Welcome friends to another edition of
Economic Update a weekly program devoted
to the economic dimensions of our lives
our jobs our incomes our debts and those
facing our kids as well
I'm your host Richard Wolff I've been a
Professor of Economics all my adult life
and I currently teach at the new school
University in New York City. Before
jumping into the large number of
economic updates I have arranged for you
today I wanted to make a couple of our
usual announcements for those of you who
might want to watch this program either
for a second time or if you have the
opportunity otherwise on television as a
television program we are very pleased
to make that available to you please go
to Patreon P A T R E O N
Patreon.com indicate you want
Economic Update the program and you'll
be able to see it on TV that's once
again Patreon.com/economicupdate
I also want to remind those of you that
might be interested in having me come
and speak in your University in your
Union in your community center your
library and so on
that I am now represented by a speaker
bureau good friends and good people who
go by the name speak out now that's all
one word speak out now dot o-r-g org if
you want to email them you can do that
at info at Speakoutnow.org and I
want to remind you that we maintain two
websites that are available to you at no
charge 24/7 one of them is democracy at
work or one word democracy at work dot
info and the other one is our D Wolff
with two F's com. Okay so with that
behind us let's get into the updates one
of the big items this last week was the
passage in Congress of a bill
apply sanctions to Russia we have
applied sanctions to Russia for a while
now this is another bill that applies
another bunch of them for another period
of time there's two comments I have to
make about the economics of sanctions
the first is that they don't work in
other words we have much experience with
sanctions let me give you the grossest
one shortly following the arrival of
Fidel Castro to power in Cuba back in
1959 the United States sponsored a
failed invasion to overthrow in when
that didn't work the United States
applied sanctions and for the next
half-century actually a bit more than
that those sanctions were always
justified on the grounds that they would
bring Cuba around would end mr. Castro's
regime and so on did none of those
things
the Cubans found ways to get around the
sanctions as the Russians have and as
the Russians will one of the
consequences of leaving most industrial
production in the hands of private
enterprises is that it has become very
easy for governments suffering sanctions
to find more than a few companies are
willing to make a little extra profit by
wiggling around the sanctions and so
they don't work they are mostly a
political theater designed to persuade
whoever they want to that they're being
tough and going after the bad guy but in
terms of what they really do it's fake
and so let me give you a concrete
example it turns out that also this last
week the United States Treasury
Department that's mr. Trump's Treasury
Department levied a two million dollar
fine on a company for violating the
sanctions against Russia the company in
question was Exxon Mobil that's right
the biggest oil company in the world a
two million dollar fine for violating
sanctions let me remind
what the annual revenue is of ExxonMobil
in 2016
216 billion that's with a B and they got
a fine of 2 million that's as if you did
something really bad and the government
finds you and came to you and said right
in your face you must pay this fine 3
cents right now or we will be mighty
angry and you would fish into your
pocket giggling at every point and give
them the three pennies
that's what 2 million is to the Exxon
Mobil Corporation but the story gets
better who was the head CEO of Exxon
during the time that it violated this
sanctions put by the US government
against Russia well a mr. Rex Tillerson
you know him he was made by mr. Trump to
be the current Secretary of State so let
me be sure you all get it we have a
Secretary of State who as far as we can
tell is in no danger of losing his
position who was the CEO at the time
that the government mr. Tillison now
serves finds his company for violating
the law it takes your breath away
doesn't it who's above the law not just
mr. Trump in his own mind all of these
folks aren't they and meanwhile they
play the theater of sanctions the next
update has to do with medical news oh no
not again the insurance bill fights in
the Congress that use up our headlines I
want to talk about other things that are
falling kind of below the radar and in
this program we like to bring them right
up above the radar I'm right within its
purview there's a long-standing question
about whether health care doctors
hospitals medical device and drug makers
and the insurance companies whether they
should be private or public
in most of the advanced countries of the
world they are either public or they are
public-private partnerships we we in
America tilt the bill all the way over
to the private or nearly so of course in
a rational society this question of
whether anything whether it's medical
cares or public parks or the police or
you name it should be handled by private
enterprises or by the government or to
be discussed and decided democratically
in terms of the populations belief of
which is the better way to get the
service provided but we have in America
big private enterprises with lots of
money among the biggest and with the
most other Koch brothers and they spend
an awful lot of money trying to get rid
of any risk of competition from
government enterprises they want to have
it all for themselves as private
enterprises and so I want to talk a
little bit about some examples
we're leaving things to the private
enterprise is so inefficient so
ineffective so immoral that I don't
think it would last five minutes in an
open public democratic discussion and
decision as to whether this should be
done privately or publicly here's an
example the McKesson Corporation you may
not know about it but it's the largest
distributor of drugs in the United
States the CEO of that company John
Hamre gren has been in the news this
last week why one of the things McKesson
distributes our opioid drugs painkillers
that are now causing unbelievable death
and destruction across the United States
keep in mind the following statistic 90
Americans die every day from opioid
overdoses 90 every day well the McKesson
Corporation distributes those to
and it is required by law to report any
suspicious provisions any suspicious
number of such drugs being dispensed by
a doctor or a pharmacy to whom they
distribute drugs they didn't do a real
good job of that back in 2008 they were
fined 13 million dollars for not doing
that properly they promised to do better
then they were found guilty again
between 2008 and 2013 and so this last
January they were required to pay
another fine a hundred and fifty million
dollars on Jan you in January of 2017
they clearly didn't get the message and
we suffer the results by the way mr.
hammer Glen the CEO over the last 10
years has taken home somewhere between
five and six hundred million dollars as
one clever reporter mentioned mr. hammer
Glen could have paid out of his own
pocket
the fines levied against the company and
it wouldn't have made a difference to
his lifestyle one little bit leaving the
distribution of drugs in private hands
under us revelation of this sort that
I've just provided seems to me beyond
inappropriate and becoming downright
immoral this is not a good thing to
leave to private enterprise because the
profits from distributing opioids
clearly dominated other considerations
for mr. hammer gren and his company
another example also in the week this
last week by the way if you want more
details on the McKesson Corporation go
to the New York Times of July 23 if you
want this next example more details the
towel gene corporation CA LG en e it's
the New York Times of July 26th
they were subjected to a big fine 280
million dollars for promoting drugs as
cancer cures that were not approved by
the FBI for such things
in other words to make a lot of more
money by having a lot more people
particularly desperate people who are
suffering from cancer put their hopes
and more importantly their cash to work
or that of their insurers on these
unproven unapproved drugs they got into
trouble they made billions and they paid
a 280 million dollar five leading drug
production and distribution in the hands
of privates doesn't look real good does
it third example comes from England the
Bhoots
corporation it's the largest public
pharmacy it distributes beauty and
health aids all over Europe has about
excuse me all over Britain and Ireland
has over 2,500 stores there it is by the
way a subsidiary of Walgreens
corporation which is an American company
doing pretty much the same thing well it
has been charging over $40.00 for the
treatment of what is called the
morning-after pill if you have unwanted
or unprotected sex and you want to
prevent conception you can take this
pill doing it a few days immediately
afterwards and it prevents conception
they make this pill available in their
upscale pharmacies at over $40 treatment
whereas other companies in England that
do the same thing but smaller chains
typically charge less than half and so
women in Britain have begun to complain
loudly and the British government gets
these complaints that people who
desperately need this pill are having to
pay extortionate amounts of money in one
of their pharmacy chains and they want
the government to look into that that
sort of thing works in England for those
of you who may not
aware of it being here in the United
States where we don't have this thing
boots tried to hold on they did a clever
thing they got or maybe they were just
lucky to get a conservative women's
group to say that nothing should be done
because sometimes can you imagine this
pill is provided to women who have not
gotten parental consent or are under age
what that has to do with the price you
charge I will leave to your imagination
I can't quite see it other than as a way
for boots to find some justification for
the absurdly high price they charge but
it failed in England partly because of
the power of women's groups and the fact
that the Labour Party joined in Boots
has now apologized for the overcharge
and we'll see kind of what happens but
again it raises the question if there
are laws in England which there are in
the UK about what drugs can and cannot
be provided to whom and by the way they
the pharmacist has to ask certain
questions of anybody who buys
contraception in England that's part of
the law but if the law provides that
boots must do this then it is not
appropriate for boots to make some
policy decision which just happens to
boost its profits to go the other way
last point the National Health Service
in Great Britain distributes the exact
same drugs for free all over England the
women who go to these stores either have
not got the time or the access to a
clinic and so they're being gouged by
the private distributor you wanted a
better example of how the public does a
better job than the private clearly the
public distributed for free because they
don't have to pay very much since they
buy the drugs in bulk and therefore get
the best price next update
Consumer Reports magazine very useful
service telling consumers what to watch
out for it has an interesting story in
the August 2
thousand 17 issue it turns out that the
big cable providers cable TV in the
United States and specifically the
article mentions Comcast and spectrum
which are two of the biggest get among
the lowest scores of anybody who scores
for Consumer Reports that is they get
more complaints about bad service than
anybody else or almost anybody else
really low scores and Consumer Reports
speculates in their article what the
reason is three-quarters of Americans it
turns out have access to only one
broadband provider who can provide
speeds in excess of 25 Mbps in other
words the reason that they get so many
complaints is that their service is
lousy and their rates are too high and
that's because they have an effective
monopoly on speedy service in
three-quarters of America but this has
led to an interesting and creative
response it talks just to the public
private issue it turns out that some
municipalities not happy with their
citizens being subjected to this
monopoly ripoff have gone into providing
this service themselves the Consumer
Reports magazine credits citynet in
Santa Monica California and EPB -
Chattanooga in that part of Tennessee
and it turns out upon research that 500
municipalities across America either
provide this service themselves or do so
in partnership with private companies
but of course the private companies are
busy they have filed all kinds of
lawsuits to prevent towns from offering
any competition in the way of public
provision of these services and they
have also used their lobbying efforts to
get almost 25 states across America to
throw obstacles in the way of
communities cities and towns within
those states from doing what Chattanooga
and Santa Monica have done
to undo the monopoly next time you hear
the senators from various states and
they're doing it more and more talk
about being opposed to monopolies check
out whether they did anything against
the monopoly of your cable provider next
short item I just wanted you to know
that the latest study of what CEOs of
big corporations earn indicate that on
average they earn 271 times what the
average workers in their companies earn
that's up from 30 or 40 times 50 years
ago 271 times it takes your breath away
it has increased over recent decades far
more than what has been done for average
workers pay that is CEOs pay is risen
much faster than average workers and you
might be interested to know that CEOs
pay has written risen much faster than
the profits of the companies that they
lead they don't pay their workers and
they take more from themselves as
increases than their companies earn nice
job if you can get it and here are the
two top winners this last year mark lor
lor e he works at walmart his pay last
year 244 million dollars and I did the
math for you it works out to five
million dollars a week 52 weeks a year
or as many weeks as he actually shows up
so you consider your pay each week and
then you think about mock lore at
Walmart he's number one number two
sundar pichai I hope I'm pronouncing his
name right but I don't really care
he works at Google or what it's now
called alphabet and he made 200 million
a year and that works out to roughly
four million dollars per week there's no
further comment I need make you can make
your own okay we turn now to a final
story which is connected to last week's
in
view of John Summa a professor at the
University of Vermont who is being
kicked out because he questions the
mainstream orthodoxy from a left
perspective this story has to do with
economics as it's taught at the
University of Utah that's right
Utah it turns out that some years ago
can you imagine Utah University hired in
its Economics Department a long star
alongside a whole big bunch of
professors who teach conventional
mainstream economics a few who teach it
from my mock seein or a critical or a
heterogeneous it's these different words
I use this day in anyway from a
dissenting perspective it hired a few
and they have been there for quite a
while and a few others have been hired
alongside all the conventional material
that is also taught but my Ike was drawn
to an editorial in the Deseret News a
leading newspaper in Utah which admitted
the editorial did that Utah University
is one of the few universities in
America that allows any dissenting
Marxist perspectives to be taught but
even though they are very few Deseret
editorial deseret news as editorial
applauded the formation of a new
Institute the Echo's Institute at the
University of Utah with money from the
Echolls family and hence the name and
then I really found it interesting
ten million dollars from the Koch
brothers foundation to establish a
special Institute whose job apparently
is to counteract to offset to balance
whatever word you like the awful
influence of a few dissenting Marxist
scholars all with the requisite
credential
teaching in the Utah University
economics department in most other
countries the idea is if you teach
economics it is useful to open to
students the array of differing
perspectives those that celebrate
capitalism and those that are skeptical
or critical those that use mainstream
traditions but also those that explore
leaving non mainstream traditions partly
this is to give students a sense of the
diversity that has always been part of
economics partly it's to sharpen their
mental ability to look at economic
issues using multiple toolboxes not just
one etc all the logical pedagogical
arguments those are discarded here in
the United States in the vast majority
of universities who exclude especially
in economics with which I am familiar
they exclude dissenters in a way that is
somewhere between absurd and silly it is
so lopsided and one-sided that it
produces in the United States a
population that is barely literate in
mainstream economics and has no exposure
to dissenting perspectives
it is a rigidly enforced orthodoxy there
are a few schools and our exceptions
famous ones the University of
Massachusetts the University American
University in Washington and others and
Utah was among them and that seems to
have been too much for the Koch brothers
and other conservatives who have now
funded a school alongside the Economics
Department to monitor them to counter
them to undo them this is hysteria
masking itself as a reasonable behavior
but of course with a private enterprise
system that allows billions of dollar
to be accumulated in the hands of a few
individuals they can be as lopsided and
one-sided as parochial and narrow-minded
as they wish and make what kinds of
things happen just like that because
they have the money
it's another price you pay you might
think you live in a democratic society
where we democratically decide how we
want our children to be educated we make
at least a little effort in that
direction in our public primary and
secondary schools which are after all
subject to democratic pressures in the
cities and towns where they're located
but when it comes to higher education it
is kind of an open season because we do
not fund our colleges and public
colleges and universities adequately
they're desperate for funds they turn to
the private sector and for those of you
who believe that private companies and
private individuals give money to
universities without wanting something
in return
without exerting pressure on those
universities to do what they want well
you are indulging a level of naive
naivete that defies anything I can say
you really need to rethink your position
the people donating the money have no
ambiguity whatsoever in making sure they
get a return on what they donate and the
Koch brothers and the other
conservatives that funded the new
Institute at Utah which you can read
about in the Deseret News whenever you
want to in Utah is a perfect example
well we've come to the end of the first
half of this program
please remember the websites are DeWulf
with - let's calm and democracy at work
dot info they will provide you with all
sorts of supplementary materials we will
take a short back
short break scuze me and we will be
right back please stay with us
we get rather okay
Hey
right here there
so same time next week
well of course put away a few bucks feel
like a million bucks for free tips to
help you save go to feed the food all
right you know this isn't any fun to
talk about but we should okay
so who's gonna do what I'll pack the
dead batteries great I'll only put what
I don't mean into a duffle bag perfect
that's totally unhelpful no problem
meanwhile I will try to comfort everyone
by speaking in a calm voice and I'll try
to get the generator going without any
gas oh let's not forget the cell phones
which probably won't work right and who
is going to handle supplies I can forget
to do all this for us thanks pal well I
think we couldn't be any less prepared
I'm pranking guys talk to your kids
about who to call where to meet what to
pack visit ready.gov slash kids for tips
and information
Oh checking your fantasies no just my
401k statement hmm all right suppose you
find the money for that I just been
saving a little every month I can't seem
to save anything well what about all
this what about the money you're
spending
what money it's gone before and get my
hands on it I got a pizza for it Todd
hey can somebody spot me when it comes
to financial stability don't get left
behind
it's 547 get tools and tips for saving
at feed the pig org when some people
struggle with their mortgage payments
they become frozen
but the people who take action are far
more likely to get the most positive
outcome call this free government
program for the option that's right for
you welcome back friends to the second
half of this economic update program
today the second half is going to be
devoted to one huge topic the topic is
socialism it is something that needs the
conversation and it needs discussion and
it needs the date but before I get into
it I have to explain why it needs those
things basically I offer two reasons
first a whole bevy of recent polls here
in the United States indicates that
particularly younger people folks age 35
and younger when asked the question
which do you prefer capitalism or
socialism are giving an answer that is
surprising many across the United States
namely huge numbers sometimes majorities
are saying they prefer socialism when
you explore that further and I have done
that personally as well as looked at the
literature it turns out that it's
probably fair to say that voting that
way in a poll is a reflection more of
people's dissatisfaction with the
capitalism they live in then it is a
clear preference for something else
because when you talk with large numbers
of young people which I do in my classes
as well as in my public speaking it's
quite clear that they're not very clear
about what socialism is what it has been
where it comes from where it's going and
so in the interests of responding to the
growing interest I want to talk about it
on this program the second reason has to
do with the fact that here in the United
States unlike in most other parts of the
world for the last 50 years there has
been a deeply repressive taboo on
discussing socialism in a reasonable way
what are its strengths what are its
weaknesses what are its achievements one
of the things it did that we want to
avoid just the kind of reasonable
balanced
that you would give to any topic that
seemed to you or me to be important we
haven't been able to do that we have
been in a cold war for most of that time
our enemy we were told was the Soviet
Union it was socialist and therefore it
was socialism and everything having to
do with socialism had to be poo-pooed
put down denounced as horrific and evil
and awful as if we were in the middle of
a life-threatening conflict and had no
time or interest in a balanced
assessment we were fighting for our
lives or at least that's what the
thought leaders of this country wanted
us to believe and so we didn't have a
conversation they had it everywhere else
pretty much but not here and so we've
had a generation of people unexposed to
what socialism is unaware that over the
last 50 years like everything else
socialism has changed capitalism
certainly has and socialism too but you
wouldn't know much about it if you
weren't allowed to read the books to
have the teachers who could teach it to
you and to have a national public debate
so in the interests of catching up with
50 lost years let's talk about socialism
and let's do it on this program and
hopefully in lots of other venues as
well well the first thing it's a bit
strange about the word socialism is why
we use it it has at least for the last
century been the major alternative to
capitalism the major critic of
capitalism in most countries of the
world there are socialist parties who
are important and often are win the
elections and become the government's in
those countries it's been true in
virtually every country of Europe for
example but many other parts of the
world as well so socialism is a regular
normal part of the lives of people in
those countries and there is no evidence
to suggest that they're worse off than
we are because they've had such a
conversation
and a good bit of evidence to the
opposite in any case why socialism while
the word social what we are all part of
the society as opposed to a particular
economic system called capitalism why do
that why you word it that way I think
the answer lies in understanding a
little bit more about capitalism the
very thing socialism is critical of
because capitalism hasn't had one
meaning either and capitalism hasn't
stayed the same either so let's go
through very briefly how capitalism has
been differently understood in the past
and also in the present so for example
some people see capitalism as a
particular way of organizing production
so that some people will call them
employers that's a relatively small
group or in charge they make all the key
decisions of what they're going to
produce and how they're going to produce
it it where they're going to produce it
and if they make money from doing so if
they produce something that sells well
well then they decide what to do with
the profits meanwhile the vast majority
of people who work in the enterprises
that employers run are called
employees they come to work 9:00 to 5:00
five days a week more or less do what
they're told and at the end of the day
go home they leave behind whatever it is
they help to produce because that
belongs in a capitalist system to the
employer it belongs to the minority even
though it was produced by the majority
okay that's the way capitalism works and
that differentiates it from other
systems slavery for example is a way of
organizing production but they're the
two key players or masters and slaves
and we know enough about that system to
know that it's different from capitalism
because in capitalism there are no
masters and there are no slaves
that's outlawed by law in most capital
countries including our own likewise
capitalism is different in the way it
organizes production from feudalism
there we have lords and serfs they are
not masters and slaves nobody owns
anybody in feudalism but it's a
different system capitalism is employers
and employees and there are other
systems for example there have been
economic systems where everybody is
self-employed no employer employee
because each of us man and woman adult
is working on our own for our selves
that was kind of the vision of America
that Thomas Jefferson had in mind in the
early days of the United States it's not
what happened but it is what he
preferred and then there are still other
systems we can call them communal for
lack of a better term excuse me that's
when a tribe or a village or an extended
family organizes production kind of
equally everybody having a particular
role to play and a particular voice in
making decisions some people call it
collectivist some people call it
communal some people call it communist
it's a variety of terms but it's clearly
different from the employer-employee
system so that's basically what
capitalism has often been defined at but
it's not the only definition if you pick
up an American newspaper today you will
actually see capitalism defined very
differently it will be defined in terms
of markets and private property or even
private enterprises for these people the
definition they want you to focus on is
how goods get distributed by markets by
market exchange I get some of that
because I give you something equivalent
money or some other object and they want
to focus on whether things are owned
privately or publicly I don't want to
get into a debate about what the best
definition is I've done that on other
times I just want you to have all of
that in your mind why because it helps
me to explain the varieties of terms
socialism has taken so for example some
socialists just to pick up on what we
just said
think of socialism as not markets but
instead government planning and not
private enterprise and private property
but instead the public the government
owns the means of production so for them
they got a nice dichotomy a nice split
capitalism is private enterprise in
markets and socialism is government
planning and government owning and
operating enterprises that's neat
and that's kind of the way the bait the
debate played out in the twentieth
century but the twentieth century is
over we are now almost a fifth into the
next century and we need to understand
that the interest and the definitions of
capitalism and socialism are shifting
and that's part of what this program is
about but let's continue talking about
our topic
socialism many socialism's focusing on
what capitalists said they were namely
private enterprise and markets have
stressed in their critiques of
capitalism that if you leave the economy
to private enterprise and markets you
get lots of outcomes that are not good
at least not good for the majority of
the people and that what socialism means
here we go is that you bring the
government in to correct to offset to
limit the beared outcomes of leaving the
economy to private enterprises and
markets that's why governments have been
brought in to regulate industries to
limit industries to control industries
that are privately owned and operated so
for many people socialism simply means
the government is brought in many people
that I encounter in the United States
believe that for them socialism is when
the government limits the wage you pay
you can't pay below a certain minimum
wage or
you can't charge an interest rate above
a certain amount or you have to install
mechanisms that clean the air that you
pump into the atmosphere that we all
breathe and so on any government coming
in to limit or control private
enterprise is seen as socialism then the
extreme form of that is when the
government doesn't just regulate or
doesn't just control the government
takes over markets are no longer how you
distribute goods the government tells
you what to do with the goods after you
produce them who to pass them to and who
will pass things to you government
planning not markets and then the
government doesn't just regulate private
enterprises it literally takes them over
it runs them as government enterprises
and of course the two great examples
that people point to other Soviet Union
and China as people who were communists
that is their kind of socialism took the
full measure of the government coming in
whereas the kinds of social isms you had
still had in France or Germany or Italy
or Scandinavia has the government with a
big regulatory role but not literally
taking things over the way they did in
Russia and China so socialism has often
meant in the minds of socialists that
they're making for a more humane
capitalism a gentler capitalism there
was a popular phrase in the twentieth
century capitalism with a human face and
the idea of the socialist was what we
want is the efficiency they thought
capitalism had the privacy and the
private property that they thought
capitalism add but with enough
government control to minimize the bad
results that they were convinced did
flow and would flow if you let the
economy simply go fully privatized in
terms of ownership of property and
market exchange but there were always
other socialists who didn't agree
neither with the moderate socialists of
West
Europe for example nor with the
communists of Russia and China these
were people who felt that socialism
wasn't just the government doing things
whether that was more or less wasn't of
great interest in it they felt there was
something much more central much more
important that they as socialists
focused on and that had to do with how
production was organized in other words
for them socialism meant not organizing
with employers or employees in their
view that kind of system that kind of
capitalism shared awful qualities with
feudalism and slavery and the awful
qualities were basically that the
minority at the top masters lords and
now employers could and would use their
economic power to control the political
and cultural life of the society and be
fundamentally undemocratic in the
workplace where the minority controls
master Lord employer and therefore in
also in the broader society using their
wealth and power to control the broader
society so they can stay in control of
the enterprises that they dominate so
for these socialists socialism means an
alternative economic system of
production the end of employer versus
employee and the substitution of a
democratic socialized ownership and
operation of enterprises that means the
workers or the community or an alliance
of workers and residents of a community
together democratically own and operate
the production in their society for them
that's socialism and therefore there's a
struggle among socialists between those
who think this fundamental change of the
organization of production is key and
those who think no no let the
capitalists run their enterprises just
have the government come in and limit
control what they do to get rid of the
bad
results no socialists don't like each
other often debate with each other and
that's fine they are a different way of
interpreting socialism and there's every
right and reason that they should argue
and debate and if you're not familiar
with that debate well that it's about
the fifty years we haven't add a
conversation we haven't been able in our
society to be free enough to talk openly
and honestly about these questions and
so we have to catch up now using the end
of the Cold War for that enhancement of
our freedom of discussion and debate
that we should never have been deprived
of in the first place now let me make it
real clear what I'm saying here it by
using examples I'm going to start with
slavery slavery is an economic system is
as existed for centuries in various
parts of the world including of course
here in the United States wherever
slavery arrived in experienced what
every economic system has always
experienced any that we've ever had
there were people who loved it and
welcomed it and there were people who
were critical of it the system survived
as long as those who loved it what kind
of a majority in shaping public opinion
and in shaping the society and if and
when those who didn't like it became
numerous and became influential well
then that system began to disappear
every economic system we have had the
communal the tribal the self-employment
the slave the feudal every one of them
was born evolved over time and died the
burden is on anyone who's watching or
listening to this program to imagine
that the latest one capitalism had a
birth had an evolution but unlike every
other system will not die my guess is it
will and that's just a guess based on
what every other system has done well
let's go back to slavery why am I
talking about it because slavery had its
detractors slavery had its critics
slavery had its dissident
we know about that because when slavery
was ended both here in the United States
in Britain and Europe and Asia Africa
Latin America it was a kind of notion
that people had that it was good
riddance the human being shouldn't be
the slaves of one another so there's a
kind of a residue of hostility so it's
easy for me to show you and to explain
that slavery always had its critics who
eventually helped that system to go on
and pass away but throughout the lives
of his slave system you had again two
kinds of critics one set of critics said
you know the slaves should be treated
better they're not being fed properly
they're not being clothed properly they
don't have good places to live their
families are being wrecked by their
owners selling different members of the
family to other we want slaves to be
much better treated you might call these
people reformists they wanted to reform
slavery to make it work better they
wanted slavery with a more human face
then there were others who said to the
first group are you nuts the problem
here isn't how well the employed steeped
master treats the slave the problem is
we shouldn't have slavery we and we must
do that because if all you do is get the
master to treat the slave a bit better
then what's to prevent the master the
next chance he has from withdrawing
whatever it is you've made him do nicely
and going back to what he did before
there's no real security for the slave
not to be what a slave is at the mercy
of the master and therefore the issue is
free the slave those two people those
who wanted to reform slavery and those
who wanted to revolt against slavery and
make a transition to another system is
the history of the struggle over slavery
and a history that we now know was
eventually decided in favor of the
revolutionaries because we don't have
slavery hardly at all anymore
now the parallel the reason I tell you
the story about slavery is with
capitalism socialists can be easily
divided into those who favor reform and
those who want something more what are
the Reformers want they want the
government to come in and make for
capitalism and more human-faced make
sure workers don't get less than a
certain amount make sure where they work
is healthy and safe make sure that the
tax system does a little bit to prevent
extreme inequalities of income that's
what socialists or reforming socialists
or what in America is called Democratic
so that's what they've wanted they
basically okay with capitalism but they
want it to be reformed and then there
are others who say wait a bit stop even
if you get the reforms if you leave the
capitalists in charge which is what
you're basically saying they can and
will try to take back those reforms and
you'll be in an endless struggle you get
a few you lose them you try again you
lose
what has to be done is to change the
organization of production no more
employers and employees well what would
be the alternative well we know what it
is with slavery it was every person is
equally free and in the critique of
capitalism of those socialists who want
to go beyond reform the argument is
everybody is both an employer and an
employee
no more dividing people between the one
or the other it's like saying to the
slave you are now a master you want our
slave then the words have no meaning
anymore
you are free nobody owns you nobody can
tell you what to do anymore than you can
tell them and it all has to be worked
out among free people well the argument
of the socialist is no more employer
telling the worker what to do when to do
it how to do it where to do it and then
taking the results of the workers work
and acting as if it were all yours no no
no
whatever the different people who
participate in production - they are all
members of a team they are all equal and
they equally beside what is to be do be
produced how its to be produced where
it's to be produced and what is to be
done with the profit that all of them
together have worked to produce and the
short answer for what we call that kind
of a system is worker coops and it's
important to identify the this idea of
the Socialists with the worker co-op
because worker coops are something that
an awful lot of people listening or
watching this program all they know
about it's not some very distant foreign
thing it's as American as apple pie for
example how do I know that because there
are co-ops all over the United States in
every one of the 50 states in most
communities one or another activity is
run as a co-op there are churches that
run as a co-op there are grocery stores
that one is a co-op of the consumers
there are businesses that are already
run as worker cooperatives we talk about
some of them on this program the
socialism that existed in the 20th
century the dominant socialism the
socialism identified with Russia and
China Soviet Russia and the People's
Republic of China focused on the big
picture what we might call the
macroeconomic perspective of socialism
government ownership government planning
we now have a century of experience with
that we see its strengths and there are
some and we see its weaknesses and there
are plenty of those too and we've
learned and socialists are learning too
and one of the conclusions drawn more
and more by socialists which is how
socialism is changing has to do with
focusing more on the micro level the
level of production the individual store
or office
or factory and saying that's the root of
the problem and that's the solution area
let us transform how we work how adults
spend most of their lives five out of
seven days a week most of the adult
years of their lives they're at work in
an office a store or a factory if that
were run democratically if that were run
equally where everybody has a voice in
making all the big decisions we would
change as human beings the community
would change the vision of socialism of
going doing something better was always
lurking in this idea this is a way to
say look it made sense to say to slavery
whatever you accomplished as a slave
society we can preserve all or most of
it and yet do better by making people
free and the end of feudalism came when
people said we can preserve the thousand
years of feudal Europe its achievements
technically culturally but we can do
better by saying nobody is a lord and a
serf anymore none of that the serfs are
freed that's what the French Revolution
did and so the Socialists are now
arguing and the point of here is not for
you to be persuaded the point is for you
to understand the argument and then we
can have a debate and discussion and
change it and that's all a healthy
society should do but the Socialists of
today the emerging socialism is one that
says if we want to overcome the problems
capitalism bequeaths us we hold on to
what capitalism achieved its successes
and their planning but we also recognize
its flaws and its failures and we go to
the root of that problem and we change
the relationship in production
employer-employee is too close that
master slave and Lord serf
and we have to see it and we have to
make the change. Thank you for your
attention.  I want to thank all of you for
being partners which is what we want all
of you to be to share what we do on this
program with others to point them to the
websites I want to thank a longtime
partner of ours Truthout.org that
remarkable independent source of news
and analysis and I want to say and I
mean it that I look forward to speaking
with you again next week
