3 ms·

Why “no capitalism required”? Competition of this kind is only possible with capitalism.

tsimionescu 1y ago
Not really, it's possible with any market economy, even a hypothetical socialist one (that is, one where all market actors are worker-owned co-ops). And, since there is no global super-state, the world economy is a market economy, so even if every state were a state-owned planned economy, North Korea style, still there would exist this type of competition between states.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  I mean, if you wanna get technical, many companies in Silicon Valley are worker-owned (equity compensation)
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    They are not worker owned, they have some small amount of worker ownership. But the majority of stock is never owned by workers, other than the CEO.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
      Consider also that VC funds often have pension funds as their limited partners. Workers have a claim to their pension, and thus a claim to the startup returns that the VC invests in. So yeah it basically comes down to your definition of "worker-owned". What fraction of worker ownership is necessary? Do C-level execs count as workers? Can it be "worker-owned" if the "workers" are people working elsewhere? Beyond the "worker-owned" terminology, why is this distinction supposed to matter exactly? Supposing there was an SV startup that was relatively generous with equity compensation, so over 50% of equity is owned by non-C-level employees. What would you expect to change, if anything, if that threshold was passed?
      - tsimionescu 1y ago
        > Supposing there was an SV startup that was relatively generous with equity compensation, so over 50% of equity is owned by non-C-level employees. What would you expect to change, if anything, if that threshold was passed? If the workers are majority owners, then they can, for example, fire a CEO that is leading the company in the wrong direction, or trying to cut their salaries, or anything like that.
        0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
        >If the workers are majority owners, then they can, for example, fire a CEO that is leading the company in the wrong direction, or trying to cut their salaries, or anything like that. Why wouldn't the board fire said CEO? The most common reason to cut salaries is if the company is in dire financial straits regardless. Co-ops are more likely to cut salary and less likely to do layoffs.
        tsimionescu 1y ago
        Because the board doesn't understand the business at the level that employees do. Or because the board has different goals for the business than employees do. Or because the board is filled with friends of the CEO who let them do whatever. Also, lots of companies reduce salaries or headcount if they feel they can get away with it. They don't need to be in dire financial straights, it's enough to have a few quarters of no or low growth and to want to show a positive change.
      - skinnymuch 1y ago
        It’s not “your definition”. Worker owned means the workers own the means of production. What you’re talking about is not that at all. What changes is democracy in the work place. You are confusing owning minority equity with what actual control gives you —- actual ownership of capital/MoP/assets/profits
        0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
        How specifically would you expect a typical SV corp's policies to change if employee equity passes from 49% to 51%? Remember, if employees own 49%, if they can persuade just 2% of the other shareholders that a change will be positive for the business, they can make that change. So minority vs majority is not as significant as it may seem.
- kortilla 1y ago
  Worker owned coops are not socialist unless the government forces it.
  - tsimionescu 1y ago
    Worker-owned co-ops is the basic idea of socialism (that is what "workers owning the means of productions" means in modern language).
  - freedomben 1y ago
    That is true, but if all business are worker owned Co-ops then it has to be forced
pembrook 1y ago
Have you been human before? competition for resources and status is an instinctive trait. It rears its head regardless of what sociopolitical environment you place us in. You’re either competing to offer better products or services to customers…or you’re competing for your position in the breadline or politburo via black markets.
AJ007 1y ago
Unfortunately it's called war and it appears to be part of human nature.
wkat4242 1y ago
Even in the Soviet Union there were multiple design bureaus competing for designs of things like aircraft. Tupolec, Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Mikoyan-Gyurevich (MiG), Yakolev, Mil. There were quite a lot. Several (not all, they had their specialisations) provided designs when a requirement was raised. Not too different from the US yet not capitalist.

Not really, it's possible with any market economy, even a hypothetical socialist one (that is, one where all market actors are worker-owned co-ops). And, since there is no global super-state, the world economy is a market economy, so even if every state were a state-owned planned economy, North Korea style, still there would exist this type of competition between states.

0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
I mean, if you wanna get technical, many companies in Silicon Valley are worker-owned (equity compensation)
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  They are not worker owned, they have some small amount of worker ownership. But the majority of stock is never owned by workers, other than the CEO.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    Consider also that VC funds often have pension funds as their limited partners. Workers have a claim to their pension, and thus a claim to the startup returns that the VC invests in. So yeah it basically comes down to your definition of "worker-owned". What fraction of worker ownership is necessary? Do C-level execs count as workers? Can it be "worker-owned" if the "workers" are people working elsewhere? Beyond the "worker-owned" terminology, why is this distinction supposed to matter exactly? Supposing there was an SV startup that was relatively generous with equity compensation, so over 50% of equity is owned by non-C-level employees. What would you expect to change, if anything, if that threshold was passed?
    - tsimionescu 1y ago
      > Supposing there was an SV startup that was relatively generous with equity compensation, so over 50% of equity is owned by non-C-level employees. What would you expect to change, if anything, if that threshold was passed? If the workers are majority owners, then they can, for example, fire a CEO that is leading the company in the wrong direction, or trying to cut their salaries, or anything like that.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
        >If the workers are majority owners, then they can, for example, fire a CEO that is leading the company in the wrong direction, or trying to cut their salaries, or anything like that. Why wouldn't the board fire said CEO? The most common reason to cut salaries is if the company is in dire financial straits regardless. Co-ops are more likely to cut salary and less likely to do layoffs.
        tsimionescu 1y ago
        Because the board doesn't understand the business at the level that employees do. Or because the board has different goals for the business than employees do. Or because the board is filled with friends of the CEO who let them do whatever. Also, lots of companies reduce salaries or headcount if they feel they can get away with it. They don't need to be in dire financial straights, it's enough to have a few quarters of no or low growth and to want to show a positive change.
    - skinnymuch 1y ago
      It’s not “your definition”. Worker owned means the workers own the means of production. What you’re talking about is not that at all. What changes is democracy in the work place. You are confusing owning minority equity with what actual control gives you —- actual ownership of capital/MoP/assets/profits
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
        How specifically would you expect a typical SV corp's policies to change if employee equity passes from 49% to 51%? Remember, if employees own 49%, if they can persuade just 2% of the other shareholders that a change will be positive for the business, they can make that change. So minority vs majority is not as significant as it may seem.
kortilla 1y ago
Worker owned coops are not socialist unless the government forces it.
- tsimionescu 1y ago
  Worker-owned co-ops is the basic idea of socialism (that is what "workers owning the means of productions" means in modern language).
- freedomben 1y ago
  That is true, but if all business are worker owned Co-ops then it has to be forced

pembrook 1y ago

Have you been human before? competition for resources and status is an instinctive trait. It rears its head regardless of what sociopolitical environment you place us in. You’re either competing to offer better products or services to customers…or you’re competing for your position in the breadline or politburo via black markets.

AJ007 1y ago

Unfortunately it's called war and it appears to be part of human nature.

wkat4242 1y ago

Even in the Soviet Union there were multiple design bureaus competing for designs of things like aircraft. Tupolec, Ilyushin, Sukhoi, Mikoyan-Gyurevich (MiG), Yakolev, Mil. There were quite a lot. Several (not all, they had their specialisations) provided designs when a requirement was raised. Not too different from the US yet not capitalist.