Well Ok - but only if Professor Wolff promises to be nice about my corporate overlords - I mean c'mon who doesn't enjoy the excitement of living hand to mouth and from paycheck to paycheck?

Sadly, we have a discussion of "human nature" which has nothing to do with nature.....nature demands survival and then reproduction.....for most of nature, this is a simple process.....for humans, this began simply.....where groups were small, and co-operation made sense.....once the groups became larger....these strategies become more competitive......accumulation of wealth and power increases not only mating opportunities, but the success of one's progeny also. So what you are seeing in humans is "natures biological imperatives" in action... unfortunately nature also imposes limits for those species that exceed the environmental constraints needed to support larger populations. Neither humans nor nature are intelligent.....nature simply imposes limits on the life forms within it....which essentially contradicts the biological imperatives that are primary to all life forms....to refuse to recognize this, is not intelligent....since all economics requires "growth".....such discussions are essentially non sequitur.

JG All social indicators show that _everyone_ is physically & mentally healthier in more egalitarian societies. Does this suggest to you that cooperation only ‘made sense’ in small groups? Truth is, mankind has not yet worked-out how to control free-riders (i.e. bullies, thieves & cheats) in complex societies. This ‘biological imperatives’ explanation is misconceived. aeon.co/essays/the-selfish-gene-is-a-great-meme-too-bad-it-s-so-wrong

''Truth is, mankind has not yet worked-out how to control free-riders (i.e. bullies, thieves & cheats) in complex societies'' Bang on, thanks. We could deal with the people with these traits much more easier in the past when populations were intimately connected and small, obviously in modern towns or cities coupled with a lot of reward toward selfish behaviour, it is easier to get away with this behavior. But most people, day to day, are co-operating even as they have to deal with this parasitic system.

Dear Mr. Gregory, " All social indicators show that everyone is physically & mentally healthier in more egalitarian societies. Does this suggest to you that cooperation only ‘made sense’ in small groups?" No, it suggests that when there is enough for everyone, that the society will be relatively more stable, when this is true, than when it is not true, regardless of size. There is a much higher probability that this will be true more often for smaller groups than larger ones, rendering your cited "observation" obvious, and your attempted rhetorical question irrelevant. "Truth is, mankind has not yet worked-out how to control free-riders (i.e. bullies, thieves & cheats) in complex societies. " No, the truth IS that the behavior of individuals in simple "small" societies and the co-operation that exists there, does not translate or adapt well to the "complexity" of societies that emerged with the advent of agriculture. These societies, because of the "increase" in available resources, which we can say resulted from a technological improvement, and created other functions, which drew larger populations, did not provide enough useful or productive work, for everyone, nor did the social hierarchy which developed from it, recognize an obligation to those who were redundant to it's efficient operation. Your very language and the use of the term "free riders" confirms all of this, as well as, the selfish and unintelligent response to this set of circumstances and what can be expected of "human nature", which has not changed. If you are a follower of Dr Wolff, he has posed the question regarding the distribution of "profits" and "increased productivity" by suggesting that when a business gets more efficient, rather than laying off individuals, the co-operative response, would be to keep everyone and simply allow them to work less hours for the same pay? Which bring us to your final declaration.... "This ‘biological imperatives’ explanation is misconceived. " ( with link ) I did enjoy the link, which was interesting, informative and again completely irrelevant, but did contain something quite useful which I shall get to, in due course. The first order of business requires that some expansion and clarification of what is meant by "biological imperatives" and the scope of what aspects of human behavior that are included and those which are not, in order to supplement the conclusions offered in my initial post. The imperative to survive and reproduce is somewhat obvious and the evidence for this is somewhat stark...in 1960 human population was 3 billion, today it is 7.2 billion...and this is in conjunction with a century which saw the wholesale slaughter of humans by humans, on a scale unprecedented.....and it didn't make a dent, while further compounded by the fact that of the 4.2 billion added, very few can look forward to improved prospects, while those born into better circumstance, also face dwindling prospects. So, as noted previously, this does little to support the idea that our species is either intelligent or any more capable of anticipating the consequences of our actions than we have ever been, and biological evolution is not capable of producing the necessary adaptation, because DNA does not code for "logical reasoning" nor can it be inherited. The answer to that profound question "Is our children learning?" is an obvious NO. For all intents and purposes, this is all that is meant by biological imperative.....but there are two other aspects of behavior, which further complicate our inability to escape or alter the consequences of of this imperative. The most recent is that of Robert Trivers in The Folly of Fools, which lays out the dynamics of small groups and the natural co-operation that results when these groups remain under 150 members....and the benefits of same are shared, to include that of reciprocal altruism. Beyond this number, cohesion begins to break down and one loses one's place. To counter this, an all encompassing meme needs to be introduced, to produce a shared commonality, which will hopefully include as many individuals as possible....but unfortunately, it will not include everyone, even though, the biological imperative is still in force.....and since, the society has not in any way accepted the responsibility for all its members, but only those necessary or fortunate enough to be considered "productive" to it.....those excluded, being compelled to "survive and reproduce", will do so by any means necessary. The larger the society becomes, the more memes will be added, and the intersections will either compete or co-operate, based on immediate, perceived benefit and this behavior will also extend to the excluded elements. The final aspect was offered by Desmond Morris in the Human Zoo, published in the late 60's which list the Ten Rules of Dominance.....which I refer to as "monkey rules" and in the case of humans, "talking monkey rules." The United States is fortunate to have an "orange talking monkey" as president, who is a walking poster child for them, since unlike the other "dominant talking monkeys" he has not developed the intelligence to realise that a certain amount of restraint is required, lest the "exploited" monkeys catch on.....and that the discretion of having "public" and "private" positions is paramount. ( you may be caught anyway but the intelligence of the "exploited" talking monkey is not all that great, and all those competing memes produce sufficient division to distract from any co-ordinated action against the actual "source" of their problems. ) 70% of the people are dissatisfied with the "government", yet at a minimum 80% of the incumbents who are "responsible" are returned to office. Then there is a portion of your link which deals with bee's and hives, and "gene expression" which permits the female to shift from worker, to scout, to guard, depending on the needs of the hive. This is hardly a unique characteristic, and given the general nature of the tasks involved, not particularly impressive.....but bee's like humans are example of "social species" as identified and studied by E.O. Wilson. None of what is in the link is particularly relevant to the biological imperative to survive and reproduce, and while it may play a part in the evolution of the species and natural selection.....it does not allow "drones" to become workers, or interrupt the continual "reproduction" of the queen. The solution for over population here, when the circumstances require it, is the "creation" of a new queen, who then leaves, taking a portion of the population with her to establish a new hive at a respectable distance, and easing the pressure of over population. The biological imperative of survive and reproduce remains unaltered. Finally, given the biological imperative of survive and reproduce, the hierarchies that emerge and the improvement of status in larger societies, improves both one's security from a survival standpoint as well as one's mating opportunities from a reproductive one.....as one commands greater power and resources, within that society. This is the "history" of complex societies made possible by agriculture.....and the reason for it, is that these societies are formed to support the "controlling hierarchy" while the hierarchies responsibility to the welfare of the entirety of it's citizens, has never been an acknowledged responsibility of the ruling class, who need not concern themselves beyond that of a general nature, unless there is a significant threat to it continuation of status and privilege. While there are some societies who have made progress and have become more socially inclusive regarding the welfare of its citizens, the question of whether they can be sustained as the failure of current economic theory is realised, from both internal pressures and external threats, remains to be seem. The laws of nature do not require "permission" to survive and until our species grants and acknowledges this right, and take responsibility to insure it "unconditionally" to all, the so called "civilized societies" have no more moral right to "survive" than those they have excluded from it, nor do they have a "moral right" to expect acceptable behavioral standards to be met, when they not willing to offer anything in exchange and where the expectation of becoming expendable is the obvious outcome, when one's usefulness is no longer necessary.

WAW. Amazing dude. I have nothing to add.

puppetMattster - Thankyou for your quote, even 2 years down the line it is still reaching people! ✌️✊🏼🌅

Prince Kropotkin. Anarchist

👍

Dumb wolves.. your nations with all it's wealth sux... hmmm.. our communism.. I ment our commonwealth system is better in our human conditions andit's demand.. hmmm..

Whomp Biscuits so true! This contradiction reminds me of Printing Money: in Econ101 you learn that it's bad and yields to Inflation. Then you graduate and work at an Investment Bank or Hedge Fund, and they tell you the Fed doing Quantitative Easing is alright. Except it's not. It's straight-up printing money and giving it to the banks.

@Edward Maybe your Econ 101 is a lie. Maybe printing money does make sense under some conditions and inflation can even be beneficial in moderation.

Inflation is acceptable, if there is added-value production behind it. I am also willing to accept FRB-induced inflation if the bailout was a bit more skewed towards the bottom (i.e. trickle up). But to tell me that we let bankers commit crimes, then replace their toxic and non-performing assets with fresh money that they will in turn loan back to us at interest is complete nonsense. I am not stupid. I know a bad deal when I see one.

No, it mean we can freely f*ck ourself meanwhile the capitalist can freely exploit masses of people.

@@edhiepitz Ok, Free Market, free to manipulate, exploit, conservative, whatever is beneficial for me, the hell with anyone else ( lazy bastards ). Liberal, I believe in freedom for all, as long they know the conditions ( generosity has a price ). The two hearts of a Capitalist.

@@edhiepitz i love it!

@@MM-qz9bl don't

@@mattja52 Yes, I refer to it as freedom for the capitalist predators prey. I support the concept of money being common means of exchange, an abstraction for the existence of exchange, I believe in being efficient and productive, and no one is gonna give 100% of effort 100% of time like the myth of self proclaimed non lazy people who often are capitalists. I can even get with the market, because acknowledging market trends etc can be very telling but market places can be a place to share ideas and works, not to profit. I can't support capitalism because at it's roots it is about exploitation and inequality. It may yield results, but that is only parts of capitalism. A full capitalist system I can never mentally digest.

Thank you!

great Words. support from India

Patrick Wild SWP-US is a genuinely blue collar working class party. themilitant.com

They no longer identify as Trotskyites. They broke away from the fourth international in favor of supporting workers and farmers governments in Cuba, Nicaragua and Grenada in the 80s. Though they still find value in Trotsky's writings, they reject his theory of Permanent Revolution. Anyway, why do you recommend PSL?

The PSL is pretty cool, but they need to get their shit together when it comes to community organizing and the sort. It's one of the most effective things that the BPP, as well as other American socialist parties, did back in "the day" and modern parties could learn from it

Fred Hampton's Ghost commies get a helicopter ride. After yesterdays incident, no longer will we let these violent commies get by with a free pass. Bolts up! Boots down, its time to stop communism again.

Mic Norton xD Pinochet good one classic maymay my friend uh kek and pepe and the sort How outdated to my memes have to get before I truly fit in with the hoppean libertarian circles? Am I close?

The hippie students of the 1960's had their communist, free love phase and ended up giving us Enron. Those little commies turned out to be some mean-ass capitalists. Down here in wind-blown, flooded Florida we are suppose to switch back to communists and start sharing our Vienna sausages. So yes, very confusing.

Eduardo Tovar YES!!!!

Why waste your time with that meat head?

Learn Social Justice because Joe Rogan is an idiot when it comes to Socialism and Capitalism.

Ed R. that as well.

would love to see that

Me too.

He already has mentioned some of Labour's policies on this program, but if you want more you can find him talking about Corbyn elsewhere. Just search something like "Richard Wolff Corbyn" right here on youtube!

Its a good thing he is a professor out there sewing those seeds of critical thinking of a bad economic system. We may very well have those dozens and more very soon.

I suggest we ourselves must get out the spread these points Wolff spreads.

From an anthropological viewpoint before capitalism we lived in communities where there was interdependence. Humans relied on each other to survive.

Before capitalism, those groups were not just communities but families with many men women and children.

***** *Bring back the Monarch* ! Let the natural order come back.

deltaxcd they also were defensive, and aggressive to outsiders. Sounds good. Its about time we stopped the white genocide.

+Mic Norton What is has to do with white or black? Outsiders are people outside of the family regardless if they are white or black. Nobody ever divided people into groups according to their color or looks.

LOL me to, I love that guy

Same, this is the only non-music youtube subscription I actually keep up with

I wish he was my uncle

Dominick Shryock+ I have a similar "fantacy": Chomsky being my grandfather, R Wolff being my father and Abby Martin my wife... I must ad in my fantacy Chris Hedges is Abbys father, so this would be something of a dream team in my view. Yes it's foolish I know.

etikkboksen hahahaha not in my eyes. love it

oi63.tinypic.com/9ixpaa.jpg

I think you just described the reason of why America is so strong and powerful. LOL Only nation which managed to compete with the US is Stalinist Russia.

You have no reason to compete with Russia since it's not a contest, and Russians are not disrupting the world...

Now Russia is humble servant of the US under Stalin it was word superpower which was respected in all world along with the US Today there are no other powers besides US (but situation is changing)

A governments obligation is to give its own people a humble life regardless of the political goals it may have - otherwise, there is no justification for its existence...

In the real world, it does not work that way because the primary obligation of the government is to retain independence and integrity of its state if it will focus on the wellbeing of people as primary goals it will not survive long enough for those people to notice its effort. If you want to have wellbeing you must have strong army strong economy and a big weight in geopolitics where you decide where investments will go and who will get what. in a way the when some Arab company wants to buy airplanes you come and say you will buy ours or else we will bring you democracy.

I'm not sure what you mean by the statement that worker coops still run on the basis of profit. In a credit union, for example, surpluses not put back into expansion or upgrades are distributed back to members + workers. We can assume that rational workers will understand that a certain amount of that surplus must be used for the good of future growth and at other times best put into improving the welfare of workers. Capitalism is not the only way to conduct market exchange. All economic systems in the past and future will involve an exchange of goods and services. The question is whether we want these relationships to be based on free association. Capitalist corporations are based on command structures both within and externally in production and distribution channels. There may still be command based organizations in alternative systems but they would have to justify their legitimacy not just assume it as with corporate capitalism.

don langdon - Yes I think there are millions and millions daily saying to ourselves “wait a minute”, stopping and thinking, there is something not right with the way things are going! Dr. Wolff and Dr. Fraad do a great job of explaining it, and of course who could go without a daily shot of Jimmy Dore 😂. And we also need to ask ourselves, is what Dr. Fraad says really left, or is it just common sense?.