3 ms·
> But crucially an investor can't just buy shares and just move the production to Congo and kick out the employees etc what for-profits do all the time if it gi
by robertlagrant 3y ago
> But crucially an investor can't just buy shares and just move the production to Congo and kick out the employees etc what for-profits do all the time if it gives the owners a higher profit.
Sigh. No they don't. Most for-profits are small businesses. It's really hard to break through the fog of "I'm all right Jack"-inspired attitudes to businesses.
But yes, agree - joining gives you one voting right; the shares can't be bought and sold. That's what I mean about that being a perfectly normal thing to have under capitalism. As long as it's a legal and free agreement between employee and employer, capitalism is very happy with it.
- jampekka 3y agoAre you claiming that production isn't being moved to cheaper labor countries all the time? Also small businesses, though usually through buyouts by bigger companies. Very small companies, which are essentially self-employment (and thus worker owned) not so much. Yes, the legal framework of liberalism typically does allow for a wide variety of contractual associations. Some are more conducive to capitalism, i.e. extracting profits from work (typically by others) by the sole virtue of ownership.
- robertlagrant 3y ago> Some are more conducive to capitalism, i.e. extracting profits from work (typically by others) by the sole virtue of ownership. Working for yourself is also capitalism. All of the contractual associations we've mentioned work well in capitalism. Your "extracting profits from work" characterization is misplaced. A self-employed plumber extracts profits from work in a sense, but it's a biased way to put it. Everyone who starts a business and loses money isn't extracting profits. A more neutral way is "people work and pay based on voluntary agreements, under law". Which would include the co-op arrangement we've mentioned.