Achieving What Communism and Socialism Never Did - Economic Update with Richard Wolff

In this clip, Prof Wolff explains what communist and socialist experiments failed to do: democratize the workplace.

"If we transform the workplace, which the socialists and the communists never did, we will be able to achieve what they set out as their goal but they never achieved either, which is the breakthrough to a new society." - Richard Wolff

This is a clip from S12 E34 of Economic Update: What Is Communism?

You can also listen to this show on our website or as a podcast on your favorite podcast player.
______________________________________________________________________________________
We make it a point to provide the show free of ads. Please consider supporting our work.

_______________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the NEW 2021 Hardcover edition of “Understanding Marxism,” with a new, lengthy introduction by Richard Wolff!

“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.”

_________________________________________________________________________________________
Want to help us translate and transcribe our videos?

Follow us ONLINE:

[jerryjones]

Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future. – Albert Einstein

[cheri]

I go with Professor Wolff . Thank you❤️💯

[comicsans]

We need to change how the workplace and production is organized not just in the private sector level but in the public institutions too.

[jerryjones]

A just and sustainable society is a goal worth working toward. Greed is not good.

[larryyank]

Exactly. As one who has worked with, lived with indigenous groups, I am convinced that the only way to a more sane existence, is leaving the pyramid model. If we can't do that (evolve beyond it), given our adaptability (see: Eisleys "Lethal Factor" '63) I don't believe we will last much longer as a species.
Regards, Viet vet VFP

[Marxist]

so much knowledge from Prof. Wolff. We should follow his advice.

[LongDefiant]

Defeating hierarchical realism is the primary goal

[geobotk]

I have a hypothesis. The reason we need full process democracy in the workplace and beyond is because humanity is a social mega-organism made of individuals connected through a network of interconnected relationships (every living individual is not many nodes away from any other living person on this planet) and without a clear and robust two-way feedback loop our social mega-organism is like a person that steps on broken glass, breaks bones, and amputates limbs without feeling that pain or properly responding to the environment we're in. Exploitative social organization that features one-way communication is analogous to a social mega-organism version of congenital indifference to pain. We need to build mechanisms of robust two-way feedback within our organizations, or social super-organisms, to properly respond to our environments based on the information given to us from the people. In this hypothesis the workers and masses are to the super and mega-organisms what touch and other biological sensors are in individual people.

[joecutro]

Verybwell said and thought provoking. Thank you

[farisalthibani]

Richard Wolff, you have fantastic ideas. Thibani in Arabic mean Wolf and having so much resemblance with you it should become Wolff instead, what do you think? So if we agree that even in democracies like the United States, where officials are elected to represent the people, there are many policies being made that does not reflect the peoples desires nor interest.. so as to describe that there is an argument - a strong argument - to be made that democracy in politics was an illusion in the first place. If we agree on that premise how could we move forward to take away the power employers and organise a workplace community were decisions are made on a voting basis like a worker owned co-operative. I would appreciate a response from you Richard Wolff, thank you.

[AndreiKohler]

Community based approach is interesting. Coops seem interesting... and I'll laugh all the way as we watch all these forms of Monetary Systems fall apart. Greed is Greed (be it CEO greed or community greed). All forms of Monetary systems lead to corruption eventually, all! You want something that works for everyone without a trace of fraud, or anyone left behind??? Then welcome to a Resource Based Economy. Cheers my fellow humans.

[PesteNegro]

I'd totally agree that the only thing lacking to socialism thrive is the deepening of the worker's control of the means of production *if* any country in the global north had gone through a revolution and expropriated the bourgeois. I don't mean to say this isn't necessary on China, Cuba, North Korea etc., even USSR, what I mean is that by itself don't make any global south country vulnerable to coupe, embargoes and so on. We cannot undermine the influence of such things on those countries and even on reformist attempts such as just happened on Chile.
I respect your pov, but I must say that there are so much more at play

[musiqtee]

The “ghost” is the human factor. We are as a species bad at handling power/leadership (having it, delegating it, sanctioning it). Metamodernist thought models try to re-implement this “human factor” into societal understanding. I think socialism going forward should look into metamodern philosophy, as it now emerges. Integration of epistemology and ontology is crucial for our near future, and our inherent dark side as humans can not be idealised away. We’ve tried, doesn’t work, opportunities are always taken by someone. The “ghost” is our sidelined individual spiritual side, the one abused in mass religion or mass ideology of any kind. At a personal level, it’s very different, allowing for creativity, participation and general good. Shared in small groups it’s fine. Pushed on the masses it becomes dangerous. We need to learn this better…
Well, just my thoughts…

[blogintonblakley]

I'd like to say that Wolff, whom I admire a great deal, never considers that markets themselves are the problem; however, he has read and mentioned Plato and Aristotle's views on markets.

You can't fix markets with democracy... it's been tried. The rich people simply purchase influence until they can destroy the democracy. Prof. Wolff never addresses this. For whatever reason he thinks that a democracy in the work place will be invulnerable to being bought, by the winners in the market.

Unions are democracy in the work place, and regardless of the increase in union efforts they weren't able to save us from the effects of the marketplace...

At their strongest.

Wolff is suggesting that we try what has already failed. He is an economist enamored of the market as a mechanism for distributing resources. But that isn't what a market is.

A market is a mechanism for establishing control of the resources that everyone needs to survive by the winners in the market. A market creates winners and losers and divides the community according to success in the marketplace.

This has happened every time a marketplace has been established... whether by governments or thieves.

Markets bring down civilization over time as more and more public policy gets determined according to the interests of the winners in the marketplace... while leaving the interests of the vast majority in shambles.

This should sound familiar. It's a precondition for rebellion. The first one never succeeds. But as more and more people are left out of the gravy train that runs on the labor of the masses... the more often the rebellions come... the more damage they do.

Over time the rich can't afford to sustain their profits AND repair the damage being done by the resistance to the deprivations caused by rich greed. The smart ones bail out and find a new victim pool. The rest get consumed over time as the civilization falls apart bit by bit over the course of generations.

Markets are inherently unstable... not just capitalism... all markets.

And when it comes to the bottom line.

{points at fallen civilizations}

{points at business caused climate change}

There are no real winners in the market. Only losers who have forgotten that humanity is a species that prevails together. Which is why the first thing a rich person discards on their way to the top is their humanity.

[captainnemo]

Prof. Wolff ( or anybody for that matter) could you recommend a book, with a research about USSR(communists ) and socialists' failure mentioned in this podcast - i.e. means of production not owned by workers?

[markmarkovic]

Great, humanist ideas that Prof Wolf has explained had been implemented to a great deal in former Jugoslavija from 1956-1991 (not perfectly and certainly not without inner difficulties and opposition from global capitalism). It was called the Worker's Socialist Self-Managment. It was so efficient and so scary to the capitalism (by demonstrating many of benefits for working class) that all the reactionary forces of capitalism had join to fight this 'specter of communism' and greatly contributed to the demise of the country. Luckily it was not the only example that proved socialism can work.

[vannajs]

The problem it's the human imperfect nature itself..We are egoistic as spices, and unable to live in Socialism, let alone build Communism's .. Social Democracy it's the with, all it's flaws, the most realistic and most humanitarian system so far..

[neomateo]

Everyone should read "William Morris: News from Nowhere" first published in 1890. Still readily available.
A short fictional account of a society that exists without money...
It's the only idea for a truly ideal society I've ever encountered that makes sense.

[tc]

The real transformation is to divide the profits among the employees! Employees to own the company! Call it whatever you want. A cooperative, or employees share holders etc.

[marcionphilologos]

LOVE IS THE TRICK OF NATURE TO BRING MEN AND WOMEN TOGETHER TO PROCREATE, CAPITALISM IS THE TRICK OF SOCIETY TO MAKE MEN AND WOMEN WORK IN SERVICE OF THE COMMON