>Richard Wolff is total hack and the fringe of fringe fringe economics. Economic study of cooperative model within capitalism has shown the to be mostly not eff

>Richard Wolff is total hack and the fringe of fringe fringe economics. Economic study of cooperative model within capitalism has shown the to be mostly not effective and not innovative. Success stories are few an far between and those that do exist usually are successful by copying existing business model. This would be pretty big news for economists in Vietnam or China. >Funny, if you read Marx you would assume that there would be less companies over time and an workers getting poor consistently. or you know if you look at the world we live in https://twitter.com/LoveandMir/status/1391120730994089987 https://twitter.com/LoveandMir/status/1391120730994089987 >The exact opposite has happened. You must be a visitor from a bizarro universe. This is precisely what happened. We've seen a massive wealth transfer to the top over the past 100 years. >the idea that capitalism lead to top down decision making is frankly incredibly false. Within each company there is some level of top down decision making, but every company has a different culture and many different types of companies have success. Nonsense, companies are top down internally, and companies consolidate all the time turning into cartels and monopolies. >Ok, lets go to the evil capitalist. Do they make all the choices? No clearly not. Even the richest capitalist only control small parts of companies that themselves are far less then % of the economy. And even the price and worth of those companies are defined in a decentralized way. That's a factually wrong statement. >Meanwhile, not a single anarchy-syndicalist or even syndicalist system has ever actually worked for a modern economy for any length of time. Nice straw man, bobody is advocating for anything like that here. However, things like Mondragon do exist and are very successful even within a capitalist system. States like China, Vietnam, and Cuba exist as well. >Monopoly the game was designed by a socialist to impose his idea of capitalism the form of a game. Its literally a game design to show how evil capitalism is. That's not a counter argument. The game illustrates what happens over time in a capitalist system. This is precisely what we see happening in the real world. The wealthiest 1 percent of the world's population now owns more than half of the world's wealth. >But a little tip from me, don't make up your philosophy based on a propaganda board game. All it shows that the guy who invented the board game is just as wrong as you. A little tip from me, you might want to learn the concept of a thought experiment. >Funny how Walmart already existed when Amazon was created. Funny how IBM existed when Microsoft was created. The examples are literally countless. Unfortunately, you did not understand the point that I was making. It doesn't matter what specific company is on top at a particular time. It's the fact that at any given time you have a monopolistic situation. >Its always amazing to who socialism have predicted that all capitalism will centralize into one single big company, and after 200 years and the number of companies generally increasing they still make the exact same arguments. The only reason we're having arguments is because people defending capitalism appear to be utterly ignorant of the world they live in. You have to be willfully ignorant not to see mass consolidation in practically every major sector. >So even if your argument would be right, it would still be wrong, because you simply assumed a nationalist point of few. Or are you claiming all telecom companies in the whole world are a cartel? All food production in the world is from a few companies? Funny, I know at least 5 farmers who own their own land and buy food from them. You're just creating a false dichotomy here. It's not whether there's exactly 1 company or not. It's whether there is a small number of companies that is dominant in any given sector. This is very obviously the case. >China is not Communist and anybody that claims it is just does it to score political points in the US political battles. Last I checked all the essential economy in China is state owned, and public ownership accounts for around half the economy. But sure, tell me more about China. >Funny enough China is a lot more like Imperial Russia then Soviet Union. Somebody doesn't understand what the word imperialism means I guess.