7 ms·

OK, that makes sense but doesn't connect all the dots for me. I am starting with the assumption that no one gets an ownership stake for free. You can start a b

OK, that makes sense but doesn't connect all the dots for me. I am starting with the assumption that no one gets an ownership stake for free. You can start a business if you want, and you can either bootstrap it or take investment. Either way, the owners are not handed their ownership ... they "buy" it with what they put in. Is this Chomsky/Noble point of view arguing that workers should be granted a degree of ownership by virtue of the work they do?

steveklabnik 14y ago
The basic tenet of socialism is that democracy is good: the traditional corporate model is dictatorship, and it should be reformed into democracy instead. > the owners are not handed their ownership ... they "buy" it with what they put in. Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. Those people are not being rewarded for the work that they do, which we all agree is bad. > workers should be granted a degree of ownership by virtue of the work they do? Basically, yes. People should be in control of themselves, and their situations. Ownership == control. Please note that I'm painting in _very_, _very_ broad strokes here. There is a ton of space under this tent.
- charlieflowers 14y ago
  >>>"Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership." I agree with the point that it is "too bad" the worker will work 30 years and never gain ownership. But ... if the worker doesn't like it, why doesn't he start a business? And ... is it right for government to forcibly take a piece of ownership away and give it to the worker? Is that the proposed solution? Gosh, when you look at this discussion, you ask yourself, "Why on earth would anyone sign up to be a perpetual worker?" BUT -- there's a lot more to a business than just the skilled work. There's marketing, capitalization decisions, strategy, etc. Seems the businesses who are best at that will outcompete the others. I guess that then makes the argument for "professional management" (I promise I did not set out towards that goal ... I stumbled there by "thinking out loud").
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    > But ... if the worker doesn't like it, why doesn't he start a business? Starting a business is not a possibility for many people. This requires initial capital, for example. Most people do not have capital. > And ... is it right for government to forcibly take a piece of ownership away and give it to the worker? Is that the proposed solution? Chomsky is an anarchist, so no, he would not suggest that. it's actually the opposite: the ability of the owner to retain ownership is due to contractual agreements that the state upholds under threat of violence. Without the state, corporations (and capitalism) are not possible. > Gosh, when you look at this discussion, you ask yourself, "Why on earth would anyone sign up to be a perpetual worker?" :) An observation that Marx made was that because the worker sells their labor-power (ie, capacity to labor), they do not get to retain the advantages of increased productivity: the capitalist does. When we become more productive, we have two choices: work less, or work the same and get even more. The ones with the power make those decisions, and since they're not the ones doing the work, guess which they choose? The movement from the 12 hour day to the 10 hour day to the 80 hour day to the 40 hour week was not due to productivity gains: it was due to socialist and other worker-led movements. > (I promise I did not set out towards that goal ... I stumbled there by "thinking out loud"). No worries :) I'd say that you're confusing correlation and causation: there are many, many more traditionally structured businesses than socialist ones. There are many success stories on the other side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - ths 14y ago
      > Without the state, corporations (and capitalism) are not possible. A state is not necessary for enforcing contracts - that could be done by private parties, as in anarcho-capitalism. Also: Cooperatives can exist within a capitalist system, but the converse is not true. So I guess it comes down to whether or not all property as defined by the status quo should be redistributed or reallocated, presumably by force; if that were not the case, there wouldn't really be any disagreement between left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, right?
- yummyfajitas 14y ago
  the traditional corporate model is dictatorship Huh? The traditional corporate model is representative democracy. Shareholders elect a board of directors who then elect upper management, who then appoint lower level positions. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. This is false for any publicly traded corporation. Any worker can open up an ETrade account and trade their salary for part of the corporation. As far as I know, most workers choose not to. Why do you feel these workers (myself included) are making the wrong choice?
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Please see my statement about broad strokes. That said.... > Shareholders elect There's your error. Shareholders elect. Not workers. Maybe "oligarchy" is a better word than dictatorship, but as I said, trying to keep it simple to get the concept across. Workers do not have a vote. Traditional corporate structures are not a democracy. > This is false for any publicly traded corporation. Any worker can open up an ETrade account and trade their salary for part of the corporation. Only if that company is publicly traded. Even then, if it is, acquiring ownership comes through spending capital, not by virtue of having control over yourself and what you do. > As far as I know, most workers choose not to. Why do you feel these workers (myself included) are making the wrong choice? Most people do not have the ability to work in a place that's run cooperatively because there aren't enough places that are cooperative. Even GitHub and Valve are socialist in social structure only: Both are private companies, but I'm pretty sure that everyone does not own a portion of the company. I could be wrong on this. Secondly, post-Cold War, 'socialism' became such a scare term that people would shy away from it even if it were a rationally better choice for them. The notion of 'ideology' is useful here.
    - codewright 14y ago
      You don't need the word socialism to make me skeptical, I'm skeptical that democracy would produce better results in a business context. Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. I don't even trust democracy in politics all that much, my state (California) is a complete and utter failure as an exercise in democracy.
- baddox 14y ago
  > Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. It sounds like you are talking about the labor theory of value in Marxian economics. I'm no expert, so I'm probably oversimplifying, but I think the labor theory of value would consider exploitation to begin the instant a property owner accrued more value from rent payments than the labor it took to build the hous being rented.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    I am not specifically invoking the labor theory of value in the above: this is how absentee property works. The analysis of this problem is what leads to the labor theory of value, so there is a relationship, though. I would agree with your comment, except with one modification: any rent is exploitation, because it's an extraction of surplus value.
    - baddox 14y ago
      Good point. I suppose "rent to own" would be acceptable though, right? That would be equivalent to an interest-free mortgage.
      - steveklabnik 14y ago
        Yes, although under its preferred system of ownership, the idea of owning a house you don't life in doesn't make any sense, since it's based on usufruct or use, not title. But under capitalism, no, my initial thought would be that that is not exploitation, since there's no surplus value.
gbog 14y ago
Chomsky may have a more ductile view on ownership, when it applies to means of production. And you can't assume the rationality of the capitalist, many psychological and cultural factor play the game when choosing to empower workers or management.
- charlieflowers 14y ago
  >>> "And you can't assume the rationality of the capitalist" That's definitely true. But, his business incentives are aligned with whatever is most effective. If he wins the business competition, he makes a lot of money. So at the macro scale, business owners would be inclined to do whatever works best ... as opposed to hiring a management layer they don't really need (and incurring costs) to adopt a less effective approach.
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    > his business incentives are aligned with whatever is most effective at making money. Fixed that for you. Many, many things make lots of money but are not effective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...
    - charlieflowers 14y ago
      I agree with your edit. That's what I meant. But I don't think there's a huge gap between "what is most effective" and "what is most effective at making him money." Well ... OK ... I can think of examples when that gap is huge, so scratch that. The point is ... in the example of choosing between (a) hiring managers even though it costs more and is less effective, or (b) not hiring managers, saving that money, and being more productive too -- why would the capitalist choose to maintain a management layer?
      - steveklabnik 14y ago
        > why would the capitalist choose to maintain a management layer? Humans are pattern recognition machines. Many successful companies have tons of managers: why try out this weird alternate strategy I have no experience with when so many companies work hierarchically? Starting a startup has so much risk involved, and risk needs managed. New management strategies are incredibly risky. I don't think the cooperative model being possible even enters into most people's minds.

steveklabnik 14y ago

The basic tenet of socialism is that democracy is good: the traditional corporate model is dictatorship, and it should be reformed into democracy instead. > the owners are not handed their ownership ... they "buy" it with what they put in. Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. Those people are not being rewarded for the work that they do, which we all agree is bad. > workers should be granted a degree of ownership by virtue of the work they do? Basically, yes. People should be in control of themselves, and their situations. Ownership == control. Please note that I'm painting in _very_, _very_ broad strokes here. There is a ton of space under this tent.

charlieflowers 14y ago
>>>"Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership." I agree with the point that it is "too bad" the worker will work 30 years and never gain ownership. But ... if the worker doesn't like it, why doesn't he start a business? And ... is it right for government to forcibly take a piece of ownership away and give it to the worker? Is that the proposed solution? Gosh, when you look at this discussion, you ask yourself, "Why on earth would anyone sign up to be a perpetual worker?" BUT -- there's a lot more to a business than just the skilled work. There's marketing, capitalization decisions, strategy, etc. Seems the businesses who are best at that will outcompete the others. I guess that then makes the argument for "professional management" (I promise I did not set out towards that goal ... I stumbled there by "thinking out loud").
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  > But ... if the worker doesn't like it, why doesn't he start a business? Starting a business is not a possibility for many people. This requires initial capital, for example. Most people do not have capital. > And ... is it right for government to forcibly take a piece of ownership away and give it to the worker? Is that the proposed solution? Chomsky is an anarchist, so no, he would not suggest that. it's actually the opposite: the ability of the owner to retain ownership is due to contractual agreements that the state upholds under threat of violence. Without the state, corporations (and capitalism) are not possible. > Gosh, when you look at this discussion, you ask yourself, "Why on earth would anyone sign up to be a perpetual worker?" :) An observation that Marx made was that because the worker sells their labor-power (ie, capacity to labor), they do not get to retain the advantages of increased productivity: the capitalist does. When we become more productive, we have two choices: work less, or work the same and get even more. The ones with the power make those decisions, and since they're not the ones doing the work, guess which they choose? The movement from the 12 hour day to the 10 hour day to the 80 hour day to the 40 hour week was not due to productivity gains: it was due to socialist and other worker-led movements. > (I promise I did not set out towards that goal ... I stumbled there by "thinking out loud"). No worries :) I'd say that you're confusing correlation and causation: there are many, many more traditionally structured businesses than socialist ones. There are many success stories on the other side: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - ths 14y ago
    > Without the state, corporations (and capitalism) are not possible. A state is not necessary for enforcing contracts - that could be done by private parties, as in anarcho-capitalism. Also: Cooperatives can exist within a capitalist system, but the converse is not true. So I guess it comes down to whether or not all property as defined by the status quo should be redistributed or reallocated, presumably by force; if that were not the case, there wouldn't really be any disagreement between left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, right?
yummyfajitas 14y ago
the traditional corporate model is dictatorship Huh? The traditional corporate model is representative democracy. Shareholders elect a board of directors who then elect upper management, who then appoint lower level positions. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. This is false for any publicly traded corporation. Any worker can open up an ETrade account and trade their salary for part of the corporation. As far as I know, most workers choose not to. Why do you feel these workers (myself included) are making the wrong choice?
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Please see my statement about broad strokes. That said.... > Shareholders elect There's your error. Shareholders elect. Not workers. Maybe "oligarchy" is a better word than dictatorship, but as I said, trying to keep it simple to get the concept across. Workers do not have a vote. Traditional corporate structures are not a democracy. > This is false for any publicly traded corporation. Any worker can open up an ETrade account and trade their salary for part of the corporation. Only if that company is publicly traded. Even then, if it is, acquiring ownership comes through spending capital, not by virtue of having control over yourself and what you do. > As far as I know, most workers choose not to. Why do you feel these workers (myself included) are making the wrong choice? Most people do not have the ability to work in a place that's run cooperatively because there aren't enough places that are cooperative. Even GitHub and Valve are socialist in social structure only: Both are private companies, but I'm pretty sure that everyone does not own a portion of the company. I could be wrong on this. Secondly, post-Cold War, 'socialism' became such a scare term that people would shy away from it even if it were a rationally better choice for them. The notion of 'ideology' is useful here.
  - codewright 14y ago
    You don't need the word socialism to make me skeptical, I'm skeptical that democracy would produce better results in a business context. Also, I have a hard time believing you've read any Marx. You're not doing his work very much justice. I don't even trust democracy in politics all that much, my state (California) is a complete and utter failure as an exercise in democracy.
baddox 14y ago
> Sure, but then they have it, and that's great. Being rewarded for your work is good. Problem is, they have to do nothing to maintain it. After an initial period of work, they have it forever. Whereas a worker who comes in afterward has no access, and even though they also put in a lot of work, they won't get any ownership. It sounds like you are talking about the labor theory of value in Marxian economics. I'm no expert, so I'm probably oversimplifying, but I think the labor theory of value would consider exploitation to begin the instant a property owner accrued more value from rent payments than the labor it took to build the hous being rented.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  I am not specifically invoking the labor theory of value in the above: this is how absentee property works. The analysis of this problem is what leads to the labor theory of value, so there is a relationship, though. I would agree with your comment, except with one modification: any rent is exploitation, because it's an extraction of surplus value.
  - baddox 14y ago
    Good point. I suppose "rent to own" would be acceptable though, right? That would be equivalent to an interest-free mortgage.
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      Yes, although under its preferred system of ownership, the idea of owning a house you don't life in doesn't make any sense, since it's based on usufruct or use, not title. But under capitalism, no, my initial thought would be that that is not exploitation, since there's no surplus value.

gbog 14y ago

Chomsky may have a more ductile view on ownership, when it applies to means of production. And you can't assume the rationality of the capitalist, many psychological and cultural factor play the game when choosing to empower workers or management.

charlieflowers 14y ago
>>> "And you can't assume the rationality of the capitalist" That's definitely true. But, his business incentives are aligned with whatever is most effective. If he wins the business competition, he makes a lot of money. So at the macro scale, business owners would be inclined to do whatever works best ... as opposed to hiring a management layer they don't really need (and incurring costs) to adopt a less effective approach.
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  > his business incentives are aligned with whatever is most effective at making money. Fixed that for you. Many, many things make lots of money but are not effective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scanda...
  - charlieflowers 14y ago
    I agree with your edit. That's what I meant. But I don't think there's a huge gap between "what is most effective" and "what is most effective at making him money." Well ... OK ... I can think of examples when that gap is huge, so scratch that. The point is ... in the example of choosing between (a) hiring managers even though it costs more and is less effective, or (b) not hiring managers, saving that money, and being more productive too -- why would the capitalist choose to maintain a management layer?
    - steveklabnik 14y ago
      > why would the capitalist choose to maintain a management layer? Humans are pattern recognition machines. Many successful companies have tons of managers: why try out this weird alternate strategy I have no experience with when so many companies work hierarchically? Starting a startup has so much risk involved, and risk needs managed. New management strategies are incredibly risky. I don't think the cooperative model being possible even enters into most people's minds.