Yup. Co-ops are certainly an example of that, but keep in mind that co-ops now exist in a capitalist context.
Results 21 to 40 of 55
Oh, but there is a way. They're called worker Co-ops. There's a documentary called "The Take" you should watch about that subject.
Yup. Co-ops are certainly an example of that, but keep in mind that co-ops now exist in a capitalist context.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Yeah, I saw. I saw some libertarian(American) call it some marvel of capitalism. Which made me face palm, but that's alright.
But why does investment risk exist? Investment risk exists because investors don't know what people want. Sure capitalism adapts to demand, but it runs backwards compared to what a sensible system would do. Instead of asking people what they want and producing that, like a sensible system would, investors in capitalism guess what people want and cross their fingers. If people don't want it, they've just wasted their money. How is this in any way efficient?
Now what you seem to be asking with all of these questions is "what do socialists see a socialist society being like?" The thing is, socialism is defined as the control of the government and the economy/means of production by the workers (proletariat). This means that there are many different societies that can be called socialist. Going by that definition, the US's economy isn't socialist, and there's little Obama could do by himself to make it so.
As far as socialism goes, there's the authoritarian variant (think USSR and Cuba), though I've found that people here generally don't advocate that type of socialism- usually they call it "state capitalism." There's also something called a "gift economy," which is, as far as I can tell, an economy where people just share stuff with each other without expecting anything in return. Then there's "market socialism," which is sort of like capitalism without the capitalists. In it, workers control their workplaces, and it's impossible to invest or make any profit- you can only make money by working, and any "profits" go straight into expanding the workplace. Finally, there's participatory economics, which takes a while to explain. Here's an article on it: http://www.zcommunications.org/parec...michael-albert Personally, I like participatory economics the best- I think it's the most feasible and efficient. For instance, it solves the problem I talked about in the first paragraph.
- Things aren't magically provided for you.
- The motivation for working is this: If there are enough people like you, we will all starve, dehydrate and be bored.
Spamming the boards with ya shit.
You'll be getting it soon
Well, the whole "OH NO WE'LL ALL DIE" thing isn't really all there is to it, I think.
Humans are active creatures. We don't like just sitting around and doing nothing all day, normally. Of course, we hate being forced or obligated to do something, especially if that thing is difficult or time consuming, or the converse, really goddamn boring and repetitive.
As I like to understand it, one of the main objectives of socialism is to make the means of production more and more efficient and productive, so there's more yield for less labor. The point is to produce to satisfy need, so profits aren't an issue, and so there's really no reason to not be able to provide everybody a job.
So, the workforce will literally be every single able person who wants a job, which will effectively lower the hours that people will have to work for the same amount of whatever product to be produced, while the productive forces will be made even more efficient, things get automated...etc.
Point is, folks won't have to dread work since it'll be easier and there won't be absurdly long hours. But it's very late and I'm exhausted so I explained it poorly and in 30 more paragraphs than it needed.
So, there you go.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
In communism there is no government or state. you arnt "provided" with anything. You will work and you will get what you need. But you seem to assume that we would have the same social relationships under communism as we do now under capitalism. Thats not true. In communism we want an end to all exploitatation and oppression, wether that is in the economic sense (wage slavery) or social or political. We demand an end to patriarchy, racism and homophobia, all of which are systematic symptoms of capitalist society. Capitalist Society creates an individual who is alienated, but whose allienation is called freedom. We reject that, as communists we want a free society of liberated human beings. So communism isnt simply about the economics of who recieves what and how, its how we relate to each other as inividuals.
Anarchist-Communist
First let's ensure that the majority of the world-population does not have to go hungry everyday anymore, shall we ?
Society originally changed into a capitalist society in the first place. It wasn't just magically capitalist from the beginning, and capitalism as a phenomenon is fairly new. It first arose in the 14th century banking conglomerates in Italy and the Alps, and later received an enormous boost through colonialism. When we talk about capitalism, we don't mean trade or personal property, but a system where a minority could attain tremendous influence by possessing capital and is constantly reinvesting that capital to gain higher profits.
Yeah its actually an accepted part of psychological science, when you have intrinsic motivation to do something (i.e. you do something because you like it), extrinsic motivation (i.e. getting paid) decreases both the level of enjoyment you get from the activity in question and your motivation for continuing the activity
These people are in the minority, and probably account for 0.00000000000000000000000000001% of the population of humans throughout the history of humanity.
Between production for profit and production for needs there is no contrast.
Ludwig von Mises, Socialism
That's quite right. Economic advancement is done for the money.
Obvious spam is obvious.
I wonder, whom is paying the OIers to come online and argue with a bunch of leftists?
But now we must pick up every piece
Of the life we used to love
Just to keep ourselves
At least enough to carry on
Evil revisionists!!1!
more information out of your ass, with nothing to back it up.
With a Capitalist system yes, becasue theres no other option.
Its like arguing during the Roman times that aqueducts can only be made for imperial reasons.
Even though this a good critique, it is completely false.
I am not going to defend any ideology in my reply, only facts that I know to be true. So I hope I don't get any strawmen in return.
Anyway...
Businesses (and by extension, investors) know what people want. What businesses don't know is what people will want (as in, the future). But that nobody knows, whether in utopian communism or utopian capitalism.
In marketing, businesses don't "make products and cross fingers to see if people want it". One of the core principles of marketing is precisely the opposite.
Namely, that businesses should promote the category (or market, if you will) first instead of creating a product and then figuring out where the hell it fits.
If anyone out there is interested, I have a PDF backup of the book 22 Immutable Laws of Branding by Al Ries and Laura Ries. I can send it to you, just ask.
Furthermore, there is more to risk than the risk of people not buying your product. There are weather risks (if we are dealing with perennial products like food), accident risks (car accidents during transport of a product), theft risks, and many more.
Hope this clarifies the subject.
To speculate is human; to hedge, divine
