mention coercion.
Nathan Adamson Did you watch and listen to Wolff's explanations? Also what do you mean by coercion?
***** Teachers don't teach for free. You have to put a gun to a working man's head, extort some money and pay the teacher.
Kelly Pratt "Concise", "clear", and "Balanced" in the sense that he left out the extremely damning aspects of socialism that honest economists have proven for about a century now; in the sense that he confuses what capitalism actually is, and certainly clear about how in love with coercion and statism he is; in the sense that he clearly doesn't understand the arguments against socialism, evidently to the point where he couldn't even honestly discuss them at all. This man is either completely ignorant, or has quite the agenda to fulfill.
MrLibertyFighter Public roads, Public Police, Public Fire Department, Public Parks, Public Libraries, and The Census Bureau use coercion and statism? What arguments against socialism are you referring to?
Love the idea of calling capitalism, anti-socialism
I have to say, GRITtv is really one *hell* of an intellectual channel. Far more informative and down to earth than the traditional mainstream media and its journalism.
Keep up the great work.
ShakinJamacian Thank you! We appreciate you for sharing us and helping us take on the money media!
ShakinJamacian I concur! :)
The economic history of the United States: 1670-1775 popular capitalism; 1776-1912 central bank-robber baron industrialism; 1913-62 Federal reserve banker technocratic oligarchy; 1963-2007 plutocratic corporatism; 2008- kleptocratic neo-feudalism
Yes, or as Tadeusz Borowski called antiquity, a conspiracy of free men against slaves.
Spartaculus Jones now its kleptocracy with oligarchic
Spartaculus Jones This is perfect.
Move to europe and stop bitching if you don't like that.
Joseph Ang So you like kleptocratic neo-feudalism? Should I call you "neo-Lord" or "neo-Vassal"?
Please donate to Bernie Sanders' campaign. He needs our support, and we need him! :)
Bigbadd Woofe watch this video on YT- 'Gary Null with Chris Hedges, May 6 2015' Gary tells the truth about your savior Bernie starting at about 20 minutes in. But you should watch the whole thing. 58 mins.
dan12959 Go back to your hole, troll.
FAT MOON INFREQUENT Hit a nerve huh ??? Did you watch the video ??? Pure truth, isn't it great ??? Did you vote for Obumer ??? ' Change you can believe in'...Yea...He gave us the NDAA... So you are going to vote for another Liberal Democrat communist who supports the zionist genocidal terrorists ???
dan12959 McCain, Hilary or Romney would have followed the same policies. The NDAA had the support of conservatives and the corporate state. As Hedges has stated, those who get elected are little more than marionettes. The DEEP STATE runs the show.
Bigbadd Woofe LOVE BERNIE AND WHAT HE STANDS FOR!
Like this episode? Check out our conversation with Rick Wolff and Cornel West at the same table! ua-cam.com/video/4zYAH-BZZTs/v-deo.html
FDR saved capitalism, but it was not apparent for years after the Great Depression because that economic disaster wounded America so deeply. WW2 got Americans working frantically producing arms & ammo, the impetus to kick-start us from our doldrums of depression.
Post-war America was an era that enabled capitalism to flourish while retaining many social programs and gaining new-found affluence & prosperity for the working class. Income taxes from the rich were much higher than today, and America was still building its infrastructure with tax money, first-rate public services for rich and poor.
I'm old enough to remember that era well from Truman's presidency & afterwards. That was truly a better time to be an average American. What we had then was a Social Democracy! Eisenhower, a *Republican*, presided over a Social Democracy! It worked then, it can work again! Bernie Sanders remembers too!
SIMKINETICS And even before WWII it was making a difference when he implemented various work projects. Specifically, my great grandparents and grandma and great aunts and uncles were living in a shack in Idaho during the late 20's and early 30's until FDR started various works projects which introduced a cement plant in their small town where my great grand father was able to get a much better paying unionized job and he immediately built a modern house complete with electricity, sewer, water works, heating, insulation, etc. Was it not for the various social compacts of FDR such as legalizing collective bargaining, Keynesian economics by introducing works programs which added electrical power by building dams, roads, ports, water works, electrical distribution, etc. our history as a country would have lost its democratic government becoming autocratic with an economy of either communistic or fascistic qualities. A terrible state of affairs. And most would have been worse off.
Socialism implies democracy as well as collective and private markets. Socialism is a mixed market structure that meets the complexities of reality to optimize liberty, advances technology, and increase standards of living by ensuring such productivity gains from technology are optimally distributed among everyone in society.
Where this individualistic obsession comes from is primarily nut job libertarian writings from Ayn Rand and followed by nit wits like Milton Friedman who unfortunately was accredited with In Memory of Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on consumer propensity to spend models which have since been discredited and revamped because his model was wrong, Paul Volcker, Allen Greenspan, and several other people who came to power in some form or another. The individualism attempts to tell people to be more self interested, as if that's something someone needs to be told, to be more selfish as we're inherently so. The entire libertarian individualism ideology is utterly ridiculous, and only obviously leads to tyrannical autocracy no matter the economic structure.
jmitterii2 Well written & poignant! It appears that you've seen through the smoke quite clearly.
This libertarian trend has been presented as somehow projected from personal liberties to corporate liberties and a flat tax! What the evil spawn of a John Birch Society founder, the Koch brothers, are selling is ideology that only serves their class of billionaire kleptocrats & their lackeys at the expense of everybody else! The Kochs hijacked the Tea Party and more. Their brand of laissez faire means 'less fair'!
As for Austrian School or the Chicago boys versus Keynes, there's a decided advantage to emphasizing infrastructure building when the economy slows to a crawl. Milton Friedman and company should be seen as business economists who seem naive about social dynamics & economics for workers. I see a great need to push the nebulous & often dated study of economics much more into the realm of science with maximum transparency. So far, economics seems more like a black art.
Thanks for your insights!
SIMKINETICS We can all thank Nixon and the Republicans that have followed in power for the demise of this country. They're doing nothing but dismantling any safety net for the average american by reducing taxes on the rich, thereby choking money out of programs leaving them defunct and belly up. I want my tax dollars to work for EVERYONE'S benefit that has a need. Not for well to do individuals, corporations and more loans for professional sports team stadiums. Let these rich cocksuckers risk their own money for a change.
SIMKINETICS lol...I really hope you don't write history or economics books!
***** The question might arise whether capitalism was worth saving, or even a matter of what capitalism actually is or was. Should we consider monopolies as the inevitable result of capitalism? Should we consider the functions of the Fed to be capitalistic in nature? Is price-fixing really capitalistic?
My main contention is that FDR was mistakenly considered anti-capitalist. I'd also assert that pure (libertarian) capitalism is unsustainable, and that FDR found ways to accommodate it in a hybridized form. Today, what we have is hardly capitalism in the sense articulated by Adam Smith.
It is a dangerous thing when a populace is not educated about the issues and given freedom and ammunition to think critically but are instead guided by taboos.
Yep, and you can see it all over this comment page still.. even on videos explaining socialism, that'show bad it is.. these people are like flat-earthers, afraid to progress..
My past experience of American tv unfortunately means I'm anxiously awaiting Bill O'Reilly to suddenly burst in shouting and smiling inanely as he tells everyone to shut up.
ImmaterialDigression We hope to help you detox from the money media! Subscribe for more like this - no shouting!
GRITtv Capitalist or Socialist its the same BANKERS that OWN the WORLD! THE ONE THING THEY HATE (THAT STANDS IN THERE WAY IS AMERICA) are CONSTITUTION!! THE NEW WORLD ORDER! IS AFRAID OF ARE GUNS?
Harry Stoffel If it's in capital letters, it must be true.
***** Your right I did make a mistake "are" should be"our" but you missed my point,and your statement about warheads is really fucking stupid! There is a New World Order and its coming for you, I hope you have a bunch of kids and grandkidsl They will need slaves!!
Mark Carleton YOUR RIGHT MARK HAVE SOME KIDS !!!
From elementary school on we have a system of indoctrination that excludes any sort of questioning or development of individual thinking.
This is more relevant now in 2019 than ever.
Vote Bernie 2020 🔥🔥
ha ha ha ha ha
These two ^^^ apparently didn't understand the video..
No
If you use aggression to make profit you benefit yourself by harming others. You don't create wealth. You simply take it from someone else.
But if you use mutually voluntary exchange to make profit you benefit yourself by benefiting others. Mutually voluntary exchange includes gift giving and trade. Both participants gain something they value more than the thing they voluntarily gave up.
A charitable donor values the satisfaction he or she feels from making a positive impact on the lives of others, more than the money or time he or she invested. Voluntary customers value the things they buy more than the money they spend. Voluntary product and service providers value the money they make more than the products and services they offer in exchange. In this way a mutually voluntary exchange (in the absence of aggression) creates wealth by improving the lives of both participants. In other words both participants "profit" without harming anyone. In fact, the more they help others, and serve the needs of others effectively, the more market share they achieve, and consequently the more profit they make.
This is not the magical hand of Adam Smith. It's the nature of mutually voluntary interactions. It's the nature of a culture that no longer tolerates aggression. Profit is not the root of all evil. Aggression is. (I mean "evil" not in the religious sense, but to mean something that needlessly increases human suffering) And no organization commits more aggression than government.
If a socialist community was completely voluntary, it would qualify as a mutually voluntary exchange. But if a socialist community forces people to participate, then it's just another system based on aggression.
Dan Shielding Beautiful post! I would only add that "The Invisible Hand" is exactly what your post describes: how the market functions (and thrives) based on voluntary interactions between millions of individual actors, each doing what is in their own self-interests to do -- something which no planner or group of planners could ever possibly dream of doing.
Dan Shielding IT is always taken from someone else whether you make wealth in retail selling items to Americans or robbing a third world country.
Dan Shielding What would the outcome be if in extreme situations when e.g. someone owned everything at first, would everything turn out just fine in the long run?
David Stanley When a customer purchases a retail item via mutually voluntary trade, both the seller and the buyer increase their wealth. Wealth is not just money. It's anything you value. If I value the information in a book more than the $20 I paid for it, I'm wealthier as a result of my purchase. Win win.
Likewise, when clients hire vendors (via mutually voluntary trade) who live in a different country where there is a lower cost of living, both the clients and vendors increase their wealth. The vendors are paid money they value more than the time spent, because that money can be used to acquire things they value more. The clients acquire deliverables they value more than the money they spent. Both are wealthier as a result. Win win.
On the other hand, if vendors were forced to work by nasty people to avoid some kind of physical punishment, that would not be mutually voluntary trade. That would be slavery. In that case, the fruits of their labor would be taken against their will as you eluded to. Slave master wins. Slave loses. Win lose.
Also, if the "retailer" was a coercive monopoly, using extortion to force consumers to pay for it's products. And in so doing, forcing all competitors out of the market, that would not be a mutually voluntary trade. That would be extortion. Coercive monopoly retailer wins. Consumers and other retailers lose. Win lose.
Please tell me you can see the difference between these situations ;)
Dan Shielding So you are in favor of anti-monopoly laws?
This week on #GRITtv: Prof. Richard D. Wolff on Bernie Sanders and Socialism.
GRITtv he barely touches on Bernie Sanders. This title is slightly misleading. Great video nonetheless.
I particularly enjoyed learning about some of the surprisingly rich history of socialism in America.
You have audio problems. I have everything full blast and can hardly hear either of the two talking. I clicked on another video and wad blasted out of my seat, as I had forgotten to turn it back down, so it's not on my end.
Waldir Pimenta It's mostly BS.
Yvette Zarate "and wad blasted out of my seat"... lol
Yvette Zarate Thanks Yvette! I'll pass that on to the production side. - Camille
I think the problem is that people in this country tend to be taught that socialism automatically means state ownership and control of all means of production. By that definition, pure socialism is at least as bad as capitalism. However, within the basic framework of a capitalist economy (which I think fits human nature best) we need much, much more in the way of socialistic policies.
I think my brother (a corporate COO) put it best, when he explained his views on a better system. He pointed out that corporations are machines which can be extremely good and being productive and profitable, but are incapable of truly worrying about long term societal consequences. He supports Sanders because he WANTS his business to be highly regulated, so that he can keep his job without having to make choices that he sometimes saw as (at best) morally ambiguous.
As it stands now, as he put it, he is like the boy with his finger in the dike. When the figures say it is best to employ Chinese prison labor (literally - prisoners) all he can do is try to argue to his board that it would be bad for public opinion if it were found out, and that they need a better alternative. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and he spends many of his days walking a tight rope, trying to do what he thinks is right as much as possible, without ceding his position to someone who simply doesn't care about right and wrong.
Pat Doyle Exactly. And they forget that we aren't pure capitalists in this country. We're a mixed market. The only countries that were pure economic structure generally are failed states.
Secondly, they confuse socialism with autocracy like Russian and Chinese Communism was or is. And many one the far right don't understand, liberty means nothing without economic ability to enjoy such liberties. And economics isn't something done in self interest alone.
Then there's the disconnect from what makes various markets more efficient for various sectors. Free market term is rather vague and useless in understanding what markets are efficient. The underlying markets are competitive markets, collective markets, and a mix of regulated toward competitive markets.
The 3 primary types of markets work better than each other under certain circumstances that violate competitive market principles, the inevitable concentration that occurs in any market where competitiveness diminishes as production tends to consolidate without proper rules and regulation, and where essential services and sectors with economies of scale generally natural monopolies like electrical distribution, water works, sewer, garbage, transportation including roads, ports, bridges, etc. tend to do better in a collective market. Essential products and services include food and medical sector. A prime reason food sector on both supply and demand side is subsidized (socialism) in most countries including ours is that crop failure and famine usually results into a collapse in a nation. Medicine doesn't follow elasticity of demand where price influence demand, people will pay any price to not feel pain from injury, to recover from illness or injury, or just simply not die.
Same with our fire services (socialism) that we do have.
Even education in all countries including ours is initially collective with a choice given you have the choice with mighty pockets to pay for your own private school.
People try to make things black and white, over simplification. When reality isn't that simple. You don't tell H2O to quit being so fickle in being a the universal solvent and having such ranges in acidity and alkalinity, the water isn't going to listen to how you wish the water would function, no matter how much you just say it is so, it just ain't. Mixed market socialism is the best, its a mix of private production regulated by democratic means and at times collectively owned and operated by the locality and state often being assisted by private suppliers too.
jmitterii2
Well said! A Republican friend of mine summed up the ignorance of many Americans in one sentence. He said, "We're a democracy, our government is capitalist, not socialist - read the Constitution!"
No matter how many ways I tried to explain to him that socialism and capitalism are economic systems and not forms of government, and that democracy can work with either, AND to tell him that our Constitution is silent on the matter of what economic system we use, he could not see it.
To an extent, I could understand. People our age grew up in a time when everyone from our teachers, to the news media often used the phrase "communist governments", and "communist/socialist nations" generally only in reference to the Soviet bloc and the Chinese, Cuba, North Koreans, and North Vietnamese. So the terms communism and socialism became synonymous in the minds of whole generations with evil dictators. On those rare occasions that a country like Denmark might make the news, no one referred to them as a "socialist state", even though they are.
+Pat Doyle "our Constitution is silent on the matter of what economic system we use, he could not see it."
Perhaps he could not see past the profit loss statement if he were forced to cared about people and the environment. You are right in that Socialism has been embedded in people's minds as evil and made synonymous with communism (especially during the 1950-60s - the House Un-American Activities Committee hammered a fear that many older Americans still feel today). Times are changing - more and more young people seem to be shedding the prejudices of their elders and seeing that if we don't change our current economic course - individualist or socialist - we are all going down on the same ship.
mreclecticguy
I agree 100%, and I am sad that it is my generation that seems to be the problem.
Our growth seemed to go from the "Summer of Love" to the "Me Generation" in the 1970s, and it seems to have stuck there.
Is government really any better at worrying about long term consequences of...anything??
John Nichols is an amazing person. And capitalism is absolutely anti-socialism.
@@fridaynightvinylfnv1271 agree
The planning aspect is critical to understand here. There is a significant difference in the planning that occurs in a corporation versus that which occurs in a society (always through government).
That difference is that the company operates not on coercion through the force of law (the theft of taxation to pay for "social" programs for instance), but on the voluntary interaction between it and its potential customers (assuming it hasn't been granted a monopoly by government).
Therefore, the planning requires one to convince the consumer that the voluntary trade is worth their while. Sometimes this can be deceptive of course, but in a free market, competition will shut such a company down if it doesn't shape up.
On the other hand, the government's coercive programs have no incentive whatsoever to be competitive, because by definition there is no competition, because "consumers" (tax-payers) have not been given the choice to support or withhold their support. Denying this crucial aspect causes about every single economic ill that you can think of in society.
Yes, why have any government at all? If someone murders your wife, just stop buying thing from him. That will teach him.
I learned more info that is important to me (dare I say others should know) IN 30 minutes than all the funny and entertaining 'Will Rogers' like commentators.
Thank you - Sharing ! - - marv.
+Marvin Gershowitz Thank you Marvin! Subscribe for more learning every week!
:) Will Do!
+Marvin Gershowitz - Yes! This man's views need to be spread widely! He makes Socialism understandable and humane and shows how Capitalism is harmful.
Steve Freier Enjoy your high taxes.
Do you think it is fair for the super rich to skate by on paying a fair share of taxes when the very country they used as a platform to gain their wealth is falling apart and needs money to rebuild the infrastructure? This includes roads as well as the internet that you use daily. If you want to be so selfish why not go live off the grid in the South American jungle somewhere where you can do as you wish without any of the amenities you take for granted every day! i don't mind paying my fair share of taxes because I want to make a contribution as well as enjoy the riches this country has to offer!
I'm venezuelan, socialism is a beautiful idea when is done in the hands of capable and sincere people. Sadly in our country that didn't happen. We are far of being a socialist country, it's only propaganda.
Wow Venezuelans still have internet access!
Um, capitalism is just fine and nothing can hold a candle to it. Corporatism/cronyism is the problem and certainly needs to die!
Bernie Sanders 2016!
dude i really wish that he had win...
BERNIE 2020!
Bernie 2020 🔥🔥
Individual gratification as an ideological financial social system,
has bred clear results.
The rich have each other, but the poor do not.
I am glad to see someone talk with Richard Wolff in a simple, honest and direct way. It is a lot more easy to understand.
Despite Sanders describing himself as a democratic socialist. he is actually using the term incorrectly(Along with countries being labeled as socialist when they are really socially and economically liberal). Which often confuses a lot of Economists and Sociologists.
The way people throw around the term socialism is frustrating. Socialism is used in almost the same way the word theory is used in everyday speech. when we really mean hypothesis. maybe not the best example. but the definition of both words are not being used correctly by the average person. Including the guy explaining what socialism is.....
Don't let anybody try to smear Bernie as a Socialist or a Democratic
Socialist. Bernie believes in capitalism properly regulated for the
general welfare in a democratic America. He is a Social Democrat and
right now, Social Democracy is what America needs to cure many of her
ills.
We are not going to become socialist country just yet. we don't have the technology nor the science yet to implement true socialist practices. these things all work in stages. it just so happens that now is the time to be making the transition.
No he is not. Bernnie is a COMMUNIST!
I agree with you on this. I'm not sure why Bernie persists in defining himself as a socialists. All leftist politicians are very aware of the differences. I think the reason he embraces socialism is because he did so very publicly in his more radical younger days, and he doesn't want to have to argue these facts now.
Nonsense... demonstrably so. This is sophistry, pure and simple.
drstrangelove09 He talked a lot, with emphatic gestures, but said nothing at all.
Logic, Reason, and Evidence What I interepreted from him was basically this: *I've been in academia my whole life and don't understand shit about how the world works, so therefore capitalism is evil and we should be a feel good society where everyone is equally poor, so no one can feel better than the other*.
MagnaThor He never makes a logical argument. He argues rhetoric. The fact he is a professional economist is frightening. An economist is supposed to describe how the world works, not prescribe how they think it ought to work.
Logic, Reason, and Evidence
When it comes to Econ professors, I think they just find these rare loonies to put them on tv and other media outlets. I took 7 econ classes in college (it was nearly my double major),and I never had a socialist economics professor.
I also asked my friend who is finishing his masters in Econ and he said none of his econ professors have leaned left, either. It just makes no fucking sense. Basic economics will tell you a free market is the obviously better option.
MagnaThor lol
From Thomas Paine's 'The Rights of Man' (1791), "Mr. Common Sense himself. "When it shall be said in any country in the world my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want; the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am the friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may that country boast its Constitution and Government ... And to proceed a step farther in this climax, will he say that to provide against the misfortunes to which all human life is subject, by securing six pounds annually for all poor, distressed, and reduced persons of age of fifty ... is not a good thing? ... It may be considered as an honor to the animal faculties of man to obtain redress by courage, and danger, but it is far greater honor to the rational faculties to accomplish the object by reason, accommodation, and general consent."
This was written by an English born immigrant to America, who wrote in favor of revolution against "monarchy" not just one form of it in particular. He fought in the revolution, and gave first hand accounts. He sat next to the average of the mass majority of them who fought against "'monarchy." They wanted a republic governed through democracy, and T. Paine explains it, republic consists of the institutions of governance which are 'a public matter,' that is are owned by the people who furnish it with funds, the citizen. Democracy is rule by the people, except that in so large a country as a America (before skype), all it's citizens could not gather in one place to discuss policy and vote on legislation, so we hire representatives to present our grievance and demands (except those are at present co-opted by a global menace known as Zionism). Thomas Paine spoke with the average Continental Soldier, debated them, drank with them, fought and survived by them, and he and his comrades were Socialists, long before the term was coined, they called it "Common Sense." What man could say these things are not a good Idea?
General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev takes a day off to show his mother his city mansion. Later in the afternoon he drives her in his limousine out to his country dacha. That evening they are served a sumptuous dinner. After the servants clear the table, Brezhnev leans back in his chair and boasts, "Well, Mama, what do you think? Has your son not done well?" His mother nods, and says she is impressed. But then she leans toward him and whispers in concern, "But Lenya, what if the Bolsheviks come back?"
The thing that all socialist governments have in common - is that the bureaucrat "planners" aren't accountable to anyone. With very few exceptions, the result far worse corruption than is possible in capitalism.
An interesting article on the issue of Scandinavian "socialism": thefederalist.com/2015/08/11/scandinavia-isnt-a-socialist-paradise/
Wolff explains it all so clearly. Capitalism is just a nice name for childish and solipsistic SELFISHNESS at the expense of whomever happens to get in the way - people, the environment, or the entire world.
hifibrony I'd love to hear you defend that accusation. I'm afraid you're mixing central planning and statism (a requirement of socialism) with capitalism.
hifibrony Again, the language of socialism is rhetoric. Working for another's benefit, um, used to be called slavery. i guess slaves were excellent socialists, they understood the fruits of their labor were to benefit everyone.
***** Your argument is asinine. There's a difference between forcing someone to work for no pay and adopting socialist policies that ensure that all workers are paid proportionately for their work and are able to live with financial stability and security. Don't be mad just because people's attitudes are becoming more compassionate and pro-human. A society founded on selfishness is neither intelligent nor sustainable.
P.S.
Really, slavery is more akin to a radical form of capitalism where even HUMAN BEINGS can be seen as property.
CaptainBlackSparrow That's what you think socialism represents, compassion? If it's compassion, it's extremely misguided to say the least. How do you figure you can force someone to pay for someone else, whatever it might be, and feel justified in calling it "compassion"?
MrLibertyFighter
your straw man of what social democratic positions are, does not represent the reality... no matter how often you repeat the lie.
Dr. Richard Wolff hits the nail on the head with this passage, "I think for socialists, it's been, "of course, the planet has to be taken care of," that's part of what it means to take care of a society, is to preserve your relationship to nature. The private capitalist is not worried about the society -- that's what capitalism is -- and that's why capitalists have an instinctual resistance against ecological and environmental thinking: because it's very close to the old socialist idea that what ought to be decided is what's good for the community as a whole, rather than what makes money for a minority."
Guillermo Rivas -I think it is very important that schools teach about handling money for life. It would help society.
I am from Alberta
We have NOT suddenly turned into socialists, we were just sick of the old government that was in power for 44 years!
We are just starting to realize what we have done to ourselves.
The NDP are unelectable in every Canadian province they have governed. My province will be no different, I shudder to think of what they are going to do to us.
A must watch video for anyone who wants to know what this whole "socialism" thing is all about.
As far as Capitalism being selfish and anti-social, as Laura Flanders claims, there have been degrees of Socialism in history that have been not only anti-social, but downright anti-HUMAN. The extreme Socialist experiments of the USSR, China, Eastern Europe and Cambodia come most immediately to mind, as does the National Socialism of Nazi Germany. All of these societies were marked by hostility directed against certain segments of their populations, such as the Jews, or the Kulaks, or independently-thinking intellectuals and artists, or the less extreme Democratic Socialists. These societies were also inflicted with mass death and misery caused by extreme brutality and gross incompetence of their respective governments in their quest for central control and planning.
davidfrom74 Marxism is the means of production put into the hands of the workers and that's socialism. In those countries, did workers have the means of production? No, the state did. They are state capitalist just using the banner of socialism to gain support
how many times does your team need to loose before you drop them for a winning team?
Yes. Because socialism has done wonders for the economies of Cuba and Venezuela. Oh wait...
Their system is not the problem. What is a major problem is the US, CANADA, UK, unbalancing their economy by applying economic sanctions and trade embargos...!
Man, watching Richard Wolff talk and move around is just hilarious. He gets so. . . into it. He's also great at explaining.
this country was not meant to be a ''capitalist'' central society...it is based on liberty and freedom of the individual, To some that means making as much fiat currency as possible, but to others it means owning 2 acres a garden and a goat. To say that our constitutional republic, or rule of law and not man, is a greedy 'capitalist' society, is a profound misunderstanding of the ideals and true spirit of the constitution. If you read the 10 planks of the communist manifesto, you'll understand that we've been a long long way from original intent for quite some time.
IQ is more closely linked to GNP than 'education' is. Western 'education' is about teaching a belief in authority and what to think and not about teaching students how to think. The belief in an overbearing totalitarian state, like a socialist one, is the product of generations of instilled authoritarian 'education'. A truly educated person does not believe we need a mommy state bossing us around and controlling every aspect of our lives. An intelligent person knows the state needs to be small or not at all because we are fully capable of cooperating voluntarily to provide our services, security and a healthy, sane society.
I'm am assuming that I am not as educated or as well read as this professor, but after hearing this man on this you tube video, it remind me of the following quote from a Mr. Muggeridge of ... educated himself into imbecility, ... Here is a fuller statement from Mr. Muggeridge.
"Having wearied of the struggle to be himself, he has created his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, his own vulnerability out of his own strength; himself blowing the trumpet that brings the walls of his own city tumbling down, and, in a process of auto-genocide, convincing himself that he is too numerous, and laboring accordingly with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer in order to be an easier prey for his enemies; until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keels over a weary, battered old brontosaurus and becomes extinct.”
- Malcolm Muggeridge
It's a commodity as you call it so that there can be competition. You think the more the government pays for and controls education the better it will be. But as we've tried that over the last 10 years and our scores have continued to go down...
Thumbs up if you're voting for BERNIE!
2020!
Just discovered Laura Flanders through my interest in Prof Richard Wolff. Another unsung hero of the resurgent Left in the US. From the UK, Viva La Revolucion!
I always love "Socialism" expoused by College Professors who earn a half-million dollars a year and in the same breath ask their students why their tuition is so high.
Andrew Bacon
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary of a University Professor was $75,430 annually as of May 2016. The lowest-paid 10 percent of all University Professors earn less than $38,290, while the highest-paid 10 percent are paid more than $168,270 per year.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that the average salary of a University Professor was $75,430 annually as of May 2016. The lowest-paid 10 percent of all University Professors earn less than $38,290, while the highest-paid 10 percent are paid more than $168,270 per year.
Ad hominen attacks will get you a failing grade in your final exam.
I was so happy to hear John Nichols mention Thomas Paine near the end of this episode. Anyone who thinks that socialism is foreign to America need only go back and do some more research about the values and ideals one of the most important founding fathers of this country. Tom Paine was way ahead of his time.
Working Together (Cooperating) on our Biggest Problems is Not a bad thing.. (The UNITED States).. 'Socialism' is going to a Cocktail Party.. Capitalism leads to Tunnel Vision and Misses the Bigger Picture of Human Evolution completely ..! (How much money am I worth..? Screw everyone else..!) Try building Hoover Dam or the Railroads, or any Infrastructure without the Citizens Cooperating Together on some level.. Wake up..! Evolve to Love (soon as your able).. Take care of each other.. (it doesn't hurt that much, really).. Blessing to All.....
This has to be the most naïve and feel good piece on Socialism ever produced, especially in regards to Capitalism.
Anti-social, that's an interesting term. I thought these very things when my someone close to me described what he thought was the purpose of running a business in the first place.
He said the main reason to run a business is, "To make money." That's it, that's the primary goal. Don't worry about the thousands of people you employ to keep your business working; the important thing is to personally make a profit. If you can make even more profit by making the business fail but end up taking a large profit from the result (venture capatilism), then so be it, you're making a profit, and it doesn't matter if the people you employed are now out a job and not able to feed their families and pay the bills.
I was astounded! It's the most selfish thing I've ever heard!
***** The term "to make money" is not at all as sinister as you make it out to be. Let's think for a minute: what does it take to "make money".
First off, you have to make an investment, which means you, or someone else you can convince, has to come up with money to undertake production of a good or service. So let's talk real quick about where money comes from.
First, let's make sure we define money: a representation of stored wealth, accepted by the majority of people as a representation of time and energy spent to produce something productive, and therefore a valid means of exchange for a wide variety of goods and services in the marketplace. So, inherent in this definition is where money comes from -- notice it does not come from putting a nice arrangement of ink on a piece of paper or cotton and then duplicating that process millions or billions of times, it comes from productivity, it is honest. Nor does it come from the dictates of planners or well-meaning community-oriented citizens. Nor does it come from laws or taxes or regulations. Productivity.
Ah, but you would be wise to notice that productivity is only one half of the equation, someone has to buy the results of that productivity with their productivity! For that productivity to do any good, it has to be of value to other people. This is interesting, because when one person values the productivity of another person, they exchange effort for effort, mutually benefiting through a completely voluntary interaction.
So this brings us full circle, we have MADE MONEY. Did you see how? Even though the goal of the business owner was to "make money", this fundamentally meant that he had to please and benefit somebody else.
***It should be noted, as mentioned earlier, that fiat money does not well represent true wealth produced, as it's value can be easily manipulated by omniscient central bankers. This is a key reason why something that requires actual time and effort and ingenuity is best used as money, a good example is the mining of gold or silver, of which both resources have a number of other reasons why they function well as money. But the key takeaway here is that it is as honest a representation of productivity as one could hope for on this planet. And hopefully now it is clear as to why that is the case.
MrLibertyFighter I'm sorry that I didn't make myself clear.
"To make money" I understand is not a sinister endeavor. What I meant was that Trump purposely made decisions that led to his companies down falls that resulted in thousands of lay offs. Venture capatilism example, he profited from those losses.
Whenever a business lays off people due to bankruptcy or whatever, I think about the people that were providing for a family, etc.
So the way I see it, Trump doesn't care about others; he only thinks for himself. He let the companies tank, and the way he said it in the Repub debates explains it clearly: he took advantage of the laws (never mind the people working for him) and made huge profits.
***** Ah, no worries! Well sure, in that case, he has generally relied on laws and regulations and government favors to get where he is. I wouldn't refer to him as a capitalist at all, maybe he's done something validly on his own, but it's a tangled web to try to unweave. Judging by what he's said in debates so far, and his actions prior to running, he has little understanding of liberty and what the proper role of government should be in defending that liberty. I've read a couple articles that argue pretty convincingly that his mindset is fascist. Not that he has a coherent belief system that guides him...that's just sort of the system that best describes his actions.
1:25 in and she finally finishes introducing the guest. This format needs work. Plus this country spends more per capita on education than almost any other nation with the exception on Norway, Sweden and Luxembourg, so when you lead with, 'we need to spend more money on education, herpa derpa derp', you've already lost the argument. Education reform is needed you boob, not education funding.
This was such a great report! Thank you!
Good show, but can you balance the main sound between the talking heads and the end-of-segment music? The latter ends up booming way too loudly so i turn it way down, then the talking starts and i can't hear what's being said so have to turn it up again. Nuts!
+Julian Warmington Thanks Julian - we've passed that along to our production team!
Education is declining because of the centralization. We need to have interested in students who are taught in a non-standardized way. I'd opt for home schooling, and most definitely NOT public school.
The solutions are not in socialism. They're in DE-centralization. We have to stop thinking about WE. We have to work out our own problems.
Timothy O'Brien No man is an island. Each man is to be an end in himself. The Western tradition.
*WE* might agree. The Washington Establishment does not appear to know or to care to know. They are not *US*.
Timothy O'Brien Home schooling? How prey tel do you expect that to work when both parents are working to keep the bills paid? The public education system worked quite well for decades until Republicans started meddling with their standardized testing for funds, giving parents the option for school vouchers to send their kids to these privately owned Montessori schools. Basically what this is leading to is a bad education for the masses and a pro-business anti-sharing mindset for the well to do that never want for anything.
***** Home-schooled children do a lot better on average than state-schooled children in state-authored exams.
Your response?
*****. I have a friend whose children are all home schooled. One just graduated Harvard last year.
High schools in Camden, NJ, fail to graduate more than 50% of their seniors and a poor percentage even get to senior year.
HerzWatIThink is it that home-schooling is better or is it the fact that home-schooled kids are more likely to belong to more affluent families than public-schooled kids the reason?
This makes a TON OF SENSE.
Love the term #antisocialism
tangerinestorm Thanks! We like it too. Subscribe for more from Laura!
Two crazies that never lived in or experienced a socialist society, talk and promote socialism, what an insane world we're living in..
A government given the responsibility to care for a peoples every vital need-MUST be given the power to carry such a task out, which means the power to rule your every vital action. This is the very definition of TYRANNY.
\\][//
911 WAS AN OUTSIDE JOB!
The Bentham Affair 2Many “debunkers” maintain the erroneous belief that the April paper by Harrit et al. has been debunked. This paper of course is titled “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” and was published in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal on April 3, 2009. I will itemize the specious “proofs” below in order of comical absurdity along with their refutation:
Millette Chip Study Debunked and Buried: RIPWhen Dr. Millette´s preliminary report first saw the light of day in February 2012 - about 18 months ago - the JREF crowd heralded the report as the ultimate debunking of Harrit et al.(2009) who document the discovery of active thermitic chips in the WTC dust. When Rev. Chris Mohr delivered the report to his followers at the JREF 9/11 debunking forum, he announced that, “..the results will soon be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal”. But the report never made it to the publishing stage, and 18 months constitute enough waiting to confirm what we have suspected all along: Dr. Millette cannot publish the report.
Willy Whitten
Is Benthem a peer reviewed journal?
+Willy Whitten The vital need of roads, fire departments, the police, the military, anything public and federal, anything payed for with taxes and provided for by the government, all that socialistic stuff, right?... Why should`t healthcare and education be part of that list? Doesn`t America deserve that?
A note of admiration from the UK. The two gentlemen interviewed here, especially the first, present ideas so lucidly and interestingly, and it seems to me that you Americans are just better at that than we are. I think it's partly because we British just don't like to say what we think.
Capitalism is NOT a central bank! Capitalism is NOT crony capitalism. U wanna paint ur socialism with a capitalism paint brush and say see it doesn't work. It doesn't work because of UR SOCIALISTIC IDEAS THAT ARE USED BY PSEUDO CAPITALISTS TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS!!!!! That's NOT capitalism. U think gov bureaucrats can plan were resources should go in the economy better then entrepreneurs who saved resources????? The reason why entrepreneurs are making mistakes such as the housing and nasdaq bubble was because of cheap money from central banking. Low interest rates encourage speculation rather then savings. Savings is what allows investment. U reward wild speculation into investments that would have NEVER happened in a true free market. That's what caused 08 not capitalism. It's sooooo obvious. It's no harder then a basic algebra equation. Ur stuck on simple arithmetic. Simple sheeple.
PaleoAthletics you are stuck on the lies you hear. The 08 scam was due to the banks using taxpayer money. They used farmers home loans for mortgages for welfare recipients.
And corrupt Bernie Sanders. Those banks didn't do this all by themselves. Bernie should be in prison!
Pam Bass Stuck on what lies? How about you actually make a point. The bankers can print money from no where. They are backed up by the tax payer. That's where income taxes go, to pay the interest on the loans. They didn't wait till the taxes came in to loan the money. Farmers home loans? Do you know what fiat money is?
Dave Strickland You live in the equivalent of a U.S. state. When you vote your vote goes into a far smaller pool of votes then does mine. You have a far more educated society then I live in. In a free market interest rates follow the economy NOT government decrees. You didn't even understand what I said and then you say I'm lying? Reread without your tinted glasses on. Wake up a little bit and realize that size of government and concentration of power has a huge influence on whether or not socialism will work. Neither socialism NOR the free market will work when central bankers are sucking our productive capacity like a tick sucking blood. They are parasites. Lied to? You little douchebag. Shove your rubbish up your arse. Socialism that you think is working for you is only working BECAUSE of fiat money. But the loans will come home and blow your shit up just like Europe.
Dave Strickland How about you start by showing me what part of what I said is a lie. How about you use your brain and your overwhelming genius to use my argument and pointing out what part is wrong. Here I'll help you. Tell me what part of this you don't understand or WHERE I'm wrong: "U think gov bureaucrats can plan were resources should go in the economy better then entrepreneurs who saved resources????? The reason why entrepreneurs are making mistakes such as the housing and nasdaq bubble was because of cheap money from central banking. Low interest rates encourage speculation rather then savings. " Go ahead I'll be waiting.
Dr. Wolff states that central planning is essential for a good community because capitalism focuses the planning on the benefit of the few; He gives an example of a CEO controlling his company. However this view is very wrong. Two examples: First, capitalism is not synonym to large companies but rather free market. Second, central planning becomes more difficult and long to execute when done in large scales. Socialism should always be seen as a threat, since its practice all over the world does not make those countries better.
fucked Australia well said
The criticisms of capitalism are not criticisms of capitalism but it's abrogation and violation.
Education is a lifelong, individual experience. School is a commodity. Sometimes you need someone to teach you something and they deserved to be paid.
I couldn't get pass the conflation of these because it shows a belief in false premises that will undermine everything else he says.
Mr. Wolf, and Ms. Flanders, please consider discussing the book “Democracy in Chains” by Prof. Nancy McLean. It is both frightening and extremely pertinent!
Bernie Sanders isn't cashing in. He's been spouting his FOR THE PEOPLE views for 40 years. #FeelTheBern!!!
I'm put in mind of a Ukrainian Professor who emigrated here after the end of the Cold War , to which he said that , "for almost 100 years now socialism has been tried and everybody says they just don't get it right , well after 100 years maybe it's not worth a damn !
How much more time do they need" ?
I'm also reminded of something Ben Shapiro said about people who endorse socialism is that , "none of them have ever lived , nor do they want to live in a modern socialist Nation" !
Above-mentioned quotes are paraphrased , however there seems to be a singularity in meaning !
Richard has an honest, straightforward manner.
What will move civilization forward more power through competition or power through cooperation and collaboration?
Thanks Laura and Rick for this. It is very important, and needs too go viral! People need to know this.
A modern day socialist is someone who has absolutely no idea as to how they would dispense wealth equally in a country of 100 million + people.
A modern day socialist is someone who sits back and says "HEY, I COULD MANAGE THINGS MUCH BETTER THAN CAPITALISTS CAN." and goes on to "light a bowl".
Why did you put "light a bowl" in quotation marks? Are you high right now?
Socialism certainly differs from a CEO planning for the "community" in a corporate society.The difference is choice. In socialism, you have no choice, you have options of a pre-chosen field. Socialism is not benign, it's actions that never stop. As an example, Social Security was not intended for the entire population, and yet here we are. You CANNOT opt out of it and what you have are credits, not cash in your account. Check for yourself. Collectivism, which includes Socialism. is a dirty word because it undermines choice and the option to say no,."I will not participate, thank you very much.". Obamacare (ACA) gives someone the option to opt out,...for a price. Imaging that, You must pay NOT to participate is a social program. I'm sorry, but there is a streak of arrogance and destructive nature in a socialist society despite it's name. Voluntary participation, as in a community supported agriculture(CSA), is my preference. "Socialism, ideas so good they have to be mandatory". That's my 2 cents.
Socialism is retired profs getting 70% of their top salary. A prof paid $100,000 while teaching gets $70,000 annually when retired. Why?
+Ted Apelt, UA-cam Won't let me reply to your comment. Apparently 500 is the maximum number of replies...
Your question was "So what then caused the disaster starting in 2007 and continuing to the present day?" I'm guessing you're referring to the economic crash we experienced in 2007. Economic instability over the last several years has been caused by many things (people, actions, systems, policies, crimes, etc.). One could easily fill a textbook responding to that question. In the interest of time, could you please tell me the specific cause you are most concerned with?
Obama a socialist lmao, sorry but some americans are truly clueless. Hell even bernie is hardly socialist
It seems very difficult for some people to understand that capitalism is not free enterprise. Capitalism is economy run by big capital. If an individual operator can be thrown in prison for growing a plant, or carrying it around, or selling it, that is not free enterprise. When your access to nature is cut off in any way, or your autonomy over your own body is not complete, then you do not live in a system of free enterprise or free anything-else. You are commodified as a body for labor, and as a gaping appetite for the consumption of products and dollars. Only with some type of social-orientation in our politics can we have and continue to develop healthy, vibrant communities.
Venezuelan socialism and Cuban Socialism are quite different. Venezuela has a more watered down type of Socialism, in which several parties are allowed, there are still elections, many companies are allowed to function (Although usually under heavy regulations). Freedom of speech is threatened in both Cuba and Venezuela, but in Venezuela you will get in far less trouble because of it. Venezuela still has one TV channel that openly speaks against the government which has survived due political pressure. 40% Of the Venezuelan parliament is anti-socialist and some states get away with anti-socialist majority. In the past elections, the now socialist regime won BY A HAIR, something close to 51%
I am a Venezuelan immigrant, and i lived in Venezuela 16 years of my life. I also had family that had gone to Cuba and they tell me how it is over there.
More from Richard Wolff at www.democracyatwork.info. Many podcasts that are just as interesting, and important. Dr. Wolff is a great teacher that is very necessary these days. He offers all of the information on the above mentioned website for free as well.
"No recovery in the near future" doesn't resonate so well in 2020 as it did in 2015. He counts on capitalism having a financial crisis "every 3 to 7 yrs", and that's a big lie.
He dodged the question about describing the differences in socialist countries.
He debunks socialism at 10:36. This is literally how a socialist society operates except, instead of shareholders being ancillary to the elected board of a corporation, the populace becomes ancillary to the elected officials in control of every corporation.
The criticism at 12:25 is a strong case for import taxes (among other taxes for detrimental income sources) in a capitalist country. It's a weak case for socialism.
"He debunks socialism at 10:36. This is literally how a socialist society operates except, instead of shareholders being ancillary to the elected board of a corporation, the populace becomes ancillary to the elected officials in control of every corporation."
Except Richard Wolff is a market socialist. He believes that workers in companies should own a portion of said company.
@@hobbso8508 Interesting. Under capitalism, you can start a cooperative. Under market socialism, can you create a business as an individual without any government involvement, and own, control, and earn money from it like capitalism?
its easy to understand ..just please find out .. what is the different India vs China ..?
The "definition game" is played by socialists and conservatives alike. But over the decades the term "socialism", which may have several minor definitions, has ONE clear common definition. It is ownership by the state. I prefer Winston Churchill's definition..."Socialism is the philosophy of failure..." Capitalism (which we do NOT have in the USA) is simply another term for "free markets". "Crony capitalism" is something we should all oppose.
Wolff calls it like it is, no fear, we need more people who will speak to power!
It's refreshing to see America waking up to Socialism.
Great show, great content, awesome delivery. You've got a new follower! I look forward to watching more.
I enjoy listening to Prof. Wolff, but I'm not sure he fully understands Adam Smith, F. A. Hayek, or any of the other great free-market economists. Smith certainly didn't believe in only looking out for yourself. He believed the basis of all morality rested in the human capacity to feel "sympathy" (his WC) for others. Hayek never denied the existence of planning in a capitalist economy. He wrote a great deal about the difference between socialist planning and capitalist planning, and why socialist planning so often leads to impoverishment.
Bernie Sanders for President 2016.He really cares to fix the problems we are facing .
I am not alone in my dismay with how things are going.
The main problem with socialism is what Hayek pointed out: prices. No Government or burocrat can efficiently determine the price of products, because this is the result of individual desicions among sellers and buyers which nobody can guess previously
+Rosa Maria de la Pena GarciaPHD mutualism destroys Hayek's argument... decades before he was born
+Rosa Maria de la Pena GarciaPHD the government doesn't have to set prices. Nobody is saying get rid of business and let government control the means of production. All we are talking about is giving people access to things that nowadays pretty much everyone needs to be better prepared for a whole world view and perspective.
If you want socialism you can have it. Just stop pointing guns at everyone else. Comparing the "planning" of individuals to state socialism is disingenuous at best.
Society doesn't have goals, people have goals.
I COULD SAY THE SAME THINGS ABOUT FOOD, INTERNET, TRANSPORTATION, TV, CINEMAS AND NIGHTCLUBS. It is the quintessential social thing that brings people together to connect with each other. I WANT FREE STUFF -- -- GIMME GIMME
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”
― Vladimir Lenin
The sad part is that a lot of the people watching this aren't from the United States. Richard Wolff is popular on the Internet, but I wonder how many of us are from Europe?
How do people not understand that without our capitalistic system we wouldn't ever have the Internet, youtube, or the iPhone I am writing this comment with. So would you prefer free healthcare, food, housing, etc... And not have all the amazing technology that even the "poor" in America get to enjoy every day.
mrsideshow You are awake, and that is refreshing. I just wanted to let you know that albeit we few, you are not alone. These poor people will most likely never wake up or see why free everything is evil. They will still be together and talking about how great it is going to be in their new homes that the socialists promised them while they march into the gas chamber and think (a little too late) ..."wait a minute... this is not the fancy new penthouse I was promised". I still hope that some of them will give up their selfish thoughts and wake up.
mrsideshow the internet, iphones and youtube... were all created using government subsidized research through DARPA. try again.
You should team up with Bernie !! It would be great to have more decent, wise and courageous people work in team to make this world a better place !!! ;-)
When humans are threatened with extinction, only then they galvanize into a united force, as in China, India, USSR etc., but the most important difference between socialism and capitalism, is the evolution of the 'one party system', that enables bold decisions and correct errors (self-error correcting system). That is the secret of the success of Mao, Deng and Xi and the reason why India couldn't make such headway. Great talk, Laura.
All human work is valuable and important.Not only those who are trained .This society needs both that development is progressing ahead.
No, no, no. It is simple. The difference between Socialism and Capitalism is PROFIT.
For the common good, there should be no profit.
Really? I think you are confusing socialism with communism.
dharmayourkarma Well even if he was, what would the difference be? Communism (as seen in Russia) was simply a militant let's-get-it-done-quick take on socialism.
America rediscovers socialism this universe is fascinating and honestly thought i would never see this in my life time.
Socialism is NOT communism. Understand this.
dapperedavid Yes, but it is the path to communism, with communism as the end goal.
Logic, Reason, and Evidence
This is called the slippery slope argument, good job. You know what, capitalism is the path to complete anarchy for that matter.
24:00 Then let us also call Socialism what it is: ANTI-SUCCESS and proud to hate any one succeeding above average to the fullness of their ability.