Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow! It's apparent that no one on this message thread actually listened to or understood what Richard Wolff was advocating.
Wow! It's apparent that no one on this message thread actually listened to or understood what Richard Wolff was advocating.
What he advocates in this video is worker owned & run businesses. Workers making management decisions as opposed to a board of directors. It's only opposes capitalism in the sense that company ownership and management decision making are by the workers.
This has been successfully done many times, but I'm sure that there are many times that it has failed.
It seems to me that this 'workers cooperative' would be undermined by typical human character flaws. Some people would work hard while others would hardly work. Some people would put a lot of work into the organizational aspects of the company, while others would dominate thru political means. Eventually it would fall apart - in most cases.
Wow! It's apparent that no one on this message thread actually listened to or understood what Richard Wolff was advocating.
Wow! It's apparent that many posters on this message thread actually understand what Richard Wolff is advocating.
More fascist/socialistic bullshit.
What the fuck prevents a" worker owned & run businesses" at this time?
If Workers are making management decisions , as opposed to a board of directors, why the fuck pay a board of directors?
Capitalism in no way would interfere with the workers buying and managing a company.
.
Then they should start by buying a dictionary and looking it up. While they are at it, look up any resulting terms you do not understand in the definiton of capitalism.People have very differing opinions on what the term "Capitalism" means.
And this is incredibly wrong and comical.I have my own simple definition which makes sense and which segregates a lot of business activity from "Capitalism".
Capitalism is using money to make money.
He most certainly is a capitalist.A fisherman that fishes in the morning and sells fish in the evening is not a capitalist.
No, they are investors.Someone who owns stock in a company but doesn't work at that company is a capitalist.
People have very differing opinions on what the term "Capitalism" means.
I have my own simple definition which makes sense and which segregates a lot of business activity from "Capitalism".
Capitalism is using money to make money.
Running a business selling goods or services is not in and of itself "Capitalism". Being a silent partner that owns part of a business is "Capitalism".
For example:
A fisherman that fishes in the morning and sells fish in the evening is not a capitalist.
Someone who owns stock in a company but doesn't work at that company is a capitalist.
Someone who owns stock in a company and works at the company is part capitalist and part worker.
The problem with our economy is that thru capitalism we have over-valued ownership and under-valued work.
Wow! It's apparent that no one on this message thread actually listened to or understood what Richard Wolff was advocating.
That's certainly true in my case. I've been responding to others' comments on the topic. I don't expect my view re: the OP to be taken seriously until I've had time to watch it.
What he advocates in this video is worker owned & run businesses. Workers making management decisions as opposed to a board of directors. It's only opposes capitalism in the sense that company ownership and management decision making are by the workers.
This has been successfully done many times, but I'm sure that there are many times that it has failed.
It seems to me that this 'workers cooperative' would be undermined by typical human character flaws. Some people would work hard while others would hardly work. Some people would put a lot of work into the organizational aspects of the company, while others would dominate thru political means. Eventually it would fall apart - in most cases.
Does he advocate any legislative changes to encourage or accommodate these kinds of businesses? There are definitely employee owned businesses thriving currently, and the approach has been tried numerous times in the past, with mixed results. They usually just come back around to a greater appreciation of the role of capitalism and capitalists.
I think that all of the predictive criticisms I've seen so far were addressed by about 27 minutes into the video. The things he advocates are:
A taxation, regulatory and public works role for government as existed in the 30's.
A worker participation in the decision making process in companies as exists in Germany today.
Worker co-ops in which workers more equally share the profits of the company and share in the direction of its operation.
What capitalism? We haven't had capitalism in the US since neo-classical economics took over.
The problem with most heterodox economists, is that they fail to understand the praxeology of economics. Economic democracy is a terrible idea. What you're essentially advocating is the removal of all private property in favor of central planning based on majority rule over the system vs. ndividual initiative.
It would collapse under its own weight.
And again, most of these economists fail to distinguish the difference between corporatism and captialism. Making most of the premise false right out of the gate.
Pure ****ing nonsense.
It works if it works for you...But honestly you can't be the only person in the world that has it right? I read from your responses that only you are the enlightened and everyone else is, well stupid...Even the validated high IQ buffs around the world are willing to discuss issues...
The difference is, that post above is not an issue discussion piece. What it is, is nonsensical hyperbole based on dogma that has been thoroughly vetted and found wanting.
What capitalism? We haven't had capitalism in the US since neo-classical economics took over.
The problem with most heterodox economists, is that they fail to understand the praxeology of economics. Economic democracy is a terrible idea. What you're essentially advocating is the removal of all private property in favor of central planning based on majority rule over the system vs. ndividual initiative.
It would collapse under its own weight.
And again, most of these economists fail to distinguish the difference between corporatism and captialism. Making most of the premise false right out of the gate.
Be careful with that Thesaurus, you might hurt yourself.
heterodox economists ?? -- I'll let that one slide, guess you mean contrarian. The video is hardly that. But "praxeology of economics " BZZZT -- that's a no go. You don't understand the term. They are two related sciences -- praxeology and economics.
The analysis and study of economic principles considered outside of mainstream or orthodox schools of economic thought. Schools of heterodox economics include socialism, Marxism, post-Keynesian and Austrian, and often combine the macroeconomic outlook found in Keynesian economics with approaches critical of neoclassical economics.
Unfortunately, I agree. For a company to function it has to have a command hierarchy. Theoretically the management could be people who have no stake in the company, but that would just degenerate into inefficient and corrupt management.
The best example is the Soviet Union where the Communist Party - and the government - degenerated into a dictatorship.
Perhaps we could have all corporations run by computers?
Then they should start by buying a dictionary and looking it up. While they are at it, look up any resulting terms you do not understand in the definiton of capitalism.People have very differing opinions on what the term "Capitalism" means.
And this is incredibly wrong and comical.I have my own simple definition which makes sense and which segregates a lot of business activity from "Capitalism".
Capitalism is using money to make money.
He most certainly is a capitalist.A fisherman that fishes in the morning and sells fish in the evening is not a capitalist.
No, they are investors.Someone who owns stock in a company but doesn't work at that company is a capitalist.
I think that all of the predictive criticisms I've seen so far were addressed by about 27 minutes into the video. The things he advocates are:
A taxation, regulatory and public works role for government as existed in the 30's.
A worker participation in the decision making process in companies as exists in Germany today.
Worker co-ops in which workers more equally share the profits of the company and share in the direction of its operation.
Which means these products and services would be developed elsewhere:
Cell phones
Cloud computing
Search engines
Crowdfunding
Social networking
Biometric security devices
Smartphones
Co-ops don't work on a large scale because the incentive to innovate gets lost in the collective desire for guarantees.
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government
I think a lot of people make the mistake of assigning moral value to this allocation, assuming that wealth "ought" to go to the most virtuous people, and be denied to those we find repugnant. But in reality, it's all about how efficiently they use their wealth. If they make good calls and allocate it usefully, we want them handling more of our money. It's not a question of providing them with a privileged lifestyle, it's about giving them more power to allocate more resources, because they've proven they can do it well.
The definiton of capitalism is as follows:
Capitalism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Now, a free market definition:
: an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government
Someone who invests into a company by owning stock is an investor. They are not making any decisions about the companies privately owned means of production. They are investing into the copany under the faith that the capitalists who own and run said company, are making efficient adn effective decisons to maintain, or raise the value of their investment.
They are investors.
The fisherman is a capitalist.
The investor is an investor.
Your personal deifnition lacks the breadth and depth of economic understanding. And capitalism is an economic system.
I think a lot of people make the mistake of assigning moral value to this allocation, assuming that wealth "ought" to go to the most virtuous people, and be denied to those we find repugnant. But in reality, it's all about how efficiently they use their wealth. If they make good calls and allocate it usefully, we want them handling more of our money. It's not a question of providing them with a privileged lifestyle, it's about giving them more power to allocate more resources, because they've proven they can do it well.
Absolutely right. Which is essentially nothing more than dogma slathered heavily in hyperbole.
