Current system. Current laws. So let's create regular joint-stock corporation, then give every worker same amount of shares, granting every worker equal ownership of means of production and equal voice. No fatcats, no corporate tyranny, no unethical practices, no exploitation. That's socialism motherfucker, yes it's that easy. Then we can slowly buy out other corporations that are based on exploitation. Their workers would leave as is their right and join us for superior salary, benefits and freedom. With nobody left to exploit, worthless corporations built on undemocratic exploitative practices would sell to us for a penny. Slowly all of everything would belong to us and ruled with socialist principles.
Other urls found in this thread:
I'm pretty much down with this.
best shit you can do in "current system, current laws" is a co-op. But that aint' exactly socialism, it's better than regular bourgeois private property business model but… well. Not exactly what we're looking for just a more comfy environment for the worker.
This. "Capitalism without classes" is one description, neither fish nor fowl, I'm sure it isn't quite socialism, but certainly a massive step up. I would add that, as demonstrated by the Argentine "recovered factories" movement, that the next step would be the formation of syndicalist federations.
Sadly, much as is the case with free trade between 1st-world and 3rd-world capitalists, I suspect coops would be at a competitive disadvantage, barring FairTrade-like consumer activism. So some sort of legal restraints would eventually have to be imposed on capitalist-owned entities for growth beyond exceptionally conscientious consumers.
No you can't. An enterprise that turns a profit gets to expand. You don't extract surplus value so you don't turn a profit. Whoever profits most is the winner in the market's selection process. Exploiting less will always put you at a disadvantage compared to people who exploit them more. Moreover, you're saying socialism should prove itself / succeed on capitalist terms, which is a capitalist argument.
Co-ops are good in the short term for making people's lives suck less and showing them what it's like to not be alienated from your fellow laborer or the labor process or the product of your labor. You can also include benefits like team-building exercises where you train with firearms.
Co-ops are useful for funding groups and providing us things other firms won't and even for establishing a food supply, but what you've described is out of their scope. If you can you should do them in the same way of you can get a better job or invest you should, self-flagellating poverty won't help us.
FairTrade(tm) is hipster-packaged bullcrap created to attack working childrens' unions. (maejts/unatsbo/etc)
It's literally an antisolidarity economy.
The point of FairTrade isn't just to ban loathsome practices like child labor, and institute functioning inspection regimes to ensure the validity of those bans, but (through the "producer premium") boost the income of workers and their communities sufficiently where such practices are no longer economically necessary.
I'll say that the ratios of funds in each step could certainly be tilted more aggressively toward the producers, but it's a massive step up from "fairer child slavery".
It seems like none of you understand how regular joint-stock companies operate, which is not surprising considering this is leftist board and lefties rarely if ever understand anything except bullet directly to brains. Maybe that, along with the greedy psychoticism of left, is why none you has thought of this.
Let me try to explain like retards you are:
Stocks mean ownership over joint-stock company. For example, when someone owns 10% (read: "one in ten stocks", I'm not even assuming you mouth breathers know what % is at this point) of stocks of a company, he also owns 10% of company.
Assignment: What does it imply based on this very advanced concept no regular 5 year old can understand if every worker has equal shares?
See, right there you can fuck off. There is nothing good about unpaid forced labor, and nothing good about denying workers say, and final say, over their workplace and their enterprise.
Technically you could operate a business without collecting profits or dividends, so long as you reinvest everything you earn. A worker-owned company could do the same. Have set wage levels for employees and then adjust for inflation every year. Then reinvest all the profits in the business to continue expanding.
A scheme like this has the potential to be more competitive than most companies since you don't have value leaving the capital cycle via profits or dividends.
…but you're forgetting the important parts! Some first-world hipster extortion cartel gets a cut!
Socialism is great on paper but fails in practice.
I presume you mean "no well-paid executives." However, all successful businesses ☘️need☘️ well-informed, savvy and connected leaders to last and make regular profits. If you expect the average joes at Wal-Mart to understand the large-scale company decisions that have to be made and vote accordingly for them, then you're so naive that there really isn't any point in me posting this reply. I hate overpaid managers and execs as much as the next guy, but without business leadership, no company can last. And, not all execs are bad at their jobs or overpaid.
Instead of the risk of corporate tyranny from the top, you now have the risk of tyranny of the majority, AKA the workers. You simply traded one problem for another.
How in the WORLD do you honestly expect to achieve something of this magnitude??? Even the police can't prevent crimes from happening for a single day in any given city.
Socialism always fails because it's a system based on IDEALS. Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but at least it delivers.
Capitalism isn't necessarily a class system. It arose out of class society and retains the worker and capitalist classes (dispensing with the nobility), but it could function even if the workers killed all the porkies and turned all the businesses into joint-stock companies or whatnot.
What capitalism actually is is generalized commodity production. That is to say, the general paradigm of production is that private companies produce things for the purpose of selling on a market. The capital-labor dialectic isn't necessary for that. You can have the cycle of money and capital without classes, but the version of capitalism we have now includes that and makes the M-C-M' cycle harder to break (since the companies are not answerable to common interests in general). If you have generalized commodity production you still have production for sale instead of production for use. You still have the accumulation of wealth (since some firms will do better in the market than others, and this is a positive feedback loop). You still have abstracted market forces dictating human behavior (production) instead of an intelligent evaluation of needs and productive capacity.
…of course, worker coops are less likely to fail on startup, employee-owned companies outperform by about 10%, et cetera, et cetera, but "practice" means "typing a disparaging internet shitpost."
The EU, for instance, finds its entire economic engine in a codetermination economy.
wow i have never heard this before
Good thing we don't want profits or long-lasting businesses, but universal ownership/access to productive resources so people can take up the task of producing things in response to knowing about the need for it.
Walmart's business model wouldn't even be relevant to socialism, but the main reason Walmart employees would not be up to the task is a lack of education due to unneeded scarcity thereof. There's also the factor that most come from relatively poor backgrounds which has a deleterious effect on intelligence generally. And it's not as if corporate executives are a bunch of smart people. Look at the Toys R Us bankruptcy, which was the result of bonehead investing decisions. Some guy at the top is a dumbass and all those jobs vanish. It's not like it's a difficult job to manage Walmart or some other huge company when they turn such a gargantuan profit and the executives just pay smarter people and algorithms to figure things out for them anyway.
You can and many places already to have managers elected from the general workforce, which is great for production because it means that management has experience at ground level and vice versa, plus the decisions are ultimately answerable to the people. This cuts down on exploitative practices somewhat and allows production plans to be directed with an understanding of the production process.
Why do you think tyranny of the "majority" (you can structure things according to consensus too, ya dingus) is not an improvement over tyranny of the few? It's a lot easier for one asshole to make bad choices than when people have a check on each other.
Preventing crime isn't the job of the police. When decision making is in control of the workers, it's up to them to decide whether to behave ethically or not. Since most unethical practices directly harm the workers why would they do that? Ultimately in communism production is supposed to be planned by society as a whole or the community so factors like pollution would also be handled by the fact that putting a check on that is in the interests of the people who are making the calls.
LMAO, the entire point of socialist critique is to base a model of society on material facts rather than suppositions that guided political ideology of the establishment of the past and present.
By what standards?
I'm not sure I'd go that far.
Back to the topic, though…
CMC is remarkably likely in a worker-controlled "m'coops" situation. Free time is usually the more valuable money, which is why capitalism has to invent new forms of slavery and "needs" - not even wants, but needs - which don't exist in physical reality.
This isn't all utopia; it's also possible that the-coop-that-controls-everything lets everyone die with a "fuck it, I can't be arsed, and no you can't use it."
MCM is required for expansion, though. If you start out a foundation to promote resident-owned apartment complexes, not only are you going to have to get your startup cash from somewhere, but you're also probably going to have to rent-to-own to them at about 120%-net, just to keep doing it, attack larger apartment complexes, do more than one at a time, et cetera…
So it's a little more complex, and CMC and MCM depend largely on what the hell one is doing.
I wouldn't either, but I recall an interesting article or lecture about capitalism without the bourgeois. In this regard the other guy is right, a society where MCM' still exists but the bourgeoisie as people have been replaced by the firm itself could arguably be called classless capitalism. I would say this is on topic because it shows the limits of co-ops as "socialism", better than they may be compared to current businesses.
To really have an equivalent structure, one would have to have similar coercive elements to mandate the use of the firm - antihomelessness laws, mandatory employment/antivagrancy, artificial barriers to going rogue…
…agorism is basically a pure MCM' system, but it's still anticapitalist by fucking up the means of forced extraction. The firm COULD do these evils, or other evils… but what's the likelyhood without a surplus going to some specific person's M'?
Okay, so let's presume there's a shadowy cabal which IS extracting enough money off other people's labor to coerce one path over another, and this is somehow synonymous with all workers, despite the fact that the workers apparently have no one to exploit but themselves.
Why would the producers and consumers go along with this? You've still got the other 2/3rds of the weighted voting pool.
It's an interesting spectre, but it's a little not-so-fleshed-out at explaining how the structure is even possible.
And we could see this in a co-op society with a republican system of government that we have now. Even with guaranteed housing and shit.
I'm not arguing it's a shadowy cabal, I'm arguing that it's the firm itself doing this. Like you own what you produce but some is skimmed off the top to fuel expansion for the firm and production for exchange still exists. I'm not trying to argue against co-ops as praxis as I do think they have some place in our current situation, but I don't think we should use them as an example of socialism or treat them as a goal onto themselves.