3 ms·

What if the workers just owned the means of production and there was an adequate safety net?

by ufjvuc 9y ago

petre 9y ago
In the Eastern Block you had those two conditions checked and it didn't quite work out. This works in agriculture to some extent, but that's sector where automation already displaced most jobs and it will continue to do so.
- forapurpose 9y ago
  > In the Eastern Block you had those two conditions checked and it didn't quite work out. The workers did not control the assets, unelected totalitarian dictators did, despite endless propaganda to the contrary. I'm not saying the idea works, but the Eastern Block was not a test of it.
  - aoeuasdf1 9y ago
    How do you suggest accomplishing a massive redistribution of wealth without a state ("dictatorship of the proletariat")? If owning & profiting from capital is impossible, what incentive is there to produce capital - it will just get seized. Where's the marketplace for capital, or does the state have a monopsony on capital purchases?
  - petre 9y ago
    My poiny exactly. Giving too much power to the state would only turn it into a dictatorship (even if it's a tax dictatorship) for the ones in power will eventually sieze that power for themselves. Shared ownership of production means is possible w/o a nanny state if the shareholders of a private company are also it's employees. But that doesn't really work well in practice, otherwise we would have cooperatives comparable to Apple, Google, VW or Samsung in terms of market value. I haven't seen any. The safety net you're talking about could be group insurance policies negotiated by the said company. But why do this, when the same company could automate and greatly reduce expenses with insurance and health benefits paid to human workers? The purpose of a company is to maximize the profit for it's shareholders (by creating market value), as opposed to being a benefactor for it's employees. Of course, we also have a social responsability component but that's only because few people would work for an organization that would rip them off.
    - aoeuasdf1 9y ago
      A co-op has no way to raise capital and expand quickly. They have to create the capital themselves by being profitable, or by reaching into their own pockets.
  - pyroinferno 9y ago
    Do you expect the rich of society to willingly just distribute their wealth? A powerful state would be necessary for anything like that to occur. And every single time this has been tried the state takes a huge grab at power and refuses to let go. This isn't because "REAL Communism" hasn't been tried, many people with their idea of what Real Communism is have tried it in many countries all with significant differences in their culture and power structure, but it all ends up the same.
  - pandaman 9y ago
    In theory the workers did not have full control over the means of production because they could not sell them or destroy them but as far as using them - there was no dictator standing next to every lathe or tractor and telling them what to do. This mainly resulted in people stealing shit from their workplaces though. Few Russian sayings from that period: Все вокруг колхозное, все вокруг мое (Everything around me belongs to the collective farm, everything is mine) Тащи с работы каждый гвоздь, ты здесь хозяин, а не гость (Steal every last nail from work, you are the master here, not a guest).
    - ufufgztdjfydyx 9y ago
      Why would people steal from work if their basic needs were provided for and they felt the rules in place were legitimate?
      - pandaman 9y ago
        Why would people do something for their own benefit and without serious (if weighted by chance of getting caught) negative consequences?
      - petre 9y ago
        Beacuse when the state/proletariat steals from from the rich and gives away the loot to everyone else, the recipients of the loot are esentially the thief's accomplice, therefore stealing is okay. Also there is little to no private property, so taking out of the collective good is not technically stealing, like pandaman exemplified with the Russian proverbs above. Maybe their basic needs were provided when everything was nice and rosy, after they looted. But when the economic situation went south, then you've got food rations, curfew and other stuff that is only appropriate during wartime. Also add arbitrary justice to that. For instance you were entitled to a 250g pack of butter, a box of eight eggs, a glass of oil every month and a bread every day. This happened while the ones in power were more equal than the rest. Yes, that's only providing basic needs and people were sick of it. So everyone stole from work. They stole food, they stole screws, they stole lamp oil just in case the electricity went off. They stole whatever they could lay their hands on. Some of the people stole just to get back at the commies who robbed their elderly relatives and then integrated them into the new and great communist society.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

What if the workers just owned the means of production and there was an adequate safety net?

by ufjvuc 9y ago

What if the workers just owned the means of production and there was an adequate safety net?

In the Eastern Block you had those two conditions checked and it didn't quite work out. This works in agriculture to some extent, but that's sector where automation already displaced most jobs and it will continue to do so.

forapurpose 9y ago
> In the Eastern Block you had those two conditions checked and it didn't quite work out. The workers did not control the assets, unelected totalitarian dictators did, despite endless propaganda to the contrary. I'm not saying the idea works, but the Eastern Block was not a test of it.
- aoeuasdf1 9y ago
  How do you suggest accomplishing a massive redistribution of wealth without a state ("dictatorship of the proletariat")? If owning & profiting from capital is impossible, what incentive is there to produce capital - it will just get seized. Where's the marketplace for capital, or does the state have a monopsony on capital purchases?
- petre 9y ago
  My poiny exactly. Giving too much power to the state would only turn it into a dictatorship (even if it's a tax dictatorship) for the ones in power will eventually sieze that power for themselves. Shared ownership of production means is possible w/o a nanny state if the shareholders of a private company are also it's employees. But that doesn't really work well in practice, otherwise we would have cooperatives comparable to Apple, Google, VW or Samsung in terms of market value. I haven't seen any. The safety net you're talking about could be group insurance policies negotiated by the said company. But why do this, when the same company could automate and greatly reduce expenses with insurance and health benefits paid to human workers? The purpose of a company is to maximize the profit for it's shareholders (by creating market value), as opposed to being a benefactor for it's employees. Of course, we also have a social responsability component but that's only because few people would work for an organization that would rip them off.
  - aoeuasdf1 9y ago
    A co-op has no way to raise capital and expand quickly. They have to create the capital themselves by being profitable, or by reaching into their own pockets.
- pyroinferno 9y ago
  Do you expect the rich of society to willingly just distribute their wealth? A powerful state would be necessary for anything like that to occur. And every single time this has been tried the state takes a huge grab at power and refuses to let go. This isn't because "REAL Communism" hasn't been tried, many people with their idea of what Real Communism is have tried it in many countries all with significant differences in their culture and power structure, but it all ends up the same.
- pandaman 9y ago
  In theory the workers did not have full control over the means of production because they could not sell them or destroy them but as far as using them - there was no dictator standing next to every lathe or tractor and telling them what to do. This mainly resulted in people stealing shit from their workplaces though. Few Russian sayings from that period: Все вокруг колхозное, все вокруг мое (Everything around me belongs to the collective farm, everything is mine) Тащи с работы каждый гвоздь, ты здесь хозяин, а не гость (Steal every last nail from work, you are the master here, not a guest).
  - ufufgztdjfydyx 9y ago
    Why would people steal from work if their basic needs were provided for and they felt the rules in place were legitimate?
    - pandaman 9y ago
      Why would people do something for their own benefit and without serious (if weighted by chance of getting caught) negative consequences?
    - petre 9y ago
      Beacuse when the state/proletariat steals from from the rich and gives away the loot to everyone else, the recipients of the loot are esentially the thief's accomplice, therefore stealing is okay. Also there is little to no private property, so taking out of the collective good is not technically stealing, like pandaman exemplified with the Russian proverbs above. Maybe their basic needs were provided when everything was nice and rosy, after they looted. But when the economic situation went south, then you've got food rations, curfew and other stuff that is only appropriate during wartime. Also add arbitrary justice to that. For instance you were entitled to a 250g pack of butter, a box of eight eggs, a glass of oil every month and a bread every day. This happened while the ones in power were more equal than the rest. Yes, that's only providing basic needs and people were sick of it. So everyone stole from work. They stole food, they stole screws, they stole lamp oil just in case the electricity went off. They stole whatever they could lay their hands on. Some of the people stole just to get back at the commies who robbed their elderly relatives and then integrated them into the new and great communist society.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]