4 ms·

>The only thing left is to ditch capitalism entirely How exactly does that work?

by yucky 4y ago

wincy 4y ago
Just enslave the entire world and make them do your bidding. It’s simple.
abdullahkhalids 4y ago
Listen to the anarcho-syndacalists like Chomsky, which demand that companies be owned by workers in that company. There are many proposals for this, but here is an off the cuff one I just came up with: Every company with more than 100 workers, must have 80% of its ownership by those same workers. The difference between the ownership stake of the top worker and the bottom worker must be no more than a 5x.
- rank0 4y ago
  Nothing is preventing any group from forming that exact governance structure. The cold hard truth is that nobody wants to do that. You’ll always lose to your competitors. Nobody actually wants to manage the entity that employs them.
  - abdullahkhalids 4y ago
    You misunderstand. Anarcho-syndacalists like Chomsky demand, that by law, all companies must follow this worker-owned structure. It's a complete restructuring of the economic system. In the new system there won't be any capitalist-owned enterprises that will burn capital in the short-term, and exploit their own workers to to kill their more ethical competitors. Also, all workers don't have to manage their company, only some of them. Workers at large just need to be able to kick out any management that decides to exploit their labor. In our current system it is the shareholders decide how much exploitation should be done, and their opinion is "as much as will keep profits high".
    - syockit 4y ago
      > Workers at large just need to be able to kick out any management that decides to exploit their labor. Corporate politics are already bad as it is, and this is going to make it worse.
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Last time I checked one of the market based approaches requires me to start my own bank. In Germany that means you would need 7 million € and hope you get the license at all. Once you add the costs of buying land we are easily in the tens of millions to get started to end capitalism through market competition. The people with 10 million € would rather keep the system as it is. After all, what if it fails and you become a "peasant"?
- yucky 4y ago
  How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of employees, so number of shareholders fluctuates constantly. If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? I have so many more questions..
  - abdullahkhalids 4y ago
    I am not an economist, and I haven't read more on this than Chomsky's books. > Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their salary. > If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Ultimately yes. Firing might or might not work the same as hiring, because the fruits of your labor continue to bear profits for a little time after you leave at some jobs at least. Please note that the answers to your question make much more sense once you understand the philosophy a lot more. Practical answers might not make sense if you continue to interpret them within the philosophical underpinnings and your inbuilt intuitions of the current capitalist system.
    - yucky 4y ago
      Do all employees have the same ownership (i.e. 1 share each or 100 shares each or whatever) regardless of position? Or do those with more specialized knowledge or skills have a larger share of ownership? If it's not equal ownership, how does it get decided how ownership is doled out? Is it democratic? If so, how do you account for those with the most specialized skillsets likely having a minority voice in the voting? Also, how do you account for unequal distributions if you do have unequal ownership levels? Doesn't this create a "special class" of privileged who end up with more control? If it is equal ownership, then how do you incentivize people to acquire the specializations needed to manage the more complex tasks? Just spit balling here, not a huge fan of the current system but these are pretty big questions to leave unanswered.
imtringued 4y ago
You introduce land value taxes and demurrage currency with a citizen's dividend and enjoy your higher standard of living. But people are so obsessed with capitalism and the socialists so obsessed with a non functioning solution that nothing gets done. Before you ask why these two policies end capitalism, you must understand that in capitalism there is a profit expectation that is completely independent of market conditions, if you "believe" in markets this permanent profit expectation is irrational but because money and land are effectively monopolies they allow coercive extraction of economic rents and any real business must compete and pay even higher returns just to be allowed to function. As capitalism progresses and growth stops people put more money into extractive monopolies which then paradoxically despite all the wealth makes people poorer rather than richer. This is why capitalism requires the axiom of permanent scarcity as it means people have unfilled needs and would rather spend their money on consumption than monopolies, something that is only true for the poorest in the economy, middle class citizens spend most of their income on a mortgage aka on land which is a monopoly.

>The only thing left is to ditch capitalism entirely How exactly does that work?

by yucky 4y ago

>The only thing left is to ditch capitalism entirely How exactly does that work?

wincy 4y ago

Just enslave the entire world and make them do your bidding. It’s simple.

abdullahkhalids 4y ago

Listen to the anarcho-syndacalists like Chomsky, which demand that companies be owned by workers in that company. There are many proposals for this, but here is an off the cuff one I just came up with: Every company with more than 100 workers, must have 80% of its ownership by those same workers. The difference between the ownership stake of the top worker and the bottom worker must be no more than a 5x.

rank0 4y ago
Nothing is preventing any group from forming that exact governance structure. The cold hard truth is that nobody wants to do that. You’ll always lose to your competitors. Nobody actually wants to manage the entity that employs them.
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  You misunderstand. Anarcho-syndacalists like Chomsky demand, that by law, all companies must follow this worker-owned structure. It's a complete restructuring of the economic system. In the new system there won't be any capitalist-owned enterprises that will burn capital in the short-term, and exploit their own workers to to kill their more ethical competitors. Also, all workers don't have to manage their company, only some of them. Workers at large just need to be able to kick out any management that decides to exploit their labor. In our current system it is the shareholders decide how much exploitation should be done, and their opinion is "as much as will keep profits high".
  - syockit 4y ago
    > Workers at large just need to be able to kick out any management that decides to exploit their labor. Corporate politics are already bad as it is, and this is going to make it worse.
- imtringued 4y ago
  Last time I checked one of the market based approaches requires me to start my own bank. In Germany that means you would need 7 million € and hope you get the license at all. Once you add the costs of buying land we are easily in the tens of millions to get started to end capitalism through market competition. The people with 10 million € would rather keep the system as it is. After all, what if it fails and you become a "peasant"?
yucky 4y ago
How does that affect job mobility? So if I'm a part owner of a company and leave, what happens to my shares? We can't assume all companies have a set number of employees, so number of shareholders fluctuates constantly. If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? I have so many more questions..
- abdullahkhalids 4y ago
  I am not an economist, and I haven't read more on this than Chomsky's books. > Also, when a hiring spree is needed, are current shareholder shares diluted? Yes. But I imagine, that it would useful to have a vesting period for new employees, of, say a, year before they get their share of the company. And particularly companies will have to think about whether hiring a new person will increase profits more than their salary. > If a company lays off or fires a chunk of workforce, do the shares get evenly distributed to the remaining employees? Ultimately yes. Firing might or might not work the same as hiring, because the fruits of your labor continue to bear profits for a little time after you leave at some jobs at least. Please note that the answers to your question make much more sense once you understand the philosophy a lot more. Practical answers might not make sense if you continue to interpret them within the philosophical underpinnings and your inbuilt intuitions of the current capitalist system.
  - yucky 4y ago
    Do all employees have the same ownership (i.e. 1 share each or 100 shares each or whatever) regardless of position? Or do those with more specialized knowledge or skills have a larger share of ownership? If it's not equal ownership, how does it get decided how ownership is doled out? Is it democratic? If so, how do you account for those with the most specialized skillsets likely having a minority voice in the voting? Also, how do you account for unequal distributions if you do have unequal ownership levels? Doesn't this create a "special class" of privileged who end up with more control? If it is equal ownership, then how do you incentivize people to acquire the specializations needed to manage the more complex tasks? Just spit balling here, not a huge fan of the current system but these are pretty big questions to leave unanswered.

imtringued 4y ago

You introduce land value taxes and demurrage currency with a citizen's dividend and enjoy your higher standard of living. But people are so obsessed with capitalism and the socialists so obsessed with a non functioning solution that nothing gets done. Before you ask why these two policies end capitalism, you must understand that in capitalism there is a profit expectation that is completely independent of market conditions, if you "believe" in markets this permanent profit expectation is irrational but because money and land are effectively monopolies they allow coercive extraction of economic rents and any real business must compete and pay even higher returns just to be allowed to function. As capitalism progresses and growth stops people put more money into extractive monopolies which then paradoxically despite all the wealth makes people poorer rather than richer. This is why capitalism requires the axiom of permanent scarcity as it means people have unfilled needs and would rather spend their money on consumption than monopolies, something that is only true for the poorest in the economy, middle class citizens spend most of their income on a mortgage aka on land which is a monopoly.