6 ms·

>>>"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 pe

>>>"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?
  - steveklabnik 14y ago
    Anarcho-capitalism is ahistoric, silly, degenerate, and impossible. Even Murry Rothbard doesn't think that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html and http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefore-conclude-that-we-are-not-anarchists http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefo... DROs and private property are effectively a state, don't kid yourself.
    - jacoblyles 14y ago
      > Anarcho-capitalism is ahistoric, silly, degenerate, and impossible. So is anarcho-anything.
      - jahaja 14y ago
        Judging by your profile and blog you seem to be politically interested enough to be able to motivate that comment. Or I'm I just a victim of your "Trolling hard on HN" bullet-point?

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?
- steveklabnik 14y ago
  Anarcho-capitalism is ahistoric, silly, degenerate, and impossible. Even Murry Rothbard doesn't think that anarcho-capitalists are anarchists: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html and http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefore-conclude-that-we-are-not-anarchists http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/rothbard-we-must-therefo... DROs and private property are effectively a state, don't kid yourself.
  - jacoblyles 14y ago
    > Anarcho-capitalism is ahistoric, silly, degenerate, and impossible. So is anarcho-anything.
    - jahaja 14y ago
      Judging by your profile and blog you seem to be politically interested enough to be able to motivate that comment. Or I'm I just a victim of your "Trolling hard on HN" bullet-point?