100 thoughts on “Economic Update: Libertarianism Capitalism & Socialism

  1. I was watching the Jimmy Dora show with Ron Paul on it and I think he’s right we have way more in common then we have different.

  2. I am very much appreciative of the information you so willingly share with your online audience, and would like to suggest that you do more conversational type interviews, such as the one, here, with Michael Brooks. Your information is extremely important and could become much more widely disseminated if you would get together with other online hosts who value your ideas and would welcome your input. Lawrence Lessig comes to mind. I was introduced to his philosophy on The Joe Rogan Experience. It is nice to see you in a more relaxed setting, where your tone is much less gruff than in your lectures. Please take no offense from this comment, as my only motive is that you expand your audience. Again, thank you so much for all you are doing to open people's minds.

  3. I write as someone who has come to embrace principles quite distinct from those of what are accepted to be the core arguments for either "capitalism" or "socialism." The term that best describes these principles is "cooperative individualism." What cooperative individualism asks is — what system of law, regulation and taxation will secure and protect true individual liberty within a cooperative framework of socio-political arrangements and institutions. A statement of these principles can be found here:


    There are actually quite a few contributors to the body of analysis leading to the advocacy of cooperative individualism as a replacement platform required for realizing the just society. One of the leading theorists who attempted to build a global movement to adopt these principles was Henry George. His efforts failed to achieve more than some incremental reforms. Not surprisingly, George and his supporters were opposed by both the defenders of the status quo and by those who came to the effort holding to the theories of Karl Marx or others who found in the system of private property, generally, the fundamental cause of widespread human misery. Henry George offered a means of balancing the protection of rights to property with the guarantee of fundamental human rights. In his book "Social Problems," George discussed what he identified as the proper functions of government. The entire book continues to offer thoughtful analysis of the human condition. In response to Professor Wolff's observations today, I offer Henry George's insights into where the public sector responsibilities rightfully begin and end:


    Edward J. Dodson, M.L..A., Director
    School of Cooperative Individualism

  4. When he says democratizing the workplace it implies there will need to be 1. free access to all the data by everyone not just workers 2. schools set up to teach everyone for free what that data means and hence be able to have a functioning democracy and self-determination – an understanding that democracy leads to and progresses toward unanimity or unity (a solved equation – needs met) organically when data and learning are successfully coupled on the ground. 3. acknowlegement that happiness or the pusuit of it can be quantified and objectified beyond faith (groping in the dark with good intentions) and that knowledge and faith are complimentary to each other yet are never ending (faith leads to knowledge and knowledge leads to faith). To have faith in knowing (emotional and material security). People will be required to show and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt why they hold the faith that they do. If not, they must go back to step 1 and 2.

  5. Thanks once again for another very interesting show. As someone with a strong libertarian socialist leaning who has tried again and again to discuss with your standard definition (right) libertarians that socialism isn't necessarily the highly-authoritarian, government-heavy versions seen in the USSR and China (with little success as they seem to ignore this fact) I hope you have more luck. There does seem to be a lot of common ground, as you say, and it seems to me that once you have complete individual freedom, which includes freedom from coercion that it shouldn't matter whether a group of people voluntarily decide to set up some cooperative enterprise or not so the right-libertarians should not have a problem with it. In fact I find it difficult to see many differences. Would an economy based on democratic workplaces still be best to use markets for distributing goods etc. in your opinion?

    One thing you didn't touch on (but maybe have previously) is one of the right-libertarians slogans "taxation is theft". It would be very interesting to hear your thoughts on this as I do have some sympathy for it but while we still have states and governments is there a good way to view taxation that debunks their claims.

  6. Great short post and up to a point! Many Americans like the libertarians. Let's keep at it. And remind at each corner that Soviet Union had a state capitalism, not a socialism (still the children there had a lot more stable childhood then kids have here, in USA – I can attest to that). And that communism is not a Soviet Union (USSR), China (PRC) or North Korea models, but a Spanish community of Mandragora (Wikipedia) coops, like Harriet Fraad said in last post.

  7. I’m confused. The government in the US does not print the money. They might issue bonds to the a federal reserve that is as private as the federal express and charge interest on that money putting us in perpetual debt. Explain please.

  8. From what I understand, western capitalist governments do not contribute very much to the money supply. It is estimated that more than 95% of currency in circulation originates in private bank-loans.
    Certainly, the government enforces the use of the legal tender, and dictates the interest rates banks must conform to, but the supply is mostly private debt.

  9. Okay already–lets shred the Constitution and give the Wolf all the power and money to redistribute. He's not a wolf in sheep's clothing like Stalin. Such an honest face. I trust him implicitly.

  10. Guess Epstein was too easy on you so that you get to peddle your snake oil again. Next time he should take aim at your Adam Apple, Mr. Wolff.

  11. Surprisingly, you gave a fair presentation of libertarianism in the first half of this episode.

    Response to your criticisms:
    1) The historic fact that capitalism has emerged within State societies has no bearing on anything. Don't commit the naturalistic fallacy which consists in conflating what is with what ought to be. Libertarians want a capitalism (for lack of a better word) like none that has ever existed. An anarcho-capitalism. For that to exist, we need to abandon the institution of the State. We haven't reached that high level of capitalism yet. There has been only some progress towards private property, compared to feudal society for example, or compared to slavery, but we are still part-time slaves of the State and our property is respected only to the extent that State officials decide to not steal it. This has been historically true, but it's not what libertarians want or need.
    2) Libertarians are famously opposed to the state monopoly of money. Free banking is the libertarian position. Let money (or many monies) emerge organically in the market, as they did in the past.
    3) You say the government controls many things. Indeed. That's what is wrong today. You make it sound like it was necessary for markets to work. On the contrary, markets have managed to more-or-less work despite these interventions. The market discovers something (like a new service), progress happens, and soon the State enters to regulate it, to create artificial monopolies, crony relationships etc., and at that point progress is impeded or halted, and violence begins.
    4) You say we (meaning whom exactly?) needed government to prevent us from killing each other and stealing etc. Sorry, but I would expect you to have familiarized yourself with the libertarian view on this. Nobody invited the government. Governments have been, since prehistory, imposed a bureaucratic & political class upon individuals. They have monopolized protection, justice, policing, all these necessary functions which, according to libertarians, the market would have provided much more efficiently, like it provides everything else. This is the gist of anarcho-capitalism, from Gustave De Molinari all the way to Rothbard and David Friedman. If you have not grasped this part of libertarianism, you haven't understood the thing you set out to criticize.
    5) You say a free society is a utopia. You're again committing the fallacy that, just because anarcho-capitalism has never existed, it never will. But an airplane had never existed until it did. There is nothing logically inconsistent in anarcho-capitalism that would make it impossible. It's merely a historic fact that we've not overcome the institution of the State yet, and that's the only reason that you have only witnessed this adulterated capitalism, and not the laissez-faire capitalism that libertarian anarcho-capitalists advocate. Also, before a communist calls others utopians, he should pause for a moment. But let's not turn this into a critique of communism.
    6) The crisis of 2008 is again a historic event with no bearing on anything. You're talking about the adulterated capitalism that has emerged within statism. This isn't a criticism of laissez-faire capitalism. Libertarians have a lot to say about what caused the 2008 crisis, and the business cycle more generally.
    7) You say the USSR and China are, basically, capitalists, because they didn't abolish employment, they simply made the State be the employer. Too many layers of confusion here. If by "capitalists" you mean the mixed economy (not the pure capitalism) that we have everywhere, you are right, the USSR is on the same spectrum where the US is, but with more socialism in the mix. These are all mixed economies, there has never been pure communism, nor laissez-faire capitalism anywhere. Now, if you expect libertarians to praise the USSR and China because they didn't abolish employment and the division of labor and money, but instead forbade everyone except State officials from employing people, i.e. they monopolized all industries by force under State ownership, that won't happen of course. Libertarians criticize the USSR and similar states for being even more intervening into the lives of their subjects than other states. Violent institutions (not just States) are all bad, but some are worse than others. It's good that the USSR didn't enact full marxism, because then even more millions would have starved to death. Doesn't mean the USSR was a good thing that happened to people, or a force that promoted capitalism (not to mention laissez-faire capitalism).

    Libertarians are very well aware of socialist "anarchists". They don't consider them true anarchists, but that's a long discussion that we shouldn't have right here.

    By conflating the ownership of an employer over his business with the power of a sovereign, you conflate the right of a person to stay in his property with the power of a band of robbers to steal it. You want to get rid of property rights, which libertarians consider essential for the person to be free. (Self-ownership is the basis of any ownership, including the ownership of means of production.) If you want democracy in the workplace, nobody prevents workers from putting their resources together and forming cooperative businesses that they will run by voting every Friday or whenever. That would be a voluntary association consistent with libertarianism. (Even with capitalism as it stands today you could do that!) But what you truly advocate is not just that. It's for the workers to take by force the property of their current employers. That's theft. Employment is not a relationship of exploitation and violence, but of collaboration and contractual agreement. Employment is voluntary, unlike slavery or taxation. Nobody employs you by pointing a gun at you, but enslavement and taxation happen exactly at gunpoint.

  12. Can you talk about our comrades in the red and black, and the different types of anarchism and libertarian socialism? Thanks!

  13. For me Libertarianism is on the opposite side of the spectrum. The Libertarians want to turn well run government institutions into Bernie Madoff run disasters. Yeah, let's all do away with the FDA and EPA so we can die an early painful death from toxic contamination.

  14. "Libertarian" was co-opted by the right-wing grifters. It is a leftist term used by anarchists to describe that version of socialism. Noam Chomsky is known for discussing that topic. What the U.S. knows as "libertarianism" isn't representative of what the word means.

  15. I think we figured it out but we'll never try to figure it out HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
    The never ending cycle of empires destroying themselves like an ebola virus with a cure that doesn't want to inject. As if we're liking the disease. Let it progress and then destroy itself because the cure didn't squirt out.
    Yeah, weird explanation but that's my best at trying to explaining it.

  16. They want deregulation and tax cuts. That leads to strong monopolies. Monopoly leads to centralized power. That centralized power becomes the very state that they don't want. Their ideology contradicts it self.

    This is the reason they are so cult like, because when logic fails, worshiping capitalism is a blessing to the ignorant.

  17. Socialism had a better shot at abolishing the state?

    Dr. Here criticizes libertarians because they claim to want to do away with the state but, as he claims, they benefit the most from it. And then claims that Lenin “said” that he was committed to abolishing that state, however, Lenin did not do that, the opposite in fact. He made the state bigger and powerful. So Lenin socialism seems to be in the same utopian delusion as libertarians. Not a good argument Dr.

  18. Capitalism requires a state. That's a fact. Who is it that determines the boundaries of private property? The state. These anti state capitalists don't understand that without a state capitalism ceases to exist. I am anti state because I despise capitalism. Markets existed long before capitalism.

  19. It would be good if he could differentiate American libertarians from actual libertarians. Libertarians are traditionally leftists. Only in America do libertarians mean some right wing anti state or minarchist capitalist.

  20. Sadly professor…..nothing will change in the first third of this century at the very least. To be blunt , Americans enjoy being frightened by all the "fake news." Until the people get off their rumps and educate themselves , C'est la vie

  21. How can you accomplish your goals if people are free to do what they wish to do? Lenin had those who refused to work shot, what is your solution?

  22. Interesting theory. As a libertarian, I don't think democratizing the workplace will change anything but put workers in charge and eventually lead to the same conditions or judging by history, worse.

    If our money wasn't being devalued by the governments and puppet masters, you could all produce savings for bad times. If we had a free market then all the unified workers could walk off the job and with another investor, buy the workplace. Not to mention how to distribute productivity or lack of. At the end of the day there is no perfect system, whatever works for some, doesn't work for others. People need to produce for themselves and have a moral code enough to help each other out.

  23. I stopped considering myself a libertarian after I saw the corporate media smear campaign against Tulsi Gabbard (who I like for her foreign policy ideas). It really drove home for me how much the ownership class is inherently incompatible with democracy (or in libertarian terms, the national security state pushes its propaganda through a cosy relationship with the rent-seeking corporate media). Even progressive media is getting paid-off, under the pretext of business "investment" (ie, TYT getting $20 million from a DNC front group).

    On the subject of foreign policy, I recall Professor Wolff breaking down for my class the geopolitical concerns of Russia, and why US policy was seen as threatening to it. This was back in 2001. Today, you rarely see anyone on the left contextualizing our relationship with Russia. It would be VERY useful for Prof Wolff to do this once again The left has this strange new alliance with the National Security State, which we all know is the strong arm for Washington Consensus Neoliberalism overseas.

  24. Socialism is libertarian: workers getting paid proportionally to their individual capacity (meritocracy), and combining freely the individual property they own by working on it (enterpreneurship) – without state.

  25. It is not just the one percent.It is the top ten percent.Someone is not a billionaire,only makes $300,000 a year let's say.
    That person does not associate with you.He is quite happy with how things are going in the country.The focus for them is what bathroom should a LBTQG person should be allowed to use.

  26. current wealth gaps make it impossible for any capitalist to argue statistically and therefore empirically that capitalism is equitable, as they claim

  27. This really speaks to something I've been thinking about recently, which is that democratic socialists and libertarians actually have a lot more in common than either side believes, but there are some huge language barriers which make constructive conversations impossible.

    They call issues by different names – a libertarian may see "too much federal power, overregulation, and crony capitalism", where a democratic socialist sees "too much corporate influence in the government, regulatory capture, and uncompetitive monopolies." The two ideologies disagree on the solutions, but they are looking at the same fundamental issues, which means that a constructive conversation can be had.

    From my perspective as a demsoc, speaking to a libertarian, I agree with them that personal liberty is of the utmost importance. I think the most important personal liberty, is that anyone should have the freedom to apply themselves and work as hard as they want to, and be able to better their life circumstances. To that end, I believe we should have a system which maximizes social mobility, which has been on the decline for the past 40 years.

    This can potentially open up a discussion about supply-side and trickle-down economics, or paradoxically which regulations and laws are necessary to maintain the integrity of the free market: consumer and labor protection, as well as anti-discriminatory laws are pretty universally agreeable. Regulating or nationalizing industries which form natural monopolies – often utilities and public infrastructure like water and sewage, roads, electricity, or internet service, is also valuable to prevent that monopolization which is an outcome of 'crony capitalism'. Services which are absolutely necessary to social mobility, or 'life liberty and happiness' – like education and and healthcare, should also be guaranteed as human rights.

    People will agree or disagree to varying extents with all of the above, but I think that there is a real common ground to be explored between socialism and libertarianism. I think that Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard may be interesting to people in this area, because they are aligned with a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders on many of the issues, but their language is much more accessible to the capitalist, conservative, or libertarian dictionary.

  28. I'm stopping this video at the half way point just to interject or the suggest that Mr. wolf review the work of John Gato especially his utube videos on the Amish community in upstate NY. Mr. Gato who was teacher of the year in both NYC. and the state resigned his teaching career because he was getting too much attention and realized he was vulnerable to legal action because of his teaching methods . What i feel is important to this conversation is his discussion of the amish community in up state NY that with only a high school education the average family has a 100,000.00 dollar income and as a community allow a top income of 500,000.00 I do not know all the particulars of this pocket community but as a small business ( Cafe owner) , I have created with my own monies and great sacrifice a thriving small business that at 71 i receive the rewards of my investment and sacrifice and have retired from managing to follow my dreams as an artist, My question do you, do you see me as an exploiter or servant of society?

  29. I have listened to the whole talk now and i can say that in my cafe, mismanagement and petty theft are big issues, as well as at this point a failure to recognize that we are all connected to the success of this business. Its seems to me that i who made the greatest sacrifice and investment is now having to again sacrifice my salary to save the business where others are actually responsible for the continued success and refuse to listen to my years of sacrifice and learning to turn around a dire conclusion. so My Wolf please let me know your feelings on this question what and who should be responsible for a business that begins to decline after the creator has retired.

  30. “We give the government extraordinary power by being the only one allowed to print the money”

    *Cryptocurrency Has Entered The Chat*

  31. Libertarianism = Corporatism; the belief that money-grubbing corporations with absolutely NO accountability can run things better than a body that, in a true, clean democracy, is accountable to all citizens and is not profit-driven. Yeah, that seems legit.

  32. I'd love to hear Professor Wolff debate an anarcho-capitalist like Tom Woods or Walter Block. I'm a former right libertarian (but never an anarcho-capitalist) and the ancaps are the ones who are most likely to use the "no true Scotsman" argument when it comes to capitalism and government. They are also the most delusional and fantastical in terms of their proposed solutions. A great example is Rothbard's insane essay that tries to explain why there is essentially no moral basis for regulating general pollution unless it's so straightforward that it basically amounts to pumping chemicals directly into your neighbor's house. I think Professor Wolff would have a fun time taking down some snarky self righteous lunatics.

  33. We should force the Supreme Court to pass a LAW that says “There shall never be any unequal wealth on EARTH going forward!” Then force all the rich people to redistribute their wealth equally worldwide! It should be the LAW of every nation so it can never exist again because unequal wealth is just too insane!

  34. Your eye twitches tell me you are having quite a lot of cognitive dissonance. I'm happy that you might actually have a soul after all. Not the sole of supper daddies in the sky, the soul of remorse for promoting evil and irrationality. It's a secular play on words.

    Collectivism is over old man, it's time we find it a feted place to rest for all the atrocities it has invocated.

    Have you found individualism yet? Your eyes say you see my disposition and find it enticing.

    Can we stop pretending and let the kids know that Individualism has Reality on its side?

    I would never lay a hand on either of you, nor would I sanction another to do so in my stead, but I find you and Sanders disgusting dinosaurs of a time misinformed, a time where consensus was the shortcut to mediocracy and irrationality.

    Collectivism is the kid that eats the marshmallow at first sight.

    Individualism is the kid that eats a bag after subjugating their primal impulse for the momentary mindless reward. The kind that doesn't succumb to the dopamine drop moments after initiation.

    Collectivism = Premature ejaculation

    Capitalism = Pleasures partner repeatedly, and then gets off.

    I get caught up in the moment to my disadvantage.

    My betters taught me that reality will always be the final arbiter of truth and that if I aline myself with reality, those like yourself will fail inevitably.

    Goodbye Mr. Wolff, I hope you are lonely and sad as you take part in the natural course of things.

    I won't miss you.

  35. Like I've always said: the government that fails to govern the corporate sector will itself be governed by the corporate sector to the detriment of the people.

  36. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/IS-INEQUALITY-INEVITABLE/ 11/1/19, lead author is Bruce M. Boghosian, a professor of mathematics at Tufts University, with research interests in applied dynamical systems and applied probability theory. FINALLY, the reality that Capitalism hides from you. Poor Aynus Rand, Reagan + MFriedman + Laffer all the way to the bank, Ron Paul and his brat, on and on and on. >>>Wolff should interview Boghosian NOW and incorporate Boghosian et al's work into his economic theory. Of course, STATE-RUN CAPITALISM is the strawman "libertarians"=children-wishing setup for all socialism structures, overlooking the dictatorship each Corporation IS. LOOK: YOU EITHER DECENTRALIZE THE WEALTH (and that means "Good Gov't" defined as "FOR ALL OF US") SO THAT EACH PERSON HAS A SHARE MATCHING HIS OR HER SHARE OF THE POPULATION more-or-less OR YOU HAVE THE COMING HELL NEVER SEEN BEFORE BY THIS SPECIES, EVER. There is no other alternative, and even "fixing" this problem won't solve the coming hell, but, hey, we can at least go out EYES WIDE OPEN.

  37. Important to delineate the difference between Socialism and "Modern Socialism". Whether Libertarian or Socialist it is important to note Prof. Wolff's common ground between both ideologies starting here: https://youtu.be/d-sbFNk1mPw?t=1534. I fear most, that would argue against Wolff, might not watch long enough to catch this excellent point.

  38. there's already a philosophy that does what Wolff suggests. its called equalism; a philosophy I founded in 2005. it divides the world NOT into left and right but into PREDATOR and NON-predator. the predators are fascists and non-predators are equalists. equalism UNITES the non-predators on the left and right against their common enemy – the ELITE ON BOTH SIDES who purposely divide us so THEY stay in power!
    my ENTIRE channel is dedicated to explaining this UNIQUE and REFRESHING philosophy of equalism. but as long as the ELITE on the left and right continue to DENY ME A VOICE equalism will FOREVER be ignored and some elitist A-HOLE will STEAL the idea away from me and claim it as HIS OWN! I should be being interviewed RIGHT NOW all over the internet and youtube!

  39. I say here here!
    I cannot understand any system that lauds inanimate objects, manipulation, war, and finance, over life?
    Is life not completely priceless? All LIFE?
    Is it not the duty of humans to be the conscious caretaker of all that sustains him?
    Did man create life on Earth?
    Did man place this planet here from this Sun that provides all energy and in turn all life?
    Was man's nature war like since time began?
    Did man seek gain from the violent death of his so called enemy?
    If yes then how did man even approach the year 2019?
    Further more the eugenics movement brought on by great wealth?
    A will to make men piss ants to seek out a lack of empathy for the miracle of life.
    Now explain to me just how any of this utter shit, manipulation, violence, hunger, pseudo tech, war, dishonesty, domination, the exemplary display of down right immoral lack of conscience and willful desire to use humans as pieces of trash.

  40. Dr Wolff … I'm just a guy who has realized that I'm in agreement, however let's say I have an idea for a business and blood and sweat I get it growing, I need employees now as the guy who went through it all , I don't mind sharing the wealth, but I have no plans on paying them the same when I'm the guy who started it all, who loses sleep over the business when Ol boy just shows up and punches the clock and then goes home , and let's face it some people don't have the brain power to do more then that…. if you have a video that addresses that … give me the link , thanks

  41. Libertarianism is simply the idea that government must be prohibited from initiating force. Any system that doesn't do so is immoral.

  42. Yeah the outside force is Marxism changing capitalism to Marxism then still calling it capitalism. Capitalism is just a word.

  43. Libertarians (the American style of libertarianism) and the left have wayyy more in common then we think.
    Both we leftist and libertarians are against the same things but we disagree on the way we will go about it.

  44. There's a third group of "capitalism" – those who celebrate the flaws of the system – who see those evils as features, and not bugs.

    Imagine something that looks like a BAD version of Somalia – with vastly more wealth for the Gang-bosses, and much more firepower for the Enforcers.

    The only law then is "The Greater SHALL prey upon the Lesser, and the Lesser shall be destroyed."

  45. Most capitalist-libertarians don't really want to get rid of "the state," or hierarchy. They just want to be "the state" or "hierarchy", themselves, without anyone else being "the state" or authority over them personally. In other words, they don't mind the boot if they're the ones stepping.

    That's what makes them so different from left libertarians.

  46. Capitalists (the bourgeoisie) need a big strong state to defend their property rights, and to plunder resources, destroy alternative systems and give fat defense contracts to their kind.

  47. I love the state. The arguments against state reflect the class insecurities of petite-bourgeoisie. The state is a necessary tool for emancipation of the proletarian masses and abolishment of socio-economic classes.

  48. but libertarians will never agree to get rid of the hierarchy in the workplace, because what they fantasize, as sheer plutocrats, is the possibility of no peer restrictions, and even of a legitimate (!!) monopoly that is, granted that the(ir) market rules allows it.

  49. There's conflation going on in this video.

    Libertarianism and Capitalism must be examined as two independent streams of thought, before they are intersected (if they should be intersected at all).

    (Note: I'm not referring to the Libertarian Party, who I neither follow nor have affiliations with. Rather, the below refers to the concept of Libertarianism as it pertains strictly to the Constitution of the United States, irrespective of party affiliation).

    Many who identify as Libertarians don't necessarily desire unchecked Capitalism by way of less government intervention. Instead, Libertarians object first-and-foremost to the intrusion of God-given rights that the Constitution Of The United States confers upon them and upon you. This intrusion, of course, comes by way of sprawling local, state and federal governments, and the laws they enact to control you, the governed . Now, a side-effect of opposing governmental intrusion into the pursuit of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness , is less control over other things too, including unfortunately over Capitalism.

    But believe me, your Libertarian brothers and sisters don't like the 1% / 99% inegalitarian, winner-take-all economic situation either. They simply just do not have fine-grained knobs on government machinations necessary to, on the one hand, stem the legislative erosion of your Constructional freedoms (i.e. your Liberties); while on the other, permitting controls on unfettered Capitalism.

    Don't allow this to devolve into another us versus them thing, because it's a false choice. Remember: As the cornerstone / foundation of USA, it was first necessary to assert what self-evident Liberty entailed. The Constitution does this before anything else. After that, subsequent systems, including Social, Economic and Governmental systems could be agreed upon, democratically. Libertarians are open to options, so long as they do not impinge on the crucial foundational freedoms.

  50. These free trade agreements is the attempt of capitalism to replace govt and power of people with their authoritarianism self rule. Corporations devise the boards to regulate trade and have the power to tell govt what they will do to comply.

  51. Why does he claim "libertarian capitalists" don't want ANY form of government? I've never heard any libertarian make such a statement.

  52. I believe that the best way to bring democracy to the workplace is to require 50% labor representation on all corporate boards. Stockholders, by virtue of their investment of money, have a stake. Labor, by virtue of they depend on it for their livelihood, and they devote a major portion of their lives to the business, and because it also affects their family at home, labor have a huge stake in the business too!

    50% – 50% Labor – Stockholder Board Reps.

  53. I'm centre libertarian a little left of Center. I'm for all peoples rights to do whatever they want with there body's property an money. But I also understand a public health care option an education system are worth paying taxes for.

  54. I'd like to see some talk on the view that "true democracy" is capitalist markets (consumers buying A or B, creating demand, pla pla). It's become a bit of a meme in right wing libertarian circles. At times people flat-out against democratic representation, but this seems popular enough too.

  55. I have heard many others make the critique that Libertarianism as the economic philosophy, is a transitional doctrine coming out of feudalism, where there is no real public sector that benefits the populace, so the impetus is to end their encroachment. Of course to effectively expand and not destroy itself, capitalism needs regulation, so state power becomes necessary, as you state. In reading Marx's critique of the Gotha program, Marx criticizes the Lassallians for both a general advocacy of coops, which he though was utopian and an alliance with those who advocate aristocracy against capitalism, which he thought was regressive. What distinguishes your view from the Lassallian approach?

  56. This guy is a complete fraud. Earlier this year, he actually claimed socialism is what allowed China to develop economically. Anyone even remotely familiar with China or Chinese history knows that's a bald-faced lie. Mao instituted collectivization and full-fledged communism, killing 45 million in the process. Faced with black markets and disrespect for the law, Deng allowed free markets and tolerated a form of private property until cracking back down during the Tienanmen unrest. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7zMF8Bgkb0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *