When communists talk of turning privately owned buisinesses into democratically owned public buisinesses they are often accused of wanting to steal the buisinesses from their rightful owners. I hope to demonstrate that nothing is being stolen when a private buisiness becomes public property. I've covered this topic before, but I'll go into it in more detail here.
Suppose a person sets up a buisiness. When they are the only person there, they are doing nothing wrong. But suppose they hire 10 workers. The buisiness owner now has the power to tell those workers what work to do, how to do it, and for how long to do it. And, if all goes well, the extra work put in by the workers will cause extra profit for the buisiness owner. There will be more profit for the buisiness owner since the workers arrived, hence the buisiness owner will have extra profit caused by the work of his new employees.
An argument I've come across is, 'no-one puts a gun to the head of the workers and forces them to work in the buisiness, they work there of their own free will.' But what happens to a person who chooses not to work for the buisiness? They will have to find another buisiness to work for, in which all of the conditions already described exist. The other possibility is to set up their own buisiness, but most buisinesses fail due to competition. So most likely if the person decides not to work for someone else, they will end up in terrible poverty, perhaps they will be homeless. So the, 'choice,' of working in the buisiness is in reality a harsh threat, 'submit or starve.' The buisiness owners may not have pointed a weapon at the workers to make them enter the job, but this does not mean they are not being forced into it.
So, when the ten workers joined the company, they should have all been given an equal say in how the company is run. No one person has the right to rule over others, in this case ten others, and as already explained there is little or no hope of the ten workers avoiding this tyranny. And the ten should also have been given an equal share of the profit, because once they were hired extra profit was being made for the buisiness owner that they never recieved despite the fact that it was their labour that created it.
Much of the profit created by the labour of the workers will be put into expanding the buisiness, and when more workers are hired the factory will be expanded again, etc. So if the workers took over the buisiness, would they be stealing from the buisiness owner? No, they would just be taking what is rightfully theirs. All buisiness owners collectively insured that the workers had no place to go by owning most of the means for survival, and the buisiness only got as big as it did in the first place because of the labour of the workers. Hence all the buisiness owner is truly entitled to is the small buisiness they started off with before they employed anyone.
Now I'll address another argument I've come across, 'In a communist society the ideas of inventors would be stolen by the society itself, the inventor would not be able to make a profit off of their product.' In a communist society, people have decided they want to work for themselves in a democratically controlled buisiness instead of for one person in privately owned buisiness. So if a person invents a product, why would anyone work for them? Why work under the command of another when you can work for yourself? So the inventor can't make a huge profit because his idea has been stolen, the inventor can't make a profit because nobody wants to work under the command of someone else.
I hope this addresses everything. Probably not, I usually forget something.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
On the whole I actualy agree with you, both of the flaw in this system, and what the desired end result would be to reform in the next. Each person who puts forth effort, should not be rewarded with any more money than the the value of his work. I disagree, as always, in how to impliment it. You say through direct democracy in the company. A noble but flawed idea, as it is under the assumption that everyone in the company know's how to run it. This would surley create division, which would undermine the companie's efficiency in the same way a strike or lockdown would, and thus should be banned. If anything the company should be more despotic than it is today. As long as law is king, and the government dictates wages, hours and prices, I see no harm in allowing the ceo to do what he wishes with his workers, as long as he pays and they agree. It is his right to control the company, he founded it for the purpose of pursuing his goals. Taking power from him could very well defeat the purpose of the company, that purpose being set down by the founder, not the worker, who would realize that it is no easy task to run a business. You may think I'm blabbering like a tyrrant, but think, if the pay for both labor and management does justice to both, who will complain? Who would need to? A strong government, and not a democracy is the only way to trim the capitalist lion's claws. You also seem to be under the assumption that wages would be totaly equal. Actualy, even under your democracy idea there would still be pay differances, owing to the fact not all jobs in the company are the same,which you understand. You would certainly expect the ceo to still have the highest pay, no matter what you change, because his work is still the most vital. It would be far less than what they earn criminaly today, but still more than the others. It would br criminal not to pay him more.
But on the whole I agree and would like to discuss this more.
------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.
'On the whole I actualy agree with you, both of the flaw in this system, and what the desired end result would be to reform in the next. Each person who puts forth effort, should not be rewarded with any more money than the the value of his work.'
That last sentence shows how criminal it is that the corporate CEO's have as much as they have, they get all that money regardless of whether they work or not. In any case even if you were to break your back with labour I don't think it's possible even in theory to earn as much as they have through genuine work.
'I disagree, as always, in how to impliment it. You say through direct democracy in the company. A noble but flawed idea, as it is under the assumption that everyone in the company know's how to run it. This would surley create division, which would undermine the companie's efficiency in the same way a strike or lockdown would, and thus should be banned.'
In the past workers less educated than people today are have managed to run companies that outpaced the previous privately owned buisinesses. i can understand what you mean that there would be inefficiencies though, and this would be solved by electing managers. So, not every single item would be voted on, suppose in a factory a truck came to the gate with deliveries, and everyone had to stop working because they had to vote on whether to open the gate or not! So in this instance for example it would be ok for one person to decide to open the gate. However, the managers would be recallable at any time, so while they would be a manager, they would not be a boss.
'If anything the company should be more despotic than it is today. As long as law is king, and the government dictates wages, hours and prices, I see no harm in allowing the ceo to do what he wishes with his workers, as long as he pays and they agree.'
It is his right to control the company, he founded it for the purpose of pursuing his goals. Taking power from him could very well defeat the purpose of the company, that purpose being set down by the founder, not the worker, who would realize that it is no easy task to run a business.'
I don't believe it his right to control the company, unless he is the only one there. The worker is not being given a real choice, why should a handful of buisiness owners decide whether the population puts food on the table or not? Running a buisiness would be far easier than it was under capitalism, because with competition gone it would be a simple matter of calculating how many items need to be produced instead of fighting with some other company.
'You may think I'm blabbering like a tyrrant, but think, if the pay for both labor and management does justice to both, who will complain? Who would need to? A strong government, and not a democracy is the only way to trim the capitalist lion's claws.'
And this is where we will surely disagree. You see the fact that under capitalism the fact that anyone can gain power as the problem and believe only those considered suitable should be given it, while for me the problem is power itself. For me the problem for both capitalism and fascism is that they both have an elite, the Fascist elite may have a better knowledge of politics and economics, but they will still be people after all and will most likely be corrupted from the effects of power isolating them from their fellow human beings.
'You also seem to be under the assumption that wages would be totaly equal. Actualy, even under your democracy idea there would still be pay differances, owing to the fact not all jobs in the company are the same,which you understand.'
Yeah, more dangerous work, longer hours, more complex work, etc., would entitle a person to higher pay, no argument from me here. I didn't mean to say the profit would be divived equally among the workers, if some are doing different types of work this would be impossible.
'You would certainly expect the ceo to still have the highest pay, no matter what you change, because his work is still the most vital. It would be far less than what they earn criminaly today, but still more than the others. It would br criminal not to pay him more.'
The CEO technically speaking doesn't have to do anything, he can delegate all managerial work to others. In the new society there would be no CEO's as such there would just be elected managers. However, I believe the ammount to pay managers is a quite difficult issue. In any position where power can be abused, you need to keep out people who would be there for a shallow reason such as money. However, if the manager is doing genuinely more difficult work, they are entitled to more money? How would this problem be solved? I believe it's one of those things that could not be answered until socialism is actually in place, we can't have all the answers till it happens.
'But on the whole I agree and would like to discuss this more.'
Me too.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
“That last sentence shows how criminal it is that the corporate CEO's have as much as they have, they get all that money regardless of whether they work or not. In any case even if you were to break your back with labour I don't think it's possible even in theory to earn as much as they have through genuine work.”
Definitely not, so the question is then, for a company head, what is genuine work? He is clearly not entitled to anything if he does nothing but set up the process and sit back and watch the show, like most do. You couldn’t really tell him to provide an equivalent amount of labor for his daily earning, for reasons you stated. It would simply be humanly impossible. As long he his holding things together, in my opinion the head/manager/ceo, has already earned a good bit, but not near as much as he “Earns” today. Exactly how much a future head receives should probably be left to the people actually implementing it, and could probably be done through negotiation between workers and management, mediated by the syndicate. But I think the best way to ensure the CEO is not paid too much is obvious, raise the worker’s pay. The pay for the worker need not be negotiated when mathematically it can be as high as the power to produce in the company is. If by law the power to produce in a company is equivalent to the worker’s power to consume, than you should have largely solved the management pay debate. The PTP is the amount of money taken in by a company based on the efficiency of it’s machines. Thus, the average worker, who is becoming ever more integrated with his machine, is directly responsible for his wages. The company earns more money when it expands. This money should go the management, for it was upon their orders and supervision that expansion took place. It also makes money through efficiency. This money should go the worker, who is directly responsible for the efficiency of the company. The workers wages will be determined mathematically to be the highest that technology permits through efficient machines. The management will then be left with a smaller maximum amount of pay. The workers and management can negotiate what exactly it will be. The end result will be the management never earning more than it can’t show for results, and it will also allow for prices to move independently from wages. Understand? I’m not sure I was clear.
“ In the past workers less educated than people today are have managed to run companies that outpaced the previous privately owned buisinesses. i can understand what you mean that there would be inefficiencies though, and this would be solved by electing managers. So, not every single item would be voted on, suppose in a factory a truck came to the gate with deliveries, and everyone had to stop working because they had to vote on whether to open the gate or not! So in this instance for example it would be ok for one person to decide to open the gate. However, the managers would be recallable at any time, so while they would be a manager, they would not be a boss.”
Still, when a man forms a company he generally wants it to be in his image. He has an idea as what he wants that company to be. Handing it over to others will be bad, at least for his morale, because it will jeopardize the plans he has for his company.
”I don't believe it his right to control the company, unless he is the only one there. The worker is not being given a real choice, why should a handful of buisiness owners decide whether the population puts food on the table or not? Running a buisiness would be far easier than it was under capitalism, because with competition gone it would be a simple matter of calculating how many items need to be produced instead of fighting with some other company.”
Business owners under Fascism would have limits set upon them. As long as he is inside the law, I see no harm in it being his company. Today, competition is based on prices. You lower prices more than the other guy and put him out of business. People think quality is involved but they are wrong. Today almost all products are the same, so price is the only competition, aided by advertising. Under Fascism, prices for factory produced objects will be set down by a trained appraiser, and sometimes negotiated along with key consumers. The nation is the biggest all round consumer, so the central government will probably add it’s two bits as well. Once prices are more or less stable, competition will then have to become based on quality. This would be good competition.
“And this is where we will surely disagree. You see the fact that under capitalism the fact that anyone can gain power as the problem and believe only those considered suitable should be given it, while for me the problem is power itself. For me the problem for both capitalism and fascism is that they both have an elite, the Fascist elite may have a better knowledge of politics and economics, but they will still be people after all and will most likely be corrupted from the effects of power isolating them from their fellow human beings.”
I think you meant ‘under Fascism’, not capitalism, in the second sentence. Yes, under Fascism anyone can gain power, but we don’t have a bias to any group or kind of personality. We don’t consider anyone more or less suitable. Under Fascism, only those who provide effort are rewarded with anything. Equivalent exchange dominates Fascism, in all areas. For every action there shall be an equal and opposite reaction. Those who push down, in a sense, move up. A man or woman who worked all the way to the highest positions in government, and betrayed their posts would not just betray the nation, but their own life blood. These people are rare, and not welcome in Fascist state. Every trail and tribulation one faces on the road to something great always weeds out those not worthy. Fascist merit beliefs will make it very difficult for anyone with bad intentions to rise that high, and should they get there they would face the Fascist check and control system, with every watcher being watched. Socialists already solved the problem of government getting to distant from the people when they developed syndicalism. The syndicate is a direct tie between people and government, and Fascism has many of these ties. In conclusion, the Fascist government, while being a powerful elite, is less in danger of corruption when you consider that 1. Leaders are produced by the people, and move upward. No one starts at a higher level, and there are no boosts allowed from anyone. 2. State and People are one, their interests are harmonized in the syndicalist system. 3. The Fascist state is awake, and so is its government. It will tend to spot the corrupt, as they stick out like a sore thumb.
------------------------------------------
Fairy Tales are important, not because they teach us dragons are real, but because they teach us dragons can be defeated.
"And the ten should also have been given an equal share of the profit, because once they were hired extra profit was being made for the buisiness owner that they never recieved despite the fact that it was their labour that created it."
The labourers did not create the profit of the business by themselves. Their labour constitutes the swinging of a hammer and their effort is worthless if the hammer is not properly directed at its target. Executives make decisions of this sort and therefore are responsible for a majority of the profit. What is debatable is just how much the workers are entitled to.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
'The labourers did not create the profit of the business by themselves. Their labour constitutes the swinging of a hammer and their effort is worthless if the hammer is not properly directed at its target. Executives make decisions of this sort and therefore are responsible for a majority of the profit. What is debatable is just how much the workers are entitled to.'
The head of a corporation in most cases delegates all of the effort of organising the labour to managers. The result is that they receive the most profit for the least ammount of work. In any case, no type of work, whether physical or mental, entitles a person to the unbelievable ammount of money a CEO has.
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Executives make decisions of this sort and therefore are responsible for a majority of the profit. What is debatable is just how much the workers are entitled to."
Our current economic theory wants to use supply and demand to determine workers' wages. This means they want lots of workers competing with each other for work driving wages down. If 'workers' would concentrate on NET WORTH they could have the option of refusinG low wages. As long as they keep themselves in debt they keep their heads in an economic noose.
Vulcans of Terra unite. You have nothing to loose but Ferengi.
von Neumanism forever!
Dal Timgar
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
