Richard D. Wolff

Please do an economic Update on democracy and the road to tyranny. Additionally, please comment on racism and ETHNIC CHINESE GOVERNOR’S JAIL TERM FOR ‘INSULTING ISLAM’ STOKES TENSIONS IN INDONESIA http://www.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/2093980/ethnic-chinese-governors-jail-term-insulting-islam-stokes How does democracy protect the minority? Two foxes and a chicken voting on what to eat for dinner seems like a very dangerous form of democracy.

Dr. Wolff, Your ideas and those of Chris Hedges, Michael Hudson. David Harvey and Noam Chomsky are not only similar but very complimentary to each other. Each has solutions too. If we get the gist of those in one single platform, you can kill all arguments on the right and offer detailed practical solution. Otherwise i see no end to this fight other than becoming another Greece or something that is permanently enslaved. somebody needs to combine all the ideas in to a single position that will not have to use phrases like We do not know when and what etc. there are several people on Democracy at work who can do the work involved unless we are going to get caught in copyright and related stuff....I am old and not very well....I hope you can manage this.

Can a co-op sports league be successful? Can a co-op sports league that doesn't keep score or maintain team standings - collaboration over competition - exist?

Hi, I always hear that the government is wasteful, not efficient, blabla; so is there a way to calculate the cost/loss in dollars of every economic crisis since the 1900's? Thank you

when starting a co-op, what is your opinion on paying everyone the same wage, regardless of skill level. can a worker exploit another worker if they have a difference in wages? at what point does exploitation begin and how to you minimize conflict if wages are unequal?

I think your criticisms of capitalism are conveyed well and I think you (and those supporting you) are doing crucially fantastic work.

Having said that, my initial reaction to your proposed solution (worker co-ops) was to dismiss it as too simplistic/naive.

After doing some more research on your views, I changed my mind and realised that you had the "winning ticket" all along.

Just when I was about to ride a wave of newly found optimism and help get your message across (in my own localised way), I came across some criticisms of worker co-ops.

The first from Noam Chomsky[1] and the second from the International Socialist Review[2].
Both of the criticisms focus on the issue of trying to bring about radical change (via the worker co-ops) from the bottom-up (rather than the top-down) and how it doesn't appear to work because of pressures from the incumbent system.

I agree that the incumbent needs to be changed/replaced/phased-out/etc., but I (and surely many others) don't know with what.

What is your response to these criticisms of trying to grow worker co-ops from the ground-up?

I'm not an economist, but in terms of the general concept of replacing an existing system with a new (and hopefully better) system, I wish to provide my thoughts on.

If you want to replace existing system X, you need a replacement Y.
Yet you also need a strategy/plan for transitioning from X to Y.

Are worker co-ops the "Y" we need and is growing them from the bottom-up (within a resistant incumbent system), an effective strategy/plan for transitioning from X to Y?

My questions are related to Corey Butler's[3] and Donald Bellunduno's[4].

[1]: https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/30/talking-with-chomsky/
[2]: https://isreview.org/issue/93/are-workers-cooperatives-alternative-capitalism
[3]: http://www.rdwolff.com/cbtlr/how_do_worker_co_ops_scale_into_larger_non_capitalist_systems
[4]: http://www.rdwolff.com/82913/the_feasibility_of_worker_co_ops_nation_to_nation

I stumbled upon this interesting Forbes piece and thought you might also find it intriguing. Wayne Dec 18, 2014 @ 02:25 PM If Apple Were A Worker Cooperative, Each Employee Would Earn At Least $403K Cameron Keng , Contributor [Note above date] Apple has 98,000 employees and earned $39.5 billion after tax over the past year. If Apple was a worker cooperative, then each employee would’ve received a $403,000 dividend on top of their salaries. Even the lowest paid worker would’ve earned at least $403,000 in Apple as worker cooperative. The first thing naysayers and disbelievers will say is “but, Apple isn’t a worker cooperative.” Mondragon [Spain] is a worker cooperative that has about 74,000 employees and earned $12.6 billion in revenue. Mondragon is smaller than Apple, but it’s at a scale that demonstrates that we can do better as employees. https://www.forbes.com/sites/cameronkeng/2014/12/18/if-apple-was-a-worker-cooperative-each-employee-would-earn-at-least-403k/#2679e4242dee

Marxists often follow the traditional model that if demand goes down, then the price goes down, so everything that was produced can be sold. But that would lead to a completely static world: every producer keeps producing whatever they like and how much of it they want to produce and then they just adjust prices so everything can be sold. This is entirely different from what happens in reality. In reality, if you can't sell what you are producing, you can't arbitrarily lower the prices; instead, at some point you reduce the amount of whatever it is you produce and produce something else instead. Interestingly, if you think about it, the point at which a company can no longer reduce prices is when it can no longer cover its costs, which are mostly labor costs. Therefore, the prices (at least of goods that are not subject to speculation) are way closer to the predictions of the labor theory of value than to any 'equilibrium model' where prices fluctuate arbitrarily. So, why do Marxists so often lick the boots of neoclassical economists? Why don't you (just like post-keynesians who view prices as determined by unit labor cost + 'mark up') proudly say: 'we have the superior theory even when it comes to prices, so f**k off, mainstream economists'?

When Marx wrote 'Das Kapital', currencies were closely related to Gold - they had a fixed exchange rate. For him, this almost seemed necessary, because if you don't back up your currency with a commodity, there's no clear measure how much your currency is worth. Marxists nowadays often argue that the very fact that we have given up on the gold standard is responsible for exchange rate fluctuations because you cannot give good measures what the exchange rates should be. But what if the whole world had a single fiat currency? This case can be partially studied in Europe, where many different nations have given up their individual currencies and introduced the Euro. I claim two things: 1. fiat currencies are superior to currencies backed by some commodity as their lack of any use value and the fact that you can produce as much of it as you wish make it perfectly fit to keep the commodities moving. 2. When it comes to international trade relations, a single fiat currency for everyone can be treated exactly like the gold standard - and it has the very same problems. So, when discussing good exchange rates if countries use different fiat currencies, we should ask: what should happen with the relative prices in the different countries if they used the same fiat currency? And then we should use the exchange rates to correct errors if they occur. So, from a marxist point of view, what should different countries using a common currency do to make the common economy work?

Could this work on a large scale? I know people who favour this over a worker ran enterprise, advantages/disadvantages & most importantly feasibility?

Dear Mr. Wolff. I heard you say, in a presentation on Youtube that everyone should have grown out of the mentallity of "Everyone's free to do what they want, as long as they don't hurt anybody else" by the age of ten, or something to that effect. Can you please elaborate on why this mode of thought is a bad thing? Best regards, Anders, Denmark.

Dear Dr Wolff, I currently work as a freelance translator in the current gig.com economy, which is similar to UBER etc. Companies who need translation work done go to agencies who pass on projects to us. There is no job security, payment in relatively low and we tend to work long hours to keep our clients happy and coming back to us. Currently I am in a situation in which I have to turn down quite a lot of work because I physically can't cope with it. Do you have any idea how I could create a coop out of it? I feel like it would be a good idea but I do not know where to start. Silvia

Dr. Wolff: With all due respect—and I mean that—I must disagree with your suggestion in this week's EU that the leadership of the major U.S. labor unions would go to bat for worker co-operatives. The unions today guard the interests of capitalists more than they do those of their rank and file members. Union officials make large salaries relative to those earned by workers. They're cosseted by the bosses, wined and dined, taken on luxury vacations, and who knows what goes on underneath the bargaining table? What would be their incentive to seek to promote co-operatives that, if successful, would likely undermine their power and take away their privileges? The evidence for this kind of corruption is plentiful. The UAW recent contract negotiations make a case in point. The leadership out-maneuvered the widespread opposition expressed by the rank and file by using dirty tricks to guarantee that the contract desired by the employers got  passed. Perhaps you have more information on this topic that gives you reason to believe that unions would champion co-ops. If so, I hope you will comment on it.

Hi Professor Wolff, On your program a few weeks ago, you were pointing to the perilous road ahead for labor, specifically as the rapid growth of automation and robotics threaten to create a jobless economy within the next decade or so. It occurred to me that along with worker cooperatives, (which you have so marvelously explained and championed on a number of shows) another strategy to explore might be the implementation of a basic income. Two potential guests come to mind. Steve Shafarman (Basic Income Action) who has written several books on the subject, and has been a proponent of the idea for decades. His plan is fixed amount for every person in the country, with no means test for income, as a way to completely eradicate dire poverty and provide an economic base for every person in the country. He outlines how it is economically possible, and given your expertise, you would be able to further amplify his concepts and lend support to its feasibility. The other potential guest is Robert Ashford, who has a plan that does not give money to people in the form of a monthly check, but instead provides every citizen with a capital investment. His plan is a little less direct, but here again, your command of economics and ability to teach, could really help educate us as to how this idea works and how it might look in practice. The idea of a basic income is virtually unknown in our society, but would have majority support were people to know and understand the concept, making it politically possible. The time is now for this discussion, as a way to offer people a strategy to displace some of the damage that is anticipated with the further evaporation of the labor force. It’s a potential left/right issue too, as the right might embrace it as a way to reduce social services. After all, Nixon supported the idea (at the urging of Milton Freidman) in the early 70’s for this reason. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to let me share my thoughts and for considering using your show as a way to explore this idea and potentially move it forward. Lee Metcalf