Richard D. Wolff

http://www.jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/democratizar-a-economia-153324

I often hear Dr. Wolff talk about the unfairness of property tax. In addition, colleges, universities, churches and other tax exempt institution claim exempt status for properties they own which are actually conducting otherwise for profit activities. Another abuse I understand is the mislabeling of property. A family has a huge residential estate, but instead of having the property valued as residential, it keeps a few animals, maybe domestic maybe rare, on the property and then gets the entire property reclassified as agricultural, which generally has a significant lower tax bill.

I am an admirer of Fidel Castro for he had the guts to restore the dignity of the Cuban people by taking back his country from the Empire. I know that Cuba was never a communist state for I don't think one has ever existed. So then what do we call Fidel's form of governance? You my dear friend are a great teacher. Thank you!

The Ontario Teacher's Pension Fund, (over $150B CAD), is called upon to divest its fossil fuel assets. Shouldn't it instead 'strand' those assets, since divestment just puts these assets out onto the market, to be purchased by another. (I want to 'divest' of my emission spewing car so I trade it in on an electric, but my old car will just be driven by someone else now, hence no improvement in the overall emissions situation). And wouldn't market forces act against mass divestment by simply reducing the price of such assets? Would a better option be for the fund to hold these assets within for instance a perpetuity trust that will restrict their sale against fuel uses?

Dr. Wolff, given the implications of your ideas and proposals, I'm curious about resistance you've encountered in academia and the business world. How has it manifested and what advice can you offer to overcome it?

Dear Dr. Wolff, I receive significant retirement benefits from my employer (not employee-owned), which I would like to invest in order to promote employee-owned businesses. Can you provide any guidance on how to pursue a way to support employee-owned enterprises in this way? Thank you for all your work to develop a viable solution to Capitalism's inherent unsustainability.

Happy May Day Professor Wolff! I work for a manufacturer of heat transfer coils. In the past three years that I have been an employee, our company has responded to market demands by the traditional method of layoffs during lean times, and extreme hiring and re-hiring during periods of high demand. To clarify, it is the hourly-wage workers who are directly affected by this boom/bust cost of labor adjustment. I see some of the same employees fired and then re-hired three, or six months later. How can I communicate to my employers that perhaps a better solution would be to cut the hours of all employees rather than go through the process of layoffs and hiring cycles? I understand the intangible value of keeping workers on the payroll through maintaining worker skills, and a rapid response time to meet market demand. However, I also understand the cost to the company of maintaining worker benefits (e.g. healthcare, 401k, etc.) as a reason for layoffs. I am hoping you can add some real numbers or references to studies in an in-depth analysis of this perennial issue. Thank you.

In light of the People's Climate March (which I support but doesn't go far enough), many people are concerned about climate change and are demonstrating this to our government. This is great but what if "we" asked each one of those marchers and those in solidarity to finance a national green energy coop? By using "Fusion Politics" we could unite around this single issue and by-pass the corporate energy system. I see need for positive direct action to create a new system instead of solely picketing or holding "divestment events". How do we turn this situation on its head and in our favor?

In listening to your shows and reading your books for the last several months, I'm convinced by your advocacy for co-ops and the idea that labor-saving technological innovations would result in less labor time for the same amount of income and no need for layoffs under a co-op model as opposed to a capitalist model, which "saves" labor by eliminating jobs. However, what happens when a technology comes along that eliminates or greatly diminishes entire sectors of the economy or the need for a majority of workers in that field? Accounting comes to mind. Prior to the invention of free software that allows more people to do their taxes with relative ease, armies of highly skilled and knowledgeable accounts were needed. Software meant being a CPA was not a guaranteed long-term career option. The same goes for travel agents. I'm an academic (or struggling to be an academic, playing the adjunct game, which you have spoken of perceptively); the end result of online courses seems to be the elimination of a huge percentage of higher ed teaching jobs (which I think would be disastrous for a democracy, but that's another question). Thus, my question: what is your take on Universal Basic Income? Do you see this as a viable solution? The book Inventing the Future: Postcapitalism and a World Without Work by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams has got me very excited about the prospects for full automation and "100% unemployment." To what extent do we have to de-valorize work, labor, toil on the ideological level? To what extent is this even possible? I would love to hear a whole show about your views on the possibilities and problems with UBI. Thanks! You're doing great and much needed work!

http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/04/28/ibm-ceo-rometty-tackling-5-million-u-s-job-openings-that-cant-be-filled.html There is no shortage of skilled worker, just skilled workers willing to work for the wage they want to pay.

While I am convinced that worker coops are an excellent way to organize economic organizations, I believe that they are a model that could have worked well in the late 20th century, but I am not sure about 21st century. Why do I think so? Because in the end they would have to compete in a money based economy. Money based economy is dependent on consumer demand. Today, in virtually every sector, market is grossly over saturated. How many colas, mobile phones, fancy watches ... etc do we need? I am not sure that the coops would be able to solve this problem even if the middle class were to be resurrected. And if it did, what will happen to our environment? Second, the technology advancement we are bestowed upon is so profound that very soon we can have AI machines do the majority of work for the human species. I would be interested if you could cast your thoughts as to how worker coops can exist in this environment. I believe that world today is too complex for any politician to understand, or should I say human that is raised to believe in and value greed. I myself think that we need to move from a money based economy to a resource based economy. I invite you to listen to John Lenons "Imagine" and watch a few episodes of Star Trek (2nd Generation) in which money literally does not exist..... this is what can be described as true communism.... most of my friends laugh when I say this because they associate communism with Soviet Russia, when it fact it has nothing to do with it. I believe that Marx said that when technology becomes so advanced that everything is in abundance, there will cease the need for money to exist. Remember in Star Trek, when you need a Martini, you simply ask the computer to make one for you. If you need fantasy, go to the Holodeck. Technology is advancing at beck breaking speeds... either we will end up in a Wall-e or Star Trek movie.... Sorry for the long email. Would love you to comment on the impact of technology on capitalism.

Prof. Wolff: I must confess to ignorance until recently (via an article on Truthout) about Italy's national "Macora" law (1985). I gather that it provides a framework for laid-off workers who want to invest their unemployment benefits into new business ventures. Prof. Vera Zamagni (U. of Bologna), referred to in the article, observes that this co-op model is more de-centralized and can lead to a "networked ecosystem" of small worker co-ops. Thus it may be far easier to reproduce elsewhere than, e.g., the monolithic Mondragon. My Question: Because the wealth distribution in the U.S. currently is so horrifically unbalanced and overly centralized, does it make sense to advocate in the U.S. for laws or programs similar to "Macora" that may, in practice, promote workplace democracy sooner than waiting for capitalism in the U.S. to implode as a unassailable belief system? I ask because I know so many under- and unemployed people in the U.S. whose talents and energy are being wasted because of the fraud perpetuated on "employees" at all levels by the mendacious promises of capitalist economics.

What would be the role of socialit planning in a worker coop based society? What can we learn from the Soviet experience ?

One might think that equal owner/workers would be reluctant to go to war with equal owner/workers that were members of the same organization and industry but of different national states. Might countries come one day to be considered obsolete organizations? If countries did not exist they could not have a war.