Fair capitalism?

[Drosophila]

I mentioned this in another thread:

So some rich guys start worker cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Now collectively-owned companies can compete with one another just like in capitalism, only workers are treated fairly.

Thoughts on this proposal?

[Amphictyonis]

I mentioned this in another thread:

So some rich guys start worker cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Now collectively-owned companies can compete with one another just like in capitalism, only workers are treated fairly.

Thoughts on this proposal?

Where have I seen your avatar? In a right wing libertarian group perhaps?

[Drosophila]

Where have I seen your avatar? In a right wing libertarian group perhaps?

A little off topic, but it's from Conservapedia.com's article on Dinosaurs.

[DrStrangelove]

I mentioned this in another thread:

So some rich guys start worker cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Now collectively-owned companies can compete with one another just like in capitalism, only workers are treated fairly.

Thoughts on this proposal?

The worker's may be treated "more fairly," but this still capitalism and it is inherently hierarchical. A slave with better living quarters is still a slave.

We're socialists, we advocate abolishing capitalism, not reforming it and making it more "fair" and "friendly." We want a worker's state, an abolishment of classes, and most of us aren't to keen on the idea of a competitive market economy, no matter how fair it is.

Didn't you say you supported the Green Party in another thread? Makes since.

[Amphictyonis]

A little off topic, but it's from Conservapedia.com's article on Dinosaurs.

Conservaoedia? Sounds fun. Back when myspace was active I remember that avatar from a right wing libertarian group I would debate capitalists in from time to time. I don't think it's off topic really I'm just trying to figure out if you're the same poster.

On topic, "fair" capitalism isn't possible. Do I need to explain why? Mutualism/Kevin Carson type arguments seem to be on the way from you....correct me if I'm wrong. You may be interested in talking with the actual anarchists on this board- Marxists aren't going to like the things you have to say (nor will actual anarchists for that matter).

[PhoenixAsh]

So.....do the workers get paid the same as the directors and management? And...what exactly happens with the employees of the companies that do not make it?

[Proukunin]

The whole part of revolutionary socialism is complete revolution. You cant have reforms in socialism because it defeats the purpose of true revolution. You have to immediately abolish private property and redistribute the wealth to all people in all of the country(s). You have to take it away from the rich and ruling class and give it to everyone! allow some capitalist aspects into socialism and it gives way to a degenerated workers state.

[Amphictyonis]

So.....do the workers get paid the same as the directors and management? And...what exactly happens with the employees of the companies that do not make it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Carson

I have experience with these people. I smelled it from a mile away. "Free markets" aren't exploitative" they say. It takes a whole heck of a lot of doublethink to come to that conclusion. You have to be able t ignore a whole heck of a lot of empirical data as well. It's all bad :(

"but...but, how can we have empirical data if free markets have never actually existed?". Because private ownership of the means of production can never happen without a state. That simple. I'm not sure mutualists actually advocate abolishing private property, money, rent and interest do you? Also competition is one source of exploitation. Cooperation should be the cornerstone of socialism- not competition.

[Fulanito de Tal]

I mentioned this in another thread:

So some rich guys start worker cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Now collectively-owned companies can compete with one another just like in capitalism, only workers are treated fairly.

Thoughts on this proposal?

How does that prevent a few people accumulating all of the wealth? If it doesn't, what happens when a very few amount of people have all of the wealth and there isn't more to take from the poor?

[Drosophila]

but this still capitalism and it is inherently hierarchical. A slave with better living quarters is still a slave.

What a horribly unrelated analogy. A man who works under a boss (or bosses) lives his life in fear of being laid off. In a worker cooperative, there is no hierarchy. A boss gets no financial benefit by laying off his or her employee. The company as a whole makes profits through the products it produces, which benefit the public as a whole. This distributes to unskilled labor as well. If you've ever seen Capitalism: A Love Story, you'd know about the collectively-owned bread company. It makes jobs quite available, while providing a fair wage and adequate working conditions.


And...what exactly happens with the employees of the companies that do not make it?

What do you mean by "do not make it"?


So.....do the workers get paid the same as the directors and management?

Yes.


The whole part of revolutionary socialism is complete revolution. You cant have reforms in socialism because it defeats the purpose of true revolution. You have to immediately abolish private property and redistribute the wealth to all people in all of the country(s). You have to take it away from the rich and ruling class and give it to everyone! allow some capitalist aspects into socialism and it gives way to a degenerated workers state.

I'd really like to know why complete revolution is the only way. The idea is allowing socialist aspects into capitalism, not vice versa.


How does that prevent a few people accumulating all of the wealth? If it doesn't, what happens when a very few amount of people have all of the wealth and there isn't more to take from the poor?

It sure doesn't guarantee it, but the idea is to have good-hearted people running the company. I doubt that poverty would be a real issue if every company was collectively-owned. As I mentioned a few lines up, unskilled jobs would be plentiful.

[Klaatu]

"Fair Capitalism" is an oxymoron.

By definition, capitalism is an exploitative enterprise. Thus by definition, cannot possibly be "fair to all."

[Amphictyonis]

OP: Are you advocating Kevin Carson's ideas? I'll debate Proudhon's ideas of revolution (especially seeing I have his book of the same title sitting right in front of me) but Carson goes into trying to salvage too many aspects of capitalism for any actual socialist to take him seriously- the "Anarcho" capitalists can't stand you guys either.... between an ideological rock and hard place you free market mutualists are (says Yoda).

[Magón]

Giving the illusion that the workers are treated better, or given more respect than one would at a multinational, large company, still doesn't gloss over the fact that between the two, the boss in the smaller company, is still the boss ie working a hierarchal system. Just because the boss might be willing to listen to their workers more, doesn't hide the fact they're still willing to fire at will for whatever reason they can get that won't get them in trouble with the government or whoever.

There is no fair business, unless you're talking about a business where there is no actual boss, but the workers themselves actually doing the work equally; and the recognize that they're all in it equally as "boss".

I work at a mechanic shop for example. I have a boss, he's cool, listens to us when we've got something to say, etc., but he's still willing to fire any of us if he finds us not working to the "proper" standards, that he wants us to work. Even if the rest of us don't agree with our boss on firing the person for whatever the reason may be, he's still going to do it regardless because he's the boss.

[Luís Henrique]

I mentioned this in another thread:

So some rich guys start worker cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Now collectively-owned companies can compete with one another just like in capitalism, only workers are treated fairly.

Thoughts on this proposal?

The "worker cooperatives" are going to be outcompeted by the "corporations" if they pay better salaries than the later. So, in order to be not outcompeted, they must pay wages similar to those the corporations pay. So nominally the workers may be the "owners" of the "cooperatives", but in fact the "cooperatives" need to exploit them.

But why would any rich guys give workers such a gift? There aren't many Robert Owens in this world, you know.

Luís Henrique

[Amphictyonis]

The "worker cooperatives" are going to be outcompeted by the "corporations" if they pay better salaries than the later. So, in order to be not outcompeted, they must pay wages similar to those the corporations pay. So nominally the workers may be the "owners" of the "cooperatives", but in fact the "cooperatives" need to exploit them.

But why would any rich guys give workers such a gift? There aren't many Robert Owens in this world, you know.

Luís Henrique

This is because Proudhon never took historical materialism into account. You can't "out-compete" capitalism or depend on the ruling class to voulentarily give up their social position (private property).

An interesting read for the OP:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm

[Unclebananahead]

Mutualism/or 'cooperativism' is ahistorical. What current contradiction in capitalism will bring it into existence? Will the working class pay a price of blood for a victorious revolution to implement a society based upon mutualist/'cooperativist' ideas?

[RGacky3]

I mentioned this in another thread:

So some rich guys start worker cooperatives to compete with hierarchical corporations. The latter goes bankrupt and ceases to exist. Now collectively-owned companies can compete with one another just like in capitalism, only workers are treated fairly.

Thoughts on this proposal?


Disaster, A: rich guy would never do so because its less profit, he would'nt get investment because less profit, other industries would cut prices and put the coop out of buisiness.

Aslo unless rich guy still maintains control of the coop (in which base its not a coop), its just charity.

So your solution is a disaster.

[Drosophila]

OP: Are you advocating Kevin Carson's ideas? I'll debate Proudhon's ideas of revolution (especially seeing I have his book of the same title sitting right in front of me) but Carson goes into trying to salvage too many aspects of capitalism for any actual socialist to take him seriously- the "Anarcho" capitalists can't stand you guys either.... between an ideological rock and hard place you free market mutualists are (says Yoda).

Carson's ideas seem somewhat in line with my own. I think anarcho-capitalism is bullshit, and I don't believe in private property.


Giving the illusion that the workers are treated better, or given more respect than one would at a multinational, large company, still doesn't gloss over the fact that between the two, the boss in the smaller company, is still the boss ie working a hierarchal system. Just because the boss might be willing to listen to their workers more, doesn't hide the fact they're still willing to fire at will for whatever reason they can get that won't get them in trouble with the government or whoever.......

As I've stated time and time again, the "boss" gets no actual benefit from firing a worker, unless the worker is causing a problem or is being counter-productive.


But why would any rich guys give workers such a gift?

You could say the same about almost anything. Why would a communist revolutionary not want to seize the opportunity to be a dictator?



Disaster, A: rich guy would never do so because its less profit, he would'nt get investment because less profit, other industries would cut prices and put the coop out of buisiness.

Aslo unless rich guy still maintains control of the coop (in which base its not a coop), its just charity.

So your solution is a disaster.

So what if someone with good intentions used his wealth to do it? Not all rich people are assholes, despite what you may think. The cooperation is called a fucking cooperation for a reason. The workers control it.

I think this has been common leftist practice for a while. They automatically assume that every single rich person in the world is a complete asshole.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's only an assumption if it's not based on evidence :cool:

(They may be the greatest guy IRL. But just the fact of their hoarding that wealth is fucking a lot of people; they're assholes. But it's not really their fault, the system makes it so)

[RGacky3]

So what if someone with good intentions used his wealth to do it? Not all rich people are assholes, despite what you may think. The cooperation is called a fucking cooperation for a reason. The workers control it.

I think this has been common leftist practice for a while. They automatically assume that every single rich person in the world is a complete asshole.

Then why don't they do it? They have the perfect opportunity to do so.

But anyway, even if they did, it would be useless in the big picture.

Its not about being an asshole, no one IN power wants to give up that power voluntarily, its the reason even nice dictators and kings don't just step down out of good will.

[Klaatu]

The "worker cooperatives" are going to be outcompeted by the "corporations" if they pay better salaries than the later. So, in order to be not outcompeted, they must pay wages similar to those the corporations pay. So nominally the workers may be the "owners" of the "cooperatives", but in fact the "cooperatives" need to exploit them.

But why would any rich guys give workers such a gift? There aren't many Robert Owens in this world, you know.

Luís Henrique

In my opinion, worker co-ops would actually offer better pay than a corporation, because there are no $100 million CEO(s). All the wealth that would have gone to waste paying the big-fat CEO would be earned by the workers instead. Thus each person would earn the actual value of their labor, as Marx would expect.

But then, corporations do have the ability to suck the tit of the national treasury, through the buying of political favors process, thus gain massive taxpayer subsidies (as is the present U.S. system) What a horrible mess!

[Amphictyonis]

Free market mutualism! Freebase confusion? Free markets = free people! Just stop it already and become actual socialists. Seriously. I'd suggest the OP read some Marx to actually grasp the system she/he claims to oppose. At least this thread was posted in OI.

[Rusty Shackleford]

if capitalism were fair, it wouldnt exist.

capitalism is necessarily derived from inequality.