Socialism Explained by Prof Richard Wolff

And that's the problem! THANK YOU! Society is always fundamentally about collective cooperation under some type of economic and political structure for the purpose of improving the lives and wellbeing of the members of that society..... --the only exception being slave societies. But as you point out, our society has been distorted by the power and wealth of the wealthiest members of the private sector in order to reshape and distort it in the interest of wealth. And they have taken us to the brink of destruction in service to their greed for power and wealth. If we are to survive, we-the-people must reclaim control of society and fast. The wealth and power of that contingent portion of the private sector must be eliminated as a main step in such a reclamation.

 

Who is proposing force? Are you all in if there is no force involved?

 

Are you proposing a dictatorship?

 

wow. Now there's an opinion that's not based on intelligent processing of valid information and facts.

 

Ahh...another right winger insisting on his own private definition of socialism. BTW, there is NO ECONOMIC CALCULATION PROBLEM, and Marx didn't base his economic ideas on your treasured "LTV" idea.

 

Regurgitating Marx I see. We DON'T want the society you envision. Bolshevik.

 

I propose not running peoples' lives.

 

So, there's money under whatever you define socialism to be. Or ,do you claim that there would be no scarcity?

 

I'm fine with anything that's peaceful. That doesn't mean that I'd engage in anything that's peaceful; I'd simply leave people alone. I only wish that you moralizers would do the same.

 

My dear, I've been living in or around collectives for close to 40 years. You haven't the first clue of what you're talking about.

Collectives are absolutely NOTHING like your standard capitalist (choice filled) lifestyle. If they were, they would collapse immediately. There is no "group" when everyone goes their own way.

 

1) No they have not. It's we who've taken us there - in our insatiable demand for a perfect existence. We want absolute freedom, and the money to enjoy it. The opportunistic (mega corps, the ideas people, etc) among us are merely responding to those demands. If we stopped demanding perfection tomorrow, there would be no more mega corps. Stop demanding Walmart and Fast Food, and they'll be gone. Either that, or admit that you love that stuff and therefore love capitalism.

2) See above. That's how you do it. Stop demanding perfection. Accept that the world you want means giving up your freedoms, your choices, your Walmart, and your Fast Food.

 

Really? So you've actually convinced yourself that mega corps would continue to exist, for apparently no reason whatsoever, if no one was buying their products? They'd just keep spending their billions making their widgets for what? LOLs? To build a floating island constructed entirely of unpurchased iphones?

That's a very fine fantasy world you inhabit.

 

IOW you have no idea what I'm talking about because what you said is completely incorrect.

 

Me too.

 

I claim you're making up issues to seek an opportunity to argue.

 

I only wish you dissemblers would find out the facts before asserting "facts". You asked "why does it need to be done by force?" as though it is, in fact, done by force. And then you throw "moralizers" at me as a pejorative. Sheesh

 

Tell us how it's done WITHOUT force.

 

Wolf does not understand economics. What a hack.

 

LOL!!!!! A PhD IN ECONOMICS FROM YALE and you think he doesn't know his subject! LOL!!!! I see how reliable your judgement is.

 

He clearly doesn't. Too much ideology in him.

 

And you're a good judge of economic knowledge. LMFAO!!!!!!!!

 

AND you lack ideology? LMFAOA!!!!!!!

 

But it's ALWAYS, without exception, done by force. All of these moralizers that justify their collective schemes for the sake of "the greater good" or "efficiencies" or what ever justification they concoct have no other way of doing so. Sure, in the beginning they have a few dullards throwing themselves off cliffs but there are always a few that refuse. They are always, without exception, forced or killed.

"But this time it will be different."

Never believe them.

 

SOCIAL DEMOCRACY

For what it's worth, Socialism exists nowhere. It's key reference is to the public ownership of the means of production.

I can only think of one state where that exists today - North Korea.

Socialist Theory has evolved in order to accustom itself to key element of any society, which must be "democracy". That is, a country that is run by the will-of-the-people. For good, or for bad, democracy means that a nation's people must elect its political leadership at all levels national, state and local.

The notion is pretty damn simple, except when it comes to "application". The term "democracy" may differ greatly between the two entities that are most comparable in the matter. That is, the US and the EU. Both are comparable economically. Is the latter - developed very recently (after WW2) very different its fundamental notional structure?

Not really. Let's say it's about key purposes, consequences or outlook". There are many ways to interpret the meaning of the word "democracy" and not just the one in the dictionary.

After WW2, the EU developed a type of socialism that is unique. It introduced the notion of two key-entities - the rights of individuals who labor to produce products/services and those who own the means of production. It also introduced the notion that just because one may own the means of production (ability to sell goods/services into markets) does not mean that they can do so by employing the lowest input-costs to, say, be "competitive".

Which seems intelligent. Whyzzat?

Because what is expressed above is about a Market Mechanism that permits owners to produce/sell products/services, which is their justified right to do so. But, neither does it mean that their are not constraints to that right. The foremost being that the individuals responsible for production should obtain a "decent wage" for contributing the key elements to the production of the goods/services sold.

To many minds that means not only do those contributing their talent to the production/sale (of goods/services) but furthermore they not only deserve a decent wage but also to participate in the sharing of market-profits.

Which is happening very rarely and typically in countries that have a strong history of socialist thinking. (Like the EU.) Which they dumped with the end of Communism to move on to the notion of Social Democracies. Which is that of the EU but not the US.

But neither does a Social Democracy forbid that people/families become millionaires ...

PS: Definition of Social Democracy:

 

It most certainly does exist in a few places.

Collective ownership.

On a national scale, it also exists in Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. On a small scale, there are voluntary collectives like Mondragon in Spain and the Israeli kibbutzim.