Richard D. Wolff

Unemployment is not merely an unfortunate flaw in the capitalist system that can be corrected by taxing the rich, as you suggested in your closing remarks last week, professor. Unemployment is a structural feature of capitalism which disciplines the workforce and drives wages down in order to maximize profits, thus reproducing the capitalist class and the overall system. The only viable alternative is for a democratic mode of production to generate its own surplus to create new jobs in democratic enterprise, thus reproducing economic democracy.

1. Creative class is the driving force of the transition from capitalism to a cooperative model. Capitalism creates the creative class, but the creative class, unable to meet their higher-level needs in Maslow's pyramid in the framework of capitalism, brings the transition to co-operatives. Not the proletariat, as Marx believed, but the creative class brings the end to capitalism. 2. The transition from capitalism to cooperatives confirms dialectics of German philosopher Georg Hegel, namely, that the struggle of opposites (thesis and antithesis) is overcome in the synthesis. In economics, the struggle of trade unions and corporations owners is overcome by combining them into a synthesis - collective worker-owner of cooperatives. From Manifesto of the Creator Society Movement: http://www.creatorsociety.org/index.php/en/manifesto-eng/manifesto-eng

Charlie Rose recently interviewed Ted Koppel about his book "Lights Out" which is a expose on the dangers posed by cyberterrorists to the power grid and on a government that has done nothing to safeguard that system. I did some follow up reading which revealed the fact that it is the industry itself that is refusing to confront the danger because of the costs of doing so; moreover, I learned that although power distribution is overwhelmingly controlled by public companies, only 10% of power generation is under public control. Capitalists simply will not spend any money that does not contribute to their bottom line, even if the failure to safeguard power production exposes society to unimaginable calamity: without power, there is no water, no system of human waste disposal and consequently an increased likelihood of a public health crisis. I imagine that this failure is grounds enough to nationalize the entire energy system.

After listening to the economic inequality statistics mentioned in your August 12 program, I would love to hear you address an issue that goes virtually unacknowledged, much less challenged: Our culture suffers from a mass delusion about the nature of money (inequality being one end result). Money is almost universally considered to be a possession to be *owned* whereas in actuality, it should be viewed as a government-supplied utility (like roads, sewers, and water systems), supplied to facilitate the business of the nation - something to be *used* not owned. (Yet how often do we hear sentiments like "It's *my* money" or "taxation equals government theft of my money"?) One might refer to the street one lives on as "my street" but few would think of putting up barriers on "my street" and charging passing vehicles "interest" for using it. Yet because money can be hidden away in one's pocket (or bank account) and kept from others, the illusion of ownership is easier to maintain. The former sentiment probably derives from a time when money consisted of precious materials that could be self-mined and pocketed, whereas virtually all of today's money comes to us as merely a symbol, an agreement -- originating at the behest of the national government. (And the latter points to another unquestioned absurdity: that the government's hands are tied only to the amount of money it can collect in taxes.) Because of the above, money currently serves two opposing functions: store-of-value and medium-of-exchange. The more it does of one, the less is available for the other. Our current inequality crisis is due to a relative few who are hoarding up all the value, leaving insufficient money circulating to serve its commercial transaction function. If a group of individuals or corporations somehow managed to commandeer our national highways and turn them into toll roads for private gain, thus interfering with free transport, there would certainly be an uprising and a forceful response. How have we become comfortable with the same action for the public utility known as money?

I have to disagree with the "real wage" part of this lecture. In 1967, when min wage was $1.25/hr, I was living in Mission Beach (San Diego) in a nice little beach house with dutch doors and two parking spaces right out front. In the winter, the beach and bay were virtually barren of people - so it was ALL MINE! I worked 25 hours a week, same as my husband. We owned a VW camper ($1K then, $40K now), he drove a Suzuki motorcycle and I commuted to high school on my Vespa, and our rent was $100/mo. We were a 1 min. walk to Mission Bay and a 2 minute walk to the Beach at Mission Blvd and San Jose Place. Years later, they had knocked our little beach house down and erected a 3-story box. To rent that place now would be at least $10,000/mo. To live in what remains of those tiny original beach houses would be at least $5,000/mo. 25 hours/wk at $1.25, even if you inflate it, would not give us the lifestyle we lived then. I figured that minimum wage would have to be at least $121/hr at FULL-TIME for me to experience any facsimile of the same lifestyle, which would still be impossible because it's an over-crowded mess now and the diversity has been lost (only wealthy East Coast immigrants/investors can afford it now.) Same thing happened in other places I've lived: NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago, San Francisco, Saratoga Springs, NY. Minimum wage would have to be closer to $300/hr for me to live in any of my old "stomping grounds." So, as you speak of "real wage," I tend to think you're assuming Davenport, Iowa, as your starting point.?

Professor Wolff, I thought I would share with you the following articles about the sudden resignation of the Palo Alto planning commissioner, who said she is moving to Santa Cruz because she can't afford a home in Palo Alto. Typically the plight of people like her rarely evokes sympathy from me. But she said the point of her bringing her resignation to the public's attention was not to garner sympathy, but to bring attention to working-class folks in Palo Alto who can't afford to live here. The lack of affordable housing in that city, and on the peninsula region of the Bay Area in general, has been garnering more airtime in recent years. Teachers and first responders, etc. who work in Palo Alto can't afford to live there. Many live as far away as cities like Modesto and Turlock, and commute some 90 to 100 miles to work in Palo Alto. In the articles, you'll see the outgoing commissioner says the city council is, in part, to blame because it ignores the pleas of its citizens for it to build more homes and less commercial office space. Though that may be true, it's probably not hard to see why the council ignores its everyday citizens if you follow the money... On the TV news yesterday morning, one reporter said, in trying to gauge the reaction of Palo Alto residents, that some have said people who can't afford to live in Palo Alto just have to work harder. Your oft-used punchline, "That's how capitalism works," seems appropriate here. I'm sure it won't be terribly long before this sort of issue in Palo Alto is common across much of the Bay Area. Here are a couple articles about it: http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_30229420/palo-alto-planning-commissioner-quits-over-high-housing http://sf.curbed.com/2016/8/10/12426244/palo-alto-commissioner-resigns-housing

Hi professor Wolff and D@work staff, I believe you've done a consistent and great job articulating the benefits of worker co-ops and the impact of Mondragon. I've been finding myself eager to hear your thoughts on how worker co-op situations can be enacted at companies that are larger and with more so-called white-collar workers who have specialized knowledge/skills. For instance, what might worker control look like at a software company, a marketing agency, an engineering firm, a law firm, etc.? And what are the preconditions necessary to make worker control a success in such organizations?

Dear Dr. Wolff, I recently discovered a new social media site that uses block chain technology but adds an economic twist. It is steem.io. if you have time, please read their white paper as you will find it interesting. I would love to hear your thoughts on it and see if we could use that type of technology to further D@W. Thanks.

Dear prof. Wolff. Could you in one of your updates talk about the currency devalvation as a tool for hidden taxation? Thank you.

Your honorable mention of the "community-wealth building" project in Cleveland was touching, but not nearly adequate. How can any "Marxist economist" advocate for workplace democracy with no mention of also democratizing the "circuit of capital"? According to Marx, any organism must generate a surplus in order to reproduce, and Mondragon has done so for the past 60 years to create new jobs in democratic enterprise, most recently in Cleveland. They mobilize production to generate a surplus to mobilize production to generate a surplus, thus reproducing a more democratic economy. Not true of most worker coops in the United States. What are you doing to change that, Richard Wolff, aside from soliciting donations for your speaking engagements?

Many questions regarding Venezuela. Was it really JUST the oil? Why are goods so hard to find? Is the lesson that Ayn Rand's Atlas can really work? How does one save the country from a reactionary right take-over? Can Serrano really do it? http://www.wsj.com/articles/venezuelas-nicolas-maduro-looks-to-a-marxist-spaniard-for-an-economic-miracle-1470678805

https://joekent.liberty.me/the-town-that-privatized-everything/

Prof. Wolff, while travelling in California in July of this year, I picked up a copy of USA Today (July 2016) which contained a supplement called "YouEconomy", The Movement That's Changing the Way We Work. I was reminded of your Economic Updates in which you discuss companies like Uber, AirBnb, Lyft, etc., and how these companies are very profitably exploiting unemployed or underemployed US workers by getting them to use their personal cars as taxis, or rent out space in their homes as hotel suites, etc. I wonder if you could discuss this phenomenon in an upcoming Economic Update. The USA Today supplement has a link to you-economy.com for further information, if needed. The supplement discusses Uber, leVel, TaskRabbit, Etsy, Upwork, microbusiness, and other startups. It suggests this is the future of work in the USA (and, elsewhere presumably) as "freelance work", and includes this happy admonition: "Don't Be the One Left Behind! The biggest mistake you can make in this economy is choosing to ignore it. Ignoring the impact the YouEconomy has had on our daily lives, our ability to earn income, and our ability to control our destiny today would be like ignoring the automobile in the 19th century. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean it will go away. You can either choose to join in, or get left in the dust." Following from what you have discussed in previous Economic Update talks, this "You-Economy" is the deliberate creation of the over-jealous geniuses running the capitalist system as a response to the millions of jobs lost to automation and overseas transfers. I would be grateful to hear your interpretation of this development.

I saw some articles online about many states that run dog training programs in their prisons. Prisoners train the dogs, some of which were problem dogs left at the pound. Prisoners and dogs alike are socialized. The dogs go into families in local communities, and some of the dogs achieve the level of service dogs. ........ paragraph ...... All the socialization of prisoners, dogs, prison staff, and outside community benefits begs the question: Why not socialize profits and revenue from the programs? Prisoner financial debt upon release is additional, undue punishment, and it works against rehabilitation. ........ paragraph ...... What about developing a variety of WSDEs in the prisons. Capital models are busy exploiting prisoners to profit corporations, while the public pays to keep prisoners. Opportunities are already identified. and many personnel are already in place and working. Thus, changing the model for direction/management could very quickly demonstrate improved results for the businesses and the communities. If US prisons can’t give up their compounding punishment models, would it work to start such programs in some foreign prisons to develop best practices and demonstrate results?

Dear Professor Wolff, first of all: THANKS³ for putting into words, what’s roaring in my head! I discovered „Economic Update“ only a few weeks ago on our local free radio station. Since then it’s my favorite radio-hour of the week. I’m 63 now and I’m desparately missing such devotedness in the neck of our woods. I really do know that you can’t read all of the mails reaching you, and I’m not waiting for any answer, but believe me: It’s kind of a big relief to talk something away! So it‘s an urgent necessity to tell a litte story about what’s happening in my home country, little Austria (wich used to be BIG not so far in the past). Inspiration for my writing came from this week‘s program, dealing with Franco’s Spain. Motto: „Where have all the flowers gone? When will they ever learn?“. So let’s go: We had presidential elections in Austria some time ago, and in a run-off the Green (sic!!!!!) candidate won by a head (only some 30.000 votes plus). Runner-up was the candidate of the very right-wing „Freedom Party“ (as it always is translated in international reports. I’m always asking: Whose freedom do these guys represent?) FPÖ. But: Will the Green really be President? To put it clearly: Our „President“ is more or less a person who only has to represent. He‘s not aproximately got the „power“ of the US-President is said to have (Has he?). But he is the one who plays an important role in swearing in a newly elected government. And the „green“ candidate Mr Van der Bellen was the only one who stated clearly - before the election - not to swear in someone as next chancellor (the person, whose „potency“ most likely might be compared with the US-President‘s in terms of decision-making power), whose attitude and mindset wasn’t fully PRO the European Union. Just a few words only about Austria’s political system before I continue: We had a mainly Two-Party-System since the end of Word War II: The first time always winning „moderate“ right-wing „People’s Party“ (Austria had – not out of all reason - terrible fear from everything coming from „left“. By the way: They still have….. No more so out of reason, so why?) and the „Socialist-Party“. „Right“ (false??) supremacy lasted till 1970, when - finally – Socialist Bruno Kreisky, became OUR chancellor. The third (at first little) „force“ was the above mentioned FPÖ (following up the Nazi-contaminated VDU), where all the right-wing nationalists gathered. Call it „safe haven“ for many Austrian Nazis. They could develop, because Austria always stated to have been Hitler‘s first victims (Brief remark in this case: See all the raised right hands in Vienna, when Hitler claimed Austria’s connection in 1938!). And now? It’s very hot water! If elections were hold today, the FPÖ would become the strongest party. It’s pathetic and it feels like crying, but ONE THIRD of Austria’s population has learned not the tiniest bit from history. Let me return to our presidential election. First round of voting ended in the (for many surprising) out of the candidates of the Popular Party, the Socialist Party, and of 3 other contenders. „Winner“ was the FPÖ-candidate, second came the candidate of the Green Party. As told, a run-off had to decide. And believe it or not: Mr Green won!!! Wow!!! But: A Green CANNOT be Austria’s President. A No-Go! The voting was contradicted by the FPÖ because of some (minimal) „inconsistencies“ within the scope of our postal voting (proceedings, which were custom practice over many, many years). Quintessence: Austrian Constitutional Court decided to let the run-off-vote be repeated. The same Constitutional Court, which often was brought into ridicule over the past years by……. you guess: the FPÖ, which always stated the office „Bundespräsident“ (as we call him) to be obsolete nowadays. Bizarrely only as long as they got the chance to „get“ it themselves. Oportunists? Populists? Demagogues? So we will have to vote again in October, and all the prognostic symptoms point to a win of…… You guess again! Finally I soon - at 63 - will be able to buy me a gun to protect my life against those criminal people having fled from countries, which fight in wars with all the kinds of weapons WE have sent to them. So that’s the one objection – I really don’t know if right or wrong – to your last program: I think, it always is a very big deal to send weapons to whom and where ever. Was it really Roosevelt’s (or would it be anybody’s in the future) fault not to support Franco’s opponents? Thank you VERY much again for your being AND STAYING on air! Yours hopefully full of hope! Reinhard Sommer Austria Short PS, I read today: „Literature cannot change the world. The anxiety-administrators don’t read books“ (Andrzej Stasiuk). I’m afraid, they aren’t able to listen too!