Ask Prof Wolff: Marxism and the Slogan 'Abolish Billionaires'

A patron of Economic Update asks: "Marxist activist and revolutionary Caleb Maupin claims that the slogan "Abolish Billionaires" is anti-Marxist, and that Marxism means "vast abundance and expanding wealth". Citing the immense progress that humanity has made up to the present day, Mr. Maupin envisions making everyone in the world richer than today's billionaires. Is this all nothing more than a utopian fantasy?"

This is Professor Richard Wolff's video response.

_________________________________________________________________________

“A magnificent source of hope and insight.” Yanis Varoufakis, Greek economist, academic, philosopher, politician, author of Talking to my daughter about the economy.
_________________________________________________________________________
Follow Wolff ONLINE:

[LordKorgyab]

Every 1 billionaire = 1000s of people struggling to survive. Always informative, thanks 🐺

[tonybostoner]

Billionaires have shown right in front of our faces that they are detached from reality when it comes to everyday peoples life.We are nothing but things to exploit and discard.

[delblackmore]

“Every billionaire is a failure of policy “

[darrenfleming]

The argument I've been putting forward to my libertarian/free market friends recently is that the very rich deserve to be taxed more because within capitalism it is exponentially easier to gain wealth the more capital you have, its not a fair game where you get rewarded for how hard you work, money creates more money so a billionaire's income incomparable to a minimum wage income because the billionaire works much much less to create the wealth. Once you accept that it becomes natural to tax the rich more, but the illusion that capitalism rewards all work equally is what breeds these free market types.

[johnkesich]

It seems even more insidious. The "they want to take away what you've earned" lie turns the anger which should rightly be directed at the rich and powerful against the poor and powerless.

[drakekoefoed]

Let me simplify: Guillotine billionaires.

[KennethBaumann]

the new video setup looks much better.

[chrisbayridge]

Billionaire with a pile of cookies 🍪 in front of him, to the workers with a few crumbs in front of them, "You better watch that Socialist, he wants your crumbs"

[voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang]

The Arctic is about to be ice-free for the first time in 3 million years. Not sure that "wealth" is being properly measured. Biological annihilation is an "Externality" of Western industrial wealth. thanks

[Peter]

Basically, Maupin's point is about the idea that a billionaire is a very individualist, wealth-centric term and doesn't really specifically denote class (further, I think it relies on a more "income bracket" understanding of class if one is to talk about class at all, which I don't believe is useful); the point of communism is to abolish class, not wealth (partly due to material abundance). I think this is a satisfactory answer, but I also think it's pretty useful to eschew the language of "billionaire" for more class-oriented terminology like "owning class" or "capitalist class"

[franciscofrancesco]

Good information. Thank you, Professor Wolff.

[georgefurman]

A Marxist is basically a human rights worker. The conscience of the capitalist and any oppressive system. Helping workers unionize and organize, women to fight for equality, students to fight for the access to education and the capitalist to find empathy.

[solidarityced]

Great answer professor Wolff I agree, I watch you and Caleb Maupin a lot. In my opinion you and him are the cutting edge of Marxism in America. I’d love to see y’all have a conversation about socialism in America. Caleb is a good faith actor just like you, I think you and all of y’all’s viewers would get a lot out of it.

[achannel]

The journalist in question, Caleb Maupin, explained his opposition to the slogan because he see the ones using it as being against wealth creation. He is in favour of redistributing a billionaire's wealth but opposes a cap on how much wealth can be created. Arbitrary restrictions on wealth creation is what he considers anti-Marxist.

[DerekSpeareDSD]

It does not appear to me that Marxism is "anti-entrepreneurialist", and there is the distinction that really must be hammered home in order that the message gets delivered effectively. Americans reject socialism believing that it will kill prosperity and the potential to realize the "American Dream". If the tables can be reversed and the benefits of socialism be communicated in the sense of giving more people the opportunity to realize the "Dream" [of prosperity, talent, personal enrichment, creativity] then you will have greater reception. (The Robber Barons will have us work and toil endlessly and then drop dead when we are no longer useful, thus denying us the chance to flourish and realize whatever potential we otherwise could have reached).

It's my opinion that the "American Dream" exists, but due to the hyper-capitalist system in which we live, only a scant few are realizing it - and doing it at the expense of millions of others. It's this excessive and perverse prosperity at the expense of the many that needs to go, and this is what needs to be communicated to the masses in order that they receive the message and embrace the ideas that a more level playing field is in their best interests. Prosperity will not die under a truly democratic system. Only perverse prosperity for the very few will get killed off so that many will finally prosper as they should have been able to do all along.

[kingsleyperera]

" POOR DO NOT ENVY MILLIONAIRS, ONLY THOSE WHO ARE A LITTLE BETTER THAN THEMSELVES " ( Bertrand Russel )

[daniellarson]

I guess the "Abolish Billionaires" must be something new the GOP came up with. It makes sense. For quite a number of years now, they've taught us about trickle down economics. It never worked, because the money never trickled down. If you do the take away thing that the professor alludes to and do the Robin Hood thing and give to the rest of us, I think the trickle down thing will work. Thanks GOP - good idea.

[slobodanmarkovic]

Dear professor, in the former republic of Jugoslavia, officially permitted ratio between net earnings between lowest and highest-paid employee (simple worker - CEO) was the lowest time 9. That ratio was official for private employers as well. The profit was not within such ratio, and profit made out of business was taxed separately and was double-digit %. But if you reinvest your profit you could get some tax reductions.... I was a young SME owner (24) with 18 employees at the pre-wartime, and had to follow official minimal wages, but usually even higher, since people hated to work for the private owner since we all hated profiteers in general. Even I belonged to the average profiteer haters at the time, and still am. Capitalism is not bad if and when the state is taxing profit enough to run the society at a socially acceptable level. How to measure such an "acceptable level" is not complicated. We had a very transparet method, and minimum wages were adjusted annually by simply publishing info at the official gazets.

[MathUDX]

Now someone ask Richard about the Washington Monument.

[craigenputtock]

Don't concentrate on wealth inequality. Concentrate on intellectual inequality, since that is within most people's power to amend--the public library is just around the corner--and which goes farther than anything else in promoting personal satisfaction.