Heroic Investing
Welcome! If this is your first time visiting Jason Hartman's website, please read this page to learn more about what we do here. You may also be interested in receiving updates from our blog via RSS or via email if you prefer. If you have any questions about first responder finance feel free to contact us anytime! Thanks!

Dr. Richard D. Wolff on Global Economic Meltdown



iTunes: Stream Episode

Jason Hartman hosts Dr. Richard D. Wolff, professor of economics and author of Understanding Marxism. They have a discussion about the global economic meltdown. Dr. Wolff gives his interpretation of Marxism and tells us why it hasn’t been applied well. Later they look at capitalism in America, discussing the huge disparity between CEO and worker pay.

Announcer 0:04
Welcome to the heroic investing show. As first responders we risk our lives every day our financial security is under attack. Our pensions are in a state of emergency. A single on duty incident can alter or erase our earning potential instantly and forever. We are the heroes of society. We are self reliant and we need to take care of our own financial future. The heroic investing show is our toolkit of business and investing tactics on our mission to financial freedom.

Jason Hartman 0:40
It’s my pleasure to welcome Professor Richard de wolf. He’s a professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and a visiting professor at the new school in New York. He’s the number one best selling author of Democracy at Work, a cure for capitalism and capitalism. crisis deepens essays on the global economic meltdown. And the new book, understanding Marxism. And Richard, I, as I told you, before we started, I would mostly really pick a fight with a guy like you. But I watched a few of your videos, and I found myself strangely agreeing. I’ve told my listeners before that Karl Marx is the most influential economist in world history. I don’t think it turned out very well, the application of his principles. But, you know, what do you think? I mean, you wrote a book about understanding Marx was his stuff just applied wrong, and that’s why there was, there was so much travesty, or was it misunderstood? I mean, what happened?

Richard D. Wolff 1:41
No, I think it you know, he is one of those people that come along historically, for reasons we never quite understand. I’m sure it had something to do with his mother and his father and the community and all the rest, who’s just ahead of his time. I mean, he sees things he pulls together to different strands of understanding and comes up with insights that we could keep going back to, you know, he was deeply respectful as Marx was of Adam Smith, for example, long wrote great detailed analyses of Adam Smith’s work. I would say Adam Smith’s another one another one of these people that comes along and for whatever complicated reason, they get it, they see things that other people don’t see or don’t see for a long time. And then periodically others get a glimpse and realize that he saw it already back then. And it’s not that it doesn’t change. It’s not that we can’t do better than Marx. We can, we should, and he would have been the first one to agree. But it’s an enduring level of insight. And the way I would explain it to people is that there’s no great mystery here. If you think of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, they’re usually the people consider that the founders of modern economics. They had something in Common, they thought capitalism was spectacular. They loved it. They welcomed it. They thought it was an immense progress over feudalism. And so they was column this way they were analysts who also celebrate Mm hmm. But Marx was coming after them. What Marx was was a person who said, I agree that capitalism could have, and should have brought the wonderful things that Smith and Ricardo thought they would. They thought capitalism would bring in the slogans of the French and American Revolution, liberty, equality, fraternity, democracy. Marx loved all of that. But he felt coming, you know, 50 years later after them that capitalism had come, but it hadn’t brought the gifts. It didn’t bring the Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and democracy. And he felt that capitalism and he used it phrase once he were saying he is Karl Marx, right? He is Ahmad, his view was that capitalism had somehow not delivered the goods not delivered on its own promises. And he posed himself the question, why not? And again, make a long story short, his answer was that inside capitalism are the reasons the blockages you might say, for why it couldn’t deliver on the promises that it made. And the his life’s work was to show how and why capitalism prevents the achievement of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and democracy. So again, long story short, what you had in Marx is a critic of the system. Once you having Smith and Ricardo are the lovers the celebrant service and you know, a balanced education and economics should include both Yeah, Fahrenheit. Of course. Yeah. Like you want to If you want to study I don’t know French literature, read people who think it’s the greatest thing you know, ever, and read people who are critical of it and then make your own conclusion. Yeah. The only thing that motivates Americans like me to get to have a little bit of an edge when we talk is that we were denied that, look at me, I’ll speak very personally. I’m a product of America’s elite education. I went to Harvard as an undergraduate. Then I went to Stanford to get my master’s degree. And I finished up with a PhD from Yale. It’s like a joke, right? Right here 10 years of my life and hear me now, I was never assigned a word of Karl Marx, in those three institutions, in terms of his mature economic analysis. I’m not talking about the Communist Manifesto. That’s a political document written in the heat of a revolutionary time. Surely it’s worth reading, but that’s not what you go to. Get the the core analytics of a person. So I feel kind of ripped off by American education, that they were so frightened by the Cold War when I was a student, that they almost took pride in not having anything to do with Marxism, socialism, communism, any of that stuff. It was all disloyal. Somehow it was all scary. And so we as students were protected. I like to use the analogy. It’s like if you protect your children from learning about sex, you’re not doing them any favor at all, because they’re going to discover it later. And when you could have helped them have a healthy attitude about it or now it’s going to be a mess a little bit, a little bit of the edge. You sometimes pick up from people like me, because we had to learn it on our own. We had to go and find the books and all the rest. We can do that they were in the library that censorship Wasn’t 100%. But you know, the perfect if you asked a question about marks, the professor looked at you, as if you had forgotten to wear your pants that day, you know you are

Jason Hartman 7:12
but not in a modern University today. So I’m on the right, what are you anyway?

Richard D. Wolff 7:19
footnote on that. I am occasionally confronted by that. And it’s one of those moments where you say to yourself, do we live in different planets? I mean, I’ve been a professor all my life and a half a dozen American universities. I’ve given lectures, at least 50 universities in my life, the notion that Marxists have any kind of significant presence in American higher education. I mean, that’s not that’s not the case. They were weeded out if there were very many and I don’t think there ever were but if there were a bunch, the cold war did a number on them. What you do have is you have a lot of liberals, but you got to be careful a liberal and a Marxist are not the same. They will

Jason Hartman 8:09
tell us about that but then I gotta fire some questions at you but tell us explain that one that’s that’s worth worth it. A liberal and a Marcus Marxist are not the same thing. When you say that, what do you mean?

Richard D. Wolff 8:19
What I mean is that illiberal is part of the consensus of support for capitalism. liberals and conservatives, in my judgment, are both like Adam Smith and David Ricardo celebrants of capitalism. They had some disagreements about how you best support and help and endorse capitalism. The Conservative tends to believe our less a fair that the government should keep minimum position a minimum role interfere as little as possible, either not at all if you take it to libertarianism or minimally maintain the currency and courts in place. Leave a military but that’s it. Right? The liberal says no, no, no, you leave capitalism to its own devices. It produces business cycle collapses, it produces inequality, how

Jason Hartman 9:14
to regulate it and construction a little bit.

Richard D. Wolff 9:16
Yeah. And you have to control it you have to limit it. The only agency capable of doing that is the government. And so the proper support for capitalism is to have a judicious targeted interference by the government in an ongoing way in these sixth manner and and

Jason Hartman 9:35
periodic so if we’ve got that spectrum from libertarian to conservative to liberal then what’s a Marxist complete redistribution?

Richard D. Wolff 9:43
No, no, no,

Jason Hartman 9:44
not at all. liberal okay. It’s okay. We’re Workers of the World unite What? You know where, where do we put Das Kapital in here?

Richard D. Wolff 9:52
Okay. preface. capital is a very rich piece of work. Yeah, it is. And it is incremented in different ways. By different writers, just like Adam Smith, just like the Bible is like, just like anything just

Jason Hartman 10:05
like iron Rand. Yeah,

Richard D. Wolff 10:07
exactly. Alright, so I’m going to answer the question the way I understand it, but I’m not claiming that everybody who calls themselves a Marxist would agree, okay. But for me the critique that Marx offers, particularly in volume, one of capital, but in other places, too, is a critique that says, the root of the problem, why you have an unequal distribution of income, why you have instability, business cycles, and all of that has to do with the organization of the workplace, the enterprise, we, in capitalism organize it in a fundamental way with which Marx disagrees. And the reorganization, the changing of that organization, is the root problem, which, if it isn’t solved, renders all the efforts to solve capitalism’s other problems. unsuccessful. So Marx would argue, for example, that the reason we are worried about poverty today in capitalism is the same as the reason that we 20 years ago worried about poverty, and 40 years ago worried about poverty, that as long as we’ve had capitalism, the gap between rich and poor has animated an immense array of social criticism, ditto our business cycles. Everything we’ve tried to do to deal with those problems has failed. Why? Why is it fair? Why are we now as I speak with you experiencing one of the worst collapses of capitalism in its history? And why have we had three of them in this new century? I’ve got

Jason Hartman 11:42
a question to illuminate that. That’s my next question area, but finish up with that. Yeah. Okay.

Richard D. Wolff 11:47
So what Marx’s answer long story short as usual, given the constraints of time, Marx’s answer is capitalism didn’t make the break from fuel. brutalism and slavery that it thought it did. That break still has to be made. And Marx is the analyst to explain to us what it is. And here’s the summary. Okay? in slavery, you divided the people involved in production into two groups, master slave, the master had all the power literally owned the slave control the situation amassed great wealth. In feudalism, you divided people in again, in the production of goods and services into two groups Lord and serf, same store. Yeah, capitalism, criticize those systems, criticize them for their inequality, but all that and it promised to break from that that’s what the French Revolution and American Revolution slogans were about. Yeah. But it failed. And the reason it failed is it replicated the split. Only now it wasn’t Lord and serve a master and slave. It was employer and employee is its

Jason Hartman 13:01
labor and capital. Basically,

Richard D. Wolff 13:03
that’s, that’s the solution. The Marxist critique of that goes right there and says you could organize the economic life of a society, meaning the micro level of the enterprise in a radically different way, a democratic way, because capitalism is not democratic. The owner does not consult the workers as to what it is he’s going to do. The Board of Directors doesn’t either, but you could have an alternative women could have an alternative in which it was run as a worker, co op. In other words, everybody has one vote, and you decide collectively, what you’re going to produce, what technology you’re going to use, where you’re going to do it, and what you’re going to do with the profits collectively that all of you have helped to produce. Marx’s argument is that Turning the enterprise into a community. Hence the word communism is the way forward has nothing to do with the state. Marx didn’t write about the state wasn’t interested in the state. So when you asked at the beginning, about misunderstanding, yeah, people made some decisions that the way to get to communism was by seizing the state either with elections or with revolution. And then they got a little bit waylaid along the way, they got really entranced with the state. And you got this peculiar 19th and 20th century aberration I would call it in which they focused on how you get to, rather than what Marx said was the place you were going and ended up stuck in the middle with a very powerful state, but they couldn’t make because they didn’t understand how to do it. And so they ended up with what we would call state capitalism. Not a transition.

Jason Hartman 15:01
Right? So I’m guessing, then you would say that the former Soviet Union was not Marxist. It did not have a Marxist system then. Right. That’s right. Okay. Because the government administrated all of the co op, if you will, versus the workers with the company. Now, just to answer that one objection, or that one statement you made about, you know, the workers, unless it’s an employee owned company, it’s not really a cooperative or a community or a commune. Right. And that is rare. Okay. But it does exist out there. But the argument any capitalists would say to you is, look, it’s a free market, the employee can just go somewhere else, they don’t have to work there. So they’re not a surfer a slave or they’re not indentured either. Right. But rather than get off on a tangent, which we could discuss for three days, I want to ask you, do you so we determined and I agree with you that the Soviet Union did not really have true Marxism. Fair enough. I agree with that did any country to China under Mao had are no,

Richard D. Wolff 16:01
oh no, I don’t know what pure Marxism is they I would rather use this line okay. They interpreted Marxism in their way. Look, Karl Marx dies in in 1883. So, we are basically 150 years since Marx died right in that time his writings have become important in every country on the face of this earth. The spread of Marxism found in every corner of the planet people excited by it, absorbing it using it sir,

Jason Hartman 16:36
like I said, He’s the most influential economist of all time.

Richard D. Wolff 16:40
One of the things you know, if you like the bad news that goes with the good news, you spread very fast and 150 years to every your your it means you’re entering Marxism is entering countries with very different economic situations, political situations, historical trajectories cultural incident. fusions. Of course you’re going to get all tene different interpretation. Of

Jason Hartman 17:05
course, of course, no, no, yeah, no, no, no problem there rather,

Richard D. Wolff 17:08
I would rather say that what you had in the Soviet Union was an interpretation of Marxism, different from mine, I’m critical of theirs, then probably would be critical of mine, in which you gave a kind of peculiar priority to the state. And I would call it state capitalism in which the state hires people, you know, and okay, but you haven’t then broken the employer employee. You just added the state as another employer alongside private, okay. Slavery and feudalism did that too. We would never have thought of saying it isn’t slave because the government had slaves where it is futile because the government had served. Why do we say it’s socialism or not capitalism, if the government also employs people,

Jason Hartman 17:56
okay, so we we agreed that the so the former Soviet Union did not really have Marxism, but do you say that the United States of today has capitalism? Yes. Really? Okay. So I disagree and here’s why I think we live in this. And I interviewed the professor who wrote the book with this title The winner take all society you probably know who that is. I forgive me. I can’t remember his name. But that’s what we have. We have this winner take all society. We’re just because of the way public markets work and Wall Street, which is not capitalist that’s a crony we have a crony capitalist system. I mean, you know, it’s an insider’s game. And it’s all so rigged. And these these certain companies get to be huge and control everything and everybody else is just a little peasant. You know, it’s it’s, this is not capitalism. It’s been totally perverted. But they give the same answer that you admitted to go along with the give me about work, a worker can quit and become a capitalist. Right? Right. Well, if you really Well they can become they can become an entrepreneur. Sure, yes, they can quit. They can do their own their own side hustle or whatever, even while they’re working. But the point is, we still have these giant companies that had massive access to capital that other companies don’t have.

Richard D. Wolff 19:15
So their answer to you is the same one you just gave me. You can, you can go out and borrow. You can go out and issue shares of stock. If you hit comes the punch line, which no one wants to say, because it’s ugly. If you weren’t stupid or backward, or it would have been Amazon too. Yeah, right. Yeah, definitely be those once all to believe that he’s just smarter than we are. Yeah, he got there. We could, but we didn’t make it. Okay. It’s like telling the worker, you could be a capitalist. There’s a reason why a very small number of people are capitalists and a very large number of people are workers. It sounds like

Jason Hartman 19:53
when you say capitalists, you mean entrepreneur. Those are synonymous, right? Yeah.

Richard D. Wolff 19:58
Yeah, I like the word employees. Okay, right. For me, there are structural reasons that keep the capitalists, the employers, a small number of the employees large. I don’t attributed that to smarts. I don’t attribute that to personal differences. We have differences. But that’s not the explanation. The explanation is a system that reproduces these divisions, generation after generation, just like we have monopoly powerful companies on the one hand, and a mass of junior partners have those big eyes on the other. And for me, capitalism is what it is that we produces these divisions. It’s the set of institutions that makes a few people, employers and a few among them giants, who are able over decades, sometimes even longer than decades, to hold on to what are effectively monopolies as we call that in economics, like Amazon or Facebook or Google or a whole bunch bunch of others that you can name and they push back. They hold on to their monopolies by constantly spending a ton of money on lobbyists, lobbyists to keep the laws in place to try to their monopolies, but etiologically to tell us that they are just smarter and quicker and better equipped and they are getting their reward for their superior performance in economics, we teach this absurd theory called marginal product and we explain that one worker gets more than another because he or she is more efficient or more productive. I tell you as a mathematical economist, that’s complete nuts that there is no way to measure that thing. This is make believe, but it’s very powerful ideologically, like many make believes in your human history have been so

Jason Hartman 21:49
where do we go from here? I think we’d all agree that things are pretty messed up unless your Larry Page Sergey Brin, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, whatever. We would all agree that it’s you know, in in lou dobbs book which I quote often war on the middle class from years ago, he talks about how the rank and file worker versus this the C level executive, the pay, it’s astronomical, how out of proportion that is nowadays, compared to how it was years ago. I mean, it was it was in line, you know, the head honcho always gets paid more that’s we get that right. Nobody would object to that in principle, but the proportion is staggering. What jamie diamond work makes versus one of his serfs, right? So how do we solve that? I mean, it’s we got to redistribute wealth, right? That’s the only way you do it.

Richard D. Wolff 22:38
A few months ago, maybe a year ago, I was on a fox news townhall and they had two of us on the left. And then they had their four big shots on the right, one of which was lou dobbs, and they have less than an hour the show after the show was over. Lou Dobbs was eager to talk to Me, which I found interesting.

Jason Hartman 23:02
Dogs would not disagree with you completely.

Richard D. Wolff 23:03
He was taken with, obviously, it was very friendly and all that. But that’s what he wanted to talk about. He was he and I both I think I had made some comment about how back in the 1960s, the CEO got 50 or 60 times.

Jason Hartman 23:20
Yeah, now it’s like 400 times. That’s right.

Richard D. Wolff 23:23
Yeah. 400 is where it is now. And there’s no rational basis, right? Are you not gonna argue he’s that much more productive than it’s just silly. And he and I agreed on that. And I said to him, you know, if you had a democratic way of deciding on salaries, the workers themselves could be counted on to pay more to people they thought were more crucial to what the company did, had maybe some skills had to go learn for a while in the university and to acquire it. They wouldn’t give everybody the same amount of money they get that yeah, I mean

Jason Hartman 24:03
I agree that they do they get that Yeah.

Richard D. Wolff 24:06
He looked at me with this funny look. I don’t want to put words in his mouth. He didn’t comment on what I was saying one way or the other. But you know being a teacher All my life I look at the students eyes, I looked at his eyes. I don’t I mean, I don’t mean this to be critical because I had a nice talk with him. I don’t think he had ever thought that way. I mean, he when he asks himself

Jason Hartman 24:30
well, that’s the CO ops idea right? The cut the company, the employee owned company concept, right?

Richard D. Wolff 24:36
But no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not ownership. Okay. When I say Co Op, I’m talking about what the better word would be directorship. The workers become collectively their own employer, their own board of directors. This is complete, you know, you can have an an employee stock ownership plan and we have many of those in this culture. When workers get you know, any percent of the shares or something like that. The problem with that is, whatever you think of it, per se, is that the workers are usually either, in fact, incompetent or unsure of how to run the company. So what they do as owners is the same thing anybody does as owners, you basically vote for turn over the company, to your delegate delegates, your board of directors that you elected

Jason Hartman 25:26
representative Republic concept. That’s right.

Richard D. Wolff 25:28
That’s right. And so they do that too. And then what they look at the shares the way most shares small shareholders do, this is a source of a quarterly check. But beyond that, I don’t give a damn I don’t know what’s going on in the company. I’m not involved. Yeah, I bought it because my broker told me it was a good deal and something like that. So I’m talking about when workers literally become the collective directors, designers, they run their own business.

Jason Hartman 25:58
They don’t even have to own anything. Can a company with 80,000 workers really do that? Is everything voted on? I mean, sure that I mean, the problem is in those employees stock own companies that you mentioned a moment ago, we have that all over the place. And because of the separation of the C level executives and the boards of directors and what’s known in laws, the business judgment rule, you know, it’s like Congress, they can just give themselves perks endlessly. And you know, there’s no accountability for that. Yeah, they could maybe vote them out. But that’s part of it. I looks. So how do we do that? How, what’s the real mechanics of that?

Richard D. Wolff 26:37
Let me answer it by describing to you a company that has done it. Okay, but we don’t have it in the realm of me. I don’t want people to imagine I’m suggesting how it could be done. I prefer to be the messenger who tells you how it’s already being done. All right, probably the single most powerful and successful. A worker Co Op in the world is called a mundra gone Corporation. It’s based in Spain. And in the city of Mondrian, which is a small city in the north of Spain, in the foothills of the Pyrenees mountains. In 1956, a Catholic priest gave a famous talk in a little church in London and he said to the workers, they’re very, very poor part of Spain. If we wait for someone to come here and give us jobs, we will all die of old age before that happens and everybody laughed. And then he made his pitch. He said, Let’s become our own employer. There are six of you in this room who are carpenters or whatever the hell they were. Let’s start a co op, we will employ ourselves. So he started in 1956, with six workers and the Catholic priests. Today, that company has about 130,000 employees. It is the seventh largest corporation in all of Spain. It is organized as a family Family of about 200 to 250, individual worker co Ops, doing manufacturing services, a whole range of activities. And they organize each of those businesses as a worker Co Op, where all the decisions are made collectively by the 50 to 500 to 10,000 employees depending on what it is give you an idea of how they’ve succeeded six people in 1956 130,000 that would be the envy of any capitalist Corporation, such a level of growth number two, along the way they competed with many capitalist enterprises, and they out competed them eventually ended up absorbing them, their workers, their use materials, their equipment. Number three, they had a rule that the highest paid worker in a co op across the 130 Thousand cannot get paid more than eight and a half times what the lowest paid was. They have no inequality like the United States in those parts of Spain, mostly in the north, where they are located. Okay, once a year they have an assembly with a workers vote on the supervisors, not the other way around. The workers vote whether to retain a supervisor or to let him or her go. It’s an extraordinary development. I have gone there myself. So I’m not only talking about reading about is more or less visited place. blows my mind very well organized, correct. Yeah, that’s right.

Jason Hartman 29:44
It is it’s doable. Okay. So I’ve got to ask you, though, when I asked you the question a moment ago, where do we go from here? We’ve got this as people, especially on the left like to talk about this wealth inequality gap, and I don’t disagree with it. It’s you know, in a And it’s not just it’s not just like any quality, it’s much more nuanced and complicated, because, you know, it’s this percentile and that percent you know, it’s it’s very complex, right? But the fact is, the rich have become ultra mega, mega rich. And I saw you on the interview with stuart varney. And you were saying, you know, Jeff Bezos is giving away some money. That’s a drop in the bucket. Bezos has got to be the least charitable Scrooge of any I mean, he is so wealthy. Now Bill Gates is like the opposite end of the spectrum. He’s got his agenda too. But whatever, you know, at least he and Buffett are actually doing something philanthropic for real, but these houses, it’s like a trinket. Okay. And it took them forever to get around to it, by the way, too. So, you know, I’m pretty critical of Bezos he he treats his workers like crap. It’s a I mean, what do you do the only power that house that is able to change anything like this is government Government House To say, there’s a law. And hey, Jeff, if you don’t do this Co Op thing, or if you don’t give some of your money away, here’s a gun and a jail cell. I mean, that’s it. That’s what a law is. Right? So what do we do? Where do we go from here?

Richard D. Wolff 31:14
Well, you have to look for me. I’ve always had this disagreement with my libertarian friends. I understand that the government in my view, the government is complicit with big business. And it has been for a long time. And I understand why. If you’re going to have a tiny group of people sitting at the top of society with the kind of obscene wealth you and I agree they have, if they’re stupid, they will imagine that that’s something they can simply assume will last for a long time, but I don’t think they’re stupid. I think they understand they have a problem. If you’re going to be wildly rich in a society that allows universal suffrage everybody gets a vote, then you have a risk and the risk scares that the mass of people who are being screwed by pitchforks. Eventually, you know, it’s, we have this plutocracy or kleptocracy now, and you know, they get the pitchforks, they have the vote. And they can use the vote to undo the economic consequences of what the rich are arranging for themselves. So the rich have understood. And I know this because I’m among the people that are occasionally approached by them for advice. They have understood they have to manage the political system, or else it will undo that.

Jason Hartman 32:36
So they hire an army of lobbyists, which is much more powerful than our votes.

Richard D. Wolff 32:41
That’s right. And so for me, the only solution is you have to mobilize the working class of people, those who are excluded from this wealth, those who are excluded from the role of the employer and say to them, you have to organize yourself. You have to mobilize yourself, then and only then will you be able to shape what the government does. So it can do the kinds of things you and I might agree would be good for the government to do. What does life look

Jason Hartman 33:13
like? Does that look like a labor union? Does it look like Elizabeth Warren? What does it look like?

Richard D. Wolff 33:18
Well, we’ve seen not it could be could be something new. I’ll give you in a minute, an example of something that might be the beginning. In traditionally, in the last hundred and 50 years of capitalism, it has basically taken two parts, two forms, labor union, organized labor, and political parties, Labour Party’s socialist party’s coming and all that. Yeah, they’re taking those two. Now, there is something which I find it very interesting, called the yellow vest movement in France over the last year and a half, which is neither. It’s not a union. It’s not a political party. It is its leadership is very determined not to do that, but it wants to continue To itself as an ongoing social change engine. And in France at least and granted France as a as its particulars, but in France at least, it is stunningly powerful. It has endured now for a year and a half, which is itself a major achievement. It is constantly approached by the unions and the political parties, by the way, not only on the left, although it’s mostly the left. Marina lapan, which is the far right in France also is trying to get a place in the yellow vest. So they keep all of them at bay. They don’t exclude them but they do not let them take over which is in a way what they want. So you may be seeing their the beginnings of another form in which but the success of the of the yellow vests i think is what you’re talking about. Because Despite having no infrastructure, no Treasury, no accumulated cells and all the rest of it, they were able to mobilize people in France, to the envy of both the labor movement and the left political bodies, in terms of a number of people that commitment, etc. So that’s right now in process, they’ve been quiet because they can’t get together because of the corona. But France is now opening up faster than the United States. And so we may receive that, but I see a variety of efforts. I see them coming in this country as well, to try to figure out how to mobilize and organize the mass of people, because I think everyone recognize that’s the only hope to have some real change. Otherwise, whether we have a Trump or a Biden, this is neither of them is going to change any of this

Jason Hartman 36:00
While that I agree with it’s just moving the needle a little bit there’s no dramatic change. Yeah. Interesting. Well, Richard, give out your website, your capitalist website.

Richard D. Wolff 36:10
We have websites and we also you

Jason Hartman 36:13
can acquire your books free Why are your books free?

Richard D. Wolff 36:20
On YouTube you can find us at Democracy at Work with that’s our channel on the YouTube. We have a weekly radio and TV show every week for half an hour. That’s been going for a decade 90,000 subscribers Yeah, yeah, yeah. Oh no, no 150 no,

Jason Hartman 36:36
I’m looking away. I’m looking at Richard de wolf maybe

Richard D. Wolff 36:40
okay. At different times. Yeah, Democracy at Work is the one you want to look at. Our website is Democracy at Work again, all one word Democracy at Work dot info. And you can also find me at rd Wolf with two F’s at the.com. And that that will be the easiest way and we welcome people to look at all this Stop to communicate with us. We have a very active Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, you name it, we’re doing it. Good stuff. And here’s the best part like you might be intrigued. I’ve been a critic of capitalism pretty much my adult life. Over the last 10 years, I have done more invited public speaking than in the previous 40. The United States has become open and interested in these critiques, in a way I never thought I would live to see. So you’re talking to a person who is being carried along by a current that is very strong that I did not think would last but it has it’s an it’s a heady time for people like me, we’re back in the political reality and conversations of America in a way we haven’t seen for a long time.

Jason Hartman 37:54
Well, that’s what happens when American workers don’t get a pay raise for four decades. Okay. And and the Listen, I don’t agree with you in the sense that I like capitalism. I just don’t think we have capitalism, you know, but you know that you know the Soviets the Soviets could argue we don’t I like Marxism, Marxism, but we don’t have Marxism. So I get it. You know, this is very nuanced. There’s a lot to it, obviously. But Richard very interesting. Yes, the millennials, they definitely love they lean socialists. They lean modern monetary theory and all that kind of stuff, which, you know, I’m sure, I’m sure there’s a big demand, like you said for for you. So, good stuff. Thanks for joining us today, folks. That’s Richard D. Wolf. Thanks so much for coming on.

Richard D. Wolff 38:33
Thank you very much. And I look forward to doing this again, because all conversations are should be part of what the evolution of our society now needs and will benefit from

Jason Hartman 38:44
workers the world unite. Never thought I’d say that on the show. Thanks, Richard. Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss Any episodes, be sure to check out the show’s specific website and our general website Hartman. Mediacom for appropriate disclaimers and Terms of Service. Remember that guest opinions are their own. And if you require specific legal or tax advice, or advice and any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you’re using and write a review for the show we would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.