Economist Richard Wolff's short video description — of the most fundamental difference between Capitalism and Socialism — is worth looking at — even for those who think themselves economically knowledgeable

© 2017 Peter Free

 

23 February 2017

 

 

Citation

 

 

Richard D. Wolff, What is Capitalism & Socialism? What differentiates them from each other?, Activism.org (21 February 2017)

 

 

Arguably workable and insightful definitions

 

Professor Wolff emphasizes that historical experience has clarified the distinction between these competing modes of setting society up.

 

Socialism, in his redefined view, removes the employer-employee relationship. It replaces it with a system in which workers (meaning Society) democratically own the means of production and manage all the decisions associated with it and product distribution.

 

Under this newish definition, the former Soviet Union and today's People's Republic of China are actually state-sponsored capitalistic societies.

 

Neither removed the employer-employee relationship. Both only substituted state management of the means of production for previously individual or corporate forms of the same thing.

 

In other words, the USSR and PRC only partially went down the socialistic road. Consequently, we can infer, neither presents a particularly good example of what "real" socialism would look like.

 

The same is even more true of the supposedly socialistic Nordic Model, which is more accurately called Nordic Capitalism.

 

Like the Soviets and China, Nordic Capitalism retains the employer-employee relationship.  And it continues to operate within a mostly free market system.

 

 

Why Wolff's re-definition matters

 

Professor Wolff's overview directs attention to the desired end state social effects of economic organization. These ultimately depend upon:

 

 

(a) how we own and direct means of production,

 

(b) the process by which we decide what, how, where and to whom "we" produce and distribute —

 

as well as

 

(c) what specific patterns and costs of production these distribution styles mean with regard to achieving a "just" Society — however we or "you" wish to define it.

 

 

A figurative kick in the mental butt

 

Using Wolff's definition, we are better motivated to think about:

 

 

(a) what we are trying to achieve

 

and

 

(b) what evidence exists to think that we might be able to get there using whichever means we select.

 

 

As Professor Michael Glennon recently implied — in addressing Democracy's suiciding future in a profoundly ignorant society like ours — such a "what is the desired end state" emphasis cannot hurt.

 

 

The moral? — definitional clarity is a good thing

 

Wolff's emphasis on production and distribution relationships bring us back to the social fundamentals that we Americans usually ignore.

 

Our overly emotional and ideologically imprecise arguments are nearly always historically and experientially inaccurate.

 

Wolff's newish definitions could (if we wanted them to) re-focus us on achievable actualities, rather than on empty-headed drum pounding.

 

I am not, however, holding my breath.

 

Concisely delivered intelligence tends to limit itself to the perceptively intelligent. A characteristic which, by definition, excludes most of humankind's Gaussian distribution.

 

We will, the Gaussian math suggests, drown together — like metaphorically confused lemmings. Wolff's effort notwithstanding.