Solutions by Rick Wolff

[RGacky3]

http://www.rdwolff.com/content/how-occupy-economy-according-richard-wolff.

One thing I love about Rick Wolff, other than his economic clarity and analytical take on marxism, is his offering of simple and basic solutions.

I hate the mystification and exhaultation of the words "communism" or "socialism," like, its gotta be worldwide, its gotta be totally stateless, and so on and so forth. No its not that difficult, I'd say you pass one law, all board of directors of all corporations from now on are directly elected from and by the workers, one man one vote. You do that your halfway there.

His solutions include a law where if your unemployed, you get to either take unemployment, or start a cooperative and get government funding that way.

One area known for its cooperatives and for similar laws is Emilia–Romagna, THE richest place in italy, and one of the richest in europe.

Also he talks about a federal jobs program (not a socialist solution perse, but it would be smart) and having a property tax on stocks.

[Tenka]

I hate the mystification and exhaultation of the words "communism" or "socialism," like, its gotta be worldwide, its gotta be totally stateless, and so on and so forth. No its not that difficult, I'd say you pass one law, all board of directors of all corporations from now on are directly elected from and by the workers, one man one vote.Your posts are sometimes enlightening but here I can see why you're going to be in OI for a long time still. ;)
Corporate board members or whatever elected from the proletariat doesn't sound conducive to Communism which should entail the abolition of such positions as corporate board members and eventually the proletariat (i.e., last remnants of class society) itself.

[RGacky3]

Your posts are sometimes enlightening but here I can see why you're going to be in OI for a long time still. ;)


I'm gonna be here a long time because I'm anti-abortion ...


Corporate board members or whatever elected from the proletariat doesn't sound conducive to Communism which should entail the abolition of such positions as corporate board members and eventually the proletariat (i.e., last remnants of class society) itself.

If the corporate board IS from the workers, both elected by and from the workers, then you HAVE destroyed class internally in the company.

[Revolutionair]

If the corporate board IS from the workers, both elected by and from the workers, then you HAVE destroyed class internally in the company.

Yeah I don't see how subordinating the board of directors is not socialist. If workers control the policy-making, then they are effectively controling the means of production.

I love how some people here think the only way for the communist movement to advance, is to create a giant militarist state which completely silents any working class dissent, and that actual working class power is liberal... :laugh:

[danyboy27]

the structures of corporations are only a tiny coponent of the whole scheme, capitalism exploited people long before the whole concept of corporation was fully developed.

To me, what define capitalism, what make it ''viable'' and allow it to keep on growing is the current definition of what private property should be and the blind acceptation from the population of it.

if we could fuel a debate about what should and should not be private property be i think the impact it would have on capitalism would be far more greater than any discussion about electing a board of dirrector.

The reason why capitalist where scared shitless about the soviet union was not beccause it was geniunly communist, but beccause their model redefined the basis of private property completely.

It inspired people that this could be done, the notion of private property was not something set in stone has they where led to believe and that they could change it.

ALmost everyone know the basics of democracy but verry fews people actually think the notion of private property and ownership could ever be redefined, and that a big problem.

[RGacky3]

the structures of corporations are only a tiny coponent of the whole scheme, capitalism exploited people long before the whole concept of corporation was fully developed.

Sure, but capitalism is never going back to pre-corporation times, it simply would'nt funcion.

Now the corporation is the leading institution, you take that over you have the economy.


To me, what define capitalism, what make it ''viable'' and allow it to keep on growing is the current definition of what private property should be and the blind acceptation from the population of it.

Even with that capitalism is going to fail, infact its failing now.


if we could fuel a debate about what should and should not be private property be i think the impact it would have on capitalism would be far more greater than any discussion about electing a board of dirrector.

Sure, but you start making the places of work democratic you've essnecially dismantled top-down capitalism for the vast majority of the buisinesses, of coarse you can do other stuff, but imo thats where to start.



The reason why capitalist where scared shitless about the soviet union was not beccause it was geniunly communist, but beccause their model redefined the basis of private property completely.

I think thats probably a big reason.

[danyboy27]

Sure, but capitalism is never going back to pre-corporation times, it simply would'nt funcion.

Now the corporation is the leading institution, you take that over you have the economy.

Even with that capitalism is going to fail, infact its failing now.
.[/QUOTE]
I dont think capitalism is gonna ''fail'' anytime soon, it will probably lead to barbarism and keep on hurting peoples until there is nothing left to plunder on this earth. challenging the social construct of private property is probably our only way out of this mess. I am not saying not to put democratic structures in the industries, but i think a debate on what private property is will lead to that conclusion anyway.



Sure, but you start making the places of work democratic you've essnecially dismantled top-down capitalism for the vast majority of the buisinesses, of coarse you can do other stuff, but imo thats where to start.

i agree but you cant do that without challenging the legitimacy of private property first, beccause those folks control the whole thing beccause of it.



I think thats probably a big reason.
:D
always a pleasure to discuss with you.

[Baseball]

Now the corporation is the leading institution, you take that over you have the economy.

Nope... Would still have the problem of devising systems to satisfy the needs and wants of the consumers of what those corporations produce.

[RGacky3]

How? Why?

How the hell does turning an autocratic instsitution into a democratic one suddenly get you that problem?

[Comrade Auldnik]

I don't see why these views would make you an opposing ideologist in the broader scope of leftism, but this kind of thinking is reformist. Oligarchs have in place the entire apparatus of the state to make sure democratic reformation doesn't threaten their power.

[Baseball]

How? Why?

How the hell does turning an autocratic instsitution into a democratic one suddenly get you that problem?

Because a worker owned industry is not uncapitalist. Once the workers are in control, they have make decisions based upon (what should be) objective information. If you are not going to use capitalist types and sources of information, one must come up with socialist ones.

Why not produce sugar in Maine? What's the socialist argument against it? Sugar is needed, after all. Thus far, the only objection ever offered seems to be the workers would vote against it. But that is scarcely an effective argument, and certainly more so when you get involved in more rational and realistic problems. Why produce sugar in both Florida AND Jamaica?

[RGacky3]

I don't see why these views would make you an opposing ideologist in the broader scope of leftism, but this kind of thinking is reformist. Oligarchs have in place the entire apparatus of the state to make sure democratic reformation doesn't threaten their power.

If you managed to take over the main institution of capitalism, its pretty damn revolutionary.


Because a worker owned industry is not uncapitalist. Once the workers are in control, they have make decisions based upon (what should be) objective information. If you are not going to use capitalist types and sources of information, one must come up with socialist ones.

It IS uncapitalist, in the sense that its not for profit, and there is no capital/labor relations.

If you want to argue that it would still be capitalist because there still is a commodities market, go right ahead, but its just semantics.

Capitalism =/= commodities markets, those have been around forever.


Why not produce sugar in Maine? What's the socialist argument against it? Sugar is needed, after all. Thus far, the only objection ever offered seems to be the workers would vote against it. But that is scarcely an effective argument, and certainly more so when you get involved in more rational and realistic problems. Why produce sugar in both Florida AND Jamaica?

Why did'nt that happen in ANarchist Catelonia???

I'm sick of trying to do logic a priori debates with you considering you cannot construct arguments without all sorts of fallacies and don't understand basic logic and can't follow lines of thought, so I'm juts sticking with the empirical evidence.

Why was it NOT a problem.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Because a worker owned industry is not uncapitalist. Once the workers are in control, they have make decisions based upon (what should be) objective information. If you are not going to use capitalist types and sources of information, one must come up with socialist ones.

A capitalist industry is one that is owned privately. A socialist industry is one that is owned socially. The question is about the mode of ownership of the means of production. This has nothing to do with "capitalists types and sources of information," whatever those may be.


Why not produce sugar in Maine? What's the socialist argument against it? Sugar is needed, after all. Thus far, the only objection ever offered seems to be the workers would vote against it. But that is scarcely an effective argument, and certainly more so when you get involved in more rational and realistic problems. Why produce sugar in both Florida AND Jamaica?

What's the "socialist" argument against producing sugar in Maine? Does the production of sugar in Maine specifically hinder or threaten socializing the means of production?

I must have missed something.

[Baseball]

It IS uncapitalist, in the sense that its not for profit,

Yes. Its the decisions and how they choose to operate which makes the difference.


and there is no capital/labor relations.

There would still be, but under different names. The majority of the workers in a particular enterprise would be the ones controlling how that enterprise functions.




Why did'nt that happen in ANarchist Catelonia???

Probably because they did not have ability to grow sugar in Maine, Jamaica or Florida...
But seriously, what is the socialist rationale here?

[Revolutionair]

It IS uncapitalist, in the sense that its not for profit, and there is no capital/labor relations.

If you want to argue that it would still be capitalist because there still is a commodities market, go right ahead, but its just semantics.

Capitalism =/= commodities markets, those have been around forever.

I disagree here. Capitalism exists where the law of value exists. Commodity markets are inherently linked to capitalism. When the commodity market becomes the dominant reason to produce, then capitalism is the dominant mode of production. Cooperatives that produce for market-exchange are still bound to the laws and rulership of capital.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Comrade Auldnik;2354867]A capitalist industry is one that is owned privately. A socialist industry is one that is owned socially. The question is about the mode of ownership of the means of production. This has nothing to do with "capitalists types and sources of information," whatever those may be.

Production does not occur magically- even in a socialist community.




What's the "socialist" argument against producing sugar in Maine? Does the production of sugar in Maine specifically hinder or threaten socializing the means of production?

I have no idea.

[Comrade Auldnik]

Production does not occur magically- even in a socialist community.
That's true, but what exactly is your point? I don't think anyone argued that things just get produced without labor.


I have no idea.Then what the hell are we talking about?

[Tenka]

Sure, but capitalism is never going back to pre-corporation times, it simply would'nt funcion.

Now the corporation is the leading institution, you take that over you have the economy.

What? I thought it was still the State we were supposed to be 'taking over'.... (inb4 'corporations have already taken over the state!')

[Revolutionair]

What? I thought it was still the State we were supposed to be 'taking over'.... (inb4 'corporations have already taken over the state!')

I think the two are extremily heavily intertwined. When we get to a point that we can consider that we have 'taken over' either state or capital, I think that we are at least half way controling the other. It's like the medieval clergy and royal families, they are dependent on one another and they react to each other.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Comrade Auldnik;2354877]That's true, but what exactly is your point? I don't think anyone argued that things just get produced without labor.

Nope, nobody did.

But people are arguing that workers will just produce goods.. somehow.. by some means.. using some sort of rationale..


Then what the hell are we talking about?

What's the rationale?

[Comrade Auldnik]

[QUOTE]

Nope, nobody did.

But people are arguing that workers will just produce goods.. somehow.. by some means.. using some sort of rationale..



What's the rationale?

..? Is survival and providing for ourselves a high standard of living not enough of a rationale to produce? We need profit?

[Revolutionair]

Nope, nobody did.

But people are arguing that workers will just produce goods.. somehow.. by some means.. using some sort of rationale..



What's the rationale?

I don't understand what you mean. Workers themselves are the consumers. The things you need to produce goods are the raw materials, means of production and last, but not least, labor. If the dominant mode of production is socialism, I don't see how the situation that you described (confused workers looking at each other and the tools in their hands, forgotten how to produce things they could produce last week) could occur in reality.

[danyboy27]

There is a cab cooperative in my city, and they own several parking lot around here and they also own several gardbage container, its their own private property, if you want to park you car they will ask a cop to tow the damn thing away.

Many cooperatives today work pretty much like corporations, always seeking more growth, grabbing property and always looking foward increasing profits.

of course its better than a dictatorship at the workplace, but without debate about what private property should be, the cycle will continue.
the current definition private property is the essence of the market, its what allow a dude or a group of individual to purchase land and charge a shitload of money to rent it to someone else, what allow a group of individual to bill an arbitrary amount of money for a bag of apple, what allow me to hire security guard to expulse you from ''my'' land.

Its a big problem.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2354906]

..? Is survival and providing for ourselves a high standard of living not enough of a rationale to produce? We need profit?

How? What is the OBJECTIVE criteria which states doing "X" will result in a higher standard of living, in the socialist system?

[Tenka]

I think the two are extremily heavily intertwined. When we get to a point that we can consider that we have 'taken over' either state or capital, I think that we are at least half way controling the other. It's like the medieval clergy and royal families, they are dependent on one another and they react to each other.
I'm pretty sure corporations are not all that constitutes Capital; bourgeois states can function perfectly fine without them. But more importantly, Capital accumulation by the proletariat is definitely not the most efficate strategy in producing revolution.

[Baseball]

Workers themselves are the consumers.

How many automobiles do automobile workers consume? How many gallons of maple syrup to maple syrup workers consume?
For both, probably less than .0000001% of what they produce.


The things you need to produce goods are the raw materials, means of production and last, but not least, labor. If the dominant mode of production is socialism, I don't see how the situation that you described (confused workers looking at each other and the tools in their hands, forgotten how to produce things they could produce last week) could occur in reality.

Last week is not this week and it is not next week. Things change.
Yeah, the steel worker could continue the same amount of steel week to week, but what determines that is the correct amount?

[Comrade Auldnik]

[QUOTE=Comrade Auldnik;2354910]

How? What is the OBJECTIVE criteria which states doing "X" will result in a higher standard of living, in the socialist system?

There isn't any one means of quantifying what creates a higher standard of living, because a lot of different things go into living. Generally, the standard of living in a country is judged by per capita income, although this method isn't without criticism.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Baseball;2354920]

There isn't any one means of quantifying what creates a higher standard of living, because a lot of different things go into living. Generally, the standard of living in a country is judged by per capita income, although this method isn't without criticism.

OK, so the socialist system judges it by per capita income. Which means the socilaist system must structure its economy to increase per capita income and structure its industries accordingly. Those which develop wealth are desired, those which do not are shunned and set aside/shut down.

So what happens to production for need?

[Comrade Auldnik]

[QUOTE=Comrade Auldnik;2354935]

OK, so the socialist system judges it by per capita income. Which means the socilaist system must structure its economy to increase per capita income and structure its industries accordingly. Those which develop wealth are desired, those which do not are shunned and set aside/shut down.

So what happens to production for need?

Let's go back a bit, because we've had a fundamental miscommunication.

The general, that is bourgeois capitalist measure of standard of living is per capita income. Like I mentioned, this is not without its fair share of criticism. I wrote all these words for a reason, now. Try to respect that.

[bugsbunny]

One thing I love about Rick Wolff, other than his economic clarity and analytical take on marxism, is his offering of simple and basic solutions.

I hate the mystification and exhaultation of the words "communism" or "socialism," like, its gotta be worldwide, its gotta be totally stateless, and so on and so forth. No its not that difficult, I'd say you pass one law, all board of directors of all corporations from now on are directly elected from and by the workers, one man one vote. You do that your halfway there.



The company is likely to go broke. The workers will vote in directors who promise high wages that the company cannot afford.

[Revolution starts with U]

The company is likely to go broke. The workers will vote in directors who promise high wages that the company cannot afford.

Your bias against workers shows strong here. Why don't you actually look at real world democratic workplaces before making these wild predictions. Workers have an interest in the long term well being of the company.

[RGacky3]

What? I thought it was still the State we were supposed to be 'taking over'.... (inb4 'corporations have already taken over the state!')

Thats one strategy, and it failed.


There would still be, but under different names. The majority of the workers in a particular enterprise would be the ones controlling how that enterprise functions.

Thats not a capital/labor relation.

Unless your willing to say a political democracy is actually a monarchy with the majority being the monarch.

But here your just playing semantics.


Probably because they did not have ability to grow sugar in Maine, Jamaica or Florida...
But seriously, what is the socialist rationale here?

But they had the ability to grow in different parts of catelonia.

I've given you rationale all the time but you deliberately missread it.

But my rationale HERE is, that if it WOULD be a problem then it WOULD HAVE been a problem in Anarchist Catelonia, but it was'nt, so you can shut up.


disagree here. Capitalism exists where the law of value exists. Commodity markets are inherently linked to capitalism. When the commodity market becomes the dominant reason to produce, then capitalism is the dominant mode of production. Cooperatives that produce for market-exchange are still bound to the laws and rulership of capital.

No, commodity markets are not the reason to produce under capitalism, profits are, commodity markets are a mechanism. There are many different types of markets.

I suggest you look into Wolffs class analaysis, capitalism is a mode of production, markets are a mode of distribution, I absolutely agree that definately labor markets and probably capital markets don't work with socialism, but there is nothing that does'nt work with commodity markets. YOu can have them without profit, and without capital/labor relations, hell you could have it without money.

The point is taking over the coprorations is step one.



The company is likely to go broke. The workers will vote in directors who promise high wages that the company cannot afford.

Kind of like how CEOs give themselves rediculous bonus's even when the company is failing?

Your assuming that people in a company cannot be rational. Also that workers don't have a stake in a company surviving long term, infact most workers have a higher stake than a CEO, since the CEO probably has tons of investments and is on other boards.

[Baseball]

Thats not a capital/labor relation.

Sure it is-- the majority is deciding what ITS best interest is, and gearing production to serve that end. That decision may, or may not, be in the best interest of the minority.
But the minority has no choice but to go along-- "Work or starve" is I believe the popular term for it.
Its the same relationship couched in different terms.




But they had the ability to grow in different parts of catelonia.

So what? You completely miss the point.
People need sugar. Why not make the decision to grow it in Maine? What is the socialist argument against? It seems there is none, which ought be an illustration of the absurdity of socialism.


Your assuming that people in a company cannot be rational. Also that workers don't have a stake in a company surviving long term, infact most workers have a higher stake than a CEO, since the CEO probably has tons of investments and is on other boards.

No. The assumption is that socialism has content beyond worker ownership. The assumption is that those people in the socialist company have to administer their business differently than how it was administered by the capitalists. And the claim is that the socialist way to administer that company is an irrational one, that so often seems to rely upon capitalism methods and information sources to solve its problems.

[RGacky3]

Sure it is-- the majority is deciding what ITS best interest is, and gearing production to serve that end. That decision may, or may not, be in the best interest of the minority.
But the minority has no choice but to go along-- "Work or starve" is I believe the popular term for it.
Its the same relationship couched in different terms.


If democracy is the same as monarchy, just with a majority then fine.

But your just playing semantics here.

But anyway, BY DEFINITION it is'nt, Capital=making money from money, Labor=making money from work.

But I'm not interesting in semantics.


So what? You completely miss the point.
People need sugar. Why not make the decision to grow it in Maine? What is the socialist argument against? It seems there is none, which ought be an illustration of the absurdity of socialism.


Empirical evidence, that it has'nt happened in historical examples of free socialism.


No. The assumption is that socialism has content beyond worker ownership. The assumption is that those people in the socialist company have to administer their business differently than how it was administered by the capitalists.

Its not for profit.


And the claim is that the socialist way to administer that company is an irrational one, that so often seems to rely upon capitalism methods and information sources to solve its problems.

the problems with capitalism are the for profit incentive and the capitalist mode of production.

Anyway, your arguing for arguments sake here.

[Baseball]

Empirical evidence, that it has'nt happened in historical examples of free socialism.

What hasn't happened? People have not made production decisions in a socialist community? I find that hard to believe.




Its not for profit.

Yep, which change the dynamics-- such as your claim elsewhere that people will just "leave" lower valued companies and migrate for work to higher valued companies.



In any event, my brief return here is at an end.

Until next time...

[Revolution starts with U]

So what? You completely miss the point.
People need sugar. Why not make the decision to grow it in Maine? What is the socialist argument against? It seems there is none, which ought be an illustration of the absurdity of socialism.



No. The assumption is that socialism has content beyond worker ownership. The assumption is that those people in the socialist company have to administer their business differently than how it was administered by the capitalists. And the claim is that the socialist way to administer that company is an irrational one, that so often seems to rely upon capitalism methods and information sources to solve its problems.

Maybe I am out of place.. I mean, I think I must have missed something. But... why wouldn't they grow sugar in Maine if it proved more efficient? We are talking about an interconnected global community here, not some dystopian world of barely self-sufficient towns seperated by vast wildernesses.

As for your second paragraph... that's pure nonsense. We're not throwing all of human intellectual progress out the window.
You are just making up bs when there are real world examples that disprove your claim.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2355556]Maybe I am out of place.. I mean, I think I must have missed something. But... why wouldn't they grow sugar in Maine if it proved more efficient?

Yes. That would make perfect sense. But in order for this to be true, there would need to be an understanding of "efficiency" as per socialist standards.
In a capitalist world, sugar growing in Maine is an absurdity.
Its an extreme example to be sure. But it is relevent on lesser more complicated issues- such a why grow sugar in Florida AND Jamaica.


We are talking about an interconnected global community here, not some dystopian world of barely self-sufficient towns seperated by vast wildernesses.

Yes. So why produce things in certain things in certain areas and not in others. In a socialist community.


As for your second paragraph... that's pure nonsense. We're not throwing all of human intellectual progress out the window.

Socilaism is throwing capitalism out the window. The question becomes whether whatever "capitalist" sources still relied upon can be utilised effectively in a socialist community

But again, this is really the end

For now...

[RGacky3]

What hasn't happened? People have not made production decisions in a socialist community? I find that hard to believe.


They were obviously able to make production decisions in those historical examples ... Since economically they worked out pretty well.


Yep, which change the dynamics-- such as your claim elsewhere that people will just "leave" lower valued companies and migrate for work to higher valued companies.



In any event, my brief return here is at an end.

Until next time...

Empirical evidence points otherwise.

[bugsbunny]

Your bias against workers shows strong here. Why don't you actually look at real world democratic workplaces before making these wild predictions. Workers have an interest in the long term well being of the company.

Well, look at GM. Even without them controlling the Board of Directors, the UAW drove GM to bankruptcy.

[thriller]

If the corporate board IS from the workers, both elected by and from the workers, then you HAVE destroyed class internally in the company.

But if the corporate board members are not ACTUALLY working, like getting wage compensations for selling their labor, the workers are not choosing a worker to represent them, they are choosing a boss to represent them. That sounds like class structure to me, just a bit more liberal.

As for your co-op idea (or Wolff's I guess) I like it, but it still has to compete in a profit driven market. You think the government is going to be willing to shell out money to EVERY unemployed person and have them create a business that could potentially fail, and put the people who worked at the co-op in the same position as the creator? I doubt it.

[RGacky3]

But if the corporate board members are not ACTUALLY working, like getting wage compensations for selling their labor, the workers are not choosing a worker to represent them, they are choosing a boss to represent them. That sounds like class structure to me, just a bit more liberal.


They'd still work, most of the time manegement comes from the board.


As for your co-op idea (or Wolff's I guess) I like it, but it still has to compete in a profit driven market.

No it does'nt, they can be not for profit co-ops.


You think the government is going to be willing to shell out money to EVERY unemployed person and have them create a business that could potentially fail, and put the people who worked at the co-op in the same position as the creator? I doubt it.

They do anyway, its unemployment, they have a model in italy that works pretty well.

[#FF0000]

Well, look at GM. Even without them controlling the Board of Directors, the UAW drove GM to bankruptcy.

GM being a shitty company drove GM to bankruptcy.

[thriller]

No it does'nt, they can be not for profit co-ops.

They do anyway, its unemployment, they have a model in italy that works pretty well.

I realize that they can be for non-profit, but they would still BE IN a profit-driven market. And if they were not in a profit-driven market, it seems like the need for unemployment would nill since production is based on need rather than profit, which means that the bourgeoisie does not control the means of production, so positions would not be limited, so most (if not all) people would have jobs. So what's even the point?

While it may work well in Italy, their government and economic system is not perfect, and not beneficial to the majority of people. Plus I can't see how starting a new co-op every week is cheaper or even equal to distributing unemployment checks.

[Comrade Hill]

Thats one strategy, and it failed.


Wow, way to go buddy, sucking up to the capitalist propaganda. The failure of revisionism is not the failure of the working class occupying the state. If it failed it would've failed around the time of the 20s and World War 2. That didn't happen, so stop clinging to the trousers of the bourgeoisie, and learn the history before you criticize.

Richard Wolff's "class analysis" of the Soviet Union demonstrates that he is not a genuine Marxist, as he argues that during the entire time of the Soviet Union's existance, the modes of production represented "capitalist" or "fuedalist" modes of production, this man obviously has a lack of understanding of Soviet history. People could not individually make a profit off of the exploitation of workers, or production it's self. Money existed, but use values did not function as commodities until the revisionist government decided that socialism was a system where there is unemployment and exploitation.

This offering of voting for the bourgeoisie is not a solution to the problem at all, we already vote for the bourgeoisie, it is called elections. People in capitalism already vote for their oppressors. What needs to happen, is the people need to remove the oppressors, not keep voting for them.

Using government money to start cooperative enterprises in competition of corporations? How is this going to work? Since the market mechanisms are still there, the cooperative enterprises are going to end up going bankrupt, because they won't exploit workers for profit. Either that, or the corporations and shareholders will end up buying out the cooperative enterprises and then instituting exploitation.

Comrades, do not waste your time with this Richard Wolff guy. It is obvious that he is not serious about instituting a socialist economy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Well, look at GM. Even without them controlling the Board of Directors, the UAW drove GM to bankruptcy.

Horseshit. Years of producing cheap shitty cars that nobody wanted drove GM to bankruptcy. I live less than 5miles from Cruse plant. Most either works or has worked, directly or indirectly, for GM; proud union members and supporters through and through. The union took pay and benefit cuts for years before it went under. The executives did no such thing.

Its patently absurdto suggest people making 30 bucks an hour drove a company under, but the people making 5000 an hour did not. Your name is quite fitting. I am laughing at you like I used to him. :laugh:

[RGacky3]

I realize that they can be for non-profit, but they would still BE IN a profit-driven market. And if they were not in a profit-driven market, it seems like the need for unemployment would nill since production is based on need rather than profit, which means that the bourgeoisie does not control the means of production, so positions would not be limited, so most (if not all) people would have jobs. So what's even the point?


I would be against a profit based market, the market would just be to get the values.

But again, this suggestion of taking over the corporations, is juts a first start, not a ready made solution.


While it may work well in Italy, their government and economic system is not perfect, and not beneficial to the majority of people. Plus I can't see how starting a new co-op every week is cheaper or even equal to distributing unemployment checks.

No shit its not perfect, but this program works pretty well, and that area does pretty well too.


The failure of revisionism is not the failure of the working class occupying the state. If it failed it would've failed around the time of the 20s and World War 2. That didn't happen, so stop clinging to the trousers of the bourgeoisie, and learn the history before you criticize.


IT did fail before WW2, the working class was not occupying the state, it was the Communist party leadership.


Richard Wolff's "class analysis" of the Soviet Union demonstrates that he is not a genuine Marxist, as he argues that during the entire time of the Soviet Union's existance, the modes of production represented "capitalist" or "fuedalist" modes of production, this man obviously has a lack of understanding of Soviet history. People could not individually make a profit off of the exploitation of workers, or production it's self. Money existed, but use values did not function as commodities until the revisionist government decided that socialism was a system where there is unemployment and exploitation.


Actually there was profit, it went to the state, juts because its an institution and not an individual does'nt matter, corporations are also institutions.

Also the Capitalist mode of production is Labor creates value, capital confiscates value, labor makes money with work, capital makes money with money.

He's a pretty careful economist and analyst.


Using government money to start cooperative enterprises in competition of corporations? How is this going to work? Since the market mechanisms are still there, the cooperative enterprises are going to end up going bankrupt, because they won't exploit workers for profit. Either that, or the corporations and shareholders will end up buying out the cooperative enterprises and then instituting exploitation.

Why would they go bankrupt, Profit only makes sense with capital markets.

BUt even if you DID have capital markets, corporations could'nt buy them out because all cooperations would be cooperatives (by law), and even if wealthy shareholders bought them out it would'nt make a difference, because ownership would'nt entail control, that only exists in todays system.

But I'm not FOR capital markets. Anyway, this is a first step, not a final utopia.


Comrades, do not waste your time with this Richard Wolff guy. It is obvious that he is not serious about instituting a socialist economy.

He's a serious economist, not some dude that melts at the sight of anything with a red flag.

[thriller]

I would be against a profit based market, the market would just be to get the values.

But again, this suggestion of taking over the corporations, is juts a first start, not a ready made solution.



No shit its not perfect, but this program works pretty well, and that area does pretty well too.


Right I get that it's a first step. It just seems to me if it's a non-profit market unemployment would not be needed.

[RGacky3]

Right I get that it's a first step. It just seems to me if it's a non-profit market unemployment would not be needed.

Exactly. Which is why labor markets would be pointless.