Ask Prof Wolff: Ethics in Capitalist vs. Cooperative Enterprises

***Help us reach 300,000 subscribers! We are very close to reaching this important milestone but need your assistance. Please like, subscribe, and share these videos with friends and family. Thank you for your support!

A Patron of Democracy at Work asks: "Greetings Prof Wolff, my question is one of ethics. How does a collective remain competitive in a dog-eat-dog capitalist environment when the expectation is that a worker-owned enterprise would be presumed to follow the law? I'm not saying all privately-held enterprises are corrupt but it follows that if a given firm were to cut corners, all other competitors would have to follow suit to continue to exist. And what of deregulation? Are there examples whereby ethical principles are an existential threat to coops under capitalism?"

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:

[janetbaker]

I was truly lucky as a child. My father did not believe in competition he believed it was one of the things that was killing our world. He always told me the only person you need to compete against is yourself and no one else! And I am so glad that lesson took. It has helped me through a lot of crap.

[jeffreymortag]

Thanks always appreciate your presentations and wisdom 🙂

[lennartambros]

Prof Wolff I don't like idea of vote, because every ones needs can be met with out scarifying needs of minority(that what vote does) .
Do not say 'no' but say what need of yours keep you from saying 'yes' . adjustments can be made in harmony with every ones needs.
Safety is in taking care of every one, so that will be no one to be afraid of.

[BBBarua]

Government and its system have the most leverage in changing rules, what's fair or not fair. If they are committed to changing, then everything will get done. Unfortunately, corruption in government and among politicians is becoming uncontrollable in the U.S. and abroad. The main question here is how do we ensure people in power are not abusing their power to enrich themselves and their

[tanujSE]

Communism replaces competition with association

Wish Professor Richard Wolff good health

[PoliticalEconomy]

Thats the advantage of state ownership. Under socialism SOEs will be governed by socialist values and goals. There is not opt out option. There will be no opportunity not to comply. Socialist governance will also be backed up by a huge accountability infrastructure to catch any firm or organization not following the rules. Thats the advantage between a socialist "system, " and a capitalist cooperative market.

[abubakardaudyut]

Your channel has truly changed my life. i've been studying and researching about crypto for a while now, do to the economy crisis and i got stuck at some point on the learning curve. now i can say I'm truly improving my understanding of this whole new world and making great profit weekly, all thanks to you

[janetbaker]

Just addressing the title, there are no ethics in capitalism you know that right?

[cavegirl]

I really like socialism for things we all need for instance huge on my list would be free quality healthcare. Free education reformed a good bit with cottage industry artisan agrarian retraining at it’s core because I have strong eco socialist leanings and believe we need to head towards a low energy consumption future to tackle our climate change issues along with soil food water degradation issues. For me personally I like a mixed economy but would change it to more socialist policies and this part is huge distributist policy. Reordering our society in a way that puts the market back into the hands of the people. With strong laws that are iron clad strong that removes corporations from anything that can be produced by the artisan and agrarian individual. I’d clearly forbid by strong law. I’d put protectionism in place. Deglobalisation would be the goal. Strong local community. Things like high speed rail technology let the corporations have their place but with unions. Id like land ownership to be given to each household enabling household to contribute to food production and have cottage industry work from home as much as possible. Basically if socialism was to marry GK Chesterton with land ownership maybe 5 acres and a cow kinda thing lol. For me it’s like I’m just over this new form of feudalism . I want everyone to have a piece of his pie as an individual and have group ownership in other sectors. Too have no personal bubble is ask to much of most people. We need to say this is my five acres get your ideas off my dirt. Communism in sectors like high speed rail or the park it has its place. Forgive me if this is long .I’d like to add that I’m a bit of an egalitarian in my thoughts. My idea is that the pride and power and self serving mega rich bullies need to be brought down from their high places to fall to the ground never again to rise. My heart wants to lovingly lift those thrown into the lowest muddy pit to be pulled up out of there and placed on solid ground strengthening him equipping him/ her to stand strong with a crutch if need be. Everyone on solid ground not on the top of the mountain in his fortress and not a muddy pit helpless and without hope and broken. God help us have wisdom.amen

[reddoggie]

The nature of man does not change over time or place.

Humans are driven by the same motivations regardless of the form of enterprise for which they work.

[irelandishsac]

We can now refer to the United States of America as THE CORPORATION🤮😭

[LVArturs]

Let's see, democracies are usually mired by one thing among others - problems with long-term thinking due to term limits and empirical evidence for successful use of economic boondoggles right before elections.
Why wouldn't this happen to cooperatives? If both enterprise types need the same regulations, why wouldn't I assume that the singular owner or board, who managed juggle the complexity of running a business successfully, be better at seeing the long-term consequences and responsibility of corner cutting than the mass of people with average+below average intellect and with average training in long-term thinking and suppression of instant gratification?

Now that I've written it out, I see that term limits don't exactly exist in the case of a cooperative, but there's still going to be a debate between a leader of a camp who suggests a quicker route to money versus a longer term vision, and that will be put to a vote among everyone across all cohorts. By contrast, if the long-term visionary is the owner, then they can just force a choice.
And what kind the leader is will change business to business, problematic ones will still have to be caught by regulators. So I'd say this is not a clear co-op benefit, have to look at other factors to decide the superior enterprise type.

[drewcoowoohoo]

Hang on there, professor. I don't think corruption is a characteristic solely of capitalism. I would claim it's a more general human social property.
When there are two of us, we can do each other favors. When there are three of us I might show favor-itism toward one of you. And that's the seed of corruption. You and the other person might try to ply me for my for favoritism - voila - corruption!

[clarestucki]

Vangelo's question is stupid, and Wolff's response is even more idiotic. Competition in the free market leads to MORE and HIGHER QUALITY products every year, NOT to quality depreciation. Would anybody prefer to have the TV set he had 25 ys ago in plcae of the one he has today? Even Wolff is not that crazy!

[jgalt]

Another journey down the rabbit hole with Wolff. Whatever this nonsense is intended to achieve,
it fails...since a large number of consumers already perform the function described and either buy
the product or don't.

And the "free market" is also available to provide all manner of expertise to offer evaluation
on the quality and efficiency of any and all products for those seeking such evaluations.

Any disputes, false claims, harm, or damage, is the function of the "legal" system...or it would be
if that legal system were available...but that is controlled by the government who ceased operating
in accordance with its actual authority in 1939, thanks to FDR, although the signs of this process
started much earlier, although such understanding is not known to Wolff, whose grasp of both economics
and history is extremely deficient, and as a result has produced "experts" such as himself, who are
ethically bankrupt, and have no concept of freedom, voluntary association, or individual choice.

This freedom allows him to actually advance such nonsense, and even act upon it...and if it truly
were an "improvement" over what exists, then the "consumer" of his product ( which consists of
rhetoric, victimization, and ignorance ) would flock to it in droves... but they aren't because there is nothing there.

So once again, Wolff cites "capitalism" a word for which he has no definition or understanding...
when it is the government that has failed him...having exceeded its authority, consistently grabbed more
power to itself, and done so by promising things it is incompetent to do and failed to do, while
mortgaging future generations in order to do so.

In the end, only one thing is certain...eventually, when you have served your purpose, THEY will come for YOU!

we shall now hear from the "willfully ignorant, functionally illiterates" so described,
who will insist on confirming the description, while having no relevant response or argument
to what has been written.