ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags socialism , worker cooperatives

Reply
Old 1st August 2017, 11:58 AM   #1
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Can a worker owned and managed economy work?

It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2017, 12:04 PM   #2
superfreddy
Muse
 
superfreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 807
How would such factory finance operations? Who would risk capital?
superfreddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2017, 12:42 PM   #3
The Great Zaganza
Master Poster
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by superfreddy View Post
How would such factory finance operations? Who would risk capital?
Bonds, like all companies used to do.
__________________
I dont believe in astrology; Im a Sagittarius and were skeptical. - Arthur C. Clarke
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2017, 12:45 PM   #4
Spindrift
Time Person of the Year, 2006
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 19,183
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
Election? I guess the idea is that all the best leaders will rise to the top, just like unions.
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Enjoy every sandwich. - Warren Zevon
Spindrift is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2017, 01:17 PM   #5
superfreddy
Muse
 
superfreddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 807
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Bonds, like all companies used to do.
I wonder what kind of yield they would need to offer in order to place such bonds. Junk status?
superfreddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 07:39 AM   #6
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,323
This seems to work. It's not quite what you describe, but a little closer towards it.

I don't think they have elections though, I don't know.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lewis_Partnership
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 07:46 AM   #7
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cymru
Posts: 23,156
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
In theory, probably - in practice almost certainly not. Also not sure how it would scale. There may be room for one or two employee-owned organisations of each type but whether all could be is debatable.

There are examples of successful employee-owned partnerships, the John Lewis Partnership is one but it is run very much on a commercial basis with the employees sharing in the profits but delegating responsibility for running the business to the board.

I'd be concerned that the sort of people who would be elected by employees to lead a company may not necessarily be the right people to run the company. Effective and successful boards that I've been involved with have a range of different people on them and the tension between these people and the differing perspectives they bring means that the board is flexible and responsive. If all positions were employee selected then I'd be concerned that too many people of the same type would be on the board and that as a result it wouldn't perform well.

The thing I'd worry about is that this approach would tend to stifle entrepreneurs. Why would I bust my ***** building up a company with my original ideas if as soon as I take on my first employee (or at some other arbitrary threshold) that business is taken out of my hands and handed to a workers co-operative to run as they see fit.

I don't see this as a path to innovation but I suppose it could just about work in a stable company in a mature industry (like, say, a water utility). Then again wouldn't it be better if factories were owned by their customers and in that way would be run (in theory at least) for the benefit of the public at large as opposed to the employees or the shareholders ?


edited to add....

Ninja'd on the JLP by 3point14
The Don is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd August 2017, 08:06 AM   #8
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 13,323
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
I'd be concerned that the sort of people who would be elected by employees to lead a company may not necessarily be the right people to run the company. Effective and successful boards that I've been involved with have a range of different people on them and the tension between these people and the differing perspectives they bring means that the board is flexible and responsive. If all positions were employee selected then I'd be concerned that too many people of the same type would be on the board and that as a result it wouldn't perform well.

I don't know if that holds. I think that's very dependent on the owner-staff makeup. Given the performance of some boards selected in the usual way, I don't know that it'd give the worst results.
__________________
Some seem to think the UK leaving the EU is like Robbie leaving Take That.
In reality it's more like Pete leaving The Beatles.

We are lions, not tigers.
Turns out I don't know a lot about tigers.
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 12:13 PM   #9
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 14,315
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
Of course. Every company can be owned by it employees as soon as the employees can afford to buy it. One of my favorite restaurants is employee owned. The family that owned it sold it to the employees because they offered the best deal long term.

For me, I would not want to have a large portion of my portfolio tied to the same entity that supplied the majority of my income. All the eggs in one basket is not a very good plan for long term success.

Any attempt to force ownership from one party to another will stifle commerce and innovation.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 03:57 PM   #10
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,550
This is the closest thing I've heard of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneida_Limited

Quote:
The company arose out of the utopian Oneida Community, which was established in Oneida, NY in 1848.[4] The Oneida Association (later Oneida Community) was founded by a small group of Christian Perfectionists led by John Humphrey Noyes, Jonathan Burt, George W. Cragin, Harriet A.Noyes, George W. Noyes, John L. Skinner and a few others.[5] In 1880, after more than 30 years operating as a commune, the Oneida Community voted to transfer much of the common property to a joint-stock company to be known as Oneida Community Ltd. effective January 1, 1881.[6]

Oneida Community Ltd. was one of the earliest joint-stock companies in the United States. Its founders' religious philosophy helped inform the early development of the company, in which members of the former Oneida Community became shareholders in the company. Its progressive nature also allowed for a woman, Harriet Joselyn, to sit on the board of directors — a departure from the norm for the time.[7]

Oneida Community started production of silver-plated flatware and hollow-ware in 1899 using the "Community Plate" mark. Oneida Community purchased the Wm A. Rogers and 1881 Rogers companies in 1929 and started producing a somewhat lower-quality line of products using those companies’ marks. In 1935, Oneida Community changed its name to Oneida Ltd.[8]
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

Last edited by Puppycow; 4th August 2017 at 03:58 PM.
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th August 2017, 05:05 PM   #11
Tippit
Master Poster
 
Tippit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,618
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
The problem with workers is that as stakeholders they don't have balanced claims, unlike shareholders. If workers were in charge of making decisions, they would quickly increase their salaries to amounts which would make the business uncompetitive, and the business would quickly fail. Shareholders-as-owners make decisions in order to maximize shareholder value, but they have to balance their claim with a number of other stakeholders, such as workers, suppliers, and customers, all of whom are required to make the business competitive and successful, and all of whom will revolt if their particular claims aren't satisfied.

But that isn't exactly what you proposed, which is requiring all owners to be workers, presumably by force of government. There is nothing preventing workers now from becoming owners in publicly traded companies, by simply buying stock in the companies they work for. If your proposal is driven by what I would agree is the highly unethical disconnect between the exorbitant salaries of CEOs versus other non-executive workers, then you need to investigate that aspect of finance which has consolidated the ownership of equity assets into fewer and fewer hands - monetary and bank policy.

You would also have to forcibly dispossess equity shares held by passive shareholders, which amounts to wealth confiscation/asset forfeiture. You would need a very good reason and a lot of political support to do this. Better to focus on the reason why assets like shares are concentrated into fewer and fewer people's hands - control of the money supply.
__________________
"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks."
- Lord Acton
Tippit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 01:00 AM   #12
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 17,652
From any libertarian standpoint it would seem problematic to have to forcibly prevent any worker from selling her ownership stake to someone else. Similarly to preventing someone from retiring if she is rich enough (or is supported by others) but continuing to own controlling equity in the business and/or other businesses. So what happens if purely voluntary arrangements distill capital ownership and labour supply right back into the strata that the situation was supposedly designed to move away from?

Executive control is almost everywhere delegated to a small group (certainly including the John Lewis folks), the apparent conclusion being it is sub optimal to have mass participation in this side of running a business.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 02:05 AM   #13
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,785
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
From any libertarian standpoint it would seem problematic to have to forcibly prevent any worker from selling her ownership stake to someone else. Similarly to preventing someone from retiring if she is rich enough (or is supported by others) but continuing to own controlling equity in the business and/or other businesses. So what happens if purely voluntary arrangements distill capital ownership and labour supply right back into the strata that the situation was supposedly designed to move away from?
Employee ownership of companies is neither libertarian nor authoritarian.

The way a company operates is generally governed by its constitution (plus whatever laws the government makes up). There is nothing to prevent a company from having different classes of shares such as "ordinary", "non-voting", "employee", "retirement" etc. And each class of share can have different conditions attached.

Offering each employee a number of "employee" shares (under the condition that the employee pays for the shares from the dividends from the shares and that if they resign then they have to sell back to the company any fully paid shares they have) could be a powerful motivator for employee loyalty.

Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Executive control is almost everywhere delegated to a small group (certainly including the John Lewis folks), the apparent conclusion being it is sub optimal to have mass participation in this side of running a business.
That is generally the case and would presumably apply to companies (partly) owned by employees. What executive decisions need to be ratified by the shareholders is again specified by the company's constitution.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 04:57 AM   #14
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
It has been proposed in libertarian socialist and anarchist circles that industry and factories should be completely worker owned and any leaders of a company should be elected by them. Can it work? Could it eventually work in the future?
Of course it can work. You also shouldn't forget that libsoc and anarchist proposals constitute more than just worker-owned workplaces, but for example also a cooperative instead of competitive economy. You can't just pick one aspect and present it in isolation. Well, I guess you could and that would leave you with what's called "market socialism" - but nobody really supports that particular one.

More importantly, before a meaningful answer can be given to your questions, answer this: does capitalism work? The concept of "works" here (as in: capitalism works, socialism works, etc) is nothing more than a proxy for ideological preference until you actually define the term.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 05:04 AM   #15
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
The thing I'd worry about is that this approach would tend to stifle entrepreneurs.
Good. Anything that stifles the ravaging of society and the environment by so-called "entrepreneurs" can only be applauded.

Quote:
Why would I bust my ***** building up a company with my original ideas if as soon as I take on my first employee (or at some other arbitrary threshold) that business is taken out of my hands and handed to a workers co-operative to run as they see fit.
Nobody's forcing you to exploit workers, and there's nothing stopping you from keeping your one-man company for as long as you want. If your only complaint is that you can't exploit workers, and society and the environment in general, for your private profit then you deserve as much consideration as the plantation owner whining about not being able to use slaves anymore - ie none.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 05:18 AM   #16
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Employee ownership of companies is neither libertarian nor authoritarian.
How is it not? There's almost nothing more authoritarian than the relation between the private owner of a company and the workers. Manual workers have the most basic autonomy over their own body made subservient to their master, while "brain workers" (I don't know the correct term for this) have their autonomy over their own thoughts made subservient to their master.[*] If this master called himself "government" rather than "workplace owner" liberals would be all over screaming about authoritarianism.

* Huh, maybe this is why manual workers tend to be the less stupid of the two, at least they still retain their freedom to think for themselves.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 05:48 AM   #17
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 17,652
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
[ . . . ] the ravaging of society and the environment by so-called "entrepreneurs" [ . . . ]. Nobody's forcing you to exploit workers [ . . . ] If your only complaint is that you can't exploit workers.
These seem to be nothing more than proxies for your ideological preference, since you did not define the terms.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 06:01 AM   #18
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
These seem to be nothing more than proxies for your ideological preference, since you did not define the terms.
Exploiting workers can be defined in terms of surplus value. Ravaging of society and the environment by so-called "entrepreneurs" can be defined by the profit of the operations being private to the "entrepreneurs" whereas the (long-term) costs are put on society as a whole. If the costs for making the operations environmentally sustainable were factored in there would be no profit - it'd be about break-even.

Your turn: define "voluntary arrangements" - is giving into the threat of "obey my commands or starve to death" a "voluntary arrangement"? Or is it just a proxy for your ideological preference?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 06:43 AM   #19
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 17,652
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Exploiting workers can be defined in terms of surplus value.
Does not help really. There is typically surplus value on both sides of an employment arrangement otherwise the arrangement may not get made. So what is "exploiting workers" to you?

Quote:
Ravaging of society and the environment by so-called "entrepreneurs" can be defined by the profit of the operations being private to the "entrepreneurs" whereas the (long-term) costs are put on society as a whole.
How about if the long term externality on society as a whole is also a net benefit? Something other than ideological preference proxies should be used to measure that rather than ideological preference being used to declare it as fact.

Is "ravaging society" when there are nothing but negative externalities to the operation of a business? Or when there are net negative ones? Or when there are any negative ones at all? Seems possible to classify all entrepreneurial activity or none of it or anything in between as "ravaging society". Do you just know it when you see it?

Quote:
If the costs for making the operations environmentally sustainable were factored in there would be no profit - it'd be about break-even.
What?

Quote:
Your turn: define "voluntary arrangements"
I already did fairly specifically. A worker selling her ownership stake to someone else, another worker retiring because for one reason or another she could afford to.

Last edited by Francesca R; 5th August 2017 at 06:45 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 07:40 AM   #20
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Does not help really. There is typically surplus value on both sides of an employment arrangement otherwise the arrangement may not get made.
No there isn't.

Quote:
How about if the long term externality on society as a whole is also a net benefit? Something other than ideological preference proxies should be used to measure that rather than ideological preference being used to declare it as fact.
Are you claiming environmental degradation is a net benefit to society? And that's why society, rather than use available resources so as to stop it, donates these resources to so-called "entrepreneurs" instead?

Quote:
Is "ravaging society" when there are nothing but negative externalities to the operation of a business?
Can you define "externalities"? Just to make sure that it isn't an ideological category used for nothing more than the justification of placing the burden of some costs of the operation on society as a whole, whilst keeping the profit private.

Quote:
Seems possible to classify all entrepreneurial activity or none of it or anything in between as "ravaging society".
Free-riding does not constitute activity.

Quote:
Do you just know it when you see it?
I just gave you a definition, try using it.

Quote:
What?
What what?

Quote:
I already did fairly specifically. A worker selling her ownership stake to someone else, another worker retiring because for one reason or another she could afford to.
How would you know if any of those were voluntary? In the early 1990s in Russia services got defunded and everyone got shares in the newly privatized workplaces. As society practically collapsed (for example life expectancy dropped by 5 years) there were those "entrepreneurs" willing to buy these shares at low prices, which people of course did given their circumstances. You have a peculiar notion of "voluntary".

Oh look! The share price of the company you work for just went up, good thing I just bought me some. Now work even harder you slave! That new yacht I need isn't going to buy itself, you know. ...Yeah I like this "entrepreneural activity" actually.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th August 2017 at 07:42 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 07:50 AM   #21
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,785
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How is it not? There's almost nothing more authoritarian than the relation between the private owner of a company and the workers. Manual workers have the most basic autonomy over their own body made subservient to their master, while "brain workers" (I don't know the correct term for this) have their autonomy over their own thoughts made subservient to their master.[*] If this master called himself "government" rather than "workplace owner" liberals would be all over screaming about authoritarianism.
There was more to the post than what you quoted. The political dynamics between government, employers and employees has little to do with whether employees also own shares in their company which is why I disclaimed the use of "libertarian" and "authoritarian" labels with regard to employee ownership. That said, a lot of your post (mind control? - really!) belongs in the CT section.

BTW in Australia the terms used are "Blue collar" and "White collar" to distinguish between the two classes of workers.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 07:53 AM   #22
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There was more to the post than what you quoted. The political dynamics between government, employers and employees has little to do with whether employees also own shares in their company which is why I disclaimed the use of "libertarian" and "authoritarian" labels with regard to employee ownership. That said, a lot of your post (mind control? - really!) belongs in the CT section.
What mind control? What on Earth are you talking about? Why would any of this belong in the CT section?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th August 2017 at 07:56 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 08:06 AM   #23
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,785
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
What mind control? What on Earth are you talking about? Why would any of this belong in the CT section?
This sentence, " ....have their autonomy over their own thoughts made subservient to their master." got me wondering.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 08:27 AM   #24
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This sentence, " ....have their autonomy over their own thoughts made subservient to their master." got me wondering.
If a white-collar worker daydreams (or more generally uses his time to think about what he wants) rather than produce the intellectual output decided upon by their boss they get fired. The same for blue-collar workers, but with body movement rather than thought.

No mind control. Just, essentially, one class of workers selling off their freedom of thought whereas the other sells off their freedom of body movement.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 09:58 AM   #25
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 17,652
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
No there isn't.
Ha ha. Seems a teensy weeny little bit like a reply formed of 24 carat ideological gold.

Quote:
Are you claiming environmental degradation is a net benefit to society?
Ha ha again. No.

Quote:
Can you define "externalities"?
Seriously?

You gonna claim Wikipedia is an ideology I suppose. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

Quote:
I just gave you a definition
One that included everything and nothing. Useless. Ha ha.

Quote:
No ideology there, no sir!

Quote:
How would you know if any of those were voluntary?
Because . . . they are my postulated replies to the opening post suggestion. That's how.

Should I have checked with you before coming up with specific examples, just to make sure they are allowed exist in your version of everythingness, or whether they are disqualified due to not conforming to the way you know that all things happen everywhere and always have happened and will do forever?

Quote:
In the [ . . . ]
Anyway it seems apparent that a couple of nanometres behind the facade of your "Don't be pulling anything ideological on me now" refrain above is a rich seam of pure ideology in your posts that is concentrated enough to power a revolution in at least seventy hundred nations on earth. I appreciate the introduction. Thank you.

Last edited by Francesca R; 5th August 2017 at 10:07 AM.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 10:48 AM   #26
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
Ha ha. Seems a teensy weeny little bit like a reply formed of 24 carat ideological gold.
Uhu. How about you go show that surplus value that the workers purportedly get?

Quote:
You gonna claim Wikipedia is an ideology I suppose. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

{...}

No ideology there, no sir!
Internal consistency isn't your strong suit, is it?

Quote:
Because . . . they are my postulated replies to the opening post suggestion. That's how.
They are voluntary because you postulate them to be voluntary? Well in that case I'll just postulate them to be involuntary - who knew it could be this easy.

Quote:
Should I have checked with you before coming up with specific examples, just to make sure they are allowed exist in your version of everythingness, or whether they are disqualified due to not conforming to the way you know that all things happen everywhere and always have happened and will do forever?

Anyway it seems apparent that a couple of nanometres behind the facade of your "Don't be pulling anything ideological on me now" refrain above is a rich seam of pure ideology in your posts that is concentrated enough to power a revolution in at least seventy hundred nations on earth. I appreciate the introduction. Thank you.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 11:10 AM   #27
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 17,652
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How about you go show that surplus value that the workers purportedly get?
I was wrong, my bad. Thanks to your insight I now understand that every single job on earth is being done by folks who have no alternative but to submit their mental and physical capabilities to the overlords who command them, under threat of death by starvation and a lot of other nasty things. Including me. Even when I was self employed by a wicked capitalist overlady.

Where do I sign up for the revolution? And thank you again. Amazing grace.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 11:33 AM   #28
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,666
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
Of course it can work. You also shouldn't forget that libsoc and anarchist proposals constitute more than just worker-owned workplaces, but for example also a cooperative instead of competitive economy. You can't just pick one aspect and present it in isolation. Well, I guess you could and that would leave you with what's called "market socialism" - but nobody really supports that particular one.
So in other words, these libsoc and anarchist proposals are nothing more than a pipe dream. The USSR had a cooperative instead of a competitive economy; how did that work out?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 11:36 AM   #29
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,785
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
If a white-collar worker daydreams (or more generally uses his time to think about what he wants) rather than produce the intellectual output decided upon by their boss they get fired. The same for blue-collar workers, but with body movement rather than thought.

No mind control. Just, essentially, one class of workers selling off their freedom of thought whereas the other sells off their freedom of body movement.
You still make it sound like an evil thing. There is nothing wrong with selling your time so that you can be directed to perform certain duties. Either one of you can terminate the arrangement if it is not satisfactory.

It is only when you stack the deck against the job seeker that you can say that something is wrong.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 11:36 AM   #30
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
I was wrong, my bad.
About surplus value? Yes you were.

Quote:
Even when I was self employed by a wicked capitalist overlady.
You were self employed by someone else?

Quote:
Where do I sign up for the revolution? And thank you again. Amazing grace.
No don't do that, I'm really liking this "entrepreneural activity" - so I went to buying the entire company you work for. Now work harder you slave, and worship me (without me you wouldn't have your daily bread[*] and so on and so forth) and bring me offerings, starting with a new yacht! And yes, I'm an easy-going deity, so you can keep making the offerings in terms of dividends and share price increases - you don't actually have to go out and get me a new yacht, I'll do that one myself. Being an entrepreneur is fun

* which is total crap, but is the core belief of the cult: that what exists wouldn't exist if it weren't for the capitalist class.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Last edited by caveman1917; 5th August 2017 at 11:47 AM.
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 11:38 AM   #31
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
So in other words, these libsoc and anarchist proposals are nothing more than a pipe dream. The USSR had a cooperative instead of a competitive economy; how did that work out?
Very well, actually.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 11:45 AM   #32
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You still make it sound like an evil thing.
You and your moralism. It's not evil, it's fun. It's amazing they "voluntarily" go along with that - but who am I to judge?

Quote:
There is nothing wrong with selling your time so that you can be directed to perform certain duties. Either one of you can terminate the arrangement if it is not satisfactory.
Only one of the two faces impoverishment, or indeed even starvation, as a result.

Quote:
It is only when you stack the deck against the job seeker that you can say that something is wrong.
How is that not stacked?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 01:52 PM   #33
Francesca R
Girl
 
Francesca R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London EC1
Posts: 17,652
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
You were self employed by someone else?
She was a darn slavedriver. Nasty piece of work didn't even pay me for two years. Eventually I escaped her tyranny. She was called Francesca something-or-other.
Francesca R is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 07:13 PM   #34
Jerrymander
Critical Thinker
 
Jerrymander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 255
Quote:
The thing I'd worry about is that this approach would tend to stifle entrepreneurs. Why would I bust my ***** building up a company with my original ideas if as soon as I take on my first employee (or at some other arbitrary threshold) that business is taken out of my hands and handed to a workers co-operative to run as they see fit.
I was thinking something similar. It seems strange to me that a person who saves up money to build a pizza shop or hardware store hires a teenager, that that teenager automatically becomes an owner.
Jerrymander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 08:18 PM   #35
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,433
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
I was thinking something similar. It seems strange to me that a person who saves up money to build a pizza shop or hardware store hires a teenager, that that teenager automatically becomes an owner.
But not necessarily an equal shareholder or decision-maker with the longer established owner-worker. If the newcomer did, then I agree that the system would soon collapse. But that the teenager should acquire some share of the profits or of the equity in the event of liquidation, or some security of employment, is not impossible. However, I don't think such systems are easily applied to a tiny one skilled person plus apprentice outfit.

But imagine an employees' cooperative, of at least a certain minimum size, in which participants gain shares of equity through service or promotion, and have votes as a function of equity share. That might well work.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 08:37 PM   #36
Loss Leader
Would Be Ringing (if a bell)
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 24,072
I don't see any reason this wouldn't work, so long as the owners realize that managers and CEOs generally don't rise from the ranks, but require special training. I don't see anything libertarian about the idea at all.

In a libertarian society, the factory would be burned to the ground in an matter of hours.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2017, 08:48 PM   #37
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 21,433
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
I don't see any reason this wouldn't work, so long as the owners realize that managers and CEOs generally don't rise from the ranks, but require special training. I don't see anything libertarian about the idea at all.

In a libertarian society, the factory would be burned to the ground in an matter of hours.
People can be trained up from the ranks, as Napoleon suggested, or the ranks can participate in a decision to employ a specialist, who then joins these owners at some level or other.

Moreover although managers in plcs may require training, shareholders don't. They merely require money, and can buy up a company in order simply to liquidate it, and share out its assets or eliminate competition.
Craig B is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2017, 01:44 AM   #38
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Jerrymander View Post
I was thinking something similar. It seems strange to me that a person who saves up money to build a pizza shop or hardware store hires a teenager, that that teenager automatically becomes an owner.
Yeah because teenager working in pizza shop is such an accurate representation of the economy (specifically employment relations) at large. If you don't like the idea of a worker-owned economy then just say so, these silly petit-bourgeois retorts about teenagers in pizza shops are useless no matter how you put them.
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2017, 01:45 AM   #39
caveman1917
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 5,211
Originally Posted by Francesca R View Post
She was a darn slavedriver. Nasty piece of work didn't even pay me for two years. Eventually I escaped her tyranny. She was called Francesca something-or-other.
And this story is relevant how?
__________________
"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin
caveman1917 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2017, 02:01 AM   #40
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 11,785
Originally Posted by caveman1917 View Post
How is that not stacked?
Of course it's stacked. Not only are people forced to compete with each other for low level jobs but because the resulting wages are so low many go into debt to finance the shortfall in their wages. The only way the monied classes could be happier is if we reintroduced work houses and debtors' prisons.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with employees owning shares in their employer's company.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:20 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.