Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Marx's Theory of Alienation - Richard Wolff on Economic Update
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 сер 2024
- We'll have a new episode of Economic Update for you next week. In the meantime, take a look back to earlier this year, when he summarizes Marx's Theory of Alienation.
"What you've produced is taken from you. It's alienated from you. And someone else who didn't work with you to produce it will decide what happens to it: where it goes, to whom it goes, for what purpose it is used. That's none of your affair... And that is painful, and that is psychologically stressful, and it's one of the ways that the capitalist system (Marx argues) affects your psychology through this struggle."
This is a clip from Economic Update: Economic Update: Marxism's Ongoing Relevance
[S11 E14]
Watch the full episode: • Economic Update: Noam ...
______________________________________________________________________________________
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work.
Become an EU patron on Patreon: / economicupdate
Become a monthly donor via our website: www.democracya...
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Learn more about Prof Wolff's NEW BOOK, "The Sickness is the System: When Capitalism Fails to Save Us from Pandemics or Itself"
Now also available as an eBook!
www.democracyatwork.info/books
“A blueprint for how we got here, and a plan for how we will rescue ourselves.”
- Chris Hedges, American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, New York Times best-selling author
Check out Prof. Wolff's other books "Understanding Socialism" and "Understanding Marxism"
www.lulu.com/sp...
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Want to help us translate and transcribe our videos?
Learn about joining our translation team: bit.ly/2J2uIHH
Jump right in: bit.ly/2J3bEZR
Follow us ONLINE:
Patreon: / economicupdate
Websites: www.democracyat...
www.rdwolff.com
Facebook: / economicupdate
/ richarddwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Twitter: / profwolff
/ democracyatwrk
Instagram: / democracyatwrk
Subscribe to our podcast: economicupdate....
Shop our Store: bit.ly/2JkxIfy
I'm an engineer and I want for nothing, but Alienation is what lead me here. I do what I do to contribute to all people and to take satisfaction in my work, but that's robbed of me. I want to live in a world where I can contribute to my fellow people, not have it abused. And I know nothing comes for free; we need to make that world.
I have so much anger. I worked at a hospital for 28 years. Around 4 years , my hours we’re cut drastically. Our politicians stripped our hospital to bare bones. My last 1.5 years were a living hell. The worst part was I had no say, nor did the BOD have any concern for my financial stress and anxiety. Aloha and good riddance. Retired early and moved overseas 3 years ago.
Is the US really that bad that people won't even retire here anymore? I'm young but am considering getting the FUCK out when I am able to
@@xXEvangelXx I couldn’t afford healthcare insurance. Cobra cost $600 a month, it will probably be 1400 now this is insane.In Chiangmai we have excellent,effective healthcare here. My total healthcare cost for 2.5 years in CM was under $200 dollars and I don’t need healthcare insurance here
I like the term appropriation better. If you’re in a relationship with a narcissist at home or at work, what’s yours is theirs and what’s theirs is theirs. No matter how hard you work, there’s nothing to show for it.
Marx supported appropriation; the possession of personal property.
He rightfully called capitalist action as expropriation of what has been naturally appropriated; the dispossession of someone from personal property.
"Expropriate the expropriators"
Marx actually identified 4 types of alienation in his "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844".
1. Workers are alienated from the product of their labor.
The surplus value produced by one's labor is appropriated by the capitalist despite not having produced it.
2. Workers are alienated from the process of labor.
Key decisions related to what is produced, where it will be produced, how much of it will be produced, etc, are made not by the worker but by the capitalist.
3. Workers are alienated from their "species being".
Marx considered labor to be an integral component to our nature as humans who transform the environment for the material betterment of society. Under capitalism, we are conditioned to treat labor as a means to an end - to secure a wage if you're a worker, or acquire the labor of others if you're a capitalist. Therefore, capitalism deducts from our human essence as we don't regard labor as the transformatively imperative process to our being that Marx viewed it as. This is radically important, because it implies that not just workers, but capitalists too are alienated under capitalism despite their comparative material comfort.
4. Workers are lastly alienated from one another.
Marx was a social theorist who viewed labor and the creation of wealth as social phenomena that involve the collaboration of people. Since, under capitalism, we are driven to compete against one another both within and outside of the workplace, we grow isolated from each other. We begin to view coworkers not as co-creators in the wealth of society, but as competitors to be triumphed over.
Thanks for coming to my Marxist Ted Talk.
We've grown accustomed to this, but we still feel bad. To realise what you're missing, you must rise to the point of having your own business and make something and sell it. After that, you can't go back, not just because of the money, no - it's the feelings and the experience.
Good comment, but Marxist economies, and countries with strong unions also have business owners that do very well along with their employees.
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
I’m glad to see your response, as it reminds me that there are business people who understand the priorities and know how to make money honestly without taking advantage of human beings. I see in the words you wrote, a true and moral capitalist. Unfortunately, the majority of capitalists in our society do not have their priorities appropriately aligned like you do. They put money above all else, and I’m not kidding about that.
@@mmarciniak Well since "capitalsim" involves "production" why do you refer to
people who do not produce anything "capitalists"?
@@Michael-qy1jz A Marxist businessman. The employees own the business, control the means of production, distribution of the surplus and all of the loss. Huawei is an employee owned business, Ren Zhengfei is the highest paid employee. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game, BS they're losing everything in parts of the country. You declare bankruptcy, then take your money and leave somebody else holding the bag when your business goes south.
is it correct to use that term in other contexts? like for example how an individualist society alienates people with similar struggles from eachother making them feel more isolated and insignificant
It wouldn’t be incorrect. This is just marx’s theory of alienation as it occurs in a capitalist system of production.
That's the standard definition of the word pretty much.
Alienation within production leads to alienation of the person. When you think about for example all the mass shooting and violence in the U.S there's a reason for this and it boils down to alienation. When don't see ourselves in the products we create under capitalism and we often compete against each other in the workplace creating a toxic and unhealthy environment. This then becomes the values that society adopts and we trample over each other in our everyday lives because the workplace teaches us to look out for our own self interest and then society starts to deteriorate because those who are poorer than us were simply "lazy and didn't work hard enough". How many times have you heard that? What Marx is trying to do is make you understand how the social relations of production are the foundations for the values a society has. An example is how Christianity often call Jesus the "Lamb of God" because the society that created the Christian religion was a agrarian society where farming and herding sheep was critical and important to society and their religion reflects the values of the production of that society. I hope this makes sense as it will give you a more scientific understanding of how things work.
@@deezeed2817 please don’t say ,,scientific “ explanation
@@deezeed2817 thanks for explaining in a different way, it makes perfect sense i have a better understanding.
It’s very painful to give in to this phenomenon, but I’m afraid there’s no universal recognition of this dichotomy among the working public, at least in America, where I believe we are brainwashed to put MONEY above all else, including our WELL-BEING!
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
@@Michael-qy1jz it's only through Marxist reform that any of the advantages of being a worker have been realized in our mixed economy. in a real free market, which we mostly had in America prior to the 1930s, workers routinely paid their employers during economic slumps to keep them on the payroll. meanwhile corporations have always protected capitalist investment with limited liability. Left to their own devices, capitalists will always game the system to mitigate their own risk.
And the point isn't that you can legally create your own business. competition is the engine of capitalism, so by definition there will be winners and losers. and therefore the winners who control more capital constitute a class regardless of the legal situation. we normally only realize this though when a corporation takes over a government service.
there were slaves who became emperors in ancient Rome. just bc it's possible to overwork yourself to get on top of the world doesn't make it right. the point is you shouldn't have to.
@@lonniejackson4225 most reform has come from technology. Yes, I protect my assets and investments just like you do and the next guy. Communism / socialism is corrupt also, the father up in the chain you are, the better your life- under communism, we are all equal, just some more equal than others. Lol
Oligarchs control governments now and giving govt more power is a horrible idea- aka single payer health care.
@@Michael-qy1jz oh silly me. most reform for workers has come from technology which is why giving tax breaks to capital/automation has increased the work hours we put in at our jobs???
and the public sector of healthcare which has decreased costs is actually worse than the private sector that makes medical treatment too expensive for a 3rd of the people who really need it.
dang, i must have mixed up "good" and "bad" in my head. won't happen again.
@@Michael-qy1jz standard five day work week with a 2 day weekend. overtime pay. minimum wage. child labor laws. wrongful termination protection. health insurance. social security. vacation time. holidays. Thank socialists for them.
we had some labor changes due to technology, yep. a lot of those changes contributed toward and exacerbated the great depression in the early 20th century. socialists pushed for and got worker reform of the above and more.
Urgh, this hits hard..
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
@@Michael-qy1jz That's all a bunch of garbage you just spewed. The employer isn't guaranteed a paycheck? They have all the money! The owner works and worries constantly? Nowhere near how much the worker worries since the worker struggles to survive. Anyone can go out and start up a business? Nonsense. Ignoring that huge capitalists' industries that would drive you out of business, there's also the fact that starting a business is hardly possible. The amount of money needed to start a business is nothing to Scaff at. Most businesses start with investors, workers, and facilities already established.
@@Michael-qy1jz You're just wrong, because your premise is. The biggest Communist Corporation (worker-co-op) is Mondragon, a 100-200k employees giant in Spain. The employees are also the owners of the enterprises within the Corporation. They all share the risks and the benefits. In Capitalism employer and employee share only the risks, not the benefits, thus, the alienation. Only the owner decides what happens with the enterprise and the products, while everybody has to live with the consequences. For better or for worse. Your premise, that there absolutely have to be seperate entities of owners and employees makes you not understand the issue.
@@incredible12 So this Spain company- how much do employees invest and what it thier ROI on that investment besides thier salary?
Any employee can take thier savings and buy dividend paying stock in thier company and get a quarterly return while owning a piece of the company now. And they can add more and more to it.
My employees would love to own my company and I would gladly sell it to them if they collectively go out and put thier cash up and sign for the loans to do it.
It's all risk and reward. I never said Co-ops were bad, I just know that thie has to be a chain of hierarchy or their system will not able to compete in a market.
@@Michael-qy1jz you've copy pasted this comment 80 times now
Thank You , Prof Wolff , Thank You .
Great one professor
I feel alienated
Alienation is abusive. Please tell us about subjugation and control in the workplace which is also abusive.
God I love this man's delivery
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
@@Michael-qy1jz dawg all I said was I love his delivery, I literally don't have time to debate economics rn
@@mattweigand9648 Your to busy at your job that they steal from you? Lol
@Milos Bulajic yes, I do not need to be a useless professor who doesn't work to write papers and books, I just have to run my businesses. I laugh at the whole Marxist cry baby rhetoric, especially the you ho joke and they steal from you.
@@Michael-qy1jz well the problem is your assigning all these beliefs to me and wrote this whole paragraph when I said nothing related to anything you said. All I said was that I love his delivery, thats it.
The solution here is to join/start a co-op! ✊🏼
Yes- everyone can put in thier life savings and all thier credit and assume ALL the risks. And everyone can work 100 hours a week non paid if necessary when the Co-OP isnt making money and they can continue to dump thier cash into weekly if it's not profitable at times.
@@Michael-qy1jz Bunch of empty words not backed by any facts
@@Michael-qy1jz
What you just described is exactly what a capitalist/business owner would have to do in order to start a new company/business, according to most right-wingers.
So what's wrong with a bunch of people doing it together?
The risk is just as great but the rewards are SO much better.
I'd happily take my chances with a co-op given the opportunity.
successful people don't become that way overnight .most people you see as a glance-wealth, a great career, purpose-is the result of hard work and hustle over time. I pray that anyone who reads this will be successful in life..
You can say that again
Investing in cry'pto nowadays is the real deal
Yeah Stocks are good but crypto is much better
@Mia Alexa That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like mrs Stacey Biden
I have heard alot about investments with mrs stacey biden and how good she is , please how safe are the profits
Absolutely right......
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
Well shit, now I have this to think about today.
If you find an answer please let me know.
You'll have the rest of your life to live it, too.
Why? He didn't say it was going to be on the test...
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
@@Michael-qy1jz couldn’t hear you with your tongue stuck to that boot.
Wow. This is powerful. No doubt Marx was unique genius.
If only the Bolsheviks emphasized guns for all workers, thus giving them absolute power, socialism would’ve easily won the cold war.
These days there is also another version of alienation going on. Police officers, teachers, cleaners, retailstore workers etc who earn so little, they can't even find a affordable home in the very city they are working in. So you get this bizarre situation that they all have to come from outside the city, as the costs of living in the bigger city have risen too high in the last 20 or so years. Basically they have been forced out of there
Share this
While the points raised by this video are valid, there is another form of alienation happening. You work for money. Your motivation is money. That's the real alienation. You don't care what you contribute to. You don't care that you're a cog in a Big Evil Machine. You just want your money.
Nonsense- money is a tool to Divey out resources other wise we would be in war tribes fighting for territory and resources daily and protecting our tribes territory from poachers.
B.F. Skinner in _About Behaviorism:_
_To say that the Industrial Revolution in England improved the material condition of the working classes but “destroyed craftsmanship and the intelligent joy of man in his daily work” by alienating (separating) him from the end product of his labor seems more profound than to say it destroyed the naturally reinforcing consequences of making things, for which the contrived reinforcers of wages were a poor substitute._
A lot of Marx’s critique of capitalism involves how money as a _contrived reinforcer_ destroys the _naturally reinforcing consequences_ that would otherwise occur. So things like housing and health care (in the US) are provided on the basis of being able to pay rather than on the basis of need. And goods and services maximize profit, often by degrading them in any number of ways, for those selling them rather than optimizing the natural reinforcers of those goods or services.
@@jeff__w profit is a good thing, it doesn't degrade. Its the measure and signal from society letting you know that what you are doing is correct.
You can still handcraft anything and sell it- but will the market buy it??? People want cheap/less expensive and most are willing to give up hand crafted for a lower price to be able to afford more goods.
@@Michael-qy1jz Profit can act as a signal but, as a contrived reinforcer, it can also lead to degradation. (We have a panoply of consumer protection laws to prevent just that.) People might want cheaper products but, in some cases (e.g., lightbulbs being made to burn out sooner by the Phoebus cartel in the 1920s as an infamous example) people aren't given a choice (or they're unaware of the degradation at the time of purchase) and the savings aren't passed on to consumers in the form of cheaper prices.
@@jeff__w Are you sure that the "law" is protecting you, or that you have any "rights" at all???
Since all contracts since Roosevelt's time have the colorable
consideration of Federal Reserve Notes, instead of a genuine
consideration of silver and gold coin, all contracts are
colorable contracts, and not genuine contracts. [According to
Black's Law Dictionary (1990), colorable means "That which is in
appearance only, and not in reality, what it purports to be,
hence counterfeit, feigned, having the appearance of truth."]
Consequently, a new colorable jurisdiction, called a statutory
jurisdiction, had to be created to enforce the contracts. Soon
the term colorable contract was changed to the term commercial
agreement to fit circumstances of the new statutory jurisdiction,
which is legislative, rather than judicial, in nature. This
jurisdiction enforces commercial agreements upon implied consent,
rather than full knowledge, as it is with the enforcement of
contracts under the Common Law.
All of our courts today sit as legislative Tribunals, and the so-
called "statutes" of legislative bodies being enforced in these
Legislative Tribunals are not "statutes" passed by the
legislative branch of our three-branch Republic, but as
"commercial obligations" to the Federal United States for anyone
in the Federal United States or in the Continental United States
who has used the equitable currency of the Federal United States
and who has accepted the "benefit," or "privilege," of
discharging his debts with the limited liability "benefit"
offered to him by the Federal United States ... EXCEPT those who
availed themselves of the remedy within this commercial system of
law, which remedy is today found in Book 1 of the Uniform
Commercial Code at Section 207.
When used in conjunction with one's signature, a stamp stating
"Without Prejudice U.C.C. 1-207" is sufficient to indicate to the
magistrate of any of our present Legislative Tribunals (called
"courts") that the signer of the document has reserved his Common
Law right. He is not to be bound to the statute, or commercial
obligation, of any commercial agreement that he did not enter
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally, as would be the case
in any Common Law contract.
Furthermore, pursuant to U.C.C. 1-103, the statute, being
enforced as a commercial obligation of a commercial agreement,
must now be construed in harmony with the old Common Law of
America, where the tribunal/court must rule that the statute does
not apply to the individual who is wise enough and informed
enough to exercise the remedy provided in this new system of law.
He retains his former status in the Republic and fully enjoys his
unalienable rights, guaranteed to him by the Constitution of the
Republic, while those about him "curse the darkness" of
Commercial Law government, lacking the truth needed to free
themselves from a slave status under the Federal United States,
even while inhabiting territory foreign to its territorial venue.
# # #
ADDENDUM
U.C.C. 1-308:4 Sufficiency of reservation.
Any expression indicating any intention to preserve rights is
sufficient, such as "without prejudice," "under protest," "under
reservation," or "with reservation of all our rights."
The Code states an "explicit" reservation must be made.
"Explicit" undoubtedly is used in place of "express" to indicate
that the reservation must not only be "express" but it must also
be "clear" that such a reservation was intended.
The term "explicit" as used in U.C.C. 1-308 means "that which is
so clearly stated or distinctively set forth that there is no
doubt as to its meaning." ...
U.C.C. 1-308:7 Effect of reservation of rights.
The making of a valid reservation of rights preserves whatever
rights the person then possesses and prevents the loss of such
right by application of concepts of waiver or estoppel ....
U.C.C. 1-308:9 Failure to make reservation.
When a waivable right or claim is involved, the failure to make a
reservation thereof causes a loss of the right and bars its
assertion at a later date ....
U.C.C. 1-103:6 Common law.
The Code is "Complementary" to the common law which remains in
force except where displaced by the Code ....
A statute should be construed in harmony with the common law
unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the common
law. ... "The Code cannot be read to preclude a common law
action."
EXAMPLE
Your Honor, my use of "Without Prejudice UCC 1-308" above my
signature on this document indicates that I have exercised the
"Remedy" provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1
at Section 308, whereby I may reserve my Common Law right not to
be compelled to perform under any contract, or agreement, that I
have not entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.
And, that reservation serves notice upon all administrative
agencies of government -- national, state and local -- that I
do not, and will not, accept the liability associated with the
"compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreement.
In what aspects Marx was correct might be up to debate, but there's no way to deny that we are completely alienated from ourselves, from each other, from our work and from our environment.
Thank you, Dr. Wolff. Very clear.
As well as great analytical power, Marx had a also great humaniy. An exceptional human being.
Anyone know why there was no episode this week?
Yes
Memorial Day in the U.S. The studio was probably closed.
The bees say the same thing. Intelligence tells us, do not put the bears in charge when you are elsewhere. It is a natural law! They will consume, selfishly all that is yours.
And this impacts everyone, even those who have been made rich and successful, "my ordinary life" is a song with deep lyrics about the alienation that comes when your work is massively successful but you have no control over the outcome. You become pampered but you lose yourself.
I am a truck driver . I feel really bad when first time the company told me to put keys on the table. For some stupid reasons i missed the truck for a while.
Buy one.
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
@@Michael-qy1jz Wolff advocates for cooperatives idiot. Also this is insanely abstracted from actual history, how poverty works and how loans are actually granted.
@@tellurianapostle he just keeps copying and pasting the same response under every comment. Not worth arguing with.
great update.
I guess the loss through work is part of our feelings that there is a lost existential underpinning to our humanness. Perhaps, one day work structures will help relieve our existential dread exacerbated when we got work and when we leave it.
You are producing chairs, for example, and after the lunch break the boss says: "now go and sell these and tomorrow morning you will pay me $5 each, cos there is a rent to pay, light, taxes, credits and if I manage to have like 1 for myself will be ok, but you can use your time, car and connections, go and charge the customers whatever price is good for you. That is how we share the burden of running this company. That is how you feel connected to our work".
But I couldn't make anything without tools and the rest of the working environment. It should be a partnership, a cooperative, a commune,
Anarchy Rules!
I do not agree. People NEED leaders, not RULERS! But.... our leaders need to put the people first, not money and big business. Therein lies THE PROBLEM.
@@mmarciniak Agree, but how do you do it. Greed seems to be part of human nature. Not just corporations are greedy but everyone is at some extent. The key is getting legal corruption, aka lobbying out of Congress, but of course, politicians will never allow it because they are looking out for their own interest. So, I don't know who would be the Leaders who can change the system if we all can be corrupted and is in us to accumulate resources.
@@mmarciniak there totally can be leader figures in cooperatives and communes.
the problem arises when leaders have legal authority and exclusive ownership.
I guess that is what would turn them into rulers.
@@jimmytimmy3680 So you equate "greed" with being "prepared"??? If not, how much preparation
is just enough preparation...and but what method would you calculate this?
How about "dream interpretation" as related in the bible...? Wolff seems to favor this method,
as to "pandemic" prep...as in storing tests for the next one, as well as PPE with a limited shelf life...
and for "all the people" too...which somehow "capitalists" failed to do, as did he...and I bet he
still hasn't done it. ( and the government didn't either )
Of course, the government DID prepare for "nuclear attack"...with fall out shelters stocked with
emergency supplies and equipment...what became of THAT preparation...and that threat still exists...
so where is the nearest "fall out" shelter and what supplies are available there?
Oh and just for fun...in regards to those who do prepare...how much, if any, responsibility do they
bear for those who do not...
It also seems that you are assigning both the problem and solution to the same source...
@@mmarciniak sure, sometimes a leader is needed. In that case they can be elected for a certain work that has to be done democratically and be instantly recallable, in a way inverting the hierarchy - the "boss" answers to their "employees"
Alienated inside our fishbowls, knowing we're being observed.
Swimming to work and back home everyday, just like the fish around in the fishbowl.
Your wage also alienates you from all the things you could have had otherwise traded for with all your labour. Ie. You are alienated from the exchange value of your labour. (Talking out of my ass btw, I think this is correct though.)
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
Great.. Not only do I have to produce all day but now I have to decide where it goes..
having a say about what's being done with the produce is merely one example of in what way our relationship to work should change.
the fact that you care so little about the work you do that you don't have any desire to participate in decisions shows how screwed up your (our) current relationship to work is.
the idea here is to turn our work into something we are personally invested in; have stake in; belongs to us; not to work for others - but with others.
only then are going to be able to derive a sense of fulfillment from it in the long-term.
Is it different when you build a house or grow food?? and the government takes it?
What you've produced isn't really taken from you as the worker, what you produce by putting effort into it you never own in the first place. That's what he means by alienation.
💯
2:22 ''disconnected from your own product''---------from other people. From feeling of justice .And sometimes from your life
Helped build the house, never to even dream living in such a house.
I wonder if anyone has asked this before, but what's Marx's take on service industry workers? They don't produce anything tangible but they still create value in their interactions with customers and such. What kind of alienation do they feel?
It feels really, really shitty
But your product is replaced by a preferred product, money. I would much rather want 100 dollars than the 100 burgers I made in my fast food job. I would get sick after my second, maybe third burger.
1:59 ''Snatches your doll''-------------works for all kinds of dolls. Hahahahahaha.....But being a kid, you would snatch some other kid's doll without blinking.
The capitalist offers the opportunity for the employees to create the products that they, the capitalist, sells. Often without the capital that is supplied by the business owners there would be no jobs for the workers. My question is how should the capitalist be recompensed for his risk taking in supplying capital to create the opportunities for workers to ply their trades? What is considered a fair profit for the capitalist?
It's all rediculous what he says. Marxist propaganda- pay your fair share, a living wage, and on and on.
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
Dr. Wolff should define the worker he imagines: one who has the urge of ownership without the gumption to do it. I am a small business owner in dentistry. In 26 years I have never met a dental assistant who wanted more responsibility. Many employees do just want to go home.
@@angelam1702 Absolutely!! And that is fine, but when they expect to own our business with no risk, no saving and a work ethic of my over fed house cat, they have lost reality. Lol.
I have nieces I've tried to straighten out of this Marxist propaganda and sadly so far I'm failing. They believe the propaganda of pay yourbfair share, living wage, women get paid less and all this other nonsense. I see the United States splitying in 2 at some point.
We have had 5 decades of Marxist supervision programs running as the late Yuri Bezmenov spoke about.
@@Michael-qy1jz , no one is expecting to own or control your company. Richard Wolff never said such a thing. He simply pointing out that workers have to own their own companies and factories in order to get the full value of their labour. To fail to understand is argument and yet you think other people are obtuse.
@@michaelmappin1830 Wolf said we are stealing from employees which is nonsense. People should go own thier own business and assume the risks and most find it more profitable and easier to stay and employee.
Another enjoyable time spend in class with the professor and even learn something as well! Thanks prof.
The danmed boss will tell you that you are still involved and an important part of the team working together to reach the end result. Also that you are being compensated for your part. What he is really saying is STFU and do what you're pay to do and people will give a fcuk about your thoughts and feelings when and if you become the boss and are paying their wages that is feeding their family.
What could be worse than laboring over a thing of "beauty" and having it taken away
from you in exchange for what was agreed upon or promised?
How about laboring over a thing of "beauty" in which you have invested everything and
nobody wants it, so nobody will take it away...and you can NEVER be alienated from it?
how much you are being paid is irrelevant. our culture may have made you believe that you are getting a good deal when taking work as an employee and that all is fair because it's something you agreed on, but that doesn't magically grant you a life of fulfillment nor does it protect you from psychological stress.
what the theory of alienation attempts to explain is that when a human does not work on their own project - on something they're personally invested in and have agency of - but instead on someone else's project where they have ultimately no say in the matter, then that is psychologically damaging in the long-term, and does not allow for that person to actualize their full potential.
the scenario you describe in your second paragraph is a straw-man; nobody suggested that this is what you ought to do, and it is not the sole alternative to entering an employee & employer relationship. the idea is not for everybody to struggle running their own business. the idea is for the people who do the work to also be the people who have agency and make the decisions (collectively, democratically). this doesn't have to mean that you are by yourself, not knowing how to sell your craft. co-ops are a thing.
@@holleey So, you favor the "tyranny" of the "majority"???? Or is this just another failure
of "definition"... where "democracy" no longer has any meaning...like "capitalism" no longer
does? This would seem to suggest that the result is "circular nonsense"...
What is your "full potential"? How did you come by it? and who do you owe it to?
Nonsense. Lol. Nothing is taken from you. The employee goes home and has no skin in the game of his credit, money and wealth and is guaranteed a paycheck even though the business may lose money. The owners work and worry constantly as they carry the risk and burdens of trying to get and keep a. Business profitable.
All Marxist nonsense. At anytime an employee can go open his own business, put his own money in and acquire his own loans and deal with a million factors and risks to try and make the business successful.
A Marxist businessman can even pay the propaganda term- a living wage. Lol.
A Marxist businessman can also pay the propaganda term- his fair share of taxes. Lol.
I can not believe people fall for this Marxist crap
@@Michael-qy1jz Well that's what happens when the meaning of the words keep changing...
and when "people" are questioned regarding what they "mean", they can't manage a coherent
explanation...i.e. labor IS the primary element of the "means of production"...yet for some
reason they have managed not to be "owners" of it...
"Marx used the word "exploitation" to focus analytical attention on what capitalism shared with
feudalism and slavery, something that capitalist revolutions against slavery and feudalism never overcame."
- Richard D. Wolff
This explains the problem, since "capitalism" is stated, as not being those things, as well
as a revolution against them...yet is "contradicted" directly every time "capitalism" is used
by Wolff, and his cult. ( while Michael Hudson lays all this out clearly including Marx's anticipation
that "capitalism" would solve these problems...but that the rentier seeking behavior, which
was the basis of both feudalism/slavery and now expanded to the F.I.RE sector, and enabled
by "government" is NOT "capitalism".)
So it seems rather pointless to be discussing "the ownership of the means of production"
when no "production" is actually involved...( or if you claim that you don't own your labor...
which makes you a slave...where as if you do...then you are a capitalist...just really
bad at it...or severely over estimating the "value" you represent in the marketplace.)
@@jgalt308 tyranny of majority is nonsense. well, only if that majority has been thoroughly conditioned by means of advertisement orchestrated by a minority, it may turn into some sort of self-imposed exploitation. but in the end, humans make better decisions collectively.
as for the potential; people simply won't perform at their best when they are working on a project they aren't invested in on a personal level. sure, they get their agreed-upon wage, but that won't lead to fulfillment in the long-term.
I do that to my chickens, but no matter how much I threaten them with starvation or making them into soup they won't lay more eggs.
Well... Sometimes the negativity in the enterprise of criticism kills me. Of course this is true and we can use all sorts of words with negative connotations but we can also view this "alienation" as a partnership in which the workers voluntarily give up the connection to the fruits of their labor in exchange for some payment which the employer provides. Yes it's not perfect but ask those artists, especially in the US, who in addition to making art must also worry about making deals and selling their art. Wouldn't they like to utilize all that time into just making art? So we can look at it as alienation but also as partnership. Why choose the negative outlook over the positive one? Sometimes in these times we are living in I feel pressured by society to give into this rampant negativity. That is in itself alienating! After all I just want to be happy but I'm not allowed. If I actually do feel happy then I'm not allowed to show it. How dare I show happiness in these times of inequality? But after all happiness is a choice. You employer is not gonna give you happiness. You need to shift your mindset to make happiness happen within you.
I know Prof. Wolff's wife is a psychotherapist, and so it comes as no great shock to hear him talk about alienation as "loss" - a word, perhaps, more at home in psychotherapists' offices. But would the professor find himself going further, and characterizing psychiatric ailments, common as they are in our post-industrial societies, in Marxist terms too? They used to call psychiatrists "alienists" - so it doesn't seem too far a stretch. And given all of the obvious problems in the social and political and economic realms, is it really any surprise that people have problems in their personal lives? All of this was sort of what C. Wright Mills said in The Sociological Imagination so long ago. Wolff knows that in countless ways, large and small, we are asked or told to blame ourselves, and Lord knows, we do, even to the point of committing suicide. As a civilization, we are indeed committing suicide, with the threat of climate change/global warming/terrestrial devastation hanging over our heads more and more with every passing day. The only thing we CAN be sure of, many of us, that is, is that WE are sane, and the people running the world are out of control, even if that offers very little solace. As always, we should be asking ourselves what to do with or about the people running the world (into the ground) rather than what to do about ourselves.
It is stressful. It is VERY stressful. And so many deal with that stress by distancing themselves from the work and product of the work so as not to feel the pain or distress of it all. Knowing you have so little control in the process you start to say things like its not important, its just a job, I don't care. You try to preempt the pain. Maybe you want to care, though. Maybe you really can't stand having a job without meaning. You try to find it somewhere, somehow in the job. It does hurt, but you want to care because there is another human being somewhere at the end of the transactions. Then there is the pain again, so you say that if they are stupid enough to ......well buyer beware that's your fault.....you ......
The point to think about is that if Marx's ideas are so great, why have they failed in every place they've been tried? Marxism has been a total disaster, but people still pin their hopes on it. A better strategy my be to ditch Marx's old and unworkable ideas and come up with something new.
Which idea failed? Have you even watched the whole video? Tell me where Marx is wrong about alienation?
@@romilmahant2971 I hope you agree that it's not enough to talk about alienation without offering a solution. And I hope you disagree with Marx's solution which is to remove private property, give means of production to the state, put everyone on the same salary, and force on everyone other small details that are necessary to implement his ideas which Marxists avoid talking about in public 😉
Or maybe we should teach our children to take the doll or the truck back. So maybe they become disobidient and rebellious adults.
1:15 ''Go Home '' -----------------Even better go home and don't come back. Hahahahahahahaaa
Prof. Only Jesus + Marx..........Each alone .Impossible
Dr, I have been a "worker" most of my life, when the boat sails away y don't rely care where it goes or what they do whit it, I worry about the next project. (Excuse my ignorance)
exactly.
the point of your comment isn't to argue against what's explained in the video, or is it?
because what you describe is exactly what the theory of alienation is: you come not to care.
if you were to be fired tomorrow, you'd realize that nothing of what the company that employed you accomplished means anything to you personally.
The worker goes home with pay. That’s his reward for a days work.
The point is that the worker does not get the full value of his labour.
@@michaelmappin1830 and how does one determine the full value?
@@Illuminated7 , the amount of money you were left over with after expenses. If you're the owner, you get 100% of that money. You're just the employee, you're only going to get a portion, even if you did all the work
@@michaelmappin1830 with all due respect you are wrong. Profit of the business comes after all operational and financial expenses have been paid. The owner unlike the worker IS NOT guaranteed an income. I know business owners that had to forgo income in order to pay their employees.
@@Illuminated7 , dude, I'm not wrong. Maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying. When you're an employee you can't get the full value of your labour because then there would be no profit for the employer. Do you understand? When the workers own the company then they get all of the wealth that their labour produces. When they work for someone else, they do not. That's why it's possible for assembly line workers to make $70,000 at a socially own bread factory but not when working as an employee at Amazon or Walmart.
L
The problem is nothing to do with which economic model you choose to get shafted by.
It's that you're getting shafted by wicked people
_citation needed_
if so, then the economic model of capitalism incentivizes people to be wicked, so it's all down to the system again.
it is the natural outcome of a relationship to work where one party gets to own and decide everything and the other simply doesn't.
there is no long-term fulfillment to be found as an employee even if your employer is the most benevolent person on the planet.
@@holleey So become self employed and then you can exploit yourself...
@@jgalt308 no, but you can experience a much greater extend of autonomy as a member of a cooperative.
nobody here is suggesting that everybody should start their own business.
@@holleey I know that no one here is "suggesting" anything...that actually makes any sense...that's the point.
BTW aren't co-op workers/ owners? which would mean they're also exploiting themselves? (and their employees,
as Mondragon is doing now? )
And, do these worker/owners decide who to sell to, how to sell, and at what price? And since
they are no longer "alienated" how much "personal liability" should they "feel" for any harm
or damage what they "produce" causes?
A great pitch for Worker Owned Cooperatives transacting in Bitcoin. Top down Capitalism goes down along with the top down banks. You gotta dream!
I worked in factories for 40 years, and I can promise you that I never cared about the products again. Unless the product failed that is. When I made it, and I was paid, I was satisfied. I had much more profound pursuits than that. We're all driven by self interest. I always wanted to make the best that could be made, and if I succeeded, that's all I cared about.
2:31 ''that is psychologically stressful''-------------What is also stressful that you keep that EU mug on the table that reminds me of Greater Germany. EU that destroyed Yugoslavia and now is preparing to attack Russia and to make French fries of all of us. Now that would be the alienation
Not the same EU. Stands for Economic Update, the name of the show.
@@andthengodpooped And A.H. stands for Advanced Ha. Not for Adolf Hitler
@@narancauk ok
I can understand that the value I add to the product or the product that I create itself is alienated from me, but the question is why do I do it, I can go to the bank, take at a certain interest rate, set up my own company and then create for my own, So why don't I do it?, why is it that I am working in a capitalistic corporation, I have the choice of leaving the job, struggling, being unemployed, gathering monetary capital and then starting my own company, so why don't I do it, Its not that I cannot do it, if I really want to.
because achieving profitability with a new business by yourself is not as simple as taking out a loan.
the risks are massive, so you stick to your employer because of perceived safety.
and there's no framework to help you. as an employee under capitalism, you are not supposed to easily acquire financial independence.
@@holleey exactly, so why then should the entrepreneur not be rewarded for acumulating capital, organising the means of production and taking risks!!!!
@@holleey setting up the entire structure of production, and supplying it constantly with everything it needs, is the labour performed by the entrepreneur and thus he is liable to control over his share of production, which ends up being the product itself, since the workers and machines have already been remunerated for their part in the production process, the labour alone cannot produce as efficiently neither as much
@@vibhuvikramaditya4576 could it be that you assume that the sole alternative to entering an employee & employer relationship is to start your own business?
the idea is not for everybody to start their own business. the idea is for the people who do the work to also be the people who have agency and make the decisions (collectively, democratically). this doesn't have to mean that you are by yourself. cooperatives are a thing.
@@holleey No , off course not, the employer employee relationship that you speak of, is a dynamic relationship within the existing structure of production, It will change eventually as everything in the market eventually changes, The point I was trying to elucidate is that even if I agree to the axiom that workers should be able to make decisions over what happens to their own produce, It is not in contradiction to what happens today, due to vast development of the market and capitalism, there has been enormous division of labour, any finished consumer good is produced only after the harmonious cooperation of multiple labours across multiples categories, where each person's labour is a very small margin of the indivisible good, so it cannot be objectively divided to everyone, now coming to the other proposition, of collective decision making, truly an egalitarian idea but the problem is, the proportion of value which is added by different labours to the end product is different, in that case a true distribution should employ that the right to decide must be in proportional to the value which has been added by each labourer, which returns us to my earlier point, where entrepreneur by taking the entire risk, organising the means of production and supplying it with all it needs is the highest contributor, it can even be quantitatively proved by valuing the amount of money invested by the entrepreneur in opposition to the hour worked times the wage per hour of each worker....
Doesn't such alienation take place in every society/government that claims to be Marxist?
I hate it here
But it's the government who took all my money. It's not my boss. My boss paid me a fair wage, but the government took the money. I ended up practically closing my business and getting a job as a convenience store clerk where I get paid more after taxes even though my wage is half as much.
@elmartillogrande do you think it's acceptable that people who make less money than others should pay higher taxes? Do you think it's acceptable that people who make less money should receive less in government services then the people who make more?
@elmartillogrande why are you listening government programs? I never said I didn't want to pay any taxes. Actually, I am in favor of paying taxes as long as it's less than the big boys who make so much more than I do and receive government handouts at the same time.
History shows..if it was up to the boss we would work for free..slavery
@@Gigika313 cite your source
So why are you not in support of reparations?246 years of doing that for free. Tell me what Mark say about that!
Leave Mark out of this.
@@redlightmax that was a typo I meant Marx’s theory of alienation. Do you agree with the marx’s theory?
You know the problem with reparations, especially in todays society is who it comes from and who it goes to. The poor pay the taxes, and the money goes to 'community leaders' and local government. The real perpetrators don't pay and the real victims get nothing. In the end a fair and equal society would benefit them more.
Edit: I can't type or spell
For mental stability, no small business owner should watch this piece. I watched this and it put me into a rage. Just put the phone down and don't watch.
Nah, they should watch it. Small business owners want to play capitalist with the big boys, so they should be treated like the big boys.
@@Voidsworn I I'm not following you. What do you mean small business owners want to play capitalism with the big boys?
@@Voidsworn are you suggesting that small business owners should not pay taxes like the big boys? If so, I'd be willing to agreed. However, I would be more agreeable if the tax rate were Progressive.
@@user-wp8yx Actually, I wouldn't have issue with small business paying little to no taxes. OTOH, the arguments levied against big business also apply to small business. Just because you are small doesn't make you better, just means you are either too early/late to the game to get big and/or not particularly good at being a capitalist.
Thanks for your comment, share this
The same worker in the same factory does not feel alienation in Soviet Union?
When you sell your car or your house do you feel alienation?
It's about autonomy and goals, second example does not hold. Worker Alienation is about not being in control of a full process and/or not seeing the results. As for the earlier example, factories ARE alienating, that was one of the big points of Marx. Anti-capitalism in general does not agree with the 'Division of Labour', as originally posited by Adam Smith and still sometimes used today.
So, by this theory, the product belongs to the capitalist. The law of appropriation of some 160 million outside of the home does the exact opposite of every worker having the right of ownership of their labor inside the home. Value is produced outside of the home and inside the home labor has no value is the current social arrangement for millions of people in the US. Is it any wonder that inside the home there is little regard and respect or dignity between members of the family. Instead of millions of families of workers consuming their wealth they give it over to someone else. Quite the problem for humanity. Question for me is this a permanent condition?
If you are not a capitalist you give up all claims to the product of your labor and no share of the market value that product accrues. This excess value goes to the capitalist is a legal right of way for the capitalist. When the workers receive wages for their labor...the capitalist is then owner of the means and the labor,--- the word capital includes both labor and the means of production (capital). Transforming money into capital depends on uniting labor and tools. Animating value producing labor and tools will produce a surplus-value even if the law of appropriation was changed back to the age old principal of the right of ownership belongs to all workers of the product and the share of wealth derived from that product. Surplus-value would not stop being produced. Animating useful labor and useful tools under worker control is still capital. It means making labor inside the home value producing labor as well. The work of all members in the family is productive of a value to society and is paid. Capital controlled by workers is nothing more than controlling their own social production and redirecting value where it is needed the most to even out the spread of wealth generally.
Repossessing the means of production and dispossessing Jaime Diamond of JP Morgan is the scary part that not everyone is on board with that endeavor, at least not right now anyway, but doing so will become a matter of necessity for the society as a whole not politics. Alienation of the means of production exist only on the value side and but on the use-value side it is a relation between workers and machinery as the prime engines of economic growth and material wealth.
Meow
But you have been paid for your labor and have no "liability" for what you have produced...
( nor did you have any input or knowledge regarding what has been produced )
so you were "alienated" before you began...
Economic nonsense! Does Wolff really think the coal miner would prefer to be "paid" with his share of the coal he produced that day, rather than having the boss sell the coal and give the miner his share in the form of cash?? Would the farm worker prefer to be paid with his share of the potatoes? Again, as ever, Wolff lets his political ideology inform his economics. Total infreakin' insanity!!
total freakin' straw-manning on your part. nobody suggested any of that.
what the theory of alienation attempts to explain is that when a human does not work on their own project - on something they're personally invested in and have agency of - but instead on someone else's project where they have ultimately no say in the matter, then that is psychologically damaging in the long-term, and does not allow for that person to actualize their full potential.
it never suggested that a coal miner should be paid in coal.... that came out of your brain and yours alone.
the idea is for the people who do the work to also be the people who have agency and make the decisions (collectively, democratically).
@@holleey OK, NOW I get it. He thinks the coal miner would be happier if HE got to decide who buys the coal he produces, rather that the management, right?? How could I possibly be so dumb??? (Er, could it possibly be that you and Wolff are the dumb ones?)
@@clarestucki5151 yes, absolutely. I have no clue what the foundation of your ridicule may be.
a worker at a coal mine would certainly lead a significantly more dignified and fulfilling life if he wouldn't be treated as a robot that presses the "mine coal" button at a certain interval, but would take part in steering the company together with his fellow workers.
a coal mine is a company that can have a significant impact on local infrastructure & environment, and be a major contributor to maintaining essential service for many families, including said worker's one. so why do you think the worker wouldn't be interested in taking a role of more agency, where he can actually play a meaningful role in improving his situation and that of his peers?
although if the coal mine would be operated democratically, it would most likely long since have transitioned into a renewable energy company.
@@holleey I agree with that concept, and the obvious solution is for the coal miner to start his own coal mining business, right? Problem(s) solved!!
Definitely easier to shit talk a brief summary when your reading comprehension is this poor.
wow his loose brained nonsense is really compelling because he talks with his hands
I'll bet he also punctuates sentences when he's writing, too. With his hands.