Workers Control

[Saorsa]

http://comradealastair.wordpress.com/2008/08/25/workers-control/

http://comradealastair.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/workers41.jpg?w=407&h=333

One of the greatest myths about capitalism is that it is somehow the most efficient, productive and effective system on offer - that for all it’s flaws (such as the misery that most of humanity is forced to endure), capitalism is at least capable of ensuring that everything operates the way it should, and all the jobs get done. However, this doesn’t stack up to reality.

I spend every Sunday pushing trolleys in Countdown supermarket carpark. It’s a boring, monotonous job with very little to stimulate my mind - I walk outside, get trolleys, take them back inside, and repeat the process. Every now and again I shake things up a bit by taking a trolley into the store, collecting baskets and taking them out to the foyer.


Last Sunday though, something was different. I don’t enjoy my job that much, and I don’t exactly pour every drop of energy I have into it, but over time I have become reasonably good at it. I can usually ensure that at all but the busiest times, there’s trolleys and baskets in the foyer and no major problems to do with supply of shopping bags, till rolls etc. I can pretty much just zone out and let the day take it’s course as I get into my usual routine.


Not any more. Management has just bought a whole lot of new trolleys. This in itself is good - we’re beginning to run low (those pesky students keep making off with them), and the more trolleys we have the easier my job becomes… or so I thought.


The bosses, in their infinite wisdom, have decided to buy a completely different type of trolley. They’re lighter, shallower and feel generally flimsy, and the satisfying crash that used to come when you deposited a load of trolleys with their fellows has disappeared, taking with it most of my job satisfaction. All I get now is either a pathetic tinkling noise or a horrible metallic screech.


Most significantly though, these new trolleys don’t stack with the old ones - they’re the wrong height and the wrong shape. This means that when customers put them in the trolley bays in the carpark, they don’t just fold into each other any more - they clump up in little bunches of two or three trolleys. Whereas before I could just grab ten trolleys out of the bay and haul them in, now I have to take them out in little groups, sometimes one at a time, and painstakingly separate the new ones from the old ones before I’m able to take any of them inside. It now takes me about three times as long as it used to to get a load of trolleys in the doors, and means that there tend to be less trolleys inside, more cluttering up the carpark, less baskets in the foyer and less menial chores getting done because I’m too busy desperately trying to sort out the mess that’s been made of the carpark. Basically, thanks to management’s stupid decision, I’m now a much less efficient and productive worker.


This is a good example of how in practice, capitalism is not efficient at all - it’s the complete opposite. The bosses don’t have a clue about how my job is actually done, and their bad decisions are a result of that. If Countdown was under workers control, with all decisions about how it operates, what’s going to be bought, what changes are going to be made and so on being made democratically by the workers who actually operate the store, decisions like buying the new type of trolleys wouldn’t get made. Instead, I would be able to get up at the assembly we hold to vote on decisions and put forward my perspective on what type of trolleys we should get - after all, who knows better than me, the trolley guy? The decisions would be made based on the first hand experience of us workers, and it’s safe to bet that they’d be better than those made by the pricks who are currently running the show.


Another good example of how capitalism is actually an ineffective and crazy system is the story of a WP member who lived in Wellington for a while. He was waiting for the bus near his house of an evening to get into town, and two days running no less than six buses drove past without picking him up! The drivers just waved sorry and kept going. This wasn’t the choice of the drivers - they were forced to do it by the company management, who structured the shifts to deny drivers any overtime, meaning they weren’t able to pick people up on their way back into town even though the buses weren’t full, they were heading in the right direction and people needed to go there. The bosses desire for profit resulted in an inefficient, ineffective system that messed up a lot of people’s plans for the evening.


This talk about workers control isn’t just idle dreaming - it’s a reality all over the world, where working people have dispensed with the parasites at the top of the stairs and started running things themselves. Without fail, when left to their own devices they’ve done a much better job of it. In Argentina, there is a powerful and well established workplace occupation movement. At Zanon Ceramics (http://www.globalpolitician.com/21574-argentina-south-america) a factory making tiles, the workers were able to produce more tiles than before and sell them at a cheaper price, with all the workers enjoying better wages and more enjoyable jobs. In Nepal in the past few days (http://southasiarev.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/nepal-tea-workers-seize-plantations/), workers at a tea factory and plantation have responded to their bosses refusal to negotiate better wages and conditions by seizing control of the plant and putting it under workers control! The workers’ union is affiliated to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), and with the Maoist revolutionaries being the largest party and the leaders of the new government, the workers are feeling more confident.


If it can be done in Argentina and Nepal, why not in New Zealand? Why not around the world, and in every single workplace that exists? Why can we not ditch this crappy system of exploitation, poverty and needless suffering that we currently have, and replace it with a system based on workers power, and a world of freedom, equality and material abundance? The working-class has the ability to achieve this - let’s get started.

[BIG BROTHER]

not exactly das kapital:lol: but this examples will come handy for future discussions

[Saorsa]

If Marx had worked in a supermarket, he'd have written something similar. :cool:

[BIG BROTHER]

he also would have said, employee of the month awards are the opium of the masses

[Saorsa]

Indeed they are. Although to be honest, nobody at my work beyond about 3 people gives a shit about employee of the month. Somebody drew mustaches on all the photos on the wall a few weeks back! It ain't much, but in the present downturn in class struggle we take what we can get! :lol:

[Devrim]

The entire premise of this article is wrong. Socialism is not a question of putting supermarkets under workers control. It is about fundamentally changing the economic system, not capitalism being run by workers self-management.

What else do you want, double glazing telesales under worker's control?

Devrim

[Devrim]

It ain't much, but in the present downturn in class struggle we take what we can get! :lol:

Nor is there a downturn of class struggle. The international tendency is a re-emergence of class struggle after the terrible years that were the 90s.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

The entire premise of this article is wrong. Socialism is not a question of putting supermarkets under workers control. It is about fundamentally changing the economic system, not capitalism being run by workers self-management.

I'm fully aware of that. I'm not an anarchist - I don't think the question begins and ends with workers control of the workplace. Socialist planning and a workers state are also needed. But wherever the conditions allow it, maximum workers control should be put in place with regards to the management of how the workplace operates. It will have to operate within the framework of the overall economic planning, but day to day decisions should be democratically made by the workers themselves, and the administration of the store should be based on workers control.



What else do you want, double glazing telesales under worker's control?

Why not?


Nor is there a downturn of class struggle. The international tendency is a re-emergence of class struggle after the terrible years that were the 90s.

What do you base that statement on? In New Zealand we remain very much in a downturn. Not every country is the same Devrim.

Annual work stoppages decrease

Tuesday, 22 July 2008, 10:54 am
Press Release: Statistics New Zealand Embargoed until 10:45am – 22 July 2008
Annual work stoppages decrease



Twenty-six work stoppages ended in the March 2008 year, Statistics New Zealand said today. This compares with 40 stoppages for the March 2007 year. Stoppages in the March 2008 year involved 3,664 employees, and losses of 11,049 person-days of work and $1.8 million in wages and salaries.



In comparison, the 40 stoppages in the March 2007 year involved 8,698 employees, and losses of 25,589 person-days of work and an estimated $4.9 million in wages and salaries.
Twenty-two complete strikes, two partial strikes and two lockouts ended in the March 2008 year.


In the March 2008 quarter, three work stoppages ended – all were complete strikes. These involved 118 employees, and resulted in losses of 178 person-days of work and an estimated $24,000 in wages and salaries.

[Saorsa]

I take it you yourself are a New Zealander, RH?


Because New Zealand citizens are extremely apolitical

Kiwis are no more apolitical than the citizens of any other Western country. And regardless of whether there's a high level of involvement in radical politics in NZ atm, what do you suggest we do? Actually get out there and struggle to build revolutionary socialist organisations (such as the Workers Party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.workersparty.org.nz)) and win people over to our ideas? Or sit on our arses and moan about how "apolitical" people are.


and are tightly bound to the queen of England regarding imperialism and capitalism

Uh... what? Most New Zealanders I've met couldn't give a rats arse about the Queen, and I expect a majority would support becoming a republic if it was put to a referendum. What do you base the statement that most of us are "tightly bound" to her on? And what exactly does this nonexistent mass support for the Queen of England have to do with the non-existent mass support amongst working people for imperialism and capitalism? Most workers aren't staucnhly anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist, but neither are they pro-imperialist and pro-capitalist - they're just apathetic and/or disillusioned. Our task is to change that, rather than just idly moaning about it.


while holding false reasons for national pride

Well sure, there's a lot of NZ nationalism that has to be challenged. But being proud of the fact that your country invented no. 8 wire or whatever isn't reactionary - it's only reactionary when this nationalism gets translated into support for NZs imperialist adventures abroad (e.g. East Timor, the Soloman Islands, Afghanistan, Iraq etc) and support for Kiwi bosses against bosses and even workers from other countries.

But again, we should be struggling against this, rather than adopting a defeatist attitude and saying nothing can be done.


all the while being brain washed by NZ media and government officials.

Workers aren't stupid. They aren't just empty vessells waiting to be filled up by capitalist propaganda. Workers can be won over to the ideas of socialism and revolution, and the Workers Party is in the process of doing this (on a very small scale, in ones and twos, but you have to start somewhere). If you're a New Zealander, why not join us and get involved in our work? There's no point in believing in socialism if you don't do anything about it.


Take away NZs rugby games and halt soap broadcasting for a month and then New Zealanders might take an interest in who steals their money.

I quite enjoy watching rugby games. :) Workers won't just automatically develop a revolutionary class consciousness if you take away the capitalist propaganda - they develop consciousness through a combination of class struggle and political intervention by socialists in these struggles. It's up to us to try and recruit workers to socialism, and to develp roots in and links with the working class - we shouldn't be blaming them for our own failings in this regard.

[Saorsa]

Haha, I should have been more serious. I just couldn't be fucked replying so I just summed up my frustration for New Zealand by making horrible generalisations. Your criticisms are worthy.

Anything other than total seriousness at all times is a bourgeois deviation! Humour and all forms of light-heartedness is reactionary! Rargh! :cursing:


Where I've been and have done, I don't respect your remarks personally.

Hmm? Could you reword that please? Do you mean you think I was attacking you personally? I wasn't, I was making general statements that could be applied to anyone.

[cyu]

Instead, I would be able to get up at the assembly we hold to vote on decisions and put forward my perspective on what type of trolleys we should get - after all, who knows better than me, the trolley guy?


Well said.

[Devrim]

What do you base that statement on? In New Zealand we remain very much in a downturn. Not every country is the same Devrim.

Reality, maybe? There has been a resurgence of class struggle internationally. This is indisputable. Quoting figures for only the last two years from a country with a population smaller than the city where I live, doesn't actually mean that much. Even so I would suggest you compare them to the same statistics from ten years ago. Whilst they may be a 'blip' this year, I think the overall tendency is obvious.


What else do you want, double glazing telesales under worker's control?
Why not?

Well I would say that even in the transitional stage any sort of socialist society would not have 'double glazing telesales'. Socialism is not just about a worker self managed idea of capitalism.

Think about the role of the supermarket.


I'm not an anarchist...Socialist planning and a workers state are also needed.

I am not an anarchist either, but I don't think that there is any such thing as a workers' state.

Devrim

[Saorsa]

Reality, maybe? There has been a resurgence of class struggle internationally. This is indisputable. Quoting figures for only the last two years from a country with a population smaller than the city where I live, doesn't actually mean that much. Even so I would suggest you compare them to the same statistics from ten years ago. Whilst they may be a 'blip' this year, I think the overall tendency is obvious.

In much of the world, yes, there has been a resurgence in class struggle, and we're eagerly awaiting it's arrival in NZ. However, it hasn't arriced yet, and you're sarcastic little comments won't make it arrive any faster. I never claimed that the whole world remained in a downturn - unlike you, I don't claim to know everything. But the objective facts are that NZ remains in a downturn.





Work Stoppages (December 1999 quarter) - Media Release




Fewer Work Stoppages But Other Indicators Rise

Ten work stoppages ended in the quarter to December 1999 latest figures from Statistics New Zealand show. Some 4,953 employees were involved in the December quarter stoppages. These 10 stoppages resulted in the loss of 7,794 person-days of work and an estimated $2.3 million in salaries and wages - the highest quarterly loss of salaries and wages since the September 1996 quarter. Three stoppages in the transport, storage and communication industry contributed 86 per cent to the estimated quarterly loss in salaries and wages. In the previous September 1999 quarter 13 stoppages ended involving 3,817 employees. These stoppages resulted in the loss of 4,410 person-days of work, with an average loss of 1.2 person-days of work per employee. An estimated $0.5 million was lost in wages and salaries.
Thirty-two work stoppages ended in the 1999 calendar year. This number is the lowest recorded in a calendar year since 1935.
The 32 stoppages involved 10,747 employees and 16,674 person-days of work. An estimated $3.3 million in wages and salaries was lost. In comparison, there were 35 work stoppages in the 1998 calendar year with 15,205 employees involved and a loss of 11,778 person-days of work. The 1998 stoppages had an estimated loss of $1.9 million in salaries and wages.

Eight of the 32 work stoppages were in the education industry; seven were in manufacturing; six were in transport, storage and communication; and five were in health and community services. The remaining six were in all other industries combined. The six stoppages in the transport, storage and communication industry contributed nearly two-thirds to the $3.3 million in wages and salaries lost in the December 1999 year.




There were 26 work stoppages in 1996. I can't be bothered getting the stats for every singly year between 1990 and 2008, but the facts are obvious - NZ remains in a protracted downturn in class struggle, with less strikes than in the 90s!


Well I would say that even in the transitional stage any sort of socialist society would not have 'double glazing telesales'.

If you did have them, they should be operated with the maximum amount of workers control.


Socialism is not just about a worker self managed idea of capitalism.

You already said that, and I already responded to it. Hell, you even quoted my response to it!


I am not an anarchist either, but I don't think that there is any such thing as a workers' state.

So if you don't support workers control in and of itself, without overall economic planning, and you don't support workers control of the workplace within the framework of and subordinate to overall economic planning directed by a workers state... what do you support? Capitalism?

[Devrim]

There were 26 work stoppages in 1996. I can't be bothered getting the stats for every singly year between 1990 and 2008, but the facts are obvious - NZ remains in a protracted downturn in class struggle, with less strikes than in the 90s!

Well the facts that you have presented don't show this. So far they are;
1996 26
1998 32
2007 40
2008 26

It likes the detail to make a proper analysis, you do actually need to look at a bit more data than this. One year does not make a trend.


In much of the world, yes, there has been a resurgence in class struggle, and we're eagerly awaiting it's arrival in NZ. However, it hasn't arriced yet,... I never claimed that the whole world remained in a downturn - unlike you, I don't claim to know everything.

I didn't claim to know everything. What I said was that there was an 'international tendency is a re-emergence of class struggle after the terrible years that were the 90s'. I don't think it is in anyway helpful to understanding to talk about national trends especially in countries as small as NZ.

Added to that I suspect that despite what you have said if you actually do a deeper analysis of the data, I will turn out to be right. Not because I 'know everything', but because these trends really do tend to be international. At the moment the resurgence is week, but it is still there.


There were 26 work stoppages in 1996. I can't be bothered getting the stats for every singly year between 1990 and 2008, but the facts are obvious - NZ remains in a protracted downturn in class struggle, with less strikes than in the 90s!

Yet the figures we have suggest the opposite, from the four years data we have 58 strikes from the two years in the nineties, and 66 in the last two years. A small but significant, over 10%, increase. Of course seeing all the statistics would help us make a better analysis.


and you're sarcastic little comments won't make it arrive any faster.

I didn't make any sarcastic comments. I merely pointed out that New Zealand is very small, and not that statistically significant when it comes to establishing world trends.


If you did have them, they should be operated with the maximum amount of workers control.
You already said that, and I already responded to it. Hell, you even quoted my response to it!

Yes, I think that you really missed what I was saying though, and it is an important point. It isn't a question of if we did have them. Do you imagine that in a transitional socialist economy jobs will exist whose basic function is to con old people out of their savings. It is not about what sort of control they will be under. It is about the very nature of the economy.


So if you don't support workers control in and of itself, without overall economic planning, and you don't support workers control of the workplace within the framework of and subordinate to overall economic planning directed by a workers state... what do you support? Capitalism?

I think that workers' control is essential. My points were about the nature of what is to be controlled. Do you think that a socialist economy will have insurance companies for example. I would say a definite no here. It is not just a question of workers taking over and running the existing capitalist economy, but of transforming it. That means that in some sectors the question of workers control isn't the question at all because the sector has to be destroyed.

I didn't say that I didn't support economic planning either. I said that I don't think there can be any such thing as a workers state.

Devrim

[cyu]

Do you think that a socialist economy will have insurance companies for example. I would say a definite no here.

Not that I'm defending current insurance companies, but what's wrong with insurance companies? I'm not asking a rhetorical question - I'm curious as to what your point of view is on them.

I could imagine, for example, an organization, run either democratically by their employees or the community, that gives various people extra support when they suffer some sort of big loss. That's pretty much an insurance company, right?

[Devrim]

Not that I'm defending current insurance companies, but what's wrong with insurance companies? I'm not asking a rhetorical question - I'm curious as to what your point of view is on them.

I could imagine, for example, an organization, run either democratically by their employees or the community, that gives various people extra support when they suffer some sort of big loss. That's pretty much an insurance company, right?

Well no, an insurance company is a business designed to make money. It is not designed to help people.

Do you think in a transitional period there would be money? If you don't (and I don't) you can pretty much write off insurance companies.

In the event of somebody suffering a big loss prevision would be made without have bussinesses making money off it.

Devrim

[cyu]

Well no, an insurance company is a business designed to make money. It is not designed to help people.

Well, in truth, they also help people to some degree, though of course, the primary purpose of today's insurance companies is to "increase shareholder value" - just like any other corporation. If it came to a decision between helping people or increasing shareholder value (such as when deciding whether to cover something "too expensive"), then the decision is usually decided in favor of the wealthy shareholders.



Do you think in a transitional period there would be money?


While I can certainly imagine an economy where people go to work voluntarily to produce things, and then others just pick up what they need without having to use money, I have no strong feelings about the use of money. It's just a tool to me - like hammers, computers, or guns.

[Lamanov]

I'm fully aware of that. I'm not an anarchist - I don't think the question begins and ends with workers control of the workplace.

Anarchists are not for self-management of capitalism!

The real difference between me and you is that you think planning should be made by a "workers' state" (bureaucrats - and "workers' control" would somehow "fit" in there) while I know real socialist/communist planning can only be made by workers' councils, wide social creations of that same "workers' control".


While I can certainly imagine an economy where people go to work voluntarily to produce things, and then others just pick up what they need without having to use money, I have no strong feelings about the use of money. It's just a tool to me - like hammers, computers, or guns.

I'm sorry for nitpicking comrade, but money is not just a tool. It's an expression of value (equivalent value). We will not be producing values in communism (in total self-management) but use values (things and services we need as a global community). In this case, however, we will have some "tools" for making our distribution of these services and products easier (like electronic "consumer cards", etc), that would eventually help us plan production ("plan our needs").

[Devrim]

While I can certainly imagine an economy where people go to work voluntarily to produce things, and then others just pick up what they need without having to use money, I have no strong feelings about the use of money. It's just a tool to me - like hammers, computers, or guns.

Money is much more than a tool. It is at the centre of the whole idea of commodity production. You have 'anarchosyndicalism' written next to your icon, but I think that you will find that the anarcho-syndicalists are more in agreement with me than you on this one.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

I said that I don't think there can be any such thing as a workers state.

Just for clarification, in what sense are you using the word "workers state" and why is it an impossibility?

[Devrim]

Just for clarification, in what sense are you using the word "workers state" and why is it an impossibility?

To put it very simply we think that the state is a deeply conservative force, and that it will always be anti-working class. However, as in the immediate transitional period there will be class differentials within society a state is inevitable. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not exercised through the state, but over the state.

We have a pamphlet about it on line here:
http://en.internationalism.org/pamphlets/transition

Devrim

[Sendo]

The vast majority of work has workers who know their shit but work slowly because they're underpaid while they have bite their tongues and grit their teeth when dealing with management. Has anyone seen Clerks 2??




SPOILER



When the two main guys reopen the video and convenience store on their own they do the same work but keep all the profits. I thought to myself (b4 I was a commie) "hmmm, workers' control, no more absentee owner taking the profits...."


END



When I worked a video store we had absentee managers who "only came in to take the money, ***** at us, then leave." If we ran it ourselves we would be more motivated, be able to make smarter orders (based on customer preferences), and get a fair share. What would we have to do extra? Take turns paying the bills and placing orders?

[cyu]

Money is much more than a tool. It is at the centre of the whole idea of commodity production. You have 'anarchosyndicalism' written next to your icon, but I think that you will find that the anarcho-syndicalists are more in agreement with me than you on this one.


I only call myself an anarcho-syndicalist because I think my beliefs coincide with theirs more than most other ideologies. That doesn't mean I'm going to follow the "majority" belief of anarcho-syndicalists on every issue. Like genetic evolution, political systems can only evolve if there is mutation.

Anyway, so teach me some anarcho-syndicalist theory. Why do most anarcho-syndicalists oppose money and what don't they like about "commodity production"?


It's an expression of value (equivalent value). We will not be producing values in communism (in total self-management) but use values (things and services we need as a global community). In this case, however, we will have some "tools" for making our distribution of these services and products easier (like electronic "consumer cards", etc), that would eventually help us plan production ("plan our needs").

I'm a little confused by what you're trying to say. We probably have the same overall goal, but what do you mean by "We will not be producing values"? Isn't all economic activity about producing things that are useful?

[Vanguard1917]

Workers' control is the first step; workers' regulation (planning) is the second, decisive step. It's possible to have workers' control without workers' management, at least in theory and in the short-term. For example, it's possible to argue that workers' control existed during the early stages of the NEP period of the Russian Revolution, even though production was partly regulated by market forces. It's possible to exercise short-term 'control' over a sector of an economy, or even the whole economy, without consciously managing it.

What makes socialism a superior system of production to capitalism is workers' regulation and management, not workers' control. Workers' control is a prerequisite for workers' regulation, but it's not in itself a more advanced way of organising social production. Socialism depends totally on the conscious planning and decision making of the working class. History has shown us that if the working class is unable to take over the responsibility of conscious planning, workers' control can only last momentarily before being overthrown by either the reintroduction of capitalist rule or, as was the case in 1920s Russia, the bureaucracy.

[Lamanov]

Anyway, so teach me some anarcho-syndicalist theory. Why do most anarcho-syndicalists oppose money and what don't they like about "commodity production"? ... I'm a little confused by what you're trying to say. We probably have the same overall goal, but what do you mean by "We will not be producing values"? Isn't all economic activity about producing things that are useful?

Commodity is a product designed for sale, for exchange. Exchange is a process where we give one exchange value for something else (mainly money). When we orientate our economy in direction of exchange, we produce commodities, and this means we don't produce stuff and services because there's an actual need for them, but because someone is willing to buy them. "Commodity producers" get money in return. This works because we let the market calculate value - socially necessary labor time put in use, objectified - into exchange value - quantitative aspect of a commodity, i. e., the number of commodities we can get for some other commodity - and this is expressed in equivalent value - money.

Money is a tool of commodity production, wage labor is its backbone: labor is being alienated, put into use for production of things for sale, and that labor, making a value bigger than itself and things used, makes surplus value, which is turned into profit.

If we would produce commodities it would mean we need circulation of capital: buying and selling of wage labor. It would mean we make things because they would get sold.

Instead, in a communist society, we will produce things and services because there's an actual need for them. Working people would run all aspects of social and economic life - including both production and consumption - according to a plan made in accordance with their own needs ("total self-management").

[cyu]

I don't see how the use of money requires wage slavery / surplus value. If all companies were democratically controlled, who is getting the surplus value? The employees themselves would be deciding what to do with the money.

How would society determine what should be produced and what should not? I can imagine two possibilities:

1) Everyone votes in elections to determine the allocation of resources / labor. There might be a bunch of proposed "budgets" on the ballot, and you vote for the one you like. Hopefully holding these elections doesn't get too cumbersome.

2) Everyone gets equal pay in money. They spend the money in what amounts to a market economy. However, since everyone has equal pay, it is similar to economic democracy, because everyone has an equal number of "votes" as to what should be produced next.

Here's some stuff I wrote earlier about this topic:

The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism. -Mikhail Gorbachev

Was Gorbachev contradicting the basic assumptions of socialism? I don't see a fundamental contradiction.

Consider this: Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever (yes, people in more difficult jobs may get more "respect" than other jobs, but that's just social conditioning and not related to their salaries). They then spend that money in a market to buy what they want / need. Market pricing still determines prices.

Here's the rub: instead of higher profits going to the producers, the extra money going into those industries just means there is more demand for those products and services. So the money is used to pay new producers in those industries, thus increasing supply - and everyone still has the same monthly salary.

As long as everyone has an equal salary, that is similar to economic democracy. Everyone has an equal amount of "votes" as to what to produce next. The concept of a salary is no longer a "reward" for work (there are plenty of psychological studies that show "rewarding" work results in people liking the work less, and focusing on only the reward as their goal (http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm)), but as just a method used so that everyone can help determine what goods and services are valuable.

Q: (http://www.reddit.com/user/Nwallins/) What is going to keep you getting out of bed at 6:30 AM other than the idea of bettering yourself and your family?

Depending on the job: the feeling of satisfaction of doing something important, the joy of doing something you've been brainwashed to love, bettering yourself & family by bettering society at the same time.

Q: (http://www.reddit.com/user/Nwallins/) One could imagine societies developing a social stigma against [lazy] workers, but it's even easier to imagine organizations without.

There isn't a stigma against not going on a rollercoaster. Well actually, you might get some ribbing from your peers that you're chicken. In any case, how do marketers get you to ride a rollercoaster? It's just one activity among millions of others - why is this one so desirable that you'd actually want to pay to do it, instead of having to be paid to do it? The marketer is basically emphasizing how much fun the activity itself will be - not what result or reward you'd get afterwards.

There is a danger in promoting the process too much though. Let's say you've basically been brainwashed to enjoy churning butter the traditional way. What if a new method comes along that is more efficient? Well, then those who are in charge of "marketing" in the butter industry will have to switch to promoting this new method instead, and leave the old method for you to do in your "leisure" (less important) time.

Q: (http://www.reddit.com/user/asokoloski/) Most of us ride a rollercoaster once in a while, but (most of us) would be bored if we did it all the time.

Yet people do things like read / argue on ther internet day in and day out, or play a MMORPG day in and day out. You could argue that these activities are different in that they involve something different every day. Yet jobs could be tailored in the same way. Just apply the same product / marketing principles to the job itself. If you write software, you may be satisfied solving the same problems every day, simply because it makes you feel good to be the expert in your area. However, if that bores you, then you could branch out into other areas, or help out a peer who is swamped. If you work on an assembly line, you could easily move around to other parts of the assembly line if the learning curve isn't steep. You could even spend days outside of your "normal" job - maybe planting trees in a park or whatever the job advertisers are promoting that week.

There was a movie director that stated all great films are about either death or sex. Another director replied that he had to add money to his list. The first director responded that money is only used to avoid the first and get the second. I would add another thing to the use of money: to get pride - whether it's to buy status symbols, or simply to hold and be able to say you have a large amount of it. The thing with death and sex is that they are fairly absolute - death is death and sex is sex in every culture. Pride on the other hand is much more malleable. Different cultures (and subcultures) are proud of different things. Humans can take an active role in changing culture in any direction (which is basically what advertising and marketing is).

In today's system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a "desire" that wouldn't have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire - it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work. Now before you make the argument that advertising isn't all that effective in getting people to buy what they don't want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television - million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn't spend so much if it didn't work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that "boring" doesn't sell.

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing. Seems like a much more direct method to me and a much better use of the skills of our great advertisers.

[Lamanov]

I will not get into economic theories, I'll make it simple here:


1) Everyone votes in elections to determine the allocation of resources / labor. There might be a bunch of proposed "budgets" on the ballot, and you vote for the one you like. Hopefully holding these elections doesn't get too cumbersome.

So, if we plan production and consumption, in joint effort of all workers - not isolated by branch, factory or shop - why do we need money? Why do we need to calculate value? Do we even need the concept of "surplus value" since everything is produced to meed the community's needs? We don't.


2) Everyone gets equal pay in money. They spend the money in what amounts to a market economy. However, since everyone has equal pay, it is similar to economic democracy, because everyone has an equal number of "votes" as to what should be produced next.

I'm sorry, but not everyone can have equal pay, not because we're not egalitarian, but because someone needs more: someone has more kids, some communities have different housing standards, some spend more of certain product, etc. This can all be solved if we calculate our production based on our consumption, keeping in mind that everyone works and shares responsibilities, while everyone gets their rational demands and needs met.

[cyu]

So, if we plan production and consumption, in joint effort of all workers - not isolated by branch, factory or shop - why do we need money? Why do we need to calculate value? Do we even need the concept of "surplus value" since everything is produced to meed the community's needs? We don't.

Sure, sure - I'm not saying you're wrong and this is bad. Maybe I think oranges taste better than apples, but if I'm hungry, I'd eat either one.


someone has more kids
Note I had written, "Everyone in the economy gets paid the same monthly salary - regardless of whether you're a child, an engineer, retired, or whatever" - which means the kids participate in determining what should be produced as well.



some communities have different housing standards


I think a better example would be the disabled or someone with a serious disease - they obviously need more resources to support them than the average person. I don't see that as a fundamental flaw in designing a market economy with economic equality though - the insurance company model is basically something in which everyone can pay the same amount, and yet those with greater needs get more (which isn't to say I support the way insurance companies are run in a capitalist system of course :lol: ).

[Lamanov]

Sure, sure - I'm not saying you're wrong and this is bad. Maybe I think oranges taste better than apples, but if I'm hungry, I'd eat either one.

That's also covered by planning. I'm not going to say "both is fine". It's not: market-commodity system has serious and risky flaws, and self-management can't really work under it.

[cyu]

market-commodity system has serious and risky flaws


Yes, I myself have written about some of these flaws:

A market economy can work pretty well to determine what needs to be produced, provided there's one condition: that everyone has relatively equal amounts of spending power. Consider the concept of supply and demand: in theory, the more demand there is for some product or service, a market economy will be encouraged to increase the supply for that product or service.

However, there is a flaw in the theory above that many pro-capitalists overlook: demand (in a capitalist economy) is not measured in units of people, it is measured in units of money. Thus you can have 99% of the people "demanding" basic necessities of life, but it won't matter a bucket of spit compared to a rich man with millions of times more money, who is demanding luxury goods. As the gap between rich and poor increases, the market economy will be focused more and more on producing luxury goods.

In order to have a market economy that serves everyone, rather than the wealthy few, spending power must be relatively equal.