A continuation of our discussion in the "The club has 53 members...." thread

[lev888]

Why don't you see why it would better for the workers to own the company and share in on the profits.

Question. Why does the issue of workers owning a particular company ALWAYS come up AFTER someone already created the company? Why is it that the only way a worker cooperative can come into existence is through a takeover of an existing company??? Can't the workers come up with an idea, pool resources and set up the cooperative? There is nothing to prevent it! It's allowed under Capitalism!

 

[lev888]

What is so wrong with people earning what they deserve to earn?

There is nothing wrong with getting what you deserve. But how do we arrive at the amount you deserve?
Let's forget for a minute about workers and factories and evil bosses. Let's say you are one of several bakers in town. What do you deserve to earn and why?

 

[stapel]

What is so wrong with people earning what they deserve to earn?

In my opinion, nothing is wrong with that. But the application is wherein lies the problem. Who decides who is worth how much? Who will be the "completely objective", always "fair", "dispassionate" overseers who decide who does what, where, when, and how, and much they're to receive for it? Who gets to sit, godlike, over your life, deciding what is best for you?

Most business owners make many times what one would be paid for doing the same job.
I am not saying that business owners shouldn't earn a living. I am saying that they should earn what others earn for the same work.

The owner is taking the risk of creating a business (and most businesses fail), and providing jobs, products, and services.That isn't quite "the same job" as, say, what the cashier is doing.

There is nothing wrong with getting what you deserve. But how do we arrive at the amount you deserve?
Let's forget for a minute about workers and factories and evil bosses. Let's say you are one of several bakers in town. What do you deserve to earn and why?

This is, of course, where it all breaks down.

"Supply-side", "trickle-down" economics, where "a rising tide lifts all boats", sounded great the first time around. Pundits had me convinced. But then people and reality intervened, and now we know that, despite what some see as the beauty of the system (in its ideal, strictly-in-your-head philosophizing sense), it simply doesn't work in the real world.

(I have *zero* idea why some people are wanting to give it another whirl. But then, some people want to bring back the "styles" and clothes of the 1970's -- *shudder* -- so what do I know?)

It's like communism. Communism *sounds* like a fabulous idea. And it is... until you get people involved.

 

[lev888]

This is, of course, where it all breaks down.

What breaks down? Don't quite follow how my quoted question about the baker is connected with supply-side, etc.

 

[stapel]

What breaks down?

The wonderful system of socialism, where things are "From each according to ability, to each according to need". Who decides? On what basis?

Don't quite follow how my quoted question about the baker is connected with supply-side, etc.

Sorry; I was using your post as a springboard for my own thoughts. Just because something sounds like a great idea, doesn't mean that it is.

 

[lev888]

Just because something sounds like a great idea, doesn't mean that it is.

Here's the great Thomas Sowell on this topic:
"Comparing any society to ideals virtually guarantees that that society will be condemned as a failure, if only because it costs nothing to imagine something better than what exists-that is, to create ideals-while everything created in the real world has a cost. Moreover, our only choice in the real world is between different societies compared to each other-not compared to ideals such as "social justice." The enormous influence of geographic, climatic and other forces, utterly beyond the control of any given society, makes the resulting gross inequalities among peoples-not only in their immediate economic circumstances, but in their own internal "human capital," developing in cultural universes of widely varying sizes-something far more than an injustice that can be attributed to any given society or that can blithely be assumed to be remediable by every society.
Calling unrealistic standards "social justice" enables intellectuals to engage in endless complaints about the particular ways in which a particular society fails to meet their criteria, along with a parade of groups entitled to a sense of grievance, exemplified in the "race, class and gender" formula today, though the same kind of thinking behind that particular formula has also been used to depict children as victims of their parents and illegal immigrants as victims of a calloused or xenophobic society in the country they enter, in violation of its laws."
– Thomas Sowell “Intellectuals and Society“

 

[khansaheb]

Question. Why does the issue of workers owning a particular company ALWAYS come up AFTER someone already created the company?

Because most (may be none) of the workers never ENVISIONED the "need that is going unfulfilled".

Reminds me of a story:

When one of the famous inventors (I forget who) was given a "honorary" dinner - one of the guest quipped "anybody could have done that".

To which, the inventor picked up a "cooked" egg from the table - handed to the "unsatisfied" guest - and asked " can you make this one stand on its narrow end - without holding onto it?" The guest said "No - that defies law of physics"

The inventor took back the egg - tapped the narrow end on the table made a "dimple" and now the egg stood on the narrow end - without a finger.

Everyone knew the solution - but no-body implemented it before it was shown.

Who will take the risk - who will gather the "info" needed - who will buy/rent the machines and or other implements?

It is the owners.

 

[khansaheb]

But then, some people want to bring back the "styles" and clothes of the 1970's -- *shudder* --

Groovy - I was watching reruns of Partridge Family on FreeVee........

 

[khansaheb]

I think Steven (@Steven G ) has been "converted" - finally .......

Capitalists of the World - UNITE.

 

[Steven G]

Socialism: No state, no borders, no money, just workers.
The problem with capitalism is that some people have more than others. You buy a new car just people your next door neighbor bought one.
Under socialism that will never happen. For what possible reason would you want a newer car than your neighbor if anyone could get a car at anytime they choose?

People would have a job that they want to do and nobody would talk about anyone being less successful than them. Success would be meaningless if you can be whatever you want.

I have always changed the brakes on all my cars, then my wife's cars and now my daughter's car. I always wondered why the brake pads couldn't be designed thicker so they can last two or three times longer. How about tires? Tires can have more rubber on them. Why don't they? Because of profit. Cars can be made to last a very long time but the car makers wouldn't make so much money then. Under socialism that wouldn't matter.

Under socialism we would build many more schools and hire more teachers. I assure you that many people with PhDs would be willing to teach k-12 just one day per week every few years, if not every year. Can you imagine how much education would improve if we had qualified teachers in the classroom who loved their field?

People would not need to be homeless, people would have health care, child care, good schools--what's wrong with that?

You folks need to rethink what is going on in this world. Do you really see the poverty in our world or do you close your eyes when you see it?

Capitalism is the biggest crime of them all. Why should only the 'hard workers' and children from rich parents have a much better life. Doesn't everyone deserve to go on a vacation from time to time? I forget the %, but a lot of people have never left their county in the US! That's terrible.

If you like to travel, then you should be able to. If you like to play golf then you should be able to. If you like cars, then you should be able to have a car collection. Why should Jay Leno have a nice car collection and I can't? Maybe I can't have a car collection becauseI am a bad person, I don't work hard enough or maybe my parents weren't rich?

Capitalism just works for a selective few, the rest of us have a terrible time. Most people work 8 hours a day! In NYC, it takes about one hour to get to and from work. Let's do the math--8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 2 hours of travel time = 18 hours per work day. This leaves 6 hours to prepare for work, prepare eat breakfast and eadinner

 

[lev888]

Socialism: No state, no borders, no money, just workers.

Steven, I think you've seen that the participants in this discussion conduct themselves in a civil manner, don't call each other names, etc. So, why are you afraid to call your system by the name it's been known for since The Communist Manifesto? Nobody will run away from this thread screaming, nor will anybody call for congressional hearings to investigate you for advocating for Communism.
Here's one definition that fits what you've been describing (Wikipedia):
"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state."

Of course, we can continue this discussion while referring to your system as socialism - doesn't matter to me. But why call a piece of bread a pancake, when everybody knows it's bread? It's just a little strange.

Back to regular programming.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a writer intimately familiar with socialism said:
"Human beings are born with different capacities, if they are free they are not equal and if they are equal they are not free."
To capacities, I would add preferences.
I keep asking about THE PEOPLE, you never answer. It seems you envision your system working flawlessly with everybody on the same page about their role in the system, like an ant colony. This is a fantasy. Humans don't work this way. We are homo sapiens. We have highly advanced brains, that make every individual different.

Here's what E.O. Wilson (two-time Pulitzer Prize winning author and Harvard entomologist) said when comparing ants and humans:
"What I like to say is that Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species. Why doesn't it work in humans? Because we have reproductive independence, and we get maximum Darwinian fitness by looking after our own survival and having our own offspring. The great success of the social insects is that the success of the individual genes are invested in the success of the colony as a whole, and especially in the reproduction of the queen, and thus through her the reproduction of new colonies."

Karl Marx was right, socialism works

I have other objections (e.g. as I wrote earlier, money has different roles, so you can't just throw it away - you never addressed this point). But I don't think it makes sense to discuss your numerous complaints about capitalism until you demonstrate that your system will work.

 

[khansaheb]

I have always changed the brakes on all my cars, then my wife's cars and now my daughter's car. I always wondered why the brake pads couldn't be designed thicker so they can last two or three times longer.

Really - then you have to make bigger wheel - and same goes for more rubber.

Capitalists figured out a better-way to achieve that result by reinforcing the pads with "Kevlar". That adds complication to manufacturing - and costs more. Did you inquire about that at the auto-parts store - and willing to pay more ?

Tires can have more rubber on them. Why don't they?

Because more rubber (thicker tread and sidewalls) will trap more heat and degrade the tire faster. Again capitalist business men HIRED brilliant scientists (and paid them well) to solve the problem. In the 70's the tiers used to have tread-wear warranty of 20 K miles. Now we have warranty of 80 K - with careful driving that can be extended to 120 K. The tires are about twice as expensive - but those do exist (and waiting for you at the auto-stores).

But then all of us could drive tanks - and all these problems will go-away....... No tires ......

 

[Steven G]

Steven, I think you've seen that the participants in this discussion conduct themselves in a civil manner, don't call each other names, etc. So, why are you afraid to call your system by the name it's been known for since The Communist Manifesto? Nobody will run away from this thread screaming, nor will anybody call for congressional hearings to investigate you for advocating for Communism.
Here's one definition that fits what you've been describing (Wikipedia):
"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal') is a left-wing to far-left sociopolitical, philosophical, and economic ideology within the socialist movement, whose goal is the creation of a communist society, a socioeconomic order centered around common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange that allocates products to everyone in the society based on need. A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes, and ultimately money and the state."

Of course, we can continue this discussion while referring to your system as socialism - doesn't matter to me. But why call a piece of bread a pancake, when everybody knows it's bread? It's just a little strange.

Back to regular programming.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a writer intimately familiar with socialism said:
"Human beings are born with different capacities, if they are free they are not equal and if they are equal they are not free."
To capacities, I would add preferences.
I keep asking about THE PEOPLE, you never answer. It seems you envision your system working flawlessly with everybody on the same page about their role in the system, like an ant colony. This is a fantasy. Humans don't work this way. We are homo sapiens. We have highly advanced brains, that make every individual different.

Here's what E.O. Wilson (two-time Pulitzer Prize winning author and Harvard entomologist) said when comparing ants and humans:
"What I like to say is that Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species. Why doesn't it work in humans? Because we have reproductive independence, and we get maximum Darwinian fitness by looking after our own survival and having our own offspring. The great success of the social insects is that the success of the individual genes are invested in the success of the colony as a whole, and especially in the reproduction of the queen, and thus through her the reproduction of new colonies."

Karl Marx was right, socialism works

I have other objections (e.g. as I wrote earlier, money has different roles, so you can't just throw it away - you never addressed this point). But I don't think it makes sense to discuss your numerous complaints about capitalism until you demonstrate that your system will work.

What you call communism is what my friends and I call socialism. I didn't mean to hide anything. I did repeatedly say what you were defining was state capitalism.

 

[blamocur]

For what possible reason would you want a newer car than your neighbor if anyone could get a car at anytime they choose?

And whose responsibility is it to make sure that anyone could get a car at anytime they choose ?

 

[Steven G]

And whose responsibility is it to make sure that anyone could get a car at anytime they choose ?

That's a simple one--the people who build cars!
Also to be honest, maybe cars would not really be needed that much in big cities as there would be excellent bus services there. None of this waiting 40 minutes for a bus like I did when i was a kid.

 

[blamocur]

That's a simple one--the people who build cars!
Also to be honest, maybe cars would not really be needed

Whether it is about cars or other, still necessary, things, why would you or me spend shifts at an assembly line to ensure that "anyone could get a..." ? I don't know about you, but I'd probably abscond to the nearest beach or pub

 

[Steven G]

Whether it is about cars or other, still necessary, things, why would you or me spend shifts at an assembly line to ensure that "anyone could get a..." ? I don't know about you, but I'd probably abscond to the nearest beach or pub

Why do people work for minimum wage when they can go on welfare and as a bonus get free health insurance.
If someone could work where they want to, then they would actually take that job.
To really answer your question; if you don't work, then you don't get any goods.

 

[stapel]

To really answer your question; if you don't work, then you don't get any goods.

Well, at least we'll end up having "developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for [our] personal benefit".

 

[blamocur]

if you don't work, then you don't get any goods.

And who will be deciding whether I worked enough -- or well enough -- to get what I want?

 

[khansaheb]

How about tires? Tires can have more rubber on them. Why don't they?

Look Steve - Michelin was listening.............

Michelin's airless car tires