4 ms·

> what right have you to the fruits of my labor? Socialists ask the same thing of capitalists. There's no reason to elevate one particular (and historically r

> what right have you to the fruits of my labor? Socialists ask the same thing of capitalists. There's no reason to elevate one particular (and historically rare) version of property rights over all others. And there's no particular reason economic organizations should or must be authoritarian dictatorships ruled by "shareholders" instead of workplace democracies.

option 8y ago
“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” - M. Thatcher
- orblivion 8y ago
  She's referring to the distribution and central planning aspects of socialism, which are secondary consequences of the philosophy. The discussion here is more relevant to the core tenet: worker ownership of the means of production.
  - jdhopeunique 8y ago
    If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.
    - orblivion 8y ago
      Interesting thought. Well, workers can buy equity in some company if they want. And shareholders' dividends get diluted.
    - mises 8y ago
      Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.
    - mises 8y ago
      Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned for public companies over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.
- peteradio 8y ago
  Pure pith.
mises 8y ago
I think the best example of this is Uber. Uber connects riders and drivers, and theoretically doesn't really do "labor". However, without the middleman, neither would likely be connected. I'd say most companies are similar. Yes, the worker does a lot. Without the company, it's unlikely one guy manufacturing something could find as many customers, if any. Finally, not everything can be done on an individual scale: the iPhone can't be built by one man. Also, what do you mean by dictatorships? You can leave any time you want to. The job market is amazing for a worker right now. The workers get their compensation in the form of benefits, wages, etc. There are companies that are run as co-ops: see REI. Most employees love it their, according to a friend who worked their for a while. If you want to work there, that's fine. If you want to work at a company with stock options, that's fine. But don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. That's authoritarianism.
- hellisothers 8y ago
  And this is a straw man, we’re talking about labor unions not Marxism.
  - mises 8y ago
    No, we're talking about workers pushing for increased control of the means of production. That's definitionally a discussion of Marxism, even if it's people pushing for it gradually.
- scarmig 8y ago
  A country with a right of exit can still be quite authoritarian, just as an organization that you can leave can be as well. What's authoritarian is the structure: owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules, as opposed to the people actually doing the labor in companies. I'd generally opt for all those parties collaborating in decision making. > don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. Do you think existing corporate management structures don't rely on state violence to maintain themselves? If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace, do you think shareholders would be the ones coming in and cracking heads, or government agents? You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it.
pg_bot 8y ago
The capitalist answer is they don't have any right to your labor. They purchase your labor with the wages that they pay you. You are free to not accept any opportunity offered, and either party can terminate it at any time for any (legal) reason if they feel the deal is no longer to their satisfaction. Almost everyone believes that they are underpaid. There is a very simple way to prove it by checking your worth in the marketplace. You are also free to ply your trade on your own if you so wish.
orblivion 8y ago
I lean more on the capitalist side, but this is a more interesting question than a basic view of capitalism would lead one to believe. The ethics of capitalism are based on the assumption that the business owner rightfully has final say on all of the property of the business, and that the workers are merely guests on the property, paid to do something with the property, collect a paycheck, and go home. They have no right to it. But then you can start asking questions like, did the capitalist have rightful ownership of the money to buy the thing in the first place? If you go far back enough, you have things like conquest, homesteading land (which is inherently ambiguous), government grants of land (open to favoritism), etc. The whole foundation can be called into question. Again I'm not ultimately convinced by it, but I think there's at least a discussion to be had. I feel like I've heard some convincing arguments but they're not coming to me now. But if you have the patience for it (I didn't even finish it), you might check out "What is Property" by Proudhon. He lays out a philosophy called Mutualism that sort of has socialist ethics, but is still somewhat market based in the end. He enumerates all of the assumptions he sees as underlying private property ownership and makes an interesting argument against them.
- scarmig 8y ago
  Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it. Would the people who give absolute value to the right of property holders to do what they choose with it support the Soviet Union's right to organize its economy however it so choose, along with controlling the media it owns and the workforce it contracts with? After all, it owns the property, and anyone with credible contrary claims to it would be long dead.
  - orblivion 8y ago
    I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets") I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers. But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)

option 8y ago

“The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.” - M. Thatcher

orblivion 8y ago
She's referring to the distribution and central planning aspects of socialism, which are secondary consequences of the philosophy. The discussion here is more relevant to the core tenet: worker ownership of the means of production.
- jdhopeunique 8y ago
  If only there was something analogous to the inflationary monetary system except for equity instead. Shareholders equity in companies could be diluted just like workers' wages are diluted by inflation.
  - orblivion 8y ago
    Interesting thought. Well, workers can buy equity in some company if they want. And shareholders' dividends get diluted.
  - mises 8y ago
    Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.
  - mises 8y ago
    Ever heard of dilution? This does happen at times. It was banned for public companies over a hundred years ago, if I recall correctly, because people got clever and abused it.
peteradio 8y ago
Pure pith.

mises 8y ago

I think the best example of this is Uber. Uber connects riders and drivers, and theoretically doesn't really do "labor". However, without the middleman, neither would likely be connected. I'd say most companies are similar. Yes, the worker does a lot. Without the company, it's unlikely one guy manufacturing something could find as many customers, if any. Finally, not everything can be done on an individual scale: the iPhone can't be built by one man. Also, what do you mean by dictatorships? You can leave any time you want to. The job market is amazing for a worker right now. The workers get their compensation in the form of benefits, wages, etc. There are companies that are run as co-ops: see REI. Most employees love it their, according to a friend who worked their for a while. If you want to work there, that's fine. If you want to work at a company with stock options, that's fine. But don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. That's authoritarianism.

hellisothers 8y ago
And this is a straw man, we’re talking about labor unions not Marxism.
- mises 8y ago
  No, we're talking about workers pushing for increased control of the means of production. That's definitionally a discussion of Marxism, even if it's people pushing for it gradually.
scarmig 8y ago
A country with a right of exit can still be quite authoritarian, just as an organization that you can leave can be as well. What's authoritarian is the structure: owners and especially managers nowadays controlling priorities and work rules, as opposed to the people actually doing the labor in companies. I'd generally opt for all those parties collaborating in decision making. > don't try to use the club of government to change an existing for-profit, shareholder-controlled company into what you want it to be, just because you want it. Do you think existing corporate management structures don't rely on state violence to maintain themselves? If a bunch of workers enacted control over their workplace, do you think shareholders would be the ones coming in and cracking heads, or government agents? You're simply defining your narrow conception of property rights and economic organization to be the Right and Natural Way for Things to Be, and you choose to not see the club of government used to enforce it.

pg_bot 8y ago

The capitalist answer is they don't have any right to your labor. They purchase your labor with the wages that they pay you. You are free to not accept any opportunity offered, and either party can terminate it at any time for any (legal) reason if they feel the deal is no longer to their satisfaction. Almost everyone believes that they are underpaid. There is a very simple way to prove it by checking your worth in the marketplace. You are also free to ply your trade on your own if you so wish.

orblivion 8y ago

I lean more on the capitalist side, but this is a more interesting question than a basic view of capitalism would lead one to believe. The ethics of capitalism are based on the assumption that the business owner rightfully has final say on all of the property of the business, and that the workers are merely guests on the property, paid to do something with the property, collect a paycheck, and go home. They have no right to it. But then you can start asking questions like, did the capitalist have rightful ownership of the money to buy the thing in the first place? If you go far back enough, you have things like conquest, homesteading land (which is inherently ambiguous), government grants of land (open to favoritism), etc. The whole foundation can be called into question. Again I'm not ultimately convinced by it, but I think there's at least a discussion to be had. I feel like I've heard some convincing arguments but they're not coming to me now. But if you have the patience for it (I didn't even finish it), you might check out "What is Property" by Proudhon. He lays out a philosophy called Mutualism that sort of has socialist ethics, but is still somewhat market based in the end. He enumerates all of the assumptions he sees as underlying private property ownership and makes an interesting argument against them.

scarmig 8y ago
Relatedly, imagine the Soviet Union still existed and continued to own all productive property within it. Would the people who give absolute value to the right of property holders to do what they choose with it support the Soviet Union's right to organize its economy however it so choose, along with controlling the media it owns and the workforce it contracts with? After all, it owns the property, and anyone with credible contrary claims to it would be long dead.
- orblivion 8y ago
  I heard that instead they gave ownership of the factories to the workers :-P (who then sold it off to the oligarchs) I think the question here is legitimate ownership of property. If you think the Soviet Union stole the property (I do), then it should be assumed that it's homesteaded to those using it. Even Murray Rothbard suggested giving ownership of U.S. universities to students and professors, if I recall correctly. (I think it was in "All Power to the Soviets") I suppose you believe the capitalists stole the property, which allows for the same appropriation by the workers. But here's the thing: what then? Could the workers sell their shares? If they can, another capitalist class can emerge just as well, purely by preference of people wanting an earlier payout selling the shares + steady paychecks vs risking being responsible for the enterprise. And if the workers can't make such a choice, in what sense do they really own the share? (EDIT: I think Proudhon actually had a counter argument to this, I forgot what it was)