Capitalism, Marxism and Islamic Economics with Prof Richard D. Wolff (MH Podcast #11) (2020-12-16) ​

## Description

Episode #11 of the MH podcast with Prof Richard D. Wolff.

Podcast playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzESAoLKD0l8e9M6mk2TuC5vEh8wYlP_6

Twitter: https://twitter.com/mohammed_hijab?s=20 Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mohammedhijabofficial/?hl=en Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/brothermohammedhijab/ Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/mohammed-hijab-465985305 My book: https://sapienceinstitute.org/the-scientific-deception-of-the-new-atheists/

Summary of Capitalism, Marxism and Islamic Economics with Prof Richard D. Wolff (MH Podcast #11) ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 [01:00:00 ​

Prof. Richard D. Wolff discusses how capitalism and Marxism differ in their views on inequality, and how eliminating interest would benefit society as a whole. Wolff also points out that there are alternative ways to allocate capital aside from using interest rates, and that capitalism has been through many movements over the years that have aimed to change the system.

00:00:00 Richard Wolff is a professor of economics and a visiting professor in a graduate program in international affairs at the New School University in New York City. He is the founder of Democracy Democracy at Work and the host of their Nationally Syndicated Show Economics. His latest book is The Sickness is the System: Capitalism, Marxism and Islamic Economics.

• 00:05:00 Richard D. Wolff discusses how capitalism has failed to live up to expectations in recent years, with the rise of socialism and criticism of capitalism increasing in the United States. Wolff argues that the two main reasons for the criticism are the failure to anticipate the economic crash and the lack of preparedness for pandemics.
• 00:10:00 Capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics are all discussed with the focus on inequality and the New Deal Coalition. The importance of unions and minimum wages is also mentioned. Franklin Roosevelt made a deal with union and communist leaders, stating that he would not pursue socialism in return for their support during the Great Depression.
• 00:15:00 Capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics are all theories that explain how economies work. In the 1930s, Roosevelt implemented a program to help the poor, the middle class, and unemployed people in the United States. These programs were paid for by the corporations and the rich, which made them unpopular but eventually led to his re-election three times. This demonstrates the importance of a politician who does more for the mass of people than any other president. The mass of people are also watching the situation for the middle class get worse, and this instability is leading to system criticism.
• 00:20:00 Richard D. Wolff discusses the problems with capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics. Wolff argues that all three systems have their own flaws and that a socialist or communist system would be better than the current system.
• 00:25:00 Richard D. Wolff discusses the differences between capitalism and communism and how the former is a product of the latter. He also discusses the criticism of capitalism and how it has not achieved the goals it was supposed to.
• 00:30:00 Islamic economics differs from capitalism in that there is an understanding that economic inequality is not always desirable, but it is not seen as immoral.
• 00:35:00 According to Prof. Richard D. Wolff, there are several different interpretations of socialism and marxism, and disagreement exists among socialists about how to implement their ideals. Wolff argues that, while it is not necessary to achieve equality of outcome, it is important to recognize that inequality is a bad thing and to strive for equality of opportunity.
• 00:40:00 Professor Richard D. Wolff discusses capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics. He argues that the level of inequality in society is what results from capitalism working this way, and that one day it will be corrected. Wolff also discusses how workers are exploited in capitalist countries, and how this affects their lives.
• 00:45:00 Richard D. Wolff discusses the differences between capitalism and socialism, and how capitalism creates inequality. He also points out that the ancient Egyptians had a system in which the Pharaohs exploited their slaves.
• 00:50:00 Prof. Richard D. Wolff discusses capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics. He argues that while there may be some benefits to inequality, a society based on capitalism is ed for disaster due to its inherent inequality. Wolff recommends a more egalitarian form of society.
• 00:55:00 Prof. Richard D. Wolff discusses how capitalism and Marxism differ in their views on inequality, and how eliminating interest would benefit society as a whole. Wolff also points out that there are alternative ways to allocate capital aside from using interest rates, and that capitalism has been through many movements over the years that have aimed to change the system.

01:00:00 [01:25:00 ​

Professor Richard Wolff discusses the differences between capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics. He argues that Marxism is the best way to understand the world, but that it is complex and must be premised with something objective in order to be proven accurate. Wolff also discusses the concept of exploitation and how it can be applied to the economy and the justice system.

01:00:00 Professor Richard Wolff discusses Marxism and Islamic economics. He explains that Marxism is based on historical materialism and that it uses the theory of surplus and value to understand the world. Wolff argues that, while other theories may have their own merits, Marxism is the best way to understand the way the world works. He also discusses the concept of exploitation, which is not the same as a marxian understanding of surplus. Wolff concludes the video by stating that, while Marxism is a complex theory, it is based on a solid foundation and must be premised with something objective in order to be proven accurate.

• 01:05:00 Discusses the differences between capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic Economics. Wolff points out that everyone has utopian desires, and that these desires are shaped by the world around them. He also discusses the idea that the physical universe is shaped by the theories we have at the time.
• 01:10:00 Professor Richard D. Wolff discusses how capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics differ in their approach to the economy. Wolff argues that there is a symbiotic relationship between actors in the economy, and that each approach has its own benefits and drawbacks. Wolff also discusses how the language we use can have an interpretive scope, and how conversation between people with different understandings of words can help to develop those understandings.
• 01:15:00 Professor Richard D. Wolff discusses the concepts of exploitation and surplus value, and how they can be applied to the economy and the justice system. He notes that justice is a moving target and that it changes over time, as societies try to improve their conditions.
• 01:20:00 , Prof. Richard D. Wolff critiques capitalism and Marxism, and argues that while neither system can perfectly achieve justice in this world, they both share the same idea that justice is an ideal that we will eventually reach but will inevitably change due to the progress of society.
• 01:25:00 Professor Richard D. Wolff discusses capitalism, Marxism, and Islamic economics. Wolff argues that, in order to create a better society, it is important to focus on democratizing the enterprise and stressing worker co-ops as an alternative to traditional capitalism. Wolff also suggests that religious activity is similar to what motivates people to pursue Marxist criticism of capitalism, with the goal of getting to a better place for human beings. Wolff concludes the video with a plea for a society in which these conversations can end in productive discussions.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:00 [Music]0:00:07 welcome to the 11th episode0:00:08 of the mh podcast i'm joined with an0:00:11 esteemed guest0:00:12 he is dr richard or professor richard0:00:14 wolff who's a professor of economics0:00:16 emeritus at the university of0:00:18 massachusetts amherst and a visiting0:00:20 professor0:00:20 in a graduate program in international0:00:22 affairs of the new school university in0:00:24 new york city0:00:25 he is the founder of democracy democracy0:00:27 at work and the host0:00:28 of their nation nationally syndicated0:00:30 show economics0:00:31 economic update his latest book is the0:00:34 sickness is the system0:00:35 when capitalism fails to save us from0:00:38 pandemics0:00:39 um or itself and is available along with0:00:42 other books uh0:00:43 on the link which we'll be providing on0:00:44 the bottom of the um of the deaf0:00:46 of the uh bio uh sorry in the comments0:00:49 section below0:00:51 hiding professor thank you uh for0:00:53 inviting me and i'm fine0:00:56 tell us professor how you got into um0:00:59 you know this0:01:01 go into economics in the first place0:01:02 what made you interested in this field0:01:06 well it's a it is actually an0:01:08 interesting story i went to0:01:09 college um here in the united states0:01:13 where i was born0:01:14 uh intending to be a natural scientist i0:01:19 don't know physicist chemist that's what0:01:21 my parents wanted me to be0:01:24 and in my first year i took a course in0:01:26 economics because i was always0:01:28 interested uh in how the economy0:01:32 worked0:01:35 i can't do this0:01:39 excuse me um and i went to this0:01:42 economics course and hoping to learn0:01:44 about how economies work and so forth0:01:47 and the sad result was i was treated to0:01:50 a group of0:01:51 economics equations it didn't make much0:01:54 sense to me or to the other students0:01:56 everything was discussed in terms of0:01:58 what explains0:02:00 prices i didn't take a course in0:02:02 economics to understand why prices are0:02:04 what they are0:02:05 i wanted to understand the big questions0:02:08 uh0:02:08 why are some countries rich and others0:02:10 poor why0:02:11 is there wealth on one side of the town0:02:15 and0:02:15 poverty on the other living in new york0:02:18 city area i knew that story really well0:02:21 from personal experience etc etc0:02:24 but economics had nothing to say to me0:02:26 so i majored in history0:02:28 and i finished my program studying0:02:30 history and the more i studied history0:02:33 the more i recognized that it was the0:02:36 economy that shaped so much of what0:02:38 happened in history0:02:39 that i kind of had to bite my tongue and0:02:41 go back0:02:42 and learn the economics so i went to0:02:45 graduate school in economics0:02:47 and it was always a contest what i was0:02:49 taught was not what i wanted to learn0:02:52 what i was taught was mostly why the0:02:55 system were living in0:02:57 capitalism although it was taboo to call0:03:00 it that0:03:00 at the time the our professors0:03:04 were professors of the cold war here in0:03:07 the united states0:03:08 where anything that sounded looked or0:03:11 had0:03:11 any vague resemblance to anything0:03:14 socialist0:03:15 marxist or anything like that was so0:03:18 taboo0:03:19 that even words like capitalism were not0:03:22 supposed to be used0:03:24 um and so i was always in a kind of0:03:27 struggle with my professors0:03:30 and what that did is shaped me it shaped0:03:32 me because i had to learn0:03:35 to be able to argue with them to be able0:03:38 to defend0:03:39 my critical perspective on what i was0:03:42 learning0:03:43 and i found a few other students like0:03:45 myself0:03:46 and we began what i did throughout my0:03:49 career0:03:50 studying on my own with a student or two0:03:53 or three with me0:03:54 um who had similar interests and then0:03:58 in a sense i had two parallel tracks0:04:01 the official appropriate economics0:04:05 mainstream economics microeconomics0:04:07 macro0:04:09 all of that i had to learn but on my own0:04:13 i learned to my great delight0:04:16 that there was a vast literature which i0:04:19 could access in the library0:04:21 of people who were critical of0:04:23 capitalism0:04:24 so that i could get in my classes all of0:04:27 the arguments0:04:29 for capitalism and then as i went to the0:04:32 library with my friends0:04:34 we could also read and think about0:04:37 a critical perspective which was totally0:04:41 absent and let me stress that which may0:04:43 interest your0:04:44 your audience i went to the what are0:04:48 usually considered the foremost0:04:50 universities in the united states0:04:52 i was an undergraduate at a place called0:04:55 harvard0:04:56 i then went to graduate school for a0:04:58 while at stanford in california0:05:00 and i finished and got my phd in0:05:03 economics0:05:03 at yale university so i'm like a poster0:05:07 boy for elite education here in the0:05:09 united states0:05:11 i spent 10 years of my life0:05:14 in the undergraduate and graduate0:05:16 learning program0:05:17 10 contiguous years that's 20 semesters0:05:21 two semesters per year during that time0:05:25 in 19 out of the 20 semesters0:05:28 i was not assigned to read0:05:31 one word critical of capitalism 19 of0:05:35 those semesters0:05:36 were studies in celebrating how0:05:39 efficient0:05:40 capitalism was how beautifully organized0:05:44 how equitable i kid you not even though0:05:47 we lived in a society0:05:49 where difference of income and wealth0:05:51 and power were obvious0:05:52 we were constantly told no no no this is0:05:56 the best system0:05:57 the human mind has been able to develop0:06:01 in one semester one professor0:06:04 in stanford california did give us0:06:07 a little bit of a critical perspective0:06:10 and i was grateful to him for doing that0:06:12 but it gives you an idea of how lopsided0:06:16 it was0:06:17 and and i hasten to add my teachers were0:06:20 good teachers it wasn't that0:06:22 they were terrified it was a disaster0:06:25 for them personally0:06:26 their careers would be badly affected0:06:29 if they were knowledgeable about if they0:06:32 talked about even if they weren't0:06:34 supportive0:06:35 of a critical perspective the very0:06:38 decision to put0:06:39 such things on a reading list would0:06:43 make others suspicious0:06:46 question them it was really a time0:06:49 even in the best universities of a0:06:53 intellectual conformity that is now0:06:57 hampering here in the united states any0:07:00 reasonable ability to deal with the0:07:01 crises that we face0:07:03 because nobody was trained to0:07:07 think about to analyze when capitalism0:07:11 breaks down0:07:12 which it is now doing so tell tell us0:07:15 about this diagnostic this critical0:07:17 perspective0:07:18 what exactly of the system here um needs0:07:22 to be outlined as0:07:23 fa a failure or what exactly did you see0:07:27 was going wrong with capitalism such0:07:29 that you develop this critical0:07:30 perspective in the first place0:07:32 good let me go backwards in time uh0:07:35 let me mention the two big failures that0:07:38 are now0:07:39 rapidly and i mean that and more so that0:07:42 at0:07:42 any point in my life and you can see0:07:46 from my hair that i'm not a young man0:07:48 i've been here a long time born in the0:07:50 united states i've lived all my life in0:07:52 the united states0:07:53 i can assure you that the criticism the0:07:56 critical attitude towards capitalism0:07:59 is greater right now as i'm speaking to0:08:01 you in the united states0:08:03 than at any point in the history of this0:08:06 country0:08:06 as so far as i have lived here um0:08:10 it's extraordinary and the two things0:08:12 that are right now0:08:14 fueling this criticism are0:08:18 the failure the failure to anticipate0:08:22 or to prepare for or0:08:25 to manage the economic crash0:08:28 of capitalism which begins in0:08:31 uh february of this year uh0:08:34 extraordinary producing0:08:36 tens of millions of unemployed people at0:08:40 this moment0:08:41 over 60 million that's a third of our0:08:43 labor force0:08:44 has had to apply for unemployment0:08:47 compensation0:08:49 at some point over the last eight or0:08:51 nine months0:08:52 with millions of them unemployed for the0:08:54 whole0:08:55 period of time uh that is spectacular as0:08:59 a crisis0:09:00 it makes this system as0:09:04 as poorly functioning as the last time0:09:07 something like this happened0:09:08 which was of the great depression of the0:09:10 1930s0:09:12 the second thing right now shaping0:09:15 anti-capitalism0:09:16 is the failure of the united states's0:09:19 kind of capitalism to prepare for0:09:23 or to manage the covet 190:09:27 pandemic we've just crossed 3000:09:30 000 dead americans to give you a0:09:33 perspective0:09:34 this pandemic in less than a year0:09:39 has killed more people than americans0:09:42 died in world war ii in other words this0:09:46 crisis of public health is a more0:09:49 devastating0:09:51 impact on this country than any war0:09:55 it has fought since the civil war0:09:59 which was in 1860 to give you an idea0:10:02 but even before the crisis of today0:10:05 of this year there were two things about0:10:10 capitalism at least here in the united0:10:12 states0:10:13 that began to develop a critical0:10:17 movement and momentum uh0:10:20 and it's very easy to describe the first0:10:23 one0:10:23 and probably the most important is0:10:27 inequality in other words the gap0:10:30 the difference between the richest at0:10:33 the top0:10:34 and the mass of people the united states0:10:39 you need to see it historically0:10:41 celebrated0:10:43 that in the 20th century at least0:10:46 in the 20th century after the great0:10:49 depression0:10:50 there was a compression of inequality0:10:54 to give you an example extreme0:10:56 inequality in the 1920s0:10:59 but with the crash in 19290:11:03 in the 1930s there was a massive0:11:06 movement from below0:11:08 the congress of industrial organizations0:11:11 was the greatest0:11:12 unionization movement in american0:11:15 history0:11:16 in the 1930s roughly from 1932 to 19380:11:21 roughly0:11:22 more people joined labor unions in0:11:25 america0:11:25 than had ever done it before and more0:11:28 joined than have ever done it since0:11:30 it is the high point of millions of0:11:33 americans who had never been in a labor0:11:36 union before0:11:37 deciding that with the collapse of0:11:39 capitalism in the 1930s0:11:41 their best chance as individuals as0:11:44 families0:11:45 as regions as communities was to join0:11:48 labor unions was fantastic at the same0:11:52 time0:11:53 there were even more radicalized people0:11:56 who joined0:11:57 two different socialist parties and a0:11:59 communist party0:12:01 and the two socialist parties and the0:12:03 communist party0:12:04 and the cio the labor movement all0:12:07 worked0:12:08 together and they went to the president0:12:10 of the united states at that time0:12:13 franklin roosevelt by name and they said0:12:16 to him0:12:16 by the way a centrist democrat0:12:20 rather like joseph biden in terms of0:12:23 his politics and they went to him and0:12:26 they basically said to him0:12:28 a straightforward story uh we0:12:31 represent 30 40 million people we have0:12:34 organized them into unions into0:12:36 political parties and we're telling you0:12:39 mr president very politely we're telling0:12:42 you0:12:43 you have to help the mass of people in0:12:46 this country0:12:47 get through this crash of capitalism0:12:50 if you do we will make you a hero0:12:54 and if you don't we will throw you out0:12:56 of office0:12:58 and mr roosevelt was a smart politician0:13:01 he understood that this coalition was0:13:05 called in those days0:13:06 the new deal coalition in the united0:13:08 states0:13:10 union socialists and communists could0:13:12 deliver0:13:13 on their threat it was not an empty0:13:15 threat0:13:16 and so he said to them okay we'll make a0:13:20 deal0:13:21 i will do for you and the mass of people0:13:24 what has never been done by a president0:13:27 in this country0:13:28 but in return i don't want to hear any0:13:31 more about revolution0:13:34 socialism none of that that's the deal0:13:37 and that deal was accepted and over the0:13:40 next few years0:13:41 the middle of the 1930s here's what was0:13:44 done0:13:45 and remember it's a crisis with millions0:13:48 of unemployed0:13:49 the government is bankrupt because the0:13:51 unemployed don't pay taxes0:13:53 businesses have collapsed in the midst0:13:56 of all of that0:13:57 the government created social security a0:14:00 pension program for every american0:14:03 when you reach age 65 the government0:14:05 gives you a check0:14:06 every month for the rest of your life0:14:08 that was created in the middle0:14:11 of the depression number two the first0:14:13 unemployment0:14:15 system at the federal level if you lose0:14:18 your job and by the way at that time0:14:20 there were tens of millions0:14:22 without work if you lose your job the0:14:24 government will give you a check0:14:26 for one half year or more0:14:30 simply because you are unemployed every0:14:32 week number three0:14:34 the first minimum wage so that employers0:14:37 could not pay0:14:38 below a living wage that would allow0:14:41 people0:14:41 to have a minimum decent life and number0:14:44 four0:14:45 a federal jobs program and here's what0:14:47 the president said0:14:49 if the private capitalist sector either0:14:52 cannot or will not employ millions of0:14:56 americans who only ask for a0:14:58 job than i as president said roosevelt0:15:02 i will and between 1934 and 19400:15:06 the federal government hired 150:15:09 million unemployed people and gave them0:15:12 a decent wage0:15:14 and if you ask as you should where did0:15:16 the money come to pay for0:15:18 all of this here's the answer0:15:22 roosevelt the democratic party in power0:15:26 taxed corporations and the rich0:15:29 heavily and also required0:15:32 loads from them to the government to pay0:15:35 for all of this0:15:36 so let me underscore it because in every0:15:39 part of the world0:15:40 this needs to be understood in the 1930s0:15:44 a massive program to help the poor0:15:48 to help the middle class survive0:15:51 and grow have jobs have incomes keep0:15:54 their homes0:15:55 all of it was done by the president0:15:59 was paid for by the corporations and the0:16:02 rich0:16:03 they weren't happy about it but they had0:16:05 to do it0:16:07 and the reward that mr roosevelt got0:16:10 was he was re-elected three times0:16:13 no other president in history of this0:16:16 country0:16:17 ever achieved that not before mr0:16:20 roosevelt0:16:21 and not since wow0:16:25 the lesson here the politician who does0:16:28 for the mass of people more than any0:16:32 other president0:16:33 is also the most popular president this0:16:36 country had0:16:37 and that is part of the consciousness0:16:41 even if you don't hear that story told0:16:43 well0:16:44 what this did was for the rest of the0:16:46 20th century make0:16:47 american capitalism u.s capitalism0:16:51 much less unequal than for example0:16:55 british or french or german or italian0:16:58 capitalism and the capitalists0:17:02 tried to make something good out of what0:17:04 was forced on them0:17:05 so we began to celebrate when i went to0:17:08 school0:17:08 isn't capitalism wonderful because we0:17:11 have a vast0:17:12 middle class yeah the irony is the vast0:17:16 middle class0:17:17 was created by labor unions socialists0:17:20 and communists in the middle of the0:17:22 great depression it wasn't the gift of0:17:25 capitalism0:17:26 it was forced on capitalists from below0:17:30 but nonetheless that was the ideology0:17:33 capitalism makes us all0:17:36 wealthy or at least middle-class0:17:39 comfortable0:17:40 our own home our own automobile0:17:44 all of that and when you do that in a0:17:47 society0:17:48 and you do it for decades as we did0:17:51 roughly from the 1940s right to the0:17:54 present0:17:55 if then you change that if suddenly you0:17:58 take away0:18:00 from the middle class what they won in0:18:03 the 1930s0:18:04 when you recreate the pre-19290:18:08 inequality of the united states which is0:18:11 what we've done in the last 25 years0:18:14 you produce rage0:18:17 anger bitterness as the mass of0:18:20 people find themselves further and0:18:24 further behind0:18:25 the mythology the so-called american0:18:28 dream0:18:29 of everybody having a kind of0:18:31 middle-class life0:18:33 that's not true for the mass of people0:18:35 and they're what here0:18:37 and they're watching that situation get0:18:39 worse0:18:40 and worse worse for them worse even for0:18:44 the prospects0:18:45 for their children and that's that0:18:48 inequality0:18:49 in our history is making people0:18:52 question the whole system in a way as i0:18:55 said0:18:56 i have never seen before the second and0:18:59 there's only two0:19:00 the second quality of capitalism0:19:03 that is now working together with this0:19:06 inequality to provoke system0:19:10 criticism is what i would call0:19:13 instability wherever capitalism has0:19:17 settled0:19:18 for the last 300 years all over the0:19:20 world0:19:22 you have an economic downturn0:19:26 on average every four to seven years0:19:29 you know and that's an average so0:19:31 sometimes it takes longer0:19:33 sometimes it takes less but on average0:19:35 for0:19:36 every four to seven years here's what0:19:38 happens0:19:39 suddenly sizeable numbers of people lose0:19:42 their jobs0:19:43 their skills haven't gone away the0:19:46 importance of what they do0:19:47 hasn't gone away the needs of the0:19:50 society for labor0:19:51 and its products hasn't gone away but0:19:54 your0:19:54 job went away and with it your income0:19:58 businesses have to cut back or they go0:20:00 out of business0:20:01 we have many words because this is so0:20:04 common0:20:05 recession depression bust0:20:08 crisis downturn collapse0:20:12 crash i mean lots of words because it is0:20:15 so0:20:16 ever present it means that your lifetime0:20:19 you0:20:20 and i being normally whatever it is 500:20:23 to 80 years0:20:24 we're going to experience quite a few of0:20:27 these0:20:27 which are going to interrupt our0:20:30 families our relationships our0:20:32 educations0:20:33 our jobs our regional locations0:20:36 it's extremely disruptive especially0:20:40 when the downturns are deep and0:20:42 long-lasting0:20:44 which the 1930s was and which today's is0:20:48 you put together the instability0:20:51 of this system and the inequality0:20:54 it is generating and you have two0:20:58 fundamental flaws of a system that make0:21:02 people ask the logical question0:21:06 if this system is so unstable and0:21:09 produces such0:21:10 inequality if on top of it it is0:21:13 un incapable of handling0:21:17 the preservation of public health in the0:21:19 face of a virus0:21:21 yeah well then why don't we consider0:21:24 another system i think that's a good0:21:26 question and i think a lot of people0:21:28 will0:21:28 will agree with large parts of your0:21:29 diagnostic there0:21:31 um i mean here's what i've understood0:21:33 from what you've said you've obviously0:21:34 used the example of the you know the0:21:36 wall street crash in the subsequent the0:21:37 great depression in the 30s as like the0:21:40 prime example of how this system0:21:42 malfunctions0:21:43 both in terms of stability and in terms0:21:45 of inequality and i think a lot of0:21:46 people will think0:21:47 well this is like you said this boom and0:21:49 bust is is a feature of capitalism and0:21:51 always has been a feature of capitalism0:21:54 but many people will also say well0:21:55 the alternative which maybe you may be0:21:57 alluding to0:21:59 if we're talking about an alternative0:22:00 which is in many ways0:22:02 antithetical to the capitalistic system0:22:04 things like communism marxism0:22:06 or strong forms of socialism0:22:09 those systems themselves have their own0:22:12 uh0:22:13 problems if you like you know they have0:22:15 their own issues um for example if0:22:17 we were to assume i'm not sure i'm not0:22:19 saying that this is your view because0:22:20 i'm not sure exactly what you0:22:21 your view is on this but if we were to0:22:23 assume that0:22:25 the government is going to now possess0:22:26 or take all the means of production for0:22:29 itself0:22:29 and now distribute in an egalitarian0:22:32 type of way the means of production0:22:34 and thus people will not have property0:22:36 rights or they will not have0:22:39 you know employment rights and so on and0:22:40 so forth then0:22:42 the issues that commonly asked or the0:22:44 questions are commonly asked0:22:45 with this type of system will be0:22:47 pronounced things like0:22:48 where is meritocracy uh in this kind of0:22:51 system or0:22:52 meritocracy would be something which is0:22:54 much de-emphasized in this kind of0:22:56 system0:22:56 a lazy person if you want to put it in0:22:58 colloquial terms can be0:22:59 rewarded for his laziness or her0:23:01 laziness it could be the case also that0:23:03 you have a transition to a kind of0:23:06 authoritarian system because now the0:23:08 government has0:23:09 all this means of production and many0:23:11 would use i'm not saying this is0:23:13 um you know the reason but many would0:23:14 use the examples of you know0:23:16 lenin and stalin and mao and so on and0:23:18 so forth as examples of0:23:20 you know where the opposite which is0:23:22 communist or marxist kinds of systems0:23:24 would also go wrong so having having0:23:27 said that in terms of0:23:28 um your diagnostic with capitalism0:23:32 what makes you confident about and if if0:23:34 you are indeed uh confident about this0:23:36 what makes you confident0:23:37 that a socialist or a marxist system uh0:23:40 or0:23:41 or some kind of uh left-leaning uh0:23:43 fiscally0:23:44 economic um system would be better than0:23:47 uh0:23:48 or not even better than it would be the0:23:49 solution0:23:51 well it's a very you know it's in what0:23:53 we call in this country the 640:23:55 000 question yeah it's the question that0:23:59 that's from a television show that asks0:24:01 who wants to be a millionaire yeah0:24:04 um it's very important question i'm glad0:24:06 you asked it let me respond0:24:08 if i can yes uh but before i do about0:24:10 meritocracy0:24:12 as i mentioned to you i am the product0:24:15 of the0:24:16 most elite schools this country has0:24:19 and i have benefited personally0:24:22 throughout my life0:24:23 from that fact whenever i because i'm a0:24:26 critic of capitalism because i do0:24:29 admit and i don't run away from having0:24:31 learned an enormous amount0:24:33 from the marxist tradition of criticism0:24:35 of capitalism0:24:36 and since i don't shy away from that i0:24:39 have been0:24:40 i've had to have problems in my life0:24:42 because of my political perspective0:24:45 and whenever i have i've waived my0:24:46 pedigree having gone to the right0:24:48 universities0:24:49 and usually the folks back away because0:24:51 they are intimidated0:24:53 by the pedigree and they leave me alone0:24:56 which is part of why0:24:57 i've been a professor in american0:25:00 universities i'm on television0:25:02 literally every day now et cetera et0:25:04 cetera0:25:06 why do i tell you this because0:25:08 meritocracy is a wonderful0:25:10 idea i'm sure it would be interesting0:25:13 to live in a society that works that way0:25:16 but i can0:25:17 assure you that the united states0:25:20 is not was not and is nowhere near0:25:23 being such a place uh and if0:25:26 if you think it is then i take my hat0:25:29 off to the0:25:30 public relations of people for having0:25:33 persuaded folks0:25:34 uh of such a thing i was surrounded at0:25:37 all of these institutions0:25:39 by young men and women some of whom were0:25:41 and still are my personal friends0:25:44 but merit is not what they had they had0:25:47 parents with money who got them into the0:25:49 right school at the right time0:25:51 who've carried them all their lives it's0:25:53 been a source of support for them0:25:56 which they've appreciated but it's also0:25:58 been a condemnation0:26:00 to ambivalence about learning uh about0:26:02 human relationships and i know this all0:26:05 from very close uh observation0:26:08 uh with these folks most of those of us0:26:12 who were0:26:12 quote unquote successful in these0:26:15 universities0:26:16 came from less well-off families0:26:19 who were able to get their kids like me0:26:21 my parents had no money at all into0:26:24 these0:26:24 institutions at the various moments when0:26:27 they were0:26:28 open uh to people who had some0:26:31 intellectual interests but no0:26:34 in this country the the honest statement0:26:38 is where you end up in in life is0:26:41 not dependent on what you know it's0:26:43 dependent0:26:44 on who you know and that is well well0:26:47 understood0:26:48 i don't know what a government-run0:26:50 systems0:26:52 arrangements would be my assumption not0:26:55 that different0:26:56 but in any case meritocracy is a0:26:59 wonderful idea0:27:00 i wish somebody would actually0:27:03 try to set that up but uh we haven't0:27:06 managed0:27:07 you've kind of alluded this i probably0:27:09 agree with you on on those comments uh0:27:11 or at least a large part of them0:27:12 but the the point i'm making here is0:27:15 that if you did have a communist system0:27:17 meritocracy or the idea of marriage i0:27:19 don't know0:27:20 yeah no no i am i understand let me get0:27:22 to that0:27:24 here's the way i would answer uh yes i0:27:27 am part of the left i am part of the0:27:29 socialist communist marxist whatever you0:27:31 want to call it0:27:33 uh left it's critical of capitalism but0:27:36 i'm also0:27:38 a product of the last century i have0:27:41 seen0:27:42 what happened in the soviet union or0:27:44 china or vietnam or cuba or any of the0:27:46 other0:27:47 societies that have tried in one way or0:27:49 another0:27:50 uh to depart from the capitalism that i0:27:53 grew up in and that i know0:27:54 best which is what we tend to call0:27:57 private capitalism0:27:58 in the sense that the largest part of0:28:00 the economy is privately owned and0:28:03 operated0:28:04 capitalist enterprises now from my0:28:08 learning i know that from the beginning0:28:11 of0:28:11 certainly of marxism marx dies in 18830:28:15 so for the last 150 years0:28:17 since he passed on there's been a0:28:20 tradition of0:28:21 using his thinking to criticize0:28:24 capitalism and then0:28:25 once the soviet union revolution happens0:28:28 to try to install it0:28:30 and i know and i hope you do that there0:28:33 have been0:28:34 long deep bitter disagreements0:28:38 debates alternatives within0:28:41 the marxian tradition as to what the0:28:44 words he wrote meant what the critique0:28:47 should be0:28:48 what the alternative might look like0:28:50 there isn't0:28:51 one there isn't the socialist response0:28:54 there never was0:28:55 there are socialist responses and one of0:28:58 the things folks like me0:29:00 and boy am i not alone here one of the0:29:03 things0:29:03 we've learned is that the alternative0:29:07 to the capitalism we are critics of0:29:10 is not to have the state come in0:29:13 and do it it is not to have the state0:29:17 take over industry for example0:29:20 neither by regulation sort of the0:29:22 european0:29:23 social system0:29:26 nor the soviet or chinese type where the0:29:29 government0:29:30 uh it's not true anymore in china but it0:29:32 was for a while0:29:33 that the government literally displaces0:29:36 the private0:29:38 capitalist and runs the businesses0:29:40 itself0:29:41 we see we see that that0:29:45 didn't do what our criticism of0:29:48 capitalism0:29:50 aims at achieving what it did do and0:29:54 that's a whole nother discussion0:29:55 is it replaced the private employer0:29:59 with the government as the ultimate0:30:02 employer0:30:03 and that's interesting that's a shift in0:30:05 our view0:30:06 from a private capitalism to a state0:30:11 run capitalism because for us0:30:14 and here marx is crucial the key thing0:30:17 about0:30:17 capitalism is the relationship0:30:20 between the two players in this system0:30:24 the employer and the employee0:30:28 in capitalism it's the employer0:30:31 who has all the power makes all the key0:30:34 decisions about every enterprise0:30:36 every factory every store every office0:30:39 a tiny group of people the owner uh the0:30:42 board of directors0:30:43 the major shareholders whatever they are0:30:46 tiny group of people0:30:47 make the decisions for the vast majority0:30:50 the0:30:51 employees and that's how the system0:30:54 works0:30:54 for us that's the problem and that's not0:30:58 solved if you get rid of the private0:31:01 citizen0:31:02 in the employer position and substitute0:31:05 for that0:31:05 a public official in the employer0:31:08 position0:31:09 which is largely what the soviet union0:31:12 for example0:31:13 did our view is that the problem0:31:16 is that relationship the employer0:31:19 employee0:31:20 relationship and that what needs to be0:31:22 done and what socialism0:31:24 means for us in the 21st century0:31:28 is the radical transformation of the0:31:31 enterprise0:31:32 so that it becomes not a hierarchical0:31:36 employer employee structure0:31:39 but instead a democratic0:31:43 community in which all the players0:31:46 whatever their function in the division0:31:49 of labor within the enterprise0:31:51 one person one vote they decide0:31:54 with debate discussion and majority rule0:31:58 what to produce what technology to use0:32:01 where to carry out the production and0:32:03 what to do0:32:04 with the profits that all of them0:32:06 together have helped to produce0:32:09 the democratization of the enterprise0:32:12 structure0:32:13 internal is what we think the future0:32:17 holds as a solution to both the problems0:32:21 of private capitalism with which we0:32:23 began our conversation today0:32:25 and the problems of the state capitalism0:32:29 that were the efforts of the last0:32:31 century to go beyond capitalism0:32:34 i believe those efforts are now0:32:35 exhausted we learned0:32:37 much much was accomplished many terrible0:32:40 mistakes were made0:32:42 we're ready for the next phase right so0:32:44 let me tell you i'll put my cards on the0:32:46 table as0:32:46 where where i kind of um my where my0:32:49 position is so obviously i'm coming from0:32:51 the islamic tradition0:32:52 um and and actually islam does have0:32:56 discussions on economics and obviously0:32:58 um uh zakat is one of the pillars of0:33:00 islam0:33:01 but um in terms of where we stand on0:33:03 this discussion uh0:33:04 or where i stand and maybe many will0:33:06 agree0:33:07 is yeah so the capitalism we don't agree0:33:09 with it but we also don't agree with0:33:11 communism0:33:11 um and so the reason why is because um0:33:15 in terms of capitalism you've talked0:33:16 about the inequality problem and you've0:33:17 talked about the instability problem0:33:19 for us um i really don't think that0:33:24 there is a push towards an equality of0:33:26 outcome from the islamic perspective0:33:28 in other words and the reason why we0:33:30 base we have this judgment or at least i0:33:32 have this judgment is because of a0:33:34 well-known saying of the prophet so0:33:36 basically some people came to the0:33:37 prophet muhammad and asked him0:33:39 um some people were raising the prices0:33:41 in a market okay so0:33:43 and so they asked him to basically lower0:33:45 the prices in which he responded he said0:33:47 that0:33:47 god is the one who sets the prices in0:33:49 other words i'm not going to get myself0:33:51 involved0:33:52 in setting lowering and increasing0:33:54 prices0:33:55 um so because because that's not really0:33:58 it's not my position and so from that0:34:01 there seems to be like a free market0:34:03 kind of understanding from the obviously0:34:05 demand and supply based but at the same0:34:07 time there's a redistribution0:34:08 understanding as well because of zakar0:34:09 tennis there's eight recipients of zakat0:34:11 or eight categories of recipients0:34:13 of them is um of the people who0:34:15 basically don't have money0:34:16 or the or the one who is impoverished0:34:20 or those who don't have enough to0:34:22 fulfill their basic needs and so on0:34:24 but it would seem to me that from from0:34:26 this perspective0:34:28 the economic inequality factor0:34:31 although is something which is not0:34:34 necessarily desirable it's not something0:34:36 which is seen as0:34:37 immoral from the islamic perspective so0:34:39 long as the basic needs of that0:34:40 individual is being met0:34:41 and in fact there is a verse in the0:34:43 quran to that effect which says0:34:51 that we have actually allowed some of0:34:52 you to exceed others0:34:54 in levels uh and then so so you can use0:34:58 or that they can they can use other0:35:00 people for employment purposes you can0:35:01 even0:35:02 i'm not sure that's employment would be0:35:04 the the right kind of translation but0:35:05 you could they can use them for their0:35:07 own advantage0:35:08 which seems to me to be exactly against0:35:11 what marx would say because obviously0:35:12 surplus value0:35:13 the idea that um you know the the the0:35:16 the0:35:17 the employer employee relationship is an0:35:19 exploitative one at its core basically0:35:21 this is my understanding of marxism0:35:22 that when you have this hierarchy the0:35:25 employer employee relationship0:35:26 then there's an exploitation going on by0:35:29 necessity almost0:35:30 because this is surplus value and so0:35:33 marxism for me seems to say well what we0:35:36 need to do is we need to kind of abolish0:35:37 this0:35:38 um so that the hierarchy is eliminated0:35:40 and it seems to be the assumption from0:35:42 uh from what i'm hearing from you0:35:44 is that the inequality is a bad thing in0:35:48 all cases0:35:49 um and so even when it comes to equality0:35:51 of outcome0:35:53 we want to achieve equality of outcome0:35:56 whereas what it seems to me from from0:35:57 doing of my tradition is that0:35:59 uh equality of outcome is not a0:36:01 desirable objective in fact0:36:03 um the burden of proof would be the upon0:36:05 the one who's making the claim so in0:36:07 other words if someone says0:36:08 equality of outcome is is a desirable0:36:11 objective0:36:12 that everyone should have the same kind0:36:13 of money or the same kind of uh0:36:15 uh you know resources and they shouldn't0:36:18 be this kind of0:36:18 hierarchical structure of employee0:36:20 employee and that is an exploitative one0:36:23 s core0:36:23 then the person is making this claim it0:36:25 seems to be a very0:36:26 epistemologically heavy claim with many0:36:29 assumptions0:36:30 would have to prove in the first0:36:32 instance uh instance that0:36:34 um that it is undesirable that is0:36:37 exploitation an objectively true0:36:38 exploitation0:36:39 number one and number two that would be0:36:41 desirable to have0:36:42 equality of outcomes so that it would0:36:44 seem before we could get to the point of0:36:46 saying we0:36:47 inequality is a bad thing which seems to0:36:48 be like a very0:36:50 like general wide thing to say two0:36:52 problems would have to be solved0:36:54 one of them is how do you know or how0:36:56 can you prove0:36:57 that equality of outcome when it comes0:36:59 to economics is a good thing0:37:02 and how can you prove that the employer0:37:04 employee relationship or surplus value0:37:06 whatever you want to call it0:37:07 is in fact an exploitative thing at all0:37:11 from an objective kind of perspective0:37:13 sure0:37:14 let me respond which i think i can um0:37:18 first a couple of points where we may0:37:21 disagree0:37:22 yeah um notice that i tried to stress0:37:25 that there are different interpretations0:37:27 of socialism and marxism and0:37:30 as with all you know great traditions0:37:33 of thinking there are disagreements and0:37:36 varieties of interpretation0:37:38 yeah from the little bit i know about0:37:40 islam it's true of that tradition too0:37:43 that there are differing perspectives on0:37:46 on how to read the quran how to0:37:48 interpret it and how to0:37:50 understand uh the writings and0:37:52 contributions0:37:54 of great thinkers in the islamic0:37:55 tradition etc etc0:37:57 um and i would guess that some of them0:38:00 are probably0:38:01 closer and some of them are further from0:38:03 the perspective within marxism0:38:06 that i've tried to argue number one0:38:08 number two0:38:09 i apologies for the telephone but it's0:38:12 uh0:38:14 um okay um0:38:17 number one number two uh let's be clear0:38:20 i did not advocate some kind of blanket0:38:23 equality neither of quote opportunity0:38:27 nor quote outcome that's not0:38:30 the issue the issue would be if0:38:33 if i make myself clear is that for0:38:36 example in an enterprise0:38:38 run democratically one of the decisions0:38:42 that would be made democratically0:38:45 is what range of difference0:38:49 among the people in an enterprise0:38:52 including difference in income or wage0:38:55 or salary or whatever words you want0:38:58 would be appropriate that that is a0:39:00 socially0:39:02 determined and should be democratically0:39:05 determined range of difference but there0:39:08 is no0:39:09 presumption or not none is needed in the0:39:12 argument i'm making0:39:13 that they would decide they might but0:39:16 there's no presumption0:39:17 that they would have to decide that0:39:19 everybody gets the same0:39:20 that right that's usually been i'm not0:39:23 saying you did this but usually0:39:25 that kind of image has been used as a0:39:27 bit of a0:39:28 uh a caricature in order to criticize0:39:31 the0:39:32 position that's not necessary but let me0:39:35 give you an example of why0:39:36 this is this idea is important0:39:40 over the last um eight months0:39:43 here in the united states as i said0:39:46 three hundred thousand people have died0:39:48 of the covet 190:39:51 and 60 a million a third of our labor0:39:54 force0:39:55 has had to go into unemployment during0:39:57 which0:39:58 whatever savings they have were used up0:40:01 uh0:40:01 during which they leaned on their family0:40:05 and relatives and friends and neighbors0:40:07 for help at a time when the friends and0:40:09 neighbors weren't able to help them or0:40:11 couldn't do much and so0:40:14 we've had a massive diminution0:40:18 in the standard of living of at least0:40:21 half our population at the same time0:40:25 i'm going to give you one example0:40:27 jeffrey bezos0:40:29 the owner and ceo0:40:33 of the um just escapes me right now0:40:37 amazon0:40:38 corporation i assume you know what that0:40:40 is um0:40:42 his fort his personal fortune went from0:40:45 roughly 130 billion dollars0:40:49 to over 200 billion0:40:53 dollars right if we took away0:40:57 180 billion dollars0:41:01 from this man we could0:41:04 he by the way that would leave him with0:41:06 20 billion0:41:07 and he would then be among the 1000:41:10 richest people0:41:11 in this country and in the world that0:41:14 180 billion0:41:16 could save the lives and transform0:41:20 the lives of tens of millions0:41:23 of his fellow citizens that's how0:41:26 capitalism now0:41:28 works this level of inequality0:41:31 is what this system produces just as it0:41:35 produces0:41:36 wealth at one pole uh say in western0:41:39 europe0:41:40 and poverty in africa etc etc i don't0:41:43 have to tell you that you know that0:41:44 better than i do but what gives us the0:41:46 right to take for example with that0:41:48 analogy what would give us the right to0:41:49 take 180 billion0:41:51 from that from that man like0:41:54 the moral imperative that a man who can0:41:58 continue to be0:41:59 among the richest in our community0:42:04 would enable by that movement of wealth0:42:08 to do something for the larger community0:42:11 that it has already done for him he's0:42:14 paying0:42:15 back the mass of people produced the0:42:18 surplus0:42:19 that gives him that income so that is0:42:21 that moral imperative0:42:23 premised or in some way uh predicated by0:42:26 the idea that0:42:27 that level of inequality should not0:42:30 exist0:42:30 within a society0:42:34 it may or may not that's that's really0:42:36 not relevant here0:42:37 what you have is a need and a desire0:42:42 on the part of i don't know i'll pick a0:42:44 number 30 million0:42:45 people who could be helped by this by0:42:48 doing this0:42:49 on the one hand and the desire of mr0:42:52 bezos0:42:53 not to have that money taken from him0:42:59 that's exactly parallel to the fact0:43:03 that there are i don't know two or three0:43:06 million people0:43:07 who work in amazon warehouses0:43:11 where they are driven like i've worked0:43:13 there driven like animals0:43:16 paid an absurdly low amount of money0:43:19 which brings them to work only because0:43:22 in this society0:43:24 if they didn't take that job they'd be0:43:27 in even worse circumstances so they0:43:30 take the job knowing that for every0:43:34 hour that they work for mr bezos0:43:38 they add to the services he sells0:43:41 more value than he pays them0:43:44 in a wage which is why he hires them he0:43:47 wouldn't hire them0:43:49 because that's how capitalism works you0:43:51 never hire a worker0:43:53 unless the worker produces more for you0:43:56 than it costs you0:43:57 to have him come monday through friday0:44:00 from nine to five0:44:01 so you are producing a surplus that0:44:04 enriches mr bezos at your expense0:44:09 yes well let me finish yes right now the0:44:12 question0:44:12 becomes what does mr bezos0:44:16 do for you and you know0:44:19 if mr bezos insists0:44:23 and if i were advising him i would tell0:44:24 him this yeah and by the way i am0:44:26 advising people like him and i do tell0:44:28 them what i'm about to tell you0:44:30 for a good long while you may get away0:44:33 with this0:44:35 but a time will come when you won't0:44:38 and how you act now will determine0:44:42 what happens to you when this imbalance0:44:46 is corrected all right0:44:49 there's a few things there that once0:44:51 again it kind of forces me back to the0:44:52 assumptions of the entire0:44:54 uh project right because once again we0:44:57 are assuming a few things we're assuming0:44:59 that0:45:00 um 180 million sorry billion dollars0:45:04 wouldn't would be0:45:05 justifiably taken away from him or and0:45:07 all that0:45:08 that level of inequality should not0:45:10 exist within0:45:12 uh society by the way that's fine i mean0:45:14 i i don't necessarily disagree with this0:45:16 sentiment there's0:45:17 a verse in the quran which says0:45:20 so it doesn't become a circulation among0:45:22 the rich among you so i'm not0:45:23 i'm not saying that i agree with0:45:25 capitalism or i agree with0:45:27 money being circulated among the the0:45:29 higher echelons of society but what i am0:45:30 saying is0:45:32 at what point do we say well you have so0:45:35 many ideals here you talked about0:45:36 democracy democracy is0:45:38 one political philosophy and then you've0:45:39 got liberalism which says0:45:41 that you know property should be0:45:42 protected and then you have marxism0:45:44 which talks about surplus value0:45:46 if we're in a society which claims to be0:45:48 liberal in the case of united kingdom uh0:45:50 sorry and the united states as well0:45:52 it claims to be liberal and it claims to0:45:53 also be democratic0:45:55 at what point do we prioritize a0:45:57 democratic kind of0:45:58 reasoning which in this case seems to be0:46:01 you know one vote one person everything0:46:02 everyone0:46:03 counts with a liberal principle which is0:46:06 that property should be protected0:46:08 um and if we do prioritize one over the0:46:11 other what allows us or gives us the0:46:12 oppo0:46:13 the right to hierarchize for example the0:46:16 right for one person to have0:46:17 uh as much as say as another person0:46:19 which is the democratic side0:46:21 over another which says that property0:46:22 should be protected and all wealth also0:46:24 should be0:46:25 protected which is the liberal ethic0:46:28 who is responsible for hierarchizing0:46:31 these0:46:31 uh ideals and coming to different0:46:34 conclusions as a result of it0:46:36 because if we say that what's that let0:46:39 me risk let me respond0:46:40 but otherwise otherwise you know you0:46:43 accumulate your points are all important0:46:45 it's not that it's0:46:46 too many for me to respond uh0:46:49 there is no answer to that question0:46:52 yeah history answers that question0:46:54 liberalism is the0:46:56 ideology of capitalism it says if the0:46:59 capital if i can hire you0:47:01 yes and i can rip you off by making you0:47:05 produce more value than i pay for you0:47:07 look i could show you it's easy to do in0:47:10 economics i could show you0:47:11 that by hiring let's pick someone john0:47:14 or mary it doesn't matter0:47:16 by hiring that individual i now have0:47:20 50 an hour more goods or services to0:47:25 sell as a club0:47:26 someone could say so what what's the0:47:27 problem with that yeah yeah let's let me0:47:29 let me do it okay so i i hire you0:47:33 i have fifty dollars more because your0:47:35 labor0:47:36 your use of your brains and your muscle0:47:40 added 50 worth of output0:47:43 that i can sell and i really appreciate0:47:47 your coming there0:47:48 and so i'm going to give you half of0:47:51 what you produce i'm going to give you0:47:54 25 an hour yeah in0:47:57 to show you my appreciation for your0:48:00 giving me0:48:01 50 worth of output0:48:04 your labor okay so i'm i'm0:48:07 really happy because i'm getting 500:48:10 and in exchange i'm giving you 25.0:48:15 and the only and your answer to me would0:48:17 then be0:48:18 uh wait a minute it's my effort0:48:21 my brains my muscle those are finite0:48:24 resources0:48:26 i my labor produces 50 i don't want0:48:30 to be given 25 because i did the work0:48:34 you didn't i did so i want0:48:38 the full value of what i have added0:48:42 to this enterprise's output0:48:45 and you say to me sorry0:48:48 25 is all you get and i know that that's0:48:52 going to work0:48:53 because i know that if you don't take0:48:55 this job0:48:56 the next job you can get will give you0:48:58 24.0:49:00 so you're talking about really this is0:49:02 surplus value you're you're talking to0:49:04 absolutely yeah absolutely and so i just0:49:06 want you to understand from that0:49:08 perspective0:49:10 what mr bezos is accumulating0:49:14 is the surplus that he squeezes0:49:18 out of millions of employees0:49:21 in this way he's like a pharaoh in0:49:24 ancient0:49:25 egypt or something with you know 100:49:27 million slaves or whatever the0:49:29 equivalent would be0:49:30 and so he can build the pyramid and he0:49:32 can live the way they did et cetera et0:49:34 cetera0:49:35 there is there is one there is one i0:49:38 would say0:49:38 one major difference between the two uh0:49:41 the major difference would be that0:49:43 in the case of the the pharaoh uh or0:49:45 ramses or ramses ii0:49:47 uh if you want to take the biblical0:49:48 historian seriously on that you know0:49:50 whoever it may be that's0:49:52 enslaving populations in the ancient0:49:55 time0:49:56 with um with the owner of amazon0:49:59 the the employer the employees have a0:50:02 choice they can either get into that0:50:04 contract or they don't or they don't0:50:05 have to get into that contract0:50:06 whereas within in a in a purely slave0:50:09 type relationship0:50:10 the choice is not there in the first0:50:12 place there's no choice at all the ieo0:50:14 you it's either you're going to be my0:50:15 slave or you're going to be my slave0:50:17 there's no third option to that0:50:19 but with that one you can either be0:50:21 employed with that surplus0:50:24 in place or you don't have to be0:50:26 employed with that surplus in place0:50:28 and then and then what happens to you0:50:30 what happens to you you can you have a0:50:32 you have an opportunity to be to be the0:50:34 one who's uh setting up the surpluses or0:50:37 being the beneficiary of it by being an0:50:38 employer yourself0:50:40 and or wait wait a minute the only way0:50:43 you can do that is if you have0:50:44 capital which is what workers don't have0:50:46 i don't think that's always true like0:50:48 especially not in today's um society0:50:50 where you can there's some start-up0:50:51 businesses and0:50:52 so on that you can start with literally0:50:54 no capital whatsoever you can start off0:50:56 with an account on0:50:57 um in the internet and you can start0:50:58 making money from the beginning or you0:51:00 can have very limited capital and then0:51:02 literally just between do you actually0:51:05 believe that what you just said really i0:51:08 think there are many examples of0:51:10 companies0:51:10 if you look if you look at them that0:51:12 started with very limited capital but0:51:14 then0:51:15 uh continue to be businesses grow but0:51:18 that's a different argument0:51:20 yeah yeah people who start businesses0:51:22 with no capital0:51:24 but we're talking about no capital the0:51:25 person's impoverished the person's not0:51:27 in a position of0:51:27 any he doesn't matter the vast majority0:51:31 of americans0:51:32 the vast majority of americans not only0:51:35 have no0:51:36 capital but they have negative net worth0:51:39 that is the debts they have exceed0:51:43 their assets they have no capital and0:51:46 because they have no capital0:51:48 they can't get access to other people's0:51:51 capital0:51:51 either yeah so that i would agree with0:51:53 you i don't think there should be an0:51:54 economy or in a society where0:51:55 there's people with debt and in fact one0:51:57 of the one of the recipients0:51:59 yeah one of the recipients like from my0:52:01 perspective the religious perspective0:52:03 one of the recipients of zakat would be0:52:05 an indebted person0:52:06 so someone who does who has what you've0:52:08 just described is uh0:52:09 that's what i do well wait a minute then0:52:11 you're agreeing with me because that's0:52:12 at this point yeah on the on this planet0:52:15 we would take from mr bezos0:52:17 his 180 billion or if i had my way0:52:20 much more than that but we would make0:52:21 100 well i could compromise0:52:23 i could compromise we take 180 billion0:52:26 and we transfer it so that for example0:52:30 we eliminate yes just to be clear i'm0:52:33 not saying that we should not have a0:52:34 robust system of redistribution in an0:52:36 economy i'm saying that we should have0:52:37 it0:52:38 um i i think the 180 billion is we're0:52:41 talking about0:52:42 you know 99 tax0:52:45 over the last 40 years i could show you0:52:47 if you were interested no no no with0:52:49 that no with this point the sentiment0:52:50 i agree with yeah and over the last 400:52:53 years we have had0:52:55 a massive redistribution of wealth0:52:59 here in the united states we have had0:53:01 the undoing0:53:02 of the new deal we have erased0:53:05 everything that was accomplished in the0:53:07 1930s0:53:08 and more so now with that kind of thing0:53:10 we don't agree with yes so i would0:53:19 is very nice but what we needed was0:53:22 social movement to prevent that from0:53:25 happening0:53:26 and because it didn't you are now0:53:30 seeing as i'm sure you will a movement0:53:33 against capitalism because0:53:37 of the inequality that it continues0:53:41 even you know we have our politician0:53:44 think of it this way look at the0:53:46 spectacle politicians0:53:48 left and right democrat republican i'm0:53:50 talking0:53:51 the us here of course but it's similar0:53:53 in other countries and the politicians0:53:55 telling us we0:53:56 all have to work together to get through0:54:00 this pandemic to get through this um0:54:03 health crisis that the world faces0:54:07 meanwhile we're all together fighting0:54:09 this thing0:54:10 that is if you pardon me bs that's0:54:14 nonsense because what's underlying that0:54:16 is a continuation0:54:19 of a really radical redistribution0:54:23 of wealth by a system that is not0:54:26 only failing to deal with the public0:54:29 health crisis0:54:31 but continues having been0:54:34 already the most unequal capitalism in0:54:37 the world0:54:38 to become more so yes this is not agreed0:54:41 agreed now i i i think the diagnostic0:54:43 here0:54:44 yes i think what happens when systems0:54:46 are about0:54:47 to crash i think that point is is0:54:49 definitely true i think when you're0:54:50 talking about0:54:52 i guess how i would answer that question0:54:54 from within my own tradition i would say0:54:55 that0:54:56 the it's not about inequality being0:54:59 completely undesirable it's about the0:55:00 extent to which inequality is0:55:02 undesirable and i think the extent to0:55:05 which on0:55:05 inequality is undesirable from my own0:55:07 tradition is where it leads to people0:55:09 being indebted in the minuses as you've0:55:11 just mentioned0:55:12 and or it leads to people not having0:55:13 housing or it leads to people not having0:55:15 access to medical treatment or the0:55:16 basics and with that there should be a0:55:19 robust system of redistribution0:55:21 and so on that we do agree although0:55:23 probably would have different0:55:24 prescriptions i mean0:55:25 if we were you know in charge or so on0:55:28 but here's something i would0:55:29 want to um ask you i mean this is0:55:31 probably one of the defining features of0:55:33 the islamic system in terms of economics0:55:35 is the eradication of interest0:55:37 completely0:55:38 yeah so that is probably one of the most0:55:40 dramatic things0:55:41 which any capitalist would be completely0:55:44 against0:55:45 but this aspect of river or usury or0:55:48 interest0:55:49 um how would you think i'm just kind of0:55:52 getting from your experience how do you0:55:53 think an economy would0:55:55 or what would you think an economy would0:55:56 look like if we0:55:58 slowly but surely got rid of interest0:56:00 would you think it would0:56:01 flatten the boom and bust that you were0:56:03 talking about in the beginning of the0:56:04 segment were you talking about four to0:56:05 seven years0:56:06 of boom and bust do you reckon that0:56:09 economic depressions will be0:56:11 less uh pronounced and0:56:14 at the same time booms will be also0:56:16 flattened out a little bit0:56:18 what do you think um would happen if0:56:21 banks were told0:56:22 they can't charge interest rates or even0:56:24 all governments and all banks as well0:56:28 well you know again it's one of these uh0:56:30 decisions0:56:31 it's like any other market i mean i look0:56:33 at interest as0:56:35 there's a market in money and if you0:56:37 want to borrow money0:56:38 under the current situation uh you can0:56:41 do that0:56:42 if you have collateral and if you pay0:56:44 interest0:56:45 i'm fully aware that both in the islamic0:56:48 tradition and for that matter0:56:49 also in the in the christian tradition0:56:52 there are long periods of time middle0:56:54 ages0:56:54 in europe for example when there was the0:56:57 roman catholic church was dominant0:56:59 and it prohibited what it called usury0:57:02 which is basically0:57:03 the charging of interest and it comes0:57:05 out of a biblical tradition0:57:07 which says that if another person needs0:57:10 your help0:57:11 your job as a good christian is to give0:57:14 that person help0:57:16 and it is not helpful to demand more0:57:19 back from the person you're helping0:57:21 than you gave them that undercuts and0:57:24 destroys the whole notion0:57:25 of charity and of giving alms and being0:57:28 a good christian0:57:29 blah blah all of that uh i understand0:57:32 that i think0:57:33 by the way in the history of capitalism0:57:36 there have been movements0:57:38 there are today either to eliminate0:57:41 interest or to radically control0:57:44 interest for example among the 50 states0:57:47 here in the united states0:57:48 there's quite a bit of difference you0:57:50 cannot charge certain levels of interest0:57:53 in some states that you can charge in0:57:56 others0:57:56 because there have been social movements0:57:59 that either0:58:00 asked to eliminate interest or0:58:03 to control it then there are for example0:58:05 movements quite strong among students0:58:08 in the united states saying that they0:58:10 shouldn't be0:58:11 charged interest for the loans required0:58:14 nowadays to to get a college degree in0:58:17 the united states and that0:58:18 the uh the debt that they've accumulated0:58:21 should0:58:22 be canceled either the interest portion0:58:24 of it or even the principal0:58:26 portion of it etc etc etc0:58:29 so it's a contentious issue i don't0:58:32 think capitalism0:58:33 hangs on it one way or another there0:58:35 could be alternative ways of allocating0:58:38 capital0:58:39 other than using the interest rate uh0:58:42 for me this is the usual question of the0:58:44 market and by the way0:58:46 i'm not familiar enough with islam to be0:58:48 sure but i know in the0:58:50 christian tradition and i'm no christian0:58:51 either but in the christian tradition0:58:55 there's an equivalent uh notion that not0:58:58 only should there be no0:58:59 interest but that there should the price0:59:02 of everything0:59:03 and this may disagree with your0:59:04 quotation from muhammad0:59:07 from earlier in the christian tradition0:59:10 there's a so-called just price0:59:13 just the price of justice with the0:59:16 justice being derived0:59:18 from the bible that something should be0:59:21 priced by the way the the the the0:59:24 literature suggests0:59:25 that what is just is that the price0:59:28 should reflect0:59:29 the toil and trouble of the worker who0:59:32 produces the0:59:33 object yeah marx will say that would0:59:34 never be the case right0:59:36 excuse me mark marks with integer would0:59:39 would say that0:59:40 that would never be the case by virtue0:59:41 of the hierarchy in the first place0:59:43 well it's not so much hierarchy it's0:59:45 that the system as a whole0:59:47 cannot doesn't function that way but but0:59:50 by the way marx is as i understand very0:59:53 clear0:59:53 that the notion of surplus is not what0:59:56 you referred to earlier as quote-unquote1:00:00 an objective or something that has a1:00:03 standard1:00:04 that makes it truer than something else1:00:07 that's what human beings do they1:00:08 disagree about how the world works what1:00:11 a marxist does1:00:12 as far as i understand it is use the1:00:15 theory of surplus and value1:00:17 that comes out of marx who in turn1:00:21 got that idea from smith and ricardo and1:00:23 the people that preceded him1:00:26 this is one way of understanding how the1:00:28 world works1:00:29 it's not the only one yeah it is always1:00:32 in debate with1:00:33 alternatives uh both within the marxian1:00:36 tradition and outside of just to ask you1:00:38 on that1:00:39 wouldn't you say though because they the1:00:40 marxism is largely based on historical1:00:43 materialism1:00:44 um that there is a kind of push1:00:48 towards making this as objective as1:00:50 possible1:00:51 um no no no no no that is a1:00:54 for me again i am i am not speaking for1:00:57 all marxists1:00:59 but in my understanding of marxism he1:01:02 is a student of hegel his teacher in1:01:05 germany1:01:06 and that he made that very clear uh1:01:09 and for him the human community1:01:13 is a group of people who interact with1:01:17 the world1:01:18 in different ways they dress differently1:01:21 they1:01:21 sing differently they eat in a different1:01:24 way1:01:25 and they think in a different way yeah1:01:27 and if i asked you the question1:01:29 which is the right way to eat with a1:01:32 knife and fork1:01:33 with your fingers with chopsticks you'd1:01:36 react1:01:36 i hope and say to me that's a silly1:01:39 question there isn't a1:01:40 right way to eat there are culturally1:01:42 historically developed1:01:44 alternative ways human beings nourish1:01:47 themselves with food1:01:49 and i would say yes agreed and there are1:01:52 also different ways they make sense of1:01:54 the world1:01:55 the marxist way i understand uses the1:01:58 apparatus1:02:00 of surplus to understand the world1:02:03 and that shapes the political1:02:05 conclusions we come to1:02:06 but i'm clear that other people have1:02:09 alternative theoretical frameworks1:02:12 and that's why my sense is that it's1:02:15 history it's the struggle1:02:17 amongst these alternatives that1:02:19 determines1:02:21 in the context of our historical1:02:23 situation1:02:24 which of these perspectives grow thrive1:02:27 and shape the world1:02:28 and which of them past sort of like1:02:31 human beings they are born evolve over1:02:34 time and die and this is pretty much1:02:36 what happens to these ways of thinking1:02:39 and my discussion of capitalism was1:02:41 designed to make the point1:02:43 that what's happening in the larger1:02:45 framework1:02:46 is giving a boost to the marxian1:02:49 criticism of capitalism at a depth and1:02:53 on a scale1:02:54 i had never seen in the history of the1:02:57 united states1:02:58 certainly not in my lifetime but in1:03:00 nothing that i've read1:03:02 about that history either by the way1:03:05 just to um uh comment on something there1:03:07 is such a thing as a kind of just1:03:08 price as well in the islamic tradition1:03:10 in the 83rd chapter of the quran there1:03:11 is1:03:14 i don't know enough but yeah but1:03:16 exploitation is1:03:17 is not it's once again it's not the same1:03:20 as you know a marxian1:03:21 um surplus understanding where there's1:03:24 uh1:03:24 where there is this exploitation going1:03:26 on because of because of the by virtue1:03:27 of the system or whatever you want to1:03:29 put it but1:03:29 going back to this question of1:03:31 materialism uh for me1:03:33 like when you use historical materialism1:03:35 it seemed like a push to be1:03:36 scientific in a sense but there is going1:03:39 to be a point1:03:40 where you move from is to all1:03:43 uh to use kind of like a david humeian1:03:45 um1:03:46 dichotomy or um distinction so th1:03:49 this is how the world worked or this is1:03:52 the history of the world1:03:53 there was you know feudalism or slavery1:03:55 and feudalism and capitalism1:03:57 and then there's going to be communism1:03:58 this kind of meta-narrative if you like1:04:01 this is how it was but now this is how1:04:03 it ought to be this is where it becomes1:04:05 moralizing this course what becomes1:04:07 um a philosophizing discourse where1:04:09 you're putting your own1:04:10 um kind of uh morality into it and this1:04:14 is defined as exploitation this is1:04:15 defined as1:04:16 just and this is defined as what should1:04:18 happen or what ought to happen1:04:20 um and there is where i would and there1:04:23 is why i think1:04:24 the discussion is really the base of um1:04:28 of marxism has to be premised with1:04:29 something as solid as possible and i1:04:31 think1:04:31 i really do think marx attempted to do1:04:34 that1:04:35 but from the is to the ought is where we1:04:38 have1:04:38 a problem or where we have an issue1:04:41 in terms of um really proving1:04:44 that that is what exploitation is in any1:04:47 objective way1:04:48 but if someone says well subjective well1:04:52 the movement from okay this is what1:04:53 happened to this is what ought to happen1:04:56 um then becomes a matter of public1:04:58 opinion then really1:04:59 we can't say that uh minimum wage should1:05:02 be set at this1:05:03 price or that price it then it becomes a1:05:05 matter of what are you using chopsticks1:05:06 and i'm using a knife and fork1:05:08 it becomes really a matter of aesthetic1:05:11 value judgment really1:05:12 at this point yeah well here perhaps you1:05:15 and i disagree1:05:16 uh in my experience as best i can make1:05:19 sense of the world around me1:05:21 um every single person you me and1:05:24 everybody else who might be drawn into1:05:26 this conversation1:05:27 has a set of oughts right if you1:05:31 are various words for this you know has1:05:33 utopian desires1:05:35 has dreams of a of a better world1:05:40 is drawn for example to religion as a1:05:43 place1:05:44 where uh a better world or a set of1:05:47 oughts is articulated that you vibrate1:05:50 too that means something to you that1:05:52 that you embrace in some sense we all1:05:54 have that that's right number one1:05:57 we differ about them but we all have1:06:00 these1:06:00 desires um especially those1:06:04 who suggest that they don't have it they1:06:06 for them the problem is they have it1:06:08 but they need to deny it's a little bit1:06:10 like what what we've learned from1:06:12 psychology over the last hundred years1:06:14 yes and i'm also this just my1:06:17 perspective persuasion i'm also1:06:19 persuaded1:06:20 that for everybody you me and everybody1:06:22 else1:06:23 the oughts we have are part of our1:06:26 mental apparatus1:06:28 and shape the quote unquote objective1:06:31 reality1:06:33 we try to grasp in other words we don't1:06:36 have some1:06:37 wall between the desires the hopes the1:06:40 dreams1:06:41 the utopian longings on the one hand1:06:44 and the analytic apparatus we deploy1:06:47 on the other i i find the notion that1:06:50 one of them1:06:51 is quote-unquote subjective and the1:06:54 other one1:06:55 objective to be fundamentally1:06:58 nonsense your your ability1:07:02 to formulate a utopian dream1:07:05 is as objectively determined as1:07:08 everything else1:07:09 that is it's a product of the whole1:07:11 world you live in1:07:13 the the minister the imam their parents1:07:16 your so your your loved ones all of1:07:19 those things your political experience1:07:21 your job1:07:22 they shape both your analytic1:07:26 capability and your utopian longings1:07:30 which shape each other in the process as1:07:32 well1:07:33 and i find the so-called distinction1:07:36 subjective1:07:37 objective useless unless it means1:07:41 and then it becomes trivial subjective1:07:43 is you alone1:07:45 and objective is the largest society1:07:48 but that's just a collection of1:07:50 solutions in the sense that like for1:07:52 example if1:07:53 science works in a very systematic way1:07:56 and obviously social science is an1:07:58 attempt to mimic it in many ways1:08:00 but if if so if science worked in the1:08:03 way1:08:03 that you've just described then it would1:08:05 be very difficult to establish anything1:08:07 because1:08:08 if you go into the laboratory but no it1:08:11 does1:08:12 physical or natural science chemistry1:08:14 biology1:08:15 mathematic it is exactly what i just1:08:18 said that's how it is1:08:20 it is proposition look people1:08:23 right now are debating whether the world1:08:25 is best understood1:08:27 as an energy flow or as a1:08:30 set of particles uh and there's a1:08:33 distinction between1:08:34 quanta of one or the other and they1:08:37 can't agree1:08:38 literally on what matter is no i accept1:08:41 that what i mean is that1:08:42 for example we have controlled1:08:44 conditions that all of us can when we1:08:46 speak in the1:08:46 in the language of mathematics we're all1:08:48 speaking in exactly the same language1:08:50 so when we oh no but really sir in all1:08:52 the respect1:08:53 yeah i'm a mathematician before i became1:08:56 an economist tell me why1:08:58 you have radically different ways of1:09:00 understanding1:09:01 what a number is what a field1:09:04 is what a set is1:09:07 what words like large or small1:09:10 or infinity or any other basic1:09:13 mathematical1:09:15 uh concept is an object of1:09:18 debate and by the way it's very1:09:20 important1:09:21 to grasp that otherwise you become1:09:25 fixated on something as permanent1:09:29 when nothing is i get that and i've also1:09:32 read godel in terms of incompleteness1:09:34 theory and and really have uh1:09:36 i understand where you're coming from in1:09:37 terms of the axioms of science1:09:40 is heisenberg that when whatever you1:09:43 think1:09:43 is going on in the physical universe1:09:46 is shaped by how you think of1:09:50 the that universe how you constructed1:09:53 the microscope the telescope or any1:09:56 other tool you use1:09:58 has already in it the theory at the time1:10:01 that1:10:02 object was created but would you now use1:10:04 it would1:10:05 would you agree that there's more of a1:10:06 symbiotic type of relationship between1:10:08 actors that in a sense this cantier1:10:11 notion that we are the ones who are kind1:10:13 of1:10:13 projecting the reality onto the world1:10:16 rather than the reality being extra1:10:18 extracted from the world um for me1:10:21 it's always both yes1:10:25 the world shapes us including1:10:28 how we understand that the world is so1:10:31 there's a symbiosis1:10:33 how we understand the world shapes the1:10:35 world1:10:36 right how the world is shapes our1:10:39 understanding1:10:40 of it but we're speaking english1:10:41 together now and we're using1:10:43 um sentences right and so if we didn't1:10:45 have the same understanding of1:10:47 what in a sense a noun is or maybe not1:10:49 in a grammatical sense but at least1:10:50 in a conversational sense we would not1:10:52 we wouldn't be able to have this1:10:53 conversation so there's there are some1:10:55 basic buildings1:10:58 i've done this work i don't agree with1:11:00 that i don't believe that you and i1:11:02 when we use the word noun in a sentence1:11:05 talking to each other1:11:07 we have a convention you and i it's1:11:10 because of our histories our1:11:12 cultural developments you and i are1:11:14 having a conversation and we are using1:11:17 words1:11:18 the same words let's call it the word1:11:20 noun for example1:11:21 but i don't infer from that at all1:11:24 that we have the same meaning for that1:11:26 word we're just agreeing1:11:29 not to worry about that now there will1:11:32 come a time if you and i continue this1:11:34 conversation1:11:35 if we develop it if we apply it if we1:11:38 see merit1:11:39 in in continuing we will come at a1:11:42 certain point1:11:43 and to realize you and i both that we1:11:46 meant something else than we1:11:50 thought the other one meant yeah when we1:11:53 use that word there's always going to be1:11:54 like a an interpretive scope in terms of1:11:57 language but right1:11:58 so but then but then again the language1:12:02 is meaningful by definition1:12:04 right otherwise it's not the same1:12:06 meaning yeah it's not the same obviously1:12:08 otherwise we wouldn't be able to have1:12:09 this conversation what1:12:11 otherwise this conversation would be um1:12:14 like jibber-jabber we wouldn't be able1:12:15 to have a comment if there were if1:12:16 language1:12:17 that's that's an extreme either it's not1:12:19 either right yeah1:12:21 we're we're deriving meanings which is1:12:24 why we're doing this you thought there1:12:26 would be some meaning1:12:27 in talking to me and i thought the same1:12:30 visibly talking to you1:12:31 yeah i feel that way now i'm i find this1:12:33 interesting1:12:35 but i have no illusion because that's1:12:37 what i think it would be1:12:39 that you and i don't have all kinds of1:12:42 issues already lurking1:12:45 in the sentences we have given each1:12:47 other but that haven't yet risen to the1:12:50 point that you and i want to talk about1:12:52 them1:12:53 uh just like we went for quite a while1:12:55 before we got to this epistemological1:12:57 question i think conversation happens1:13:00 all the time between1:13:01 people who do not agree what the meaning1:13:04 is of the words they're using1:13:06 but get other kinds of benefits1:13:10 out of the interaction i think for1:13:12 example that i will be1:13:14 provoked in ways i can't even specify1:13:17 yet1:13:18 by yuri telling me um1:13:21 in passing that the islamic tradition1:13:24 also has a kind of uh just price1:13:27 kind of idea that's interesting i'm1:13:29 gonna that's gonna stay in the back of1:13:31 my mind i don't know exactly1:13:33 when i will pursue it or how i will1:13:36 pursue it1:13:37 but it has a meaning to me and at some1:13:40 point i'll figure that out and if you1:13:42 and i are talking1:13:43 we will laugh with one another that what1:13:46 you1:13:46 meant and what i got were not the same1:13:49 and that's not aberrational it doesn't1:13:53 have to be the same for us to get value1:13:55 out of conversation1:13:56 it never was if i can give you the1:13:59 example1:14:00 that i use when i teach when young1:14:02 people get together and find themselves1:14:05 attracted to one another and they say1:14:09 you are my friend or uh you are my1:14:13 uh beloved it turns out1:14:16 it takes quite a while for the two of1:14:18 them to figure out what1:14:19 each of them meant when they used such1:14:22 words with one1:14:23 so sometimes people can speak cross1:14:25 purposes right that's that's basically1:14:27 the people1:14:27 again you're polarizing i don't mean1:14:30 it's not1:14:30 it's not cross purposes it's just1:14:32 different it takes1:14:34 time to work out the differences and1:14:36 here's the irony1:14:38 very regalia as you work out the1:14:41 differences1:14:42 over one word you produce new1:14:45 differences1:14:46 in the very words you use it never stops1:14:50 but that doesn't mean there isn't1:14:51 communication right1:14:53 communication and identity1:14:56 are not the same never but you see this1:14:59 is a very important thing because when1:15:01 when you use the term so now we've1:15:03 talked about it in the context of1:15:04 language but now1:15:05 when we kind of apply this to the meta1:15:07 ethic if you like1:15:08 when you use the term exploitation um1:15:12 and for example if we use it in a1:15:14 marxian way and we say1:15:15 surplus value for example exploitation1:15:17 or these key terms associated with1:15:19 marxist philosophy1:15:21 if it's not meant to be understood1:15:24 by a collective at least then it becomes1:15:27 impossible to act upon the content1:15:31 material because1:15:32 if if what we're saying is that everyone1:15:34 can understand exploitation whatever way1:15:35 they want to1:15:36 or everyone can understand surplus value1:15:38 in whatever way they please1:15:40 then there will not be a an impetus or1:15:42 even1:15:43 an ability for a collective to come and1:15:46 say well let's do what you know a1:15:48 communist revolution or let's do this1:15:50 because in that1:15:51 in that setting everyone's got different1:15:53 ideas and there is no measurement of1:15:55 exploitation1:15:56 exploitation becomes an arbitrary ad hoc1:15:58 figment1:15:59 of the subject's um interpretation1:16:03 i know but you keep looking for1:16:04 something beyond that1:16:06 look when i go and i talk to people1:16:08 about the surplus here's what i'm hoping1:16:10 for1:16:11 yeah that the very complicated1:16:13 differences1:16:15 among all the people in a room students1:16:18 workers whatever is gathered however big1:16:21 or small the collective may be1:16:23 five people five thousand people and i i1:16:26 address groups of all different sizes1:16:28 and we don't now because of covet but we1:16:30 used to um1:16:33 my hope is that these words these this1:16:36 theory of the surplus as i articulated1:16:39 yeah1:16:40 touches them means something to them1:16:43 do i understand that they are all going1:16:45 to have to agree with mommy1:16:46 absolutely not that's not going to1:16:49 happen1:16:49 i don't think that ever happened i think1:16:52 every social movement1:16:53 is a collection of a large number of1:16:56 people with1:16:57 very different ideas but who1:17:00 all understand that they1:17:03 need one another and they're going to1:17:07 work out1:17:08 or maybe suspend for a while their1:17:11 disagreements or their differences1:17:13 because they have something else in1:17:15 addition to those that they want to1:17:17 accomplish1:17:18 and they understand they can't do that1:17:21 individually1:17:22 they have to do that collectively and i1:17:25 i argue that's what we're doing and this1:17:28 theory that i'm about to explain is a1:17:31 way for1:17:32 us to achieve this outcome1:17:36 which this collective has an interest1:17:39 in pursuing and i hope that works1:17:42 because1:17:43 that's all theory ever was1:17:47 so let me ask you one of the pre um kind1:17:49 of last questions i'm going to ask you1:17:50 because it's been a pleasure really1:17:52 speaking to you and i by the way i1:17:55 appreciate1:17:56 that your interests were not just what1:17:58 usually1:17:59 passes for economics but went into1:18:01 philosophy and epistemology1:18:03 and if that's part of your your islamic1:18:06 commitment1:18:07 my hat's off to you that makes a much1:18:09 better conversation no for real i mean1:18:11 it's it's1:18:12 it's very it's a very productive1:18:13 conversation for me obviously speaking1:18:14 to someone of your eminence one of the1:18:16 most influential1:18:17 really professors of uh who's seen as uh1:18:19 a marxist i'm not sure if you1:18:20 describe yourself as such uh but it's1:18:22 been it's a learning experience1:18:24 i don't but i'm happy if you do no1:18:26 problem1:18:27 what i was going to say is that in terms1:18:29 of1:18:31 a robust theory of justice because a lot1:18:32 of the underpinning of this1:18:34 is about justice and injustice obviously1:18:36 yes um1:18:37 my question to you is very1:18:40 straightforward do you ever think1:18:42 that justice can be achieved in this1:18:44 world1:18:46 in if we're talking about society1:18:48 economics or politics1:18:49 do you do you start off um like because1:18:52 you've1:18:52 elaborated upon what you see as1:18:55 problematic with what's going on in the1:18:57 economy and you talked about the 1930s1:18:59 example and the1:19:00 wall street crash and great depression1:19:02 fdr and then moved all the way up to1:19:03 20081:19:04 you know and today with the pandemic1:19:07 these are all injustices and i think1:19:09 both of us will agree1:19:10 with with that uh to some extent using1:19:13 different paradigms and1:19:14 different understandings but coming to1:19:16 maybe a similar conclusion1:19:18 but do you think therefore1:19:21 that justice is achievable1:19:24 economic political or social in this1:19:26 world or do you think1:19:28 that really justice is not achievable at1:19:31 all1:19:33 well you know i think of justice as a a1:19:36 moving target maybe that's the best way1:19:38 for me to put it yeah1:19:41 i think the notion of what is just has1:19:44 always1:19:45 changed over time um i don't see a1:19:48 reason to believe that won't continue1:19:52 i think it is part of1:19:56 the history of the human race to1:19:58 formulate1:20:00 notions of justice to seek1:20:04 uh a criticism1:20:07 of societies uh on the bay1:20:10 and i mean by society everything as1:20:13 little as a household or as big1:20:15 as a as a large community uh1:20:18 that there are concepts of justice that1:20:20 we use1:20:21 to understand our environment whether1:20:24 it's a household or1:20:26 or a whole country or anything in1:20:28 between1:20:29 um and that it represents1:20:32 what we mentioned earlier a utopian1:20:35 longing for a way1:20:37 of interacting with one another that is1:20:40 somehow1:20:42 honorable to one another that is that is1:20:45 rooted in a1:20:46 kind of solidarity appreciation1:20:50 of human life and of its possibilities1:20:53 and of1:20:54 of the emotions and relationships that1:20:56 we're able to construct1:20:58 and to be able to look at a society and1:21:01 say1:21:01 look it isn't working here it is falling1:21:04 short here um will we get to some1:21:08 some state of of of perfection1:21:12 in some sense of justice i doubt it i1:21:15 my suspicion is that we will we will1:21:19 make1:21:19 progress we will move in a certain1:21:21 direction1:21:22 fueled and shaped by a notion of justice1:21:26 but in the very process of moving1:21:29 in a direction given to us by a notion1:21:32 of justice1:21:33 that very movement will again change1:21:36 here's hegel again1:21:38 change the notion of justice so that1:21:40 it's a1:21:41 it's a feature it's a feature of life1:21:44 so i the short answer is no i don't1:21:46 think we'll probably1:21:48 uh ever get to a place where we think1:21:51 we're done1:21:51 we have arrived at some i don't think1:21:54 that i think1:21:55 and i would i would agree with that i1:21:56 mean even even though obviously i come1:21:58 from tradition which is1:21:59 um religious in nature and obviously um1:22:02 the ideas of sharia law which is1:22:05 obviously a taboo subject1:22:06 just as marxism is in in american1:22:08 circles uh among people but the idea of1:22:10 these1:22:11 um divinely inspired laws um1:22:14 which are meant to produce the best1:22:15 results i think a lot of people1:22:17 caricature them in a very similar way1:22:19 that people caricature marxist1:22:20 understandings1:22:21 because the muslim position is that the1:22:23 muslim position is not that1:22:25 um we put in these laws or taking our1:22:28 taking away usually or putting in1:22:29 systems of dis redistribution or1:22:31 allowing the market to set us on prices1:22:33 the things that we said are part of the1:22:34 islamic tradition in order to get1:22:36 justice in this world because justice in1:22:39 this world from the islamic paradigm is1:22:41 actually unattainable1:22:42 and that's why it's relegated to the1:22:44 eschaton in that sense and there's this1:22:46 whole thing called1:22:47 the day of judgment or literally yo1:22:49 medin which1:22:50 literally means the day where debt1:22:53 is redeemed because dean comes from the1:22:56 eric word dain which1:22:57 which literally means debt because1:22:59 everyone's going to be indebted to1:23:00 somebody else not just1:23:01 in economic terms and i think this1:23:03 moving more into vabry and kind of an1:23:05 analysis but also in sociological terms1:23:08 where people1:23:09 are unjust to each other and actions and1:23:11 behaviors and so on and so forth1:23:13 and therefore everything is relegated to1:23:15 the eschaton to the afterlife to the day1:23:17 of judgement1:23:18 and and and therefore it's kind of like1:23:20 an er er1:23:21 it's kind of is an ideal state um1:23:24 but then the the realization that you're1:23:26 not going to get what you1:23:28 deserve or you're not even going to be1:23:30 given what you deserve in this world1:23:32 i think although is in many ways a a sad1:23:36 thing to think about1:23:38 being grounded in that reality gives one1:23:41 in many ways more hope of what to expect1:23:44 and being more of a realist so i would1:23:47 agree with the fact that justice can't1:23:48 be1:23:48 established in this world because um1:23:51 this is the reason from the islam1:23:52 perspective for1:23:53 you know god one god the creator god and1:23:55 so on and so forth1:23:56 having this day of judgment the eschaton1:23:58 where he he literally1:24:00 uh any exploitation that has been done1:24:02 will be basically fixed on that day1:24:05 um but it's been it's been a pleasure1:24:07 talking to you really it has1:24:08 and um i'm going to leave some of the1:24:10 because if people want to know more1:24:11 about socialism you have written books1:24:13 about1:24:13 introduction to social i think it's1:24:14 called introduction to socialism isn't1:24:16 it understanding1:24:17 oh understanding socialism and other1:24:19 books you've1:24:20 produced many books so i'll put1:24:22 something in the description box for1:24:24 people to see1:24:25 in order to because i do believe that1:24:27 people need to be literate when it comes1:24:29 to these uh1:24:30 systems you know they need to know uh1:24:33 you know what what is1:24:34 the argument um and also if if they are1:24:37 muslims because many people that we1:24:38 watching this are going to be muslim1:24:40 to not caricature you know marxist1:24:43 beliefs1:24:44 or and one thing i've learned from you1:24:46 is that actually1:24:47 this idea that you know the government1:24:49 is going to take all the production from1:24:51 your perspective and then1:24:52 you know it's not really what you're1:24:53 saying at all is it1:24:55 not at all in fact the thing that we1:24:58 emphasize here if i could say two things1:25:00 to conclude1:25:01 one is that the focus for us is the1:25:04 democratization of the enterprise1:25:06 we stress worker co-ops as an1:25:09 alternative way1:25:11 at the base of society to reorganize1:25:14 the workplace on the theory that adults1:25:17 spend1:25:18 a huge part of their lives at work you1:25:21 in our country here five out of seven1:25:23 days1:25:24 the best hour excuse me of those days1:25:27 you're at work and if you want a good1:25:30 society a democratic society1:25:32 then workplace should have been the1:25:34 first place where that democracy1:25:37 and that good society should have been1:25:40 established1:25:41 ironically the history of capitalism has1:25:44 been to1:25:44 exclude democracy from the workplace1:25:48 even as it celebrates its own democratic1:25:52 nature particularly here in this country1:25:54 it is false because it is a society1:25:57 where the majority of people work go to1:26:00 a workplace that is organized1:26:02 in an anti-democratic way tiny number of1:26:06 people at the top making all the1:26:07 decisions1:26:08 notice in what i'm saying that i don't1:26:10 say a word about the government it's got1:26:12 nothing to do1:26:13 with the government it really that1:26:15 that's that's1:26:16 that's a socialism of the 20th century1:26:19 the new1:26:20 direction of socialism is this other one1:26:22 the other thing the only other thing i1:26:24 would say1:26:24 and and i mean this to be provocative1:26:28 in a good way much of what1:26:32 i suspect listening to you motivates1:26:36 um a desire for1:26:40 religious activity religious engagement1:26:44 islamic or other isn't all that1:26:47 different1:26:48 from what motivates others to a1:26:52 marxist criticism of capitalism1:26:55 to get to a better place for human1:26:58 beings1:26:59 to share their differences to argue1:27:03 in a good way that teaches each of us1:27:05 what we can learn1:27:06 from the other which is always1:27:08 significant1:27:10 um i have a yearning for that kind of a1:27:12 society1:27:13 in which this kind of conversation you1:27:16 and i have had1:27:17 can end up wondering productively1:27:21 about the similarities of what we are1:27:24 trying to do1:27:25 even in different languages and1:27:28 different cultural traditions and1:27:30 different1:27:31 images of what it is we're doing and1:27:33 what we're after1:27:34 it's a much much better way to go than1:27:37 to live as you put it rightly1:27:39 with these caricatures that i think are1:27:42 driven more by1:27:43 fear than they are by by a by an honest1:27:46 engagement in what we're like1:27:48 and where we're different i thank you so1:27:51 so much for1:27:52 this uh brilliant experience having you1:27:54 on the podcast1:27:55 and obviously if you want any um more1:27:57 information about islam1:27:59 or or anything like that so you can kind1:28:01 of make comparisons between marxism1:28:04 islam or any other reason1:28:05 please let us know and we'll send you1:28:07 the material1:28:09 will do and if you want to have this1:28:10 conversation at some future point again1:28:13 please know i'd be glad to hear from you1:28:15 and to arrange to do that1:28:26 fantastic1:28:29 you