Anarchist? Business Idea

[space_ice_cream]

I'm sure this will probably piss off alot of the communists, and I apologize for the disruption of continually producing differing ideas, but here is something I have been thinking of.

Has anybody thought of the idea of creating a business in which the employees are actually just renting (percentage) shares of the company. The employees would all get paid depending on how well business does, and only the employees would get paid. There would be no owner. People can say "stock options" but this is different, this would be percentages much higher than stock options and I am talkng small time, like a small busines (of just about any kind), and like I said before ONLY the employees would be allowed to own percentages.

Although this is not communist or anarchist, since there would be people in higher positions than one another (stock guy, assistant manager, manager, etc...) but the only difference is that they would be renting the percentage of the company based on thier position. For instance, the least wanted job would pay a higher percentage than the most wanted job. Assuming the least wanted job is the one which requires the most amount of work (manager), and the most wanted job would be the one that required the least amount of work (stock guy) it would level out based on peoples wants. (you might call this classism, but I don't because the money would be truely earned by actual work and decided by the workers themselves.

For instance,at least the way I see it, if you have two guys: one scrubs toilets with his tounge, the other massages womens breasts for a living...Lets try and figure out who deserves more money...hmmm, or is this still classism or common sense? I honestly don't know.

But if you don't like my idea of different positions getting different percentages, just modify everything i said and replace it with everyone gets and equal percentage

I worked it out on paper tonight and realized that under these conditions, all workers would get paid a much higher hourly salary (averaging about a $3 - $10 increase). This got me to thinking: If some "group" of people were to set this off, it could seriously challenge most modern businesses due to it's level of efficiency. it would also make other businesses in the region who are trying to compete, in the modern way, struggle to keep up (it's hard to keep up with another business if, all things held constant, they can pay thier employees more money and the employess have a personal interest in making the business stronger), in the wake of this problem the modern business might have to reduce thier employees wages just to get by and as a result make the problem even worse. Modern businesses might not be able to compete as a result, and in thier place could grow a system closer to anarchy: one in which the people themselves rule.

If some group were to play the game right, like this, they could creep up the political ladder through the business end and fight inside out...with the overall goal of first getting people in direct control of the states and then getting them in direct control of the entire country. Just an idea.

[Seeker]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38674

I'd want to work there if at the very least the following were true:
All decisions made by the managers can be vetoed by a simple majority of those affected by that decision.
All the information that went into making those decisions is open to everyone, regardless of who is effected.
The managers are elected, and can be demoted.

Worker-owned Corporations may not be able to compete with 3rd world coerced labor, so the industrial side of the operation would need to produce non-labor intensive goods. Once the factories are taken, power can be purchased.

So how do you get the factories? :ph34r:

[Elect Marx]

I have actually put some thought into similar ideas. The only real problem is pro-big business regulation, networking and monopoly and if all else fails they can tie you up in court and/or have you killed... reformism is a tough business, you need widespread support; expand fast and BECOME the community. Then you revolt!

[Defyman]

I've put some thinking into a similar idea space ice cream and 313C7 expressed. To go a step further i'd say that this type of industries would lead more easily to communism in economy and anarchism in politics. Just let them evolve...
If this pre-communist system of production expands in all over the (productive) world, then you have the 3rd industrial revolution...a different one though!

[Bannockburn]

Ak Press

[viva le revolution]

There is no way for such a business to survive in the capitalist enviornmrnt. In a socialist society? i don't know.

[Clarksist]

The biggest problem is always going to be that in capitalism it benefits to be greedy. While it is most people on this board's contention that humans are naturally greedy (myself included), I would think we'd all agree that under capitalism greed is the rule of the day.

Sadly, budget cuts, profit margins, quarter to annual growth ratios, and the rest will cut into the "feel good" workplace. The sad truth is, we need a radical change to shake up mindsets, not a workplace structure.

This could work if you kept it small, all the employees were your friends, and everyone smoked pot. But if it got any bigger, you could never be sure that a yuppie wasn't infiltrating your ranks. So until revolution, I'd say the best bet is action.

Of course I'd LOVE it if this actuall successfully happened.

[Seeker]

I don't really disagree with you Clarksist, but the stage has to be set somehow.

Violence and money are the only was to bring about change in America, and for the time being they have the violence market cornered.

Any upstart business, ownership aside, will have established would-be competitors trying to shut them down. One with socialist tenancies would likely not last long since the government would be inclined to side with the plaintiff.

However, a push for a worker-controlled environment might have a chance of success. Du Pont has done it at one of their factories and today it is their most efficient plant. Once the working class are in charge of how production is organized, the next step becomes easier and no deified Leader is needed to set affairs in order.

[Guest]

<There is no way for such a business to survive in the capitalist enviornmrnt.>

Why not? I think agree that it would be difficult to create these types of businesses, but would they survive? I think they would survive stronger than modern businesses because, all things held constant, the employees would be earning a higher salary and have a personal interest in the business. The only two problems I have noticed with this sytem as I mentioned before would be with setting it up: First of all, getting a group of people together to invest in a business is hard enough, but getting a group together to both invest and agree to work would be extraordinarily hard (since most people would prefer to just sit back and make money off other peoples earnings for doing nothing = the capitalist way) and the second problem is if somebody were to just invest in a business and they are already making money what would give them the incentive to ust hand over the business to the workers themselves? Another problem would be the idea of who would invest in a "new age" idea like this anyway, one which has not been tested. It could be a failure of a business idea.

<In a socialist society? i don&#39;t know.>

I actually think a modern socialist society (under a dictator) would probably see this idea as a threat to thier system.

[Guest]

<The biggest problem is always going to be that in capitalism it benefits to be greedy. While it is most people on this board&#39;s contention that humans are naturally greedy (myself included), I would think we&#39;d all agree that under capitalism greed is the rule of the day.>

Well, the thing is: greed is not the rule of the day in anarchist communities. If a group of anarchists were to invest in a business idea like this and oversee it, as a sort of experiment, it might prove itself to be a working theory. Of course it would have to be tested several times, since some businesses fail for any of a million reasons.

The businesses would have to sort of "franchise" anarchy. In otherwords, they would need to be watched, of course in the typical anarchist fashion: without any leaders, and all decisions voted upon by the workers themselves. Sort of like a fraternity for anarchists...a social "club" if you will. The club itself would really basically exist only to prevent the type of corruption from happening that you outline in the message I am responding to right now.

<Sadly, budget cuts, profit margins, quarter to annual growth ratios, and the rest will cut into the "feel good" workplace.>

The thing is, that all decisions concerning the work environment would need to be voted upon democraticly, in meetings. For instance: you have 10 businesses, all operating in the fashion I mentioned, and all workers meet in a specific location and vote on what changes are to be made, or vote to throw people out who seem to be causing problems, or vote on ways to increase efficiency, etc... Nobody will ever have the chance to take control and rise to power or anything because the workers themselves would be anarchists and all voting demoraticaly. There would be no chance anyone could maneuver themselves into power since the very purpose of the "business club", or whatever you want to call it, would be to keep that from happening...

<The sad truth is, we need a radical change to shake up mindsets, not a workplace structure.>

I wouldn&#39;t throw this idea away so quickly without thinking about it for a while. Would you really care how anarchy is achieved as long as it gets achieved?

<This could work if you kept it small, all the employees were your friends, and everyone smoked pot. But if it got any bigger, you could never be sure that a yuppie wasn&#39;t infiltrating your ranks. So until revolution, I&#39;d say the best bet is action.>

The funny thing is that THIS IS ACTION. I don&#39;t see how a yuppie could infiltrate this type of group, since the group itself would see it coming a mile away. It&#39;s very purpose is to cut this down. The group would be ready for this type of infiltration just the same way you are ready for it right now and as I have envisioned it, and as anybody who understands capitalism understands it&#39;s greedy nature.

It is possible that the organization would need to develop a sort of "list of rules" to keep corruption from happening. These rules, of course made democratically, would serve to prevent corruption and keep people from straying off course. I don&#39;t know, lets use our imaginations.

[redstar2000]

I know...revolution is hard. And you can spend a whole lifetime trying to instigate one and never even get "off the ground".

So some folks look for an "easier way".

This idea has been around since the days of Proudhon...and has never amounted to a warm puddle of spit.

99% of the time, these "anarchist businesses" just fail at once. The other 1% of the time they succeed...and turn themselves into regular corporations&#33; :o

But what the hell&#33; If you want to do it, go ahead&#33;

Personally, I&#39;m always astonished by how willing people are to replicate failed experiments.

What can they be thinking of???

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Social Greenman]

Any business venture would have to turn a profit or it would get bled dried. That&#39;s the way the system is made to function. If no profits are turned over then your out of business period. The capitalist class does serious book keeping and know what material and labor goes into each item produced to make profits. And it is the labor that makes the profit for the capitalist class while it is base of survival of the working class.

Speaking of greed: We are often told that it is human nature to be greedy and the reason socialism will not work. If this is so then workers would demand their full value of their labor. Once upon a time they did through union collective bargaining. Now it is mostley concessions these days.

[Guest]

<I know...revolution is hard. And you can spend a whole lifetime trying to instigate one and never even get "off the ground".
So some folks look for an "easier way".>

I&#39;m not looking for an "easier way", I&#39;m looking for any way to get workers back in control.

<This idea has been around since the days of Proudhon...and has never amounted to a warm puddle of spit.>

Maybe they were doing it wrong. The "idea" of flying has been around for thousands of years but it never really amounted to a warm puddle of spit until it took the Marx brothers to make it happen. If somebody had given them the same advice you are giving us and me right now, perhaps there wouldn&#39;t be any airplanes.

<99% of the time, these "anarchist businesses" just fail at once. The other 1% of the time they succeed...and turn themselves into regular corporations&#33;>

I think that is because the 99% of anarchist businesses that you mentioned were not the same as the one I outlined above. As for turning into a corporation, it would not be possible, because that is not anarchist in nature...And since the entire community would be democratically elected, and anarchist by nature nobody would want to see this happen. All of profits they would all be earning would vanish and they would all be back to working at bed bath and beyond or whatever, getting paid &#036;7.00 per hour instead of &#036;14.00 per hour. Do you see what I am saying? Why would they choose to do that to themselves?

<But what the hell&#33; If you want to do it, go ahead&#33;
Personally, I&#39;m always astonished by how willing people are to replicate failed experiments.
What can they be thinking of???>

It&#39;s not the same. I have read up on other anarchist business ideas, and they are nothing like the idea I just outlined. They often ocnsist of everybody getting paid equally and everybody doing all jobs, and I do not exactly suport that, I am just supporting the idea of traditional regular capitalist businesses only that the owners are the workers themselves. That is not that CRAZY of an idea, and so far I have not heard anybody in this thread give me any >specfic< reason why it wouldn&#39;t work, only that they don&#39;t think it will work (and no real argument behind it). If you can find a few actual reasons why it won&#39;t work I&#39;d like to hear it.

[Freigemachten]

Stock is not liquid as cash is. The only way to make an income with stock is to sell, i would assume that selling your part of the company is the same as leaving the company seeing as there wouldn&#39;t be any more benifit in working. It really comes down to how long an employyee can go before he needs the money invested in his stock, or how long the money invested in stock will last after it is sold. it won&#39;t work, it won&#39;t last, at least not in a capitalist society.

[Guest]

<Any business venture would have to turn a profit or it would get bled dried. That&#39;s the way the system is made to function. If no profits are turned over then your out of business period.>

Why would there be no "profits"? There would still be profits, and there would still be owners. The only difference is that the profits would go to the employees themselves (the new owners).

<The capitalist class does serious book keeping and know what material and labor goes into each item produced to make profits. And it is the labor that makes the profit for the capitalist class while it is base of survival of the working class.>

So, why can&#39;t the workers do "serious book keeping" and know the materials and labor? I don&#39;t get it. What makes workers incapable of handling this?

<Speaking of greed: We are often told that it is human nature to be greedy and the reason socialism will not work. If this is so then workers would demand their full value of their labor.>

It is human individualist nature to be greedy, but human beings as a group do not usually have sympathy for individualist greed.

[JC1]

One Queston. What do these petit-bourgoise Anarchist "property-forms" even accomplish ? sounds like a racket too me.

[Seeker]

They establish the organizational infrastructure that will be needed in a post-capitalist society.

They provide the working class with more political power than Wall-Mart lobbyists wield. See Anarcho-Syndicalism (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=6421).

They unite the working class ideologically.

Propaganda in deed.

And to top it all off, they make for a healthier, happier work environment.

[Guest]

I don&#39;t want to flood this group with posts, so I am going to start to respond to more than one user at a time with each response:

To Freigemachten: I am talking about "percentages", not really "stock". I know you will say "but stocks are percentages", but this idea is a little different. The stock market is one with investors and workers, and it is organized in a "market" made for hundreds, even thousands of investors. In my idea the investors would be the workers, so they would be the owners themselves. It would not be organized like a market in that no percentages would be sellable. All earnings would go straight to the workers and all business investments would be made by the workers themselves (as owners). For instance, if these hypothetical workers own a "store", they would all pool together about a hundred dollars each (if there are twn workers) and invest in a new product which may or may not bring them more money (these expenses would not reduce the fact that they would still be getting paid even more money, since they would make more money, in most cases, even after expenses)...I think you get the idea. As for it not being "liquid", everything would be liquid, at the end of every week or two, the income, after expenses, would be divided democratically by percentage. I basically think you have the wrong idea about my idea in that you think I am talking about "stock" in the traditional sense.

To JC1 :

These "anarchist property forms" would take the owner (parasite) out of the picture and increase workers earnings. That much would be an accomplishment. As for it being a "racket", I don&#39;t understand what you are talking about? Do you mean like a pyramid scheme? Everything would be decided democraticly and controlled by the workers, so who would be earning from this racket, except the workers? In fact, I could say the same about the capitalist system itself as being a "racket", and this being the solution to that racket. But, if you wanted to draw up a picture of what this would be like...draw a straight line, not a pyramid.

[Social Greenman]

I never said workers cannot do book keeping. They already do for the capitalist class. The capitalist class would never allow for any anarchist or socialist business enterprise to exist. They will either run it out of business or eventually turn it into a corporation. Perhaps the only way it would work is to have many businesses and industries that are inter-connected with its own economy which ignores the capitalist economic system. However, the government would soon step in by taxing and conforming (through law) those businesses and industries right back into the capitalist infrastructure.

[Guest]

<The capitalist class would never allow for any anarchist or socialist business enterprise to exist. They will either run it out of business or eventually turn it into a corporation.>

I couldn&#39;t imagine a group of anarchists, who are making a good living, democratically decide to just throw thier efforts away for no particular reason...

<Perhaps the only way it would work is to have many businesses and industries that are inter-connected with its own economy which ignores the capitalist economic system.>

That is basically what I think I was trying to push. A sort of interconnected club of workers (I guess you could call it a "union") who democratically run a group of businesses and vote on all action. The business percentages themselves would be "rented" by the employees, and as such owned by the employees. Every two weeks or so, the earnings would be divided and major business decisions and investments made democratically.

<However, the government would soon step in by taxing and conforming (through law) those businesses and industries right back into the capitalist infrastructure.>

I guess anything is possible. I have no way of knowing that will happen or won&#39;t happen. It is just as possible that the government will just go about its business and not give a crap about it.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:40 PM
The "idea" of flying has been around for thousands of years but it never really amounted to a warm puddle of spit until it took the Marx brothers to make it happen. If somebody had given them the same advice you are giving us and me right now, perhaps there wouldn&#39;t be any airplanes.

The "Marx" brothers invented airplanes? :blink:

[KickMcCann]

its a great idea, and its most interesting that this idea has come up independently in the heads of many of us. It seems improbable but is quite easy to do if you understand how capitalism and buisnesses work.
Firstly, in a buisness like this, you cannot have shareholders or stock available to the outside world. In this factory or office or shop, all assets must be owned collectively by the workers through contract. As an employee, you become part owner of the company, if you quit/leave/are fired you lose you part of the ownership and it goes to your replacement.

Profit margins: This is an issue if the company is on the stock market, having shareholders, or private ownership. Shareholders buy stocks in a company, the more they buy the more they are entitled to through dividends/profits. An owner starts a company or buys a big portion, hires workers, and the owners makes profit from that which the workers produce. The average demand for profit from owners/shareholders is around 10% of the operation&#39;s income.
In capitalism, this is a major reason why many perfectly good factories get shut down. If the owners or shareholders are not making their 10%, either because production costs are up, or sales are low, they will lay-off 10,000 workers here and there and shut down a few factories in order to lower their overhead and boost their profit margin.
In the kind of operation we are talking about, the profit margin is unneccessary and nonexistant. The workers own the entire company and all profits to be made go to them. Regular, yet raised and egaltarian wages (which are part of normal operating costs) would still exist, and any profit made would be an added bonus to them. There would be no requirement to make a certain amount of profit, only to be able to pay for operating costs. So if they pull in a 5% profit one year and a 10% profit another year (a horrifying margin to a capitalist parasite), good for them.
Without the overhead of meeting a profit margin for a shareholder, services and products can be sold for a much lower price on the market, this is would make it very hard for capitalists to compete against us because they must spend all their money on mansions, vactions, islands, private jets and lavish lifestyles. In terms or natural selection and evolution, this model is the strongest most efficient, and best suited for driving capitalism into extinction.

The whole ethic and culture in capitalism in competition, making war on your enemies, destroying them, and monopolizing yourself until only you exist. This is the nature of their economy but also of their society. If we seek to end this culture and society of war against one another, we must meet them on their economic battlefield becuase we have the greatest potential for beating them there.

Some people speak that the capitalists would use violence or the system to destroy us. But in terms of law, we are just like them, and anything they do to us, we can do to them. We can buy off politicians, the police, and judges just like they do, we could monopolize the media and use PR firms, removing any criticism of us from the public consciousness and focus it all on them, just as they do to us now.

The key is to organize and spread like wildfire. Starting just one anarchist/socialist company is nice, but if we want to bring down their system we have to greatly expand and gradually gain control of all modes of production. So I propose the creation of a corporation that does just that. It would buy out companies, introduce workplace democracy and split the profits with the workers, the corporation&#39;s half of the profits would in turn be used to buy out more companies, and then more companies, and more companies. The final goal of all this is to achieve a state where all people employed are employed in a worker-owned/operated company, where the entire market will be monopolized buy us.

[waltersm]

yes this does piss a lot of communists off

[Bannockburn]

The key is to organize and spread like wildfire. Starting just one anarchist/socialist company is nice

Well actually there are a few out there. AK Press and G7welcomingcommittee are two examples.

[Social Greenman]

The concept is reasonable though I don&#39;t see how the idea pisses communist off since state capitalism existed in the former USSR under state planning.

KickMcCann nailed the nail on the head that any anarchist or socialist business would basically have to play by the rules of capitalism but without stock ownership from those in the capitalist class in which profits are skimmed off from. However, you also have to keep in mind wear and tear on both machine and workers. Also, these industries have to buy better and faster machines so to keep commodities at a lower price. But in order to have industry you have to have community that is also anarchist or socialist because faster machines require less people to operate. Therefore you have to have a system of work sharing for income from each owner employee. This would give more people the opportunity to gain income.

On the other hand, the capitalist class will get pissed being unable to skim profits off these industries. I have no dopubt the government would step in somehow to tax it to death or declare them illegal and take them by force. The latter would spark either a revolution or continued apathy. Who knows.

[Guest]

<The "Marx" brothers invented airplanes?>

....I know "ha ha" I&#39;m retarded. I realized that after I posted it, I hoped nobody would notice.

[Guest]

<KickMcCann nailed the nail on the head that any anarchist or socialist business would basically have to play by the rules of capitalism but without stock ownership from those in the capitalist class in which profits are skimmed off from. >

I agree. I can&#39;t imagine this sytem working within the stock market, because the stock market does not consist of workers.

<However, you also have to keep in mind wear and tear on both machine and workers. Also, these industries have to buy better and faster machines so to keep commodities at a lower price. But in order to have industry you have to have community that is also anarchist or socialist because faster machines require less people to operate. Therefore you have to have a system of work sharing for income from each owner employee. This would give more people the opportunity to gain income.>

I think I see what you are talking about, but that is another issue than pull the rug of power from under the bourgeoisie&#39;s feet. The issue you are talking about and seem to be perceving is a worker/non-worker problem which may result from this. I completely agree and have very little to offer as a solution, except that first of all, this would not happen for at least a century or two.

If I were to have anything to say about something like this, I would say that the union would need to forsee something like this as a possibility and write up a system of rules (like the constitution) that once the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is complete and political power achieved, the level of taxation increase on these businesses should be hand in hand with a decrease in workers.

For instance, at a certain point, for every worker lost, taxes increase a like-amount to make up for it. This would be the invisible price of the labor of the machine replaced. That workers "percentage" would go to society. The owners would of course have to decide to allow themselves to be subjected to this. It&#39;s very trickey business, but I am not arguing that my idea is the solution to solve all economic /political problems, just the one of the owner vs the worker...

[Social Greenman]

Guest, have you read any of Daniel De Leon&#39;s writings? They are here on this link:

http://deleonism.org/

Daniel De Leon believed the workers did not need the capitalist class to run industries. I really don&#39;t care if he was sectarian or not he had very good points about socialism in the U.S.

[STABD]

there is a large grocery stor that i shop at often that is alot like what u talk about, the prices r very cheap and the store is always packed, the other stores cant keep up and this isnt some small time thing of just a couple freinds.

[Social Greenman]

It would be nice if one day it would just dawn on all workers that they already do everything without the capitalist class present. That dawning would socialize the means of production ending the capitalist class ownership of that private property. Socialism is not just economics but societies as a whole.