5 ms·

A system that requires outside manipulation to keep it functioning is not a good system. The fact that capitalism inevitably converges towards monopoly (and th

A system that requires outside manipulation to keep it functioning is not a good system. The fact that capitalism inevitably converges towards monopoly (and therefor the concentration of wealth and power) with out the intervention of the government (which is often very vulnerable to corruption at the hands of concentrated power and wealth) is effectively a fatal flaw. This is why I am an advocate of free market socialism - a market system where companies are democratically run by their workers and the financiers are limited to a regulated return on the form of interest on their loans. Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. And in the meantime the fact that the workers call the shots will prevent the kinds of labor abuses that have plagued the capitalist system since its inception.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
How does your system prevent the formation of a monopoly? The employee-run corporation merges with its competitors until there are none left, then charges monopoly prices to customers in order to pay above-market wages to employees. How does that solve the problem?
- chmod775 6y ago
  Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! Jokes aside they may have edited their comment. HN not showing 'edited' on comments except if you specifically add 'Edit' to your post is a pet peeve of mine. You replied within 9 minutes, edits are common in that time period.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! The explanation doesn't actually address anything: > Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. > Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. Which doesn't really stop it once it merges to a monopoly and has no competitors. > And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. But being a monopoly provides more resources to tackle those other issues, at the expense of the customers, and why do the employees care about them any more than the shareholders would?
    - ardy42 6y ago
      >>>> Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. > It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things.
bassman9000 6y ago
Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows Non-sequitur And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. If lobbying applied to Congress is already dirty, imagine applied to less transparent orgs. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. Another non-sequitur

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

How does your system prevent the formation of a monopoly? The employee-run corporation merges with its competitors until there are none left, then charges monopoly prices to customers in order to pay above-market wages to employees. How does that solve the problem?

chmod775 6y ago
Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! Jokes aside they may have edited their comment. HN not showing 'edited' on comments except if you specifically add 'Edit' to your post is a pet peeve of mine. You replied within 9 minutes, edits are common in that time period.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Is your parent a time travel comment? Because you asked a question they specifically addressed! The explanation doesn't actually address anything: > Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. > Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. Which doesn't really stop it once it merges to a monopoly and has no competitors. > And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. But being a monopoly provides more resources to tackle those other issues, at the expense of the customers, and why do the employees care about them any more than the shareholders would?
  - ardy42 6y ago
    >>>> Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows. Plus the bigger the organization gets, the slower and less responsive it will get. And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. > It's like saying no one will want to buy shares of a large conglomerate or vote to have it merge with another one because the shareholder's votes will be watered down. Empirically false, happens regularly in practice. Especially when the larger company with less competition could pay higher dividends/wages. No it isn't. Shareholder capitalism is one-share-one-vote, but those shares can and usually are concentrated under the control of a small number of people. The GGGP seems to be talking about a system of one-worker-one-vote, which would prevent that kind of concentration and therefore have a different dynamic. Also, shareholders tend to monomanically pursue maximization of dividends + capital gains over some time horizon, while I'd imagine a worker would care a more diverse range of things.

bassman9000 6y ago

Democratic ownership can counter act the tendency to grow and absorb competitors, because each new worker who gets a vote waters down the votes and control of their fellows Non-sequitur And a democratic organization run by its workers will have a myriad of motivating factors to balance, other than chasing infinite profit or return for the investors. If lobbying applied to Congress is already dirty, imagine applied to less transparent orgs. All of these factors will act to keep companies from growing to big and help keep the market in balance. Which benefits the consumers. Another non-sequitur