If you could...

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Spartan_Marine88]

Collective ownership of the means of production?

Nevertheless, the argument isn't that the the employee should be paid the entirety of what the good sells for, it's that they should be paid some proportion of the profits equivalent to the labor that they put into the product.

And you are!

Thats where your paycheque comes from


lets break it down for you

Man starts company (called investmen he takes a risk with his money)

He makes chocolate bar, chocolate bar makes him money a percentage of that is given to you.

@Myst only way I would see workers having any owner ship is if you run into hard times and offer them shares instead of pay (Microsoft was best known for it)

[Mysthalin]

Yeah, shares are an obvious answer to that - but that's entirely up to my voluntary decision to fund my company's investment decisions via shares... and I'm fine with that - because it is the other party's voluntary decision to buy the shares from me.

[Masacree]

I mean, I'll propose a very simplistic scenario.

I, after 10 years of grueling work as a governmental economist finally save up some £100,000 that I then use to open up a small factory.

This is the premise I disagree with.

Also, why should my workers have ANY ownership of the factory that I paid for with my own savings?

Because a small portion of the population shouldn't be able to control the means of production to the exclusion of everyone else in the society.

And you are!

Sure, you'll argue that they're paid a fair wage, and I'd argue that because the value employees make for the corporation far exceeds the money that they are paid, then it's exploitative.

And yes, shares would be one method to implement collective ownership. I don't know how you'd equitably distribute them, however.

[Mysthalin]

You disagree with me earning money at a GOVERNMENT job, saving it up and then spending it as I wish?

Noone is excluded from owning the means of production - you are very much so free to invest in whatever firm you may want to, regardless of your social status. If you are willing to accept the risk - then by all means invest.

[Masacree]

You disagree with me earning money at a GOVERNMENT job, saving it up and then spending it as I wish?

No, investing it to create a factory and then employing people through it.

[Mysthalin]

What is so horribly wrong with me using my hard-earned money (which I will have earned through work for the government (AKA serving the population, not a corporation)) to build something that creates a good people are happy to buy and ensures the steady wage of 10 people, instead of them being unemployed?

[Phil]

I disagree with you making money as an economist


While nothing horribly wrong with it, I do find it hilarious that you think its awesome to work for 10 years, save up a bunch of money, open a factory and hire people for a at best what, 40% of the money you've been getting for the last 10 years. And you're doing them a favor too!!

I know you probably pulled the numbers out of your ass, but be more careful in the future =P


My only problem with the current system is that children get screwed by lazy or lets say unlucky parents. My parents had reasonable means, I got a good education and I'm doing fine. Some of my friends however were not nearly as lucky, especially those with medical issues.

[Masacree]

What is so horribly wrong with me using my hard-earned money (which I will have earned through work for the government (AKA serving the population, not a corporation)) to build something that creates a good people are happy to buy and ensures the steady wage of 10 people, instead of them being unemployed?

Because it perpetuates a system of social oppression where wealth is inevitably collected by a few, while everyone else is made dependent on them? Because your "generous" offer to employ people is the sort of deal with the devil that no rational person would take if they had an alternative?

Obviously you're going to put the situation in your terms (the terms of "free choice" ect.) to make it seem nice and consensual, while I'll put it mine. Reality is probably at neither extreme, but I think it would be valuable for you to look at the broader societal picture.

[Phil]

BUMP CAUSE NOBODY POSTED IN SO LONG

[AmPM]

So you propose that nobody do anything and we all return to hunting and gathering?

I'm confused. Why would I use MY money and MY time to create and produce a product and then give you an equal share for stocking it on a shelf? Your share of the work is what you get paid for, you do next to nothing.

Want to get rich, learn a skill that is worth something, create something people want to pay for, or get really lucky. Why should everyone else sacrifice for you?

I'm not wealthy, hell, I don't make all that much, but I will be damned if I got to the State for money that I don't need that comes out of other peoples pockets. I work hard, I get paid enough in my opinion for the work I do (otherwise I would find another job) and I am WORKING to improve my position (school and military) in life through education and benefits.

If you and others are too lazy to work to get something, then starve. You are not my problem, my family is my concern over anything else in the world. If you want to take food out of my daughters mouth or shoes off her feet because YOU are too lazy to better your position based on your own effort and ability then die in a fire, I can help you with that one.

Phil: I posted it extra angry for you

[Masacree]

What do you do for a living, AmPM?

[AmPM]

I work in IT. I need more certs to make more money.

I have worked retail, and food, so I know it sucks, but you really do get paid what you are worth. Supply and demand, low skill jobs have a huge supply and good demand, there is always someone that can do that job.

[EIRRMod]

What do you do for a living, AmPM?

Growls at people on this forum.

Oh wait, thats his hobby =P

[Mysthalin]

Massacree - in that simple model I gave you, where I'm selling the widgets at 15 times more than what their raw materials are worth... If i pay my workers £6 an hour (minimum wage in the UK) at 160 hours/month I'm only making (14k-9.6k)*0.75 = 3.3k a month.
May seem a lot - 39.6k a year, after all! But consider the fact running the factory would be a full-time job (which, after 10 years of experience would definitely pay me more than 40k, considering there are jobs you can get 60k in just as you leave university), and the fact I could simply put that 100k start-up in a bank..

I would indeed be doing those, otherwise unemployed, people a massive favour.


Well what other bloody alternatives are there? The one country that tried having "an alternative" has spawned this one half of Europe that's been begging for money from the other half because it's too fucking poor to sustain itself. And who are they getting money from? The supposedly "evil" social construct that is the west.

Right now i'm doing part-time work as a simple sandwich artist at subway. I work mostly night shifts, where I deal with drunk and sometimes violent people consistently. My job is hardly easy, and I get paid the absolute minimum that is legally allowed. Yet I'm perfectly happy with what I get - I'd probably still do this job even if my wage got cut by 20%. And it's not because of any gravely pressing "need" and lack of alternative - I just want to have some extra money in my pocket for stuff like partying and eating out. I don't see any great injustice in doing this job (possibly because i am aware of roughly how much money goes through the till on an average day to end up as profit for the owner of our branch) - and I by no means am going to start whining about how I feel I deserve to get some shares of the shop just because I've worked there for a few months.

[PonySlaystation]

I mean, I'll propose a very simplistic scenario.

I, after 10 years of grueling work as a governmental economist finally save up some £100,000 that I then use to open up a small factory.

I employ 10 people, each of whom produces 100 widgets given the size and sophistication of my little factory in a month. So that's 1000 widgets that these people make together every month.

I pay 1 pound for the raw materials to make each widget, and I sell every single one of my widgets at a price of £15 pounds. There is no waste, my widgets are picked up by another company at my factory (so no transport costs) and I do not need to re-new my machinery at all (it never breaks, or becomes obsolete). I pay a 25% tax on my profits(think that's a fairly reasonable, if unrealistically low tax) - hence the simple function to calculate my monthly profit is :

y=(14000 - 10x)*0.75 where x is the (monthly) wage I pay each of my workers, and y is my total monthly profit.

But your scenario takes place in the present where as communism was started a hundred years ago. NOTHING in your scenario is relevant back then.

[Mysthalin]

Communism worked best in the 1960s, actually - with the USSR having a GDP/capita and life expectancy of only 10 percent less than what the UK had at the time.

Ironically, it's the time when the USSR was experiencing it's greatest thaw-out (not counting the collapse) and the UK's welfare state was the largest it had ever, historically, been (golden age of the welfare state).

And yes, I guess back when communism "started" my scenario would indeed be quite different. I wouldn't have to pay a minimum wage, I wouldn't have to compete with quite so many other companies... heck, I wouldn't really even have to pay anything even remotely resembling tax.

The first two decades of the 20th century were a terrible, terrible time to be a normal person in. I'm surprised communism didn't spread out more than it actually did, to be fair.

[DarkSoldierX]

I think I enjoy capitalism  but on paper, communism could possibly be the perfect society in a way.

In practice it will never ever work out that way though.

[Mysthalin]

Communism is based on the assumption that people are "nice" which they simply... aren't.

People are, fundamentally, lazy and selfish. If given the government-mandated opportunity to fuck around all day playing computer games - they will, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Heartmann]

Its hard not to get mad at massacre...-.- damn communist.

Free will and a being of higher power/authority that you belive/dont belive in(in my case god) given right and resposibilty that comes with that freedom.

I mean there is a reason humans are a pack animal, the workers need leaders and the community need structure. communism is a conflict basis of thought that came alive due to a worker seemed it fit to question the system. The problem is that this uppset the natural order of thing, working class at the bottom and upper at the top, a perfect pyramid! Therefor it was doomed from the get go

[Groundfire]

Here's my stance on Socialism and Communism.

Far be it the equalizing social structure in this world that would make our planet a utopian bliss. It only deepens the divide of the have and have nots because it has been a long time since your government actually represented your interest as a citizen.

Even more so now than that of a faceless corporation. If your congressman or local representative did something immoral, would you write, nay have the power to remove him from office? For Capitalism across the spectrum to Communism and all the -isms in between, you just trade a fatcat for a bought out beuracrat controlled by fatcats.

Here's an inconvenient truth; the Elites, the 1% at the top, with the wealth, assets, all the useful land, and the means of production absolutely LOVE Socialism. (or communism or fascism, basically anything with centuralized state power)

Competition is a sin  -John D. Rockefeller

I thought that socialism was supposed to get rid of these guys and make everyone equal? The wealth of these individuals are unassailable and the centralization of all the guns of the government (nay a world governement?) only makes it just that much easier for the small group of elites to control absolutely everything. They eliminate their own competition and pick winners and losers, or intentionally keep sectors of the world from developing (thanks UN for sending Libya back to the stoneage)

They already control the world's debt based monetary system. The private central banks (all of whom have share-holders) that issue the currency for your respective countries love to loan all the money it can to socialist governments making it's citizen's debt slaves, (Europe, your going first) while the Wall St./Government revolving door keeps spinning making change impossible considering that our elected representatives dont represent us anymore. Case in point, Barak Obama IS the Wall St. President. His cabinet is full of wall st. men and his treasury secretary is a former Goldman Sachs man. His largest campaign contributions during the '08 election were from the 6 mega banks, and we are supposed to let these guys decide policy?

Socialism and Communism shouldnt be measured by how far left it's preceived on the political spectrum but by how much authority it's government has over it's citizen. Im not saying that a socialist governement cant be benevolent. (I hear Sweden is nice) Certainly there are things that should be publicly run, but it's a slippery slope.

Case in point, in the attempt to rid the world of it's oppressive social strata, Socialism and communism just perpetuates the class, status and wealth gaps of the working class and elites.

It does the exact opposite that it was theorized to prevent.

Idk, those are my thoughts, as jumbled as they are. take it or leave it.