Ask Prof Wolff: How to Hold On to Systemic Progress

A Patron of Democracy at Work asks: "After we win over capitalism, how do we keep it? Human history tells me highly skilled sociopaths always rise to the top. To not repeat Russia's mistakes, how would we go about it?"

This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.

_________________________________________________________________________

“Marxism always was the critical shadow of capitalism. Their interactions changed them both. Now Marxism is once again stepping into the light as capitalism shakes from its own excesses and confronts decline.”

_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[atomaalatonal]

theres no difference between "let em eat cake" and "work more, work harder".

[thomaskearney]

Professor Wolff, I think you are suggesting that if workplaces continue to be run by employer dictatorship, a society can not truly be democratic. How can people remain free, with a workplace slave mentality?

[emiebex]

I'd say increase funding for education, that way people learn from the past & stop repeating history no one wants to go back to. Since America has a literal history of going 1 Step Forward & 2 Steps Back.

[piotrzywno]

Can you talk a little bit about legal side of value of human mind and eventually about rights to legal protections in such cases?
Peter

[Alive]

লাল সেলাম, Mr. Richard ! ( লাল সেলাম translates to "red salute" and we say it to greet fellow communists )

[areed]

Accumulation of power and wealth should be transparent and easily reversed if society deems it necessary.

[piotrzywno]

During last over 20 years l was trying to get any legal help and: several NYC lawyers, Poland's general attorney (Prokuratura Krajowa w Warszawie), Morgan &Morgan law firm. Because of my extrasensitive abilities I am under strict control of US government. Over my person are conducted cruel experiments, mostly about probability if is possible to predict catastrophic and criminal events. Impossible to get help or understanding.
Is it a democracy or slavery or maybe something much worse?but
Robert Mueller's branch of FBI initiated May 17 2017 next day was called NY massmedias "fighting with witches" it means- hiring extrasensory people.

[PingMe]

I believe an intense push to highlight the excesses and failures of Capitalism will be key to making sure it never comes back in future generations. The same way we have "Let them eat cake" as an example of the disconnected and excessive culture of the monarchy, we need to keep pushing how disconnected and materially excessive the Owners are in Capitalism. Keep the critique of Capitalism going. Keep circulating it. This is part of how Capitalism can be killed and how we can make it stay dead.

[joecool]

Slavery has always existed in US prisons. It's far larger and more cost effective than the former slave state slavery. It's in all 50 states. It's never discussed and religious groups are oblivious to this form of slavery. I'd far rather have a strong politcal leader than to have stong corporations.

[michaelsamuel]

My book "How to etadicate poverty worldwide" on Amazon Kindle, offers recommendations to form a system that will enable the unemployed, employed, retired to always meet the basic cost of living expenses. The system will benefit all businesses.

[helengarrett]

This is Professor Wolff at his very best. I buy all of what he says herein. All of it. I know I constantly criticize the Professor for slanted explanations of the wonders of China. But when he returns to the real issues of a better society that exists without repression and authoritarianism I applaud him. I hope you too can see a better world in which there is democracy, room for dissent and improvement, where power and profit reside in worker's hands. Just because there are elements of socialism in within China does not make it a good and free society. Just because there were once elements of socialism within Russia does not forgive Putin's violent and rash incursion into Ukraine. In this video Professor Wolff points out that in a socialist society where the people own the profit from their labor and democracy prevails we still have to learn cooperation, collectivism and we must each learn to subvert immediate personal gratification to the big picture of what benefits everyone most. That's a tall order.

[russellgallman]

Prof. W - I have learned a lot from you over time. Your brand of econ annoys me, but overall I still appreciate your work. Personally, imho we don't have systems problems, or capitalism problems, or socialism problems. What stands out to me is that we do have a primate problem. And I think that you are more optimistic than I. That I find encouraging.

[truthaboveall]

Important to know that the Harvard economists failed Russia & gave birth to oligarchs

While China chose to forge its own economic path that by comparison is the most successful of all - then they began to fail to US capitalism & the borrowing bubble popped

Hopefully they shift back to a Chinese version to help secure their next decade is successful & also that they begin to care for the human value of life of their people

I’m not judging as an American our own country is brutal to its people & to people across Latin America where we toppled leftist leaders & installed far right dictators for decades

If history isn’t known it’s repeated & worse, it’s built upon w ignorance arrogance & total delusion

[DerekSpeareDSD]

sorry, Prof...we have about 2.5 million people locked up in this country...still "slaves" if you read the 13th amendment.

[TC-eoeb]

When I was a kid in the 1960's, my sister had a doll named Chatty Cathy. The doll had a string coming out of the back of her neck. When the string was pulled all the way out and released, Chatty Cathy would speak and repeat the same thing over and over again. Prof Wolff is a lot like Chatty Cathy. Every time someone pulls his string he repeats his worker cooperative theory. Nothing ever changes.

[josho]

Systemic progress???!!! Hahahahaha...we have been steadily regressing for decades. This isn't capitalism right now, which is the problem

[jgalt]

What you gotta love about Wolff is his obvious inconsistency and constant self-contradiction.

"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

Today, it appears that those things are "not part of the normal world, the way it once was"...which
corrects the initial self-contradiction with another one...

Not that his willfully ignorant, functionally illiterate followers will notice, as they never seem to...
but I'm sure they will "insist" on demonstrating that fact...after all with "democracy at work",
how could they not?

[jgalt]

The problem with the description "systemic progress" is that "progress" has nothing to
do with "democracy" or "socialism"...but results from "individual effort" which is then copied
and the benefits are then distributed to the rest of society as a direct result of
that individual effort.

Democracy and socialism suppress both individual effort and individual rights and
in so doing, disincentivize such efforts...since there is nothing to be gained from it...
since collectively "to each according to their need" provides you with an equal share
of whatever "progress" is achieved regardless of how much effort is actually expended,
and in this system those who benefit the most are those who expend the least amount
of effort.

This reality was recognized for the first time, and codified into law, in1789 and 1791,
recognizing the dual dangers of both government and democracy, and the supremacy
of "individual rights" over both...for it follows logically, that if individual rights are
protected, everyone's rights are protected.

Of course, the price of maintaining such a system requires the "eternal vigilance" of
everyone in it, and that too, requires effort.

Unfortunately, both the logic of this reasoning and the effort required have been lost...
and have been replaced by the fantasy that all are "equal" and therefor "equally entitled"...
to whatever progress this system can produce...which is none.

[jgalt]

Tech Billionaires Are Actually Dumber Than You Think.

By Sonali Kolhatkar, the founder, host and executive producer of “Rising Up With Sonali, ” a television and radio show that airs on Free Speech TV and Pacifica stations. She is a writing fellow for the Economy for All project at the Independent Media Institute. This article was produced by Economy for All, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

In mid-September, for just a few days, Indian industrialist Gautam Adani entered the ranks of the top three richest people on earth as per Bloomberg’s Billionaires Index. It was the first time an Indian, or, for that matter, an Asian, had enjoyed such a distinction. South Asians in my circle of family and friends felt excited at the prospect that a man who looked like us had entered such rarefied ranks.

Adani was deemed the second richest person, even richer than Amazon founder Jeff Bezos! A Times of India profile fawningly quoted him relaying his thought process in the early days of his rags-to-riches story. “‘Dreams were infinite but finances finite, ’ he says with engaging frankness, ” according to the profile. There was no mention of the serious accusations he faces of corruption and diverting money into offshore tax havens, or of the entire website, AdaniWatch, devoted to investigating his dirty deeds.


Adani made his money, in part, by investing in digital services, leading one economist to say, “Wherever there is a futuristic business in India, I think… [Adani] has a stronghold.”

The moment of pride that Indians felt in such an achievement by one of their own was short-lived. Quickly Adani slipped from second richest to third richest, and, as of this writing, is in the number four slot on a list dominated by people who have made money from the digital technology revolution.

In fact, ranking multibillionaires is a meaningless exercise that obscures the absurdity of their wealth. This year alone, a number of tech billionaires on Bloomberg’s list lost hundreds of billions of dollars as the gains they made during the early years of the pandemic were wiped out because of a volatile stock market. But, as Whizy Kim of Vox points out, whether or not they’re losing money or giving it away—as Bezos’ ex-wife MacKenzie Scott has been doing—their wealth remains insanely high, and most are worth more today than before the COVID-19 pandemic.

What are they doing with all this wealth?

It turns out that many are quietly plotting their own survival against our demise. Douglas Rushkoff, podcaster, founder of the Laboratory for Digital Humanism, and fellow at the Institute for the Future, has written a book about this bizarre phenomenon, Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires.

In an interview, Rushkoff explains that billionaires worry about the end of humanity just like the rest of us. They fear catastrophic climate change or the next pandemic. And, they know their money will likely be of little value when civilizations decline. “How do I maintain control over my Navy Seal security guards once my money is worthless?” is a question that Rushkoff says many of the world’s wealthiest people want to know the answer to.

He knows they ask such questions because he was invited to give private lectures by those who think his expertise in digital technology gives him unique insight into the future. But Rushkoff was quietly studying them instead and has few flattering things to say about these wielders of economic power.

“How is it that the wealthiest and most powerful people I’d ever been in the same room with see themselves as utterly powerless to affect the future?” he asks. It seems as though “the best they can do is prepare for the inevitable calamity and then just, you know, hang on for dear life.”

Rushkoff explores this tech billionaire “mindset” that he says has resulted in a generation of people who are “almost comedic monsters, who really mean to leave us all behind.” Adani is a perfect example of this, having invested in the very fossil fuels that are destroying our planet. He has large holdings in Australia’s coal mining industry and has sparked a massive grassroots movement intent on stopping him.

The admiration that some Indians feel for Adani’s ascension on Bloomberg’s list of billionaires is based on an assumption of cleverness. Surely, he must be one of the smartest people in the world in order to be one of the richest? Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest man by far (with twice as much wealth as Bezos), has enjoyed such a reputation for years.

Those who are invested in the idea of merit-based capitalism can justify the unimaginable wealth of the world’s richest people only by assuming they are intelligent enough to deserve it.

This is a façade. Rather than smarts, the wealthiest people on the planet appear to be rather small-minded idiot savants who share a common disdain for the rest of us.

After being around tech billionaires in private, Rushkoff concludes that they are invested in “this notion that they really can, like puppeteers, kind of control society from one level above, ” and that this approach is “different than the era of Alexander the Great, or Caesar.” If the question that vexes them most of all is how, in a disastrous future, will they control the guards they hire to protect their hoardings, then our economic system is a farce.

“Even if we call them genius technologists, most of them were plucked from college when they were freshmen, ” says Rushkoff. “They came up with some idea in their dorm room before they’d taken history, or economics, or ethics, or philosophy” classes, and so they lack the wisdom needed to oversee their own perverse amounts of wealth.

Having spent time with many tech billionaires, Rushkoff worries that “their education about the future comes from zombie movies and science fiction shows.”

Billionaires are not simply drawing their wealth from a vacuum. According to data from the World Economic Forum, “the world’s richest have captured a disproportionate share of global wealth over recent decades.” This means that, if you were rich to begin with a decade or two ago, you are likely to have seen your wealth multiply by a greater amount than middle-class or lower-income people.

Not only are tech billionaires undeserving of their wealth, but they also are fleecing the rest of us—and fantasizing about hoarding that wealth in the worst-case scenarios while the rest of humanity struggles to survive.

The danger is that if society valorizes such (mostly) men, we are in danger of internalizing their childish, selfish mindset and giving up on solving the climate crisis or building resiliency on a mass scale.

Instead of relating to them, we ought to feel sorry for a group of people so cut off from humanity that their vision of the future is a very lonely one.

“Let’s look at these tech-bro billionaire lunatics. Let’s laugh at what they’re doing… so they look small rather than big, ” says Rushkoff. He thinks it is critical to adopt the perspective that “the disaster they’re so afraid of looks entirely manageable by more reasonable people who are willing just to help each other out.”