Socialism
"I feel that system is more about the structure of corporations, not of governments. And there, it makes a lot more sense, honestly; it's borderline perverse how the shareholders of a corporation are usually those investment bankers, a few top officers, and public traders. Although I have no idea how I'd implement it, what I would have done is: Corporations all start with a single share, held by the initial CEO. From there, new shares may be generated in one way and one way only: one hour of work. "1 share" would be the new minimum wage, complete with voting privileges to select the company's board. The company itself would determine whether its shares are transferable for public trade, or not; you could sell your vote, then the buyer might vote to make shares non-transferable again. This would basically turn every business into its own democratic republic. That's just a rough idea, though, and I probably haven't worked out all of the kinks - for example, inflation of shares would hit new businesses harder than old, which might be an issue. When Stephen Colbert was killed by HYDRA's Project Insight in 2014, the comedy world lost a hero. Since his life model decoy isn't up to the task, please do not mistake my performance as political discussion. I'm just doing what Steve would have wanted.
|
|
" This guy in the Video doesn´t seem to understand why profesions exist. How does anybody doing easy work in a factory have any clue about what´s good for the Company. Besides, what would they want to decide, working harder, recieving less? Complete nonesense and gibberish examples. Of course there is always a ""market"", because People always Need to buy something. And the market is the reason why so much people are unemployed. A Marxist trying to sell the exact same bc ideolegy again, but only with a diffrent package. His Argument ""a car is not responsible for a bad Driver"" can also be applyed to kapitalism. We don´t Need revolution´s, we only have to tackle extrem cases. Turning companies into Democracies, would make them equaly craply and why are Democracies craply, for the exact same reason´s above. The People have no clue about it, since they don´t know evrything our they cant know evrything. A jew talking about the ""spanish Inquisition"" hm, what else happened during that time, oh jeah they threw out the jew´s and muslim´s. If you do not understand the level of göbbel´s Statement dont quote him. Huge part´s of our history might be just lies. | |
" Marxist mumbo-jumbo... We've had "workers cooperatives" or what they were called in ex-Yugoslavia: "worker self-management". The practical result of that was that you had to wait for months, before you could buy your shitty car in a certain color, if you could even get the wanted color. Workers don't know shit about the market needs, because they are there to offer specialized labour, not to do market research and plan the company strategy. Everyone can't do everything, that's why specialisation is more productive. Marxists will always tell you how communism / socialism would work splendidly, if only everyone would adopt it simultaneously. You know why is that? Because free market capitalism is vastly superior at producing & developing goods & services, which makes whatever socialism produces look like crap in comparison. An inherent flaw of socialism is that is too closely related to leftist ideologies and those ideologies hinder economic development. The Soviet Union was mostly investing into the arms & space race, heavily neglecting the civilian market needs, yet even so, USA quite easily surpassed SU in weapon technologies & production, forcing SU to go broke and collapse as a result. Free market is a superior concept and it will always outpace centralized or even de-centralized ideological systems. The West needs to better fight Corporatism & its influence on the political process, not go full retard Marxism. E: I also f**ing despise the marxist class-warfare rhetoric, those ideologues spout. The distinction between "owner" and "workers", as if the owners are not workers themselves. Who build the company? The "capitalist", who worked his ass off, 60+ hrs a week, for several years, and produced the actual jobs those workers now have. When night falls She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness Last edited by morbo on Nov 28, 2016, 11:09:19 AM
| |
" Anarchism is politically neutral, and how it functions depends on the people and their individual ideologies. Of course, the edgy teenagers running around throwing rocks at cops, and flipping cars over while wearing the Anarchy "A" on their T-shirts are shit for brains who don't have a clue about anything. And you know what's ironic? If there was ever real Anarchy in the USA, the ones championing Anarchy would be among the first eliminated by gun toting, trigger happy rednecks. All the special snowflakes and delicate little flowers would have zero protection via government or law enforcement. Anarchy is the complete opposite of the interests of anyone who wishes to be coddled. Marxism couldn't work under Anarchy in the USA. Marxism would be shot in the face. Quite literally. Last edited by MrSmiley21 on Nov 28, 2016, 5:37:24 PM
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of unrestricted "free market" Capitalism. On the other hand, I don't think Socialism is the way to go either. I consider myself a centrist on economics. I think the countries economic policies and trade deals should reflect the interests of that specific country's people.
I don't want the government running businesses, but I don't want corporate interests dictating what the countries economic policies should be either. Or they'll choose to offshore jobs to countries with cheaper labor and import the goods back with "free trade". Look, my grandfather worked in a steel mill for 25 years. When he retired, he bought a farm. He raised 6 kids on just his income. The man never graduated HS. Great uncle, grandfather's brother was an engineer. When he retired, he bought a mansion in Fullerton, CA, and when he died, the house + property was estimated 3.5m. His kids are basically wealthy. Because one man worked, saved up his money, made smart purchases. I visited the house when I was 8. Pretty fancy place. Big fucking house at the top of a hill in a very upscale neighborhood. Even had a barn on the property and stalls for horses. Huge swimming pool, at least 8-10 rooms, 5 bathrooms, etc. The living room space was bigger than most people's entire house. Full basement. The basement was basically setup like a pub. Probably bigger than most pubs. They had a full kitchen, taps, pool tables, and everything. Everyone knows you can't do this anymore in the USA working respective jobs. In order to get proper contrast on exactly how bad things are now economically and jobs wise, one must look into the past. You can think "Oh smiley is just BSing again". But the fact is if you live in the USA, and you're White, stories like this aren't uncommon. The fact is, steel mill workers used to live a lifestyle comparable to or better than an engineer's pay gets you today, and engineers used to live like rock stars. Last edited by MrSmiley21 on Nov 28, 2016, 6:11:43 PM
|
|
" If you put time into listening to Richard Wolff, he theorizes that Worker Cooperatives might be our best solution. And with real life present-day hard evidence - a lot of worker coops exists today, Mondragon being the largest, it's looking great. " You are perfectly right. Everybody would have to be educated in order to know what's good for the Company. We've been trained from elementary to become employees, and not business-owners. But it would be fatal to assume that everyone cannot learn business management even at old age. Mondragon Cooperative Corporation has created a University for this reason, they know that it would only work if the workers are trained for this style of business. You also have to keep in mind that Worker Cooperatives can still keep the current status-quo of having CEO with MBAs, Department Managers, Supervivors, except that they are elected every year (or two) - or do it in some other way. But the election is unlike the status quo: Worker-Coop: One Person, One Vote Traditional: One Share, One Vote Traditional, in practice, most of the time, only a few persons have the majority of shares. They have power to elect the board of directors that might not do the best decisions as we see nowadays. In my local hacker slack group chat where I started a discussion on the idea of Worker Coops, this question was asked: " My answer to this is: You need to carefully choose who do you want to work with. I think it's the same as in Partnership where you and your partner should have: the same goals, same ethics, a good relationship, etc. As for junior developers, one solution is that they can join as 'apprentice' where they are given 'allowance'. Once the apprentice is ready, he/she can go through some sort of 'trial' to become a full member. Probably a key 'principle' or goal of a worker-coop is 'job security > profit'. Where profit is defined as the surplus gained by coop. Comparing with partnership again, it makes sense to make it a goal that work should be available for both member; getting fired is the last resort. It gets complicated when you increase the number of members. Probably why you'd prefer smaller autonomous coops. I've read that for Mondragon Coop Corp (MCC), when they were affected by the Recession a few yrs ago. They experience a sudden drop in demand for their washing machines. Suddenly they have more workers than needed. In order to compensate for this. All the workers of MCC shouldered the cost and all got a lower salary. The redundant workers were given the option to join other coops under Mondragon, free re-skill, commute subsidized, etc. - or - offered a generous early retirement package. --- Btw, this was linked in the chat as well - Varoufakis on Valve, Spontaneous Order, and the European Crisis, an uber interesting read about how Valve does not have any bosses. --- I would also like to emphasize. That all of these systems, whether it is Capitalism, State-Capitalism (the socialism of USSR/China), or Worker-Cooperatives. All of them are not bullet-proof. But I am convinced that given the evidence and reasoning, one is better than the other. PoE-TradeMacro - https://github.com/PoE-TradeMacro/POE-TradeMacro/ ExileTrade - http://exiletrade.github.io/ Last edited by ManicCompression on Nov 28, 2016, 10:37:55 PM
|
|
" This concpet is inherently unfair to workers that have more responsible jobs, jobs that require more talent / intelligence, jobs that produce higher margins of wealth for the company... A very skilled engineer is a lot more valuable than a janitor, but socialism wants to give them both equal say in what direction the company should go. How much time & money are you prepared to invest, to educate the janitor in engineering and managment, so that he could cast an equally educated vote on your company's future? Why do you think you can even educate the janitor adequately? Maybe he's filling that post precisely because he's totally failed school and can't understand economics, mathematics, electronics... Why don't you create a company yourself, and then put all the decision making into the hands of a low-skilled low-educated workers demcratic majority, who didn't invest anything in the company startup in the first place? Because it sounds a dumb thing to do? E: Even that coop company you are quoting, doesn't have "worker managment" (for good reasons), only worker profit sharing. Profit sharing (or you could call it wage raise) is something that is moral to do, in line with how good of a job person X does (aka scaled by merit). But this stuff cannot be mandated by the governemnt, it can only happen freely = companies realizing by themsleves that profit sharing is eventually beneficial for the happines (= better production) of the workforce. When night falls She cloaks the world In impenetrable darkness Last edited by morbo on Nov 29, 2016, 2:45:46 AM
| |
|
socialism is dumb
anything is everything
| |
" This why I highlighted and underlined: You need to carefully choose who do you want to work with. I think it's the same as in Partnership where you and your partner should have: the same goals, same ethics, a good relationship, etc. Please take time to understand before you make your counter-argument. The most important thing here is that all parties are in agreement. If you do not want a 'janitor' in your worker-coop, then don't join. Some people might be willing to invest in Janitors who simply didn't have the chance to go school due to poverty. Tech coops do exist: https://www.techworker.coop/ -- Note that I do also believe that worker-coops is not the complete solution to fix the problems of Capitalism. This comment sums it up. " Why do you want the "governemnt" to mandate it? I made no mention of government. It is fine as it is right now. The government can provide incentives and provide expert-advisory assistance like Italy does; that would help a lot. Edit: would also like to add that there is plenty of evidence that people are motivated to work not for the money. you can see this in the swarm of not-for-profit open source projects. Edit2: This AMA thread has a lot of interesting answers for a lot of interesting questions. I've come to realize that I should really spend more time reading up (I have yet to read the actual books of Marx and Smith), still I have learned much from this thread. PoE-TradeMacro - https://github.com/PoE-TradeMacro/POE-TradeMacro/ ExileTrade - http://exiletrade.github.io/ Last edited by ManicCompression on Nov 29, 2016, 9:21:37 PM
|
|
|
Edit : no comment
Last edited by hlq567 on Mar 7, 2017, 1:26:45 PM
|
