Purchasing the means of production

[MaerF0x0]

Hi All,
I am wondering on the opinion of what would happen if workers purchased the means of production from the capitalists and/or produced new means of production for all to benefit from?

Under this concept workers would be able to either contribute wages in order to acquire existing means of production (eg buy up all the shares of toyota) and/or donate their skills to produce new means of production (eg, work together to build a manufacturing plant).

I have been wracking my brain trying to think of a non-revolutionary boot strap method to be "now in part, then in full" type of system towards near zero human employment with maximum automated production of goods for human needs. To what end? So that man kind is free to do what they want more than what they "need".

So what are your thoughts? I am new so this may make sense to me but be clearly false to those who are better educated/ more experienced...

Thanks

[xub3rn00dlex]

Impossible. The only way for proletarian power to become recognized is to booth those fucks out on their ass, and seize OUR means of production BACK for OURSELVES.

[MaerF0x0]

@xub3ern00dlex can you tell me why its "impossible"? What mechanics am I missing that make it such? What about the 2nd method proposed of building our own means of production? maybe refusing to participate in their in so far as we can provide for ourselves would have to be part of the plan (eg only buy that which we cannot currently produce, until we get around to making that form of production capacity for "us" being the communists)

[MarxSchmarx]

Hi All,
I am wondering on the opinion of what would happen if workers purchased the means of production from the capitalists and/or produced new means of production for all to benefit from?

Under this concept workers would be able to either contribute wages in order to acquire existing means of production (eg buy up all the shares of toyota) and/or donate their skills to produce new means of production (eg, work together to build a manufacturing plant).

I have been wracking my brain trying to think of a non-revolutionary boot strap method to be "now in part, then in full" type of system towards near zero human employment with maximum automated production of goods for human needs. To what end? So that man kind is free to do what they want more than what they "need".

So what are your thoughts? I am new so this may make sense to me but be clearly false to those who are better educated/ more experienced...

Thanks

To some extent, this is accomplished today through government expropriation rules - even in places like the United States, the government must still pay "fair market value" for something they expropriate.

I think the limitation of this analysis is that it presupposes that the "compensation" will somehow be of value in a post captalist society. Suppose you own a factory, if the worker's "buy you out", you can accede to it because the value you receive in the form of cash is comparable viz. future additional income to the value of the factory.

The problem is that the present cash, under socialism, cannot be a guarantee of future additional income, because the idea that money alone can provide a source of income is impossible under socialism.

What MAY, at least in theory, be possible is that workers continuously buy out capitalist firms and the capitalists hope to make just enough profit on their buyouts that they continue accepting them. But this can only last so long and it will not take long to fail.

[Manic Impressive]

I remember Proudhon thought of this first. His idea is that workers would save up a little of their earnings and pool the money together to start cooperatives and that this would be so effective that every prole would start to do it and we'd reach communism this way. I can't remember which work of Marx's deals with debunking this but if you search a few key words on MIA it shouldn't take you too long to find. I remember Engels having a lot to say about this in a rather amusing letter.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To some extent, this is accomplished today through government expropriation rules - even in places like the United States, the government must still pay "fair market value" for something they expropriate.

"Expropriation" is the wrong term here, comrade. The legal term is eminent domain.


I think the limitation of this analysis is that it presupposes that the "compensation" will somehow be of value in a post captalist society. Suppose you own a factory, if the worker's "buy you out", you can accede to it because the value you receive in the form of cash is comparable viz. future additional income to the value of the factory.

The problem is that the present cash, under socialism, cannot be a guarantee of future additional income, because the idea that money alone can provide a source of income is impossible under socialism.

What MAY, at least in theory, be possible is that workers continuously buy out capitalist firms and the capitalists hope to make just enough profit on their buyouts that they continue accepting them. But this can only last so long and it will not take long to fail.

Have you checked out my musings on applying the Meidner Plan or a tax-to-nationalize scheme today?

[the Leftâ„¢]

Hi All,
I am wondering on the opinion of what would happen if workers purchased the means of production from the capitalists and/or produced new means of production for all to benefit from?

Under this concept workers would be able to either contribute wages in order to acquire existing means of production (eg buy up all the shares of toyota) and/or donate their skills to produce new means of production (eg, work together to build a manufacturing plant).

I have been wracking my brain trying to think of a non-revolutionary boot strap method to be "now in part, then in full" type of system towards near zero human employment with maximum automated production of goods for human needs. To what end? So that man kind is free to do what they want more than what they "need".

So what are your thoughts? I am new so this may make sense to me but be clearly false to those who are better educated/ more experienced...

Thanks

I think while this may have some allure as a solution to a larger capitalist dilemma and problem, we have to be reminded that this solution is a means to satisfy the inherent problems in capitalism using capitalist method.

Meaning, while the idea of this worker socialization or some similar programme has a strong sense of leftist thought, it neglects the idea that the criticism of capitalism that we adhere to is criticism of the root of capitalism, not its manifestations or contemporary solutions. The criticism of capital while at face value is one of inequality, from a radical perspective which we are attempting to produce in a 21st century context, needs to make clear that the commodification of labor is a product of capital itself not a social relationship.

It is in this sense that this idea of "purchasing the means of production" is not only reformist, but completely utopian. As radicals we want to abolish capital and its role in creating class antagonisms associated with private ownership, on the grounds that capital itself is a root cause of the deprivation of the human condition and oppressed nature. The emancipatory facet of leftist struggle if you will. You approach applies a class collaborationism which claims that workers A) have the material means to acquire production and B) the bourgeois class will allow their economic material condition to be stripped of them at the whim of their workforce.


While private ownership of the means of production exists, class struggle and antagonisms will result. Purchasing your own means of production is a capitalist method to solve a capitalist problem. This type of idea is sort of a utopian socialist model, where people gain control of a capitalist mode of production and everything is hunky dorey. It seems like this idea is a way to think of capitalist dilemmas in the context of how to solve them using capitalist logic

Woah that was a long post comments or criticisms plz xD

[MaerF0x0]

I suppose that I was unclear in that the newly acquired means of production would be treated and utilised in a way consistent with communism. ie a newly acquired toyota plant (bought out the business) would function "from each and to each" consistent to the communist ideas. I think as more and more production was bought out a few things would happen.
1) The system would provide for the workers in a way that they'd enjoy which means capitalists would have to pay more to entice people to work for them vs workers working for "themselves" (as a group).
2) As people were more and more able to get their needs met via the communist system (non-exploitive) they would be more inclined to work with, co-operate with, support and otherwise participate with the communist group vs the capitalist group. Personally, if i had a choice today to work for a communist software development firm or my current capitalist one, I would quickly make a move.

Is anyone aware of any groups attempting to do what I have asked about?

[MarxSchmarx]

To some extent, this is accomplished today through government expropriation rules - even in places like the United States, the government must still pay "fair market value" for something they expropriate. "Expropriation" is the wrong term here, comrade. The legal term is eminent domain.



Hmmm. I was under the impression it was a "rose by any other name" kind of things, but I confess to total ignorance on this.




I think the limitation of this analysis is that it presupposes that the "compensation" will somehow be of value in a post captalist society. Suppose you own a factory, if the worker's "buy you out", you can accede to it because the value you receive in the form of cash is comparable viz. future additional income to the value of the factory.

The problem is that the present cash, under socialism, cannot be a guarantee of future additional income, because the idea that money alone can provide a source of income is impossible under socialism.

What MAY, at least in theory, be possible is that workers continuously buy out capitalist firms and the capitalists hope to make just enough profit on their buyouts that they continue accepting them. But this can only last so long and it will not take long to fail. Have you checked out my musings on applying the Meidner Plan or a tax-to-nationalize scheme today?
Are those in blogs? I don't check that section as often as I should. If you could supply links to those I would be most obliged.

I personally found promising the approach by Panitch that you quoted some time back, with the prospect of democratizing investment decisions in the hear and now.

[the Leftâ„¢]

I suppose that I was unclear in that the newly acquired means of production would be treated and utilised in a way consistent with communism. ie a newly acquired toyota plant (bought out the business) would function "from each and to each" consistent to the communist ideas. I think as more and more production was bought out a few things would happen.
1) The system would provide for the workers in a way that they'd enjoy which means capitalists would have to pay more to entice people to work for them vs workers working for "themselves" (as a group).
2) As people were more and more able to get their needs met via the communist system (non-exploitive) they would be more inclined to work with, co-operate with, support and otherwise participate with the communist group vs the capitalist group. Personally, if i had a choice today to work for a communist software development firm or my current capitalist one, I would quickly make a move.

Is anyone aware of any groups attempting to do what I have asked about?

I feel like you are talking about cooperatives and such. They exist, they are socialistic/communistic, but at the same time they cant exist in the realm and system of capitalism. They couldnt exist. The market would destroy them dont you think? When there isnt a profit and a competition for consumer base, how can it survive in a market existence that is predicated on it?

[MaerF0x0]

I feel like you are talking about cooperatives and such. They exist, they are socialistic/communistic, but at the same time they cant exist in the realm and system of capitalism. They couldnt exist. The market would destroy them dont you think?

I suppose i am talking about a form of cooperatives, except with the assumption/agreement that once all or enough production is cooperatively owned, it will provide for all and will belong to all.

I dont think the market would destroy them unless you mean by some form of direct opposition (military, law, violence). I suppose I shouldnt put it past many capitalists to be violent etc, but barring direct opposition, I would imagine that workers could refuse to work for "bad capitalism" and could choose to work for "new capitalism" (ie, boot strapping communism) thus risising the costs of labour for capitalists, and hence making their products less or not profitable.



When there isnt a profit and a competition for consumer base, how can it survive in a market existence that is predicated on it?

Im not sure I understand what "it" is in your sentence. If "it" means the "cooperative" or communist group, then it would survive w/o competition similarly to how co-operatives and communists do not require competition. Worker owned co-ops do not require competition to work, they only require inputs and labour to produce stuff.

[Catma]

There's a discussion of coops from a few days ago: http://www.revleft.com/vb/cooperatives-and-their-t164007/index.html

Any kind of coordinated effort like this would be smashed. Capitalists would realize it's not in their class interests and would work together against it. If it were at all effective it would end their privileged position and remove their power, for which some buyout money is no substitute.

Basically, workers have nothing to offer capitalists for the means of production. The only way we get 'em is to take 'em.

[aty]

We tried to do this in Sweden. We had 10 years of battles, it resulted in a coup from the IMF togheter with the Central Bank and the creation of A and B-stocks, A-stocks have 10 much more votes than B.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The likes of Arthur Bough have stated that, in fact, cooperatives are more profitable than a number of typical capitalist firms. He said it recently in his Boffy's Blog.

The problem which he and others refuse to acknowledge is that the startup costs, legalities, technicalities, etc. re. coops are in fact higher than those of typical capitalist firms. From Louis Blanc in France to the Lassalleans and Eisenachers in Germany, a number of socialists have been rather prescient in calling for State Aid. Under today's circumstances, this would have to go beyond mere "State Credit" and include more aggressive measures like pro-labour use of Eminent Domain by the state:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/pre-cooperative-worker-t88629/index.html

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Workers' ownership under capitalism is still capitalism.

[LuckyStrikes]

I feel that this system has merit in thought, but not in motion. This would begin to create, as others have said co-operatives. The problem here is that the co-ops exist within a capitalist government's system. What will the workers of this co-op do for food and shelter when they still have to buy them from money hungry capitalists. Another major problem is that it does not liberate any of your brothers in the working class. And, aside from all that, there is no way any worker, or even a set of workers, in these opressed conditions could possibly save enough money to buy the means of production.

As for creating new means: this also requires alot of capital that cannot be afforded by the oppressed workers of the world.

[MaerF0x0]

Wow.. It seems pretty bleak. So overall it seems the consensus is that taking the means of productions (which amounts to "theft" in my mind) is the only successful way to bring about worker owned means of production?:confused:

[MaerF0x0]

I feel that this system has merit in thought, but not in motion. This would begin to create, as others have said co-operatives. The problem here is that the co-ops exist within a capitalist government's system. What will the workers of this co-op do for food and shelter when they still have to buy them from money hungry capitalists. Another major problem is that it does not liberate any of your brothers in the working class. And, aside from all that, there is no way any worker, or even a set of workers, in these opressed conditions could possibly save enough money to buy the means of production.

As for creating new means: this also requires alot of capital that cannot be afforded by the oppressed workers of the world.

I feel like the amount of capital required can be bootstrapped in 3 means 1) As communists have more kids and 2) As Capitalists in turn purchase goods from the bootstrapping organizations (we make better cars or better bread or whatever) and 3) Once a critical mass is reached then all capital in a region or nation becomes "communist" via democratic means.

Imagine if we start with something small something simple: A bakery. The workers put in savings to buy an oven and sell bread to the general public at a profit, sharing the fruits of the labour amongst anyone who works the oven/bakery. Over time it becomes clear that there either needs to be more bakeries or other options of work. The workers then pool savings (from previous bakery operations or from other previous employment) to purchase a farm.. Now they have both wheat and bread. So on and so forth, slowly replacing all items they consume with Communally created and shared versions. As we take wages from the capitalist and then invest it within the "communist" system, the size of undertakings will increase and so will the fruits of the labour.

Someone said that the Capitalists will not sell us the means of production, but they will so long as they are producing something we want and we have the money to buy it. No self respecting capitalist would refuse to sell some Steel, or a Tractor at the market price. At first them not knowing about the bootstrapping going on will be to our benefit, later the fact that we the communist collective are such a big market will entice them to sell to us (even to their peer capitalists demise).

[aty]

Wow.. It seems pretty bleak. So overall it seems the consensus is that taking the means of productions (which amounts to "theft" in my mind) is the only successful way to bring about worker owned means of production?:confused:
They stole it from us. We only take what belongs to us back. Only in a bourgoise mind that can be called theft.

[Catma]

Wow.. It seems pretty bleak. So overall it seems the consensus is that taking the means of productions (which amounts to "theft" in my mind) is the only successful way to bring about worker owned means of production?:confused:

The reason such drastic means are required in the first place is because the capitalists will oppose any attempts at change with force.


No self respecting capitalist would refuse to sell some Steel, or a Tractor at the market price.

Yes, they would. Can you sell goods to Cuba at market price? It's difficult to google cases of this occurring but I assure you it happens all the time. I would be much obliged if other comrades could provide examples.


At first them not knowing about the bootstrapping going on will be to our benefit, later the fact that we the communist collective are such a big market will entice them to sell to us (even to their peer capitalists demise).

This is seriously underestimating the capitalists. I'd like to see it happen anyway. It'd serve a transitional purpose - showing workers that revolution is the only path available.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well the first thing is that socialism can't exist in a bubble. As it is today there are worker cooperatives and so on which more or less attempt this idea of controlling and organizing the means of production democratically through various "legal" means - but in on work-site at a time.

The problem is that they are still capitalist enterprises that need to exploit in order to make profits to compete and survive. In this case the exploitation is handled in a democratic manner which is probably much better most of the time and probably the wages are much more equally shared among co-workers. But capitalist crisis, debts, supplies and a million other threads lock in these communes and keep it tied to capitalism.

Trying to out-compete the capitalists on a large-scale would mean that we would have to exploit ourselves, organized into these purchased worker collectives, more than the capitalists already do in order to get more profits and investment capital than they have. Additionally, even if we were to control larger portions of the economy there are legal rules like anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws which would prevent things like a raw-materials worker's commune from making special deals and coordinating with the industrial communes.

So in my view, this would be a long and slow process that probably wouldn't be effective anyway for some of the reasons that other posters mentioned such as the capitalists collectively stopping such things if they did start to become successful. And all the while people are attempting to do this, pressures from the dominant system would be working on the communes and so some in the communes may come to see this method of production as the goal, rather than a means to ending capitalism and so they'd actually become opposed to fundamental social change - even if done gradually and through existing systems (if that's possible, which I also doubt).

[MaerF0x0]

Im not sure if I should make a new thread on this one...

Why are Worker Co-ops that work within the capitalist system still considered exploitative? Maybe I do not understand the theory well enough.

It seems to me that if these worker co-ops are able to take in raw goods (from as many similarly structured co-ops as possible) mix with their labour and then reap all the rewards (eg, no margin is being extracted by a non-labouring party) then no exploitation is occurring. Maybe one could say they may buy goods produced w/ exploitation , but I'd argue that there is no marginal (ie new) exploitation occurring and its a step towards less exploitation. As well, as new verticals become worker co-ops, entire processes can be completed w/o exploitation.

So what is am i missing in my n00bness?
:D

[Red Noob]

Hi All,
I am wondering on the opinion of what would happen if workers purchased the means of production from the capitalists and/or produced new means of production for all to benefit from?

Under this concept workers would be able to either contribute wages in order to acquire existing means of production (eg buy up all the shares of toyota) and/or donate their skills to produce new means of production (eg, work together to build a manufacturing plant).

In the sense that a group of workers get together and start a collective business of some sort, where they all have say, then yes, there is nothing wrong with that. It's a good way to combat the capitalists. Nothing counter-revolutionary about it. It should not be considered a permanent revolutionary strategy though, but more to temporarily fix or patch.




I have been wracking my brain trying to think of a non-revolutionary boot strap method to be "now in part, then in full" type of system towards near zero human employment with maximum automated production of goods for human needs. To what end? So that man kind is free to do what they want more than what they "need".

Nothing wrong with automating production of some things, like food for instance. But eliminating the need to do work all together just sounds a little far fetched, near like technocracy.

[Renegade Saint]

You aren't in the DSA by chance are you? This is exactly the kind of idea one hears from some of their newer recruits.

Here's why it's a bad idea.

1. If capitalists know that once they sell this business, they'll never be able to buy/start another one, they have no incentive to sell. Sure they'll get the market value for that company, but capitalism is based on the endless accumulation of capital. They won't have any way to accumulate more capital, so they won't sell.

2. As leftists our goal is the abolition of the capitalist class. You're trying to subsidize them. At what point are you going to abolish the capitalist class in this plan?

[MaerF0x0]

You aren't in the DSA by chance are you? This is exactly the kind of idea one hears from some of their newer recruits.

Dont know what that is, link?


You aren't in the DSA by chance are you? This is
Here's why it's a bad idea.

1. If capitalists know that once they sell this business, they'll never be able to buy/start another one, they have no incentive to sell. Sure they'll get the market value for that company, but capitalism is based on the endless accumulation of capital. They won't have any way to accumulate more capital, so they won't sell.

2. As leftists our goal is the abolition of the capitalist class. You're trying to subsidize them. At what point are you going to abolish the capitalist class in this plan?

1) Capitalists sell businesses all the time. We dont have to tell them why we're buying it. And because proles are legion, they couldnt keep track of who is capitalist or prole. It seems to me you just play the game with them that they currently play with us. We buy up companies, and refuse to send our capital into their system, all the while enticing them to buy into our system via purchase of goods ("hey, wanna buy my new super ferrari?").

2) The point in which the proles think, "gee this co-op thing is good, We dont actually need the capitalist to be "entreprenuers" for us... How can we do more? Oh maybe if we legislate total Co-Op ness in our economy" ... I agree that its a stop gap, but I also see it as more than just a stop gap but also a lite version of communism, showing them that "its not so bad" (infact its very good).

[Jimmie Higgins]

1) Capitalists sell businesses all the time. We dont have to tell them why we're buying it. And because proles are legion, they couldnt keep track of who is capitalist or prole. It seems to me you just play the game with them that they currently play with us. We buy up companies, and refuse to send our capital into their system, all the while enticing them to buy into our system via purchase of goods ("hey, wanna buy my new super ferrari?").

2) The point in which the proles think, "gee this co-op thing is good, We dont actually need the capitalist to be "entreprenuers" for us... How can we do more? Oh maybe if we legislate total Co-Op ness in our economy" ... I agree that its a stop gap, but I also see it as more than just a stop gap but also a lite version of communism, showing them that "its not so bad" (infact its very good).

Well this second point is what is good about worker co-ops and communes and the like - it can show how some things we are taught as being "natural" are not the only way to organize society and are not even the most efficient let alone most just. However, a negaltive-lesson can also be learned through these experiences too. Communes and co-opts can't exist in a vaccume and so they still have to deal with a lot of the problems created by capitalism and they often fail because of the toll of competition or just inter-personal issues. If people think they are building a pre-figurative world and it fails, then they might get discouraged all together and become convinced that it's impossible to change things or that capitalism really is human nature or whatnot.

But let's say that this strategy of buying out capitalism began to work, IMO there'd still be a direct conflict and revolution because of it at some point. Capitalism began inside of feudalism and created small niches for itself and the aristocracy fed off of their profits for a while and in some instances actually began to depend on the wealth created by capitalists in order to maintain a decrepit and bloated feudal system going. At other times, capitalists relied on feudal structures in order to help them industrialize or make profit. But ultimately both systems could not exist at the same time because the feudal system prevented the growth of capitalism beyond a certain level and so revolutions, counter-revolutions, reformations and inquisitions resulted in these two systems butting heads. Capitalism needed a workforce and the peasantry was a barrier to that, Feudalism needed a peasantry and a ridged caste system and capitalism was a threat to that.

It would be even harder for workers and capitalists to find a gradual transition because they don't just have cross-purposes - they are totally opposed sets of interests. Capital needs workers to be dependent on working for capitalists and so an attempt by workers to cut themselves off from that would be a direct threat to capitalism and the ruling class would do everything it could to prevent that.

[Luís Henrique]

@xub3ern00dlex can you tell me why its "impossible"?

Er.... perhaps they are too expensive for us to buy?

Luís Henrique

[Red Noob]

Er.... perhaps they are too expensive for us to buy?

Luís Henrique

That all depends on the place you are thinking of. In certain U.S. states, that is true, land is particularly expensive. But that's not to say in other parts of the world that land is so hard to come by. In the rural south you can purchase an acre of land for anywhere to $500-$1,500 (at least where I live). If a group of workers were enthusiastic enough about starting a collective, it would simply be a matter of setting aside a certain percent of their wage labor every month or so, until they all had enough to go in on the purchase. Or in some cases, the workers might already have the initial capital stored up somewhere.

So it's possible, but only for those who are determined and privileged enough.

[DaringMehring]

This kind of idea comes up now and again. Major flaws:

1) Impossible. You could start a new firm, "Socialism, Inc." run collectively, that tries to buy up every means of production, and there would be no chance it actually could. Why? Capitals grow exponentially. They are constantly re-investing and growing. A new capital has no chance to buy out every existing capital, just as no single capital today, even with hundreds of years of growth in its bankbox, could buy out all the rest.

2) Submits to bourgeois legality. The idea that expropriating capitalists would be "stealing" and that workers need to build their own -- false. What is legal, and what are moral, are two different things. Bourgeois law is the law of the ruling class. It has no inherent moral value. If you accept that it does, then you aren't a communist or socialist.

3) Gives workers illusions in bourgeois legality. They think that if they "play fair" the bourgeoisie will too. But they won't. A cooperative getting too big? They'll destroy it via the law or other means of state power. A favored corporation getting outcompeted? They'll prop it up with subsidies and tax breaks.

4) Assumes that a new system can be built within the shell of the old. False. A break is needed. Any entity created in the old system will be structured by the needs and logic of the old system. Revolutionarily incapable.

5) Reduces social change to economic accumulation. In reality social change is political. It comes from people deciding they need a new system of social organization, and taking political action to achieve it.

"Let's all become capitalists, and beat the capitalists at capitalism, and then the capitalists will be socialists" just doesn't cut it as an idea. Same with all the other similar petit-bourgeois schemes, like a boycott on putting funds in big banks. Operating within the system is doomed to failure and history has showed this again and again. The route to socialism has also been shown by history. Trying to divert workers into some other path, can only be counter-revolutionary.

[DaringMehring]

I'd also add, it really shows a lack of understanding of capitalism.

Capitals function the way they do --- beating down wages, benefits, and working conditions, exploiting workers, --- because that is the most efficient way for them to accumulate. Not because they are "immoral." Those that do not do these things, are outcompeted and acquired by those that do.

Therefore, to beat capitalists, you have to be more exploitative than them. What DNZ says about cooperatives being more efficient is a smoke screen. They may be more productive, but they are not better at accumulating capital for reinvestment -- because they do things like pay themselves decent wages and benefits. The proof is in the history of cooperatives under capitalism.

You should read more of Marx and that will help educate you on the functioning of capitalism.

[Red Noob]

I'm not so much directing this at anyone, but I think some might find this link interesting:
http://www.twinoaks.org/

It's somewhat a collective business. From my understanding, the community was formed around the Walden Two book. Just thought it some might find it interesting.

This link might be of interest as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain


Whether you believe it's a way of combating capitalists or not, it can bring workers out of unfair working conditions.