Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:10]
A
Welcome, friends, to another edition of Economic Update, a weekly program devoted to the economic dimensions of our lives. Jobs, incomes, debts, the economic crisis all around us now, for ourselves, for our children, really, for the future of the world. I'm your host, Richard Wolff. The program I've designed for today is one I have long wanted to do. And it comes out of a lifetime of teaching and writing in which it became clearer and clearer to me that the very definition of the economic system we live in and depend on, capitalism, is itself something that has been manipulated, changed, adjusted. There's nothing innocent or neutral about the definition of capitalism. And I think I'll be able to show you by the end of today's program that among the other ways that the capitalist system is now in deep trouble and being challenged in a way it hasn't for a long time, that among the challenges of capitalism are a challenge and a profound one to the very definition that has come to be the dominant one and that I want to challenge today. All right, so let's begin. For most of the defenders of capitalism, the definition is pretty straightforward and almost universally agreed to. It goes something like private. Capitalism is a system of free or private enterprises. And the idea here is it's a system where anybody, any private citizen that's not a government official, a private citizen, can start, own, operate a business free of government interference mostly, but private in the sense that these individuals who start a business can themselves decide how to operate it, how to run it, what to do with it. That's half of the definition. Here's the other half, the conventional half of the people who defend capitalism who like it. This one says that the system also moves resources and goods from. From one person to another, from the producers of things to those who will consume them by means of a Here we go, free market. What does that mean? It means that the buyers and sellers meet literally in a place called a market, and then they kind of dicker and negotiate and come up with a price, a ratio, if you like, of exchange. I'll give you three of my shirts for 12 of your oranges, one or whatever else is being traded. And the idea is this is a free activity. It is private in the sense that the buyers and sellers are private individuals, and they only make a deal if they're both satisfied with it. The government is to be kept out of all of this. If the government intervenes, that's called an unfree market or a regulated market, or the government planning things, not even using a market. And that is not capitalism. So let's Summarize for the defenders. Capitalism is private enterprises and free markets and the antithesis of capitalism, the absence of capitalism is argued by its defenders to be when you interfere with, when you block, when you suppress, when you, when you deny private free enterprises, you don't let people form them and operate them. The government typically comes in, or if you don't have a market, if the market isn't the way we move goods from one person to another, but instead there's a rule or a government again, or some regulatory authority. That's the conventional definition. That's what the people who like capitalism have always wanted to use as the definition. Okay, now let's examine that. First of all, let's be clear what a definition is. A definition is a way to distinguish something from other things that are like it. You want to define it, to make it unique so that people will recognize it. So, for example, we make a definition of Mary to distinguish her from other people like her. We make a definition of a dog to distinguish that from other animals, for example, those that have fur or four legs or other things like it. But we want to distinguish something, we call something a chair to distinguish it from other pieces of furniture. So the point of a definition is to find and focus on something you unique about whatever it is you're trying to define so that people will say, oh, I can now recognize Mary as opposed to other people, chair as opposed to other pieces of furniture, and a dog as opposed to other animals. So let's begin. Here's what I would find as the unique thing about capitalism and that is at the core of the production of all the goods and services that we all consume and that we all depend on. Food, clothing, shelter, transportation, housing, medical care. All the things that make up our lives are the product of human effort. And we organize that effort in a very particular way. In capitalism, that way is the employer, employee relationship, very interesting way of doing things. A small group of people, very small, are the employers. They decide how many other people they want to have working there, who those people should be, how long they should work, where they should work, with what equipment they should work, on, what raw materials. A small group of people make a decision to enter into an enterprise, to run it, and they tell a large group of people, I will bring you here, I will pay you to come here, I will give you every Friday afternoon a check, money, and you come to work nine to five, five days a week, and I will tell you what to do, how to do, where to do it, etc, etc. And when you're done working using your brains and muscles on whatever tasks I've given you. The fruits of your labor stay here in the workplace. You go home. I don't care what you do, eat, sleep, drink, watch tv, whatever. I just want you back here tomorrow morning to do it all again. And we've arranged the production of goods and services that we depend on for our lives in this particular way called the employer employee relationship. Okay, let me now show you how that's a good definition. It is distinguished from the other main economic systems, just like we distinguish dog from other animals, chair from other furniture, marry from other people, and so on. Let's see, let's start with slavery, which is a different system from capitalism. We know it's an important difference because for Americans, we fought a civil war, the most devastating war in our history, whose echoes are with us to this day, as you all know, to make that difference real, to outlaw slavery, which that war did, to destroy slavery, which that war did. So it's in a big difference. Well, what is the difference? Here we go. It doesn't have an employer employee relationship. There is no employer. There is the master. The master who owns the slave or who owns, uses a slave owned by somebody else. Capitalism doesn't have anybody owning anybody. The employer doesn't own the employee. So it's really easy to tell the difference. A good definition. You have slavery if the people who do the bulk of the work are the property of other people, and the people who direct everything are often the owners of the workers or have a good relationship with whoever the owner is so they can get use of the slave. Rather like you might borrow a horse or a plow or any other implement of the work process. Okay, let's look at feudalism. That's another system. In feudalism, you don't have an employeremployee relationship either. So it's easy to distinguish from capitalism. In feudalism, you have a lord and a serf, and they go into the Roman Catholic Church in Europe, which sanctified a kind of ceremony in which the serf said, I swear allegiance to this lord and I will do the work that he assigns me to do. And the lord promises to protect the serf from rampaging other lords, et cetera. And so they agree in a kind of ceremony of mutual obligation to. To work together. Nobody owns anybody, and there's no employeremployee relationship. For example, in slavery and feudalism, nobody pays anybody a wage or a salary to come to work. That's a unique part of the employer Employee relationship. And here's now the third one, the communist one. And here I'm going to borrow from Karl Marx, who had the closest to a basic definition. What Marx said was that capitalism is different from communism because in communism, here we go, there is no employer, employee, relationship. That's gone, that's done away with. Instead, the work process, whether you produce a good or a service, is performed by a community of equals. Community is the key word. No employeremployee. That distinction is gone. And so it's really easy to distinguish capitalism from communism because in capitalism, a small group of people are the employers and everybody else is an employee. And in the communist idea that Marx puts forward, none of that exists. It's one person, one vote in a community that together decides what's going to be produced, how it's going to be produced, what technology is going to be used. And at the end of the day, the people together, the community owns what was produced. It's not that some people do the work and others get the fruits. Uh, communism is therefore different, the communist economic system from the feudal, from the slave, and from the capitalist. So, wow, Isn't it interesting this relationship in production becomes a key way to define capitalism. Wow. Final point. Let's go back to the definition that's conventional free enterprise, free markets. Here's the problem with that. It doesn't separate capitalism from everything else. The other system, slavery, feudalism. And the communists, they can have markets. We know they did. If you go to the south in the United States, you will visit in every major city the slave market. There's still a sign downtown somewhere where they once guess what bought and sold slaves. Likewise, they bought and sold what slaves produced, cotton, for example. So there were markets in slavery. And the same applies to the feudal and the same applies to communists. Enterprises that our communities could buy and sell from one another. So you don't distinguish these systems by the conventional definition, which is a real problem. And here's another one. You know that in many phases of feudalism and slavery and communism, all kinds of incentives are given to people to start their own businesses, their own slave businesses, their own feudal businesses, their own communist collectives. That happens all the time. There's nothing distinctive about capitalism that lets people or incentivizes people to set up a business and run it themselves, to keep the government out and let private people do it. When we return after the break, since we've come to the end of the first half, I'm going to explain why a definition that isn't very good has become dominant. And what's at stake in that bizarre outcome? Anyway, we've come to the end of the first part of today's show. Please remember to subscribe to our YouTube channel. Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Please be sure to Visit our website democracyatwork.info to learn more about other Democracy at Work shows, our Union Co Op Store, and the two books we've published, Understanding Marxism and and Understanding Socialism. Last but absolutely not least, a special thanks to our Patreon community for their invaluable support. Stay with us. We'll be right back. Welcome back, friends, to the second half of today's economic update. In the first half, we concluded by my driving home, I hope, the point that the conventional definition that focuses on free private enterprises and free private markets isn't actually very good. It does not help us clearly to distinguish, and I want to drive that point home one more moment, the distinction that is so important for people in modern capitalism, the defenders of it, is this notion of private enterprise versus the state, as if the presence of the state having its own enterprises is something that undermines or makes us no longer have capitalism. This is strange because every other system has displayed both private and state enterprises, both free markets and markets regulated by whatever the government was. In slavery, for example, were there state enterprises owned and operated by the government that had slaves all the time, all over the place in feudalism, did the state sometimes have its own serfs, unlike the private lords? Yes, all the time. There's no problem about having a mixture of private and state. And nobody ever thought to say, you don't have slavery because there's a state enterprise alongside the private ones that has slaves. And no one ever thought to question a feudal system, that it isn't feudal anymore because there is a state enterprise with serfs alongside private enterprise. So it's bizarre for capitalists, people who like capitalism, to think that the presence of a state enterprise that hires people just like a private capitalist does, somehow means you don't have capitalism. That's bizarre. And doesn't kind of work real well. And the same is true of a communist enterprise. Can a collective of individuals who are private set up a business run like a commune? Sure, they can. Can the government set up a bunch of people to do that? Sure you can. You could have private communist enterprises and public or state communist enterprises. So the distinction between private and state doesn't allow you to separate capitalism from any other economic system, which is what a good definition would do. All right, now let's ask and Answer the question why, given everything I've said, why do you think that it has become dominant, and I mean dominant, to define capitalism with definitions that don't work? And why has it been almost impossible to get people to recognize that the employer employee relationship is a definition that does work to distinguish capitalism from feudalism, slavery, communism and so on? I'm going to give you three reasons. There's three reasons why the conventional definition has been the dominant one. Okay, here we go. Explanation number if you use the conventional definition, you're going to have a kind of easy time that you won't have with the correct, the better definition. Let me explain with my definition and the one that people like me use, the employer employee relationship. You immediately, if you use that, you're going to have a problem. Why? Because this arrangement is very clearly and obviously undemocratic. It's worse. It's anti democratic. Why? Because a tiny group of people make all the decisions for a large group of people and the large group of people are excluded from those decisions. If you go to work in a capitalist enterprise, you don't control the executives, you don't control the board of directors, you don't vote on them, you don't put them in or out of office. You have no authority at all. In contrast, they have absolute authority over you. They can tell you on a Friday afternoon, don't come back here Monday, you don't have a job here anymore. They take your job, they take your income, they throw you out of your situation, you may have to leave the area, you lose your house, your kids lose their school. You understand the importance these people have enormous power over you and you have none over them. If you were to define capitalism as you ought to, with a definition that does the job definitions are supposed to do, you would be vulnerable to the critique that this system that you're defending is the antithesis of democracy. And you know something? They don't want to have to defend it. Much better to define it in terms of free enterprise and hope you don't know that free enterprises existed in slavery, feudalism and communism and free markets too. All right, the second reason, if you understand the employer employee relationship to be the key defining relationship of capitalism, you're going to have a thought that comes to your mind pretty quickly after that that there's a certain arresting parallel, isn't there, between capitalism, feudalism and slavery? It's easy to distinguish them because only capitalism has the employeremployee relationship. The other two, don't capitalists pay their workers. The other two, don't, etc. But you are going to notice something similar in all of those systems. Capitalism, feudalism and slavery. There's a striking similarity. Despite their differences in each of those systems, the key relationship between people among people in the production of the goods and services everybody depends on. In all those systems, it's a dominant subordinate, small group at the top, large group at the bottom. Small group has all the power, large group takes it all. The masters control the slaves, the lords control the serfs, and guess what? The capitalists control the working class. You've probably noticed that you in your own life. And why is this a problem for the defenders of capitalism? It's a huge problem, and that's because of history. Capitalism comes into the world making a revolution in this country, as I mentioned earlier. It revolts against slavery and it presents itself as the system committed to freedom, liberty, equality, all of that. Capitalism in other parts of the world, for example in France, comes about through the French revolution back in 1789. That had on the banner of the revolutionaries liberty, equality, fraternity. In other words, capitalism wants to be associated with. And the leaders and revolutionaries like Tom Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin in this country wanted and believed in democracy, equality and all of those things. They therefore do not want to defend this system that looks alarmingly like the very feudalism they thought they had broken from, that looks alarmingly like the slavery they thought they had broken from, that they wanted to break from. They confront the possibility that by having gotten rid of master slave and having gotten rid of lord and serf, and having replaced them with employer employee, they may have betrayed the very big, wonderful objectives of liberty, equality, fraternity and democracy that they had in their minds, I'm taking them at their word, but that they were sincere in wanting these wonderful humane values. But then I have to conclude, and so would the defenders of capitalism, if they understood the definition of employeremployee as key to understanding capitalism, they would have to admit that the promises made during the revolution that established capitalism have never been fulfilled. We don't have equality, fraternity, democracy or liberty. We have a system in which a tiny group of people sitting at the top of the corporate ladders run this society. And that's because of the nature of the employeremployee relationship. And now the third one, the third reason that the defenders like that stuff about free and free markets has to do with the nice thing that that suggests. Isn't it wonderful that capitalism has an incentive built in? You know, that you can make money, you can become rich by setting up a Business and coming up with something interesting for people to buy and perhaps a good way to produce it, and you go into business and you're successful and you grow. These kinds of stories, capitalism permits that to happen, are heard every day. They're the kind of storytelling sometimes called mythology, with which a system celebrates itself, justifies itself. And of course, they would like to define capitalism as a system that allows that. By the way, capitalism does allow people to do that. I have no quarrel with that. But it's not a good definition because every other system did that too. There were times and places in slavery when people, even slaves themselves, were given incentives to set up other enterprises with slaves. Were there slaves who had slaves? Yes, in many of the world's slaveries, you had that. In feudalism, often you had the following. That wealth was inherited by the oldest son. That's called primogeniture. In the feudal system, of course, that made life a little difficult for the second and third sons because they didn't inherit the family farm, only the eldest son did. Well, guess what happened? In various kinds of feudalism, lords would give. They would give a piece of land. They would help clear some land. So a second or third son could also start a feudal manor with serfs of his own, etc. Etc. Here's my point. Other systems at various times in their history have also created incentives for free private enterprises to form and to drive the point home. Capitalism at various times, blocks, thwarts, prevents private enterprises from forming. For example, we have a patent and trademark system. You develop something new, you get a patent for it. You can forbid anyone else from making that thing for many years. That's blocking free private enterprise from forming. Every business wants to become a monopolist, to have such control that nobody else can break into the business. That's another way that capitalism often blocks or thwarts. In other words, capitalism isn't uniquely favorable to incentives. And private enterprise and other systems are not uniquely absent those things. That's why it's not a good definition. And finally, the same is true of markets. Every system has markets. Every system of which I've ever heard, at least in the last 3,000 years, anywhere in the world, has had some markets. Have they all been free markets where buyers and sellers make all the decisions? No. Sometimes they've been that way, free. Sometimes they've been regulated by the local government. Just like in the United States, we have a mixture of free and regulated markets. You cannot pay below the minimum wage. That market is regulated. You can't charge anything for various goods and services. They're regulated. Bottom line, then, defining capitalism as free enterprise and free markets doesn't distinguish it from slavery, feudalism, or a communist alternative system. Using employer employee as the key relationship does the definitional work that needs to be done. And the only reason you haven't heard before of the employer employee relationship, if indeed it's new to you, is because the people who run capitalism are afraid of where that better definition leads, so they prefer a poorer one to because it serves the ideological function of protecting capitalism. There's nothing innocent about a definition. Thank you very much for being with me, and I look forward to being with you again and talking with you again next week.