Chavez says he'll seize businesses that raise prices

myp said:

Who decides whether or not their work was adequate? What if the worker feels like he did an adequate job, yet those who pay him don't? If they refuse to pay, he was essentially forced to work as he got the job thinking he'd get paid. Forced work=slavery. No thank you.

Click to expand...

I am a supporter of industrial democracy. He would get a say, most likely, depending on how the workplace is organised.

For example, there could be a system that there's a group of regularly elected organisers, facilitators and accountants. Alternatively, it could be a direct democracy.

It's not slavery in any way. The individual plays a part in decision-making and there's an opportunity to enter into cooperative employment with another group that are looking for more members.

Wht's more, the job could involve workers being paid on a product by product basis. Basically, they get paid on the basis of what they produce. Some of that - depending on what is the consensus - may go toward a common treasury (in fact most likely would), to be used for expansion, community development projects etc. Anyway, then the individual can check up on how much they should be paid, they have justification for claiming injustice.

David said:

I'm hitting the sack. Once I'm not suffering the effects of sleep depravation, I'll post something meaningful.

Until then, bye.

Click to expand...

Good idea. I hate posting while dozing off.

Dirk said:

Wht's more, the job could involve workers being paid on a product by product basis. Basically, they get paid on the basis of what they produce. Some of that - depending on what is the consensus - may go toward a common treasury (in fact most likely would), to be used for expansion, community development projects etc. Anyway, then the individual can check up on how much they should be paid, they have justification for claiming injustice.

Click to expand...

How motivated would those workers be to do actual work, as they seem to be more like pawns on a chess board to be moved this way and that way. I believe in the concept of "motivating the troops". One works on an employment contract where the worker is going to provide a specific service for a "fair" wage and in return has a clear idea of what is expected of him or her. Depending on the work that needs to be done, and other than a good orientation session, workers should be motivated to do their jobs with minimum interference, unless there is real cause for it, in which case maybe they need to let the worker go. Workers need to be treated like part owners of the business.

myp said:

Let's just face it we are for the same thing here and when we hear the modern definition of socialism (the ones that news programs, etc. use) it is something we are both against. The only disagreement in our ideologies may be in the existence of corporations. As per that issue, let me ask you would you support a corporation if all the workers willingly choose it over a co-op? If so, why not just say you are a free market capitalist?

Click to expand...

He's a free market socialist, does it really surprise you that he's using free market arguments?

myp said:

Fair enough, but [returning to the topic at hand] what Chavez is doing can also be classified at socialism, just not free market socialism. Our whole little spin-off here started after you rejected Dave's notion of socialism and I just went along with you on this side debate. What Dave described is another type of socialism though- perhaps the more used definition in today's world and under that definition Chavez's actions could be labeled socialist.

Click to expand...

Agreed, maybe split that part?

myp said:

Not getting paid to work is not forced labor if you were working only due to the expectation of pay? Why not just fire him if you aren't going to pay him? Keeping him on with no intention of paying him is only establishing false-hope.

Click to expand...

Well, there's always the opportunity for him/her to work. And they may well be fired after a vote. It much depends on whether people think they can get him/her actually working to the best of his/her abilities or whether the best course is to get rid of them, since they're lazy, irretrievable or simply taking the Mick.

Just like in capitalism where he can go work for somewhere else?

Click to expand...

Yes. That's basically what i said.

And that can't be done in a free market? In fact, a lot of jobs- including waiters, salesman, etc. are already heavily commission based.

Click to expand...

It can.

Much like today's profit goes to company coffers for future development?

Click to expand...

Yes, only i also see the workplace as a possible mobilising area for community development and social programs.

Let's just face it we are for the same thing here and when we hear the modern definition of socialism (the ones that news programs, etc. use) it is something we are both against. The only disagreement in our ideologies may be in the existence of corporations. As per that issue, let me ask you would you support a corporation if all the workers willingly choose it over a co-op? If so, why not just say you are a free market capitalist?

Click to expand...

Right, allow me to explain. The traditional definition of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, and egalitarianism. Socialism does not equate state ownership. Libertarians oppose state ownership, and where i'm from, libertarianism is considered a form of socialism. In Britain and when on here, however, i've learned to use "libertarian socialism". What's more, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

deanhills said:

How motivated would those workers be to do actual work, as they seem to be more like pawns on a chess board to be moved this way and that way. I believe in the concept of "motivating the troops". One works on an employment contract where the worker is going to provide a specific service for a "fair" wage and in return has a clear idea of what is expected of him or her. Depending on the work that needs to be done, and other than a good orientation session, workers should be motivated to do their jobs with minimum interference, unless there is real cause for it, in which case maybe they need to let the worker go. Workers need to be treated like part owners of the business.

Click to expand...

Dean, being the owners, they make the decisions, whether through representative or direct democracy, or consensus decision-making, or whatever system they decide on. They are not pawns being moved around, they have unprecedented control over their destinies. As it is in many places now - indeed most - a hierarchical system binds workers into subservience. They are pawns.

David said:

He's a free market socialist, does it really surprise you that he's using free market arguments?

Click to expand...

Yeah. That said, there are some things that are best in the hands of the community directly, though most, if not all the funding - depending on how they organise their system - would likely come from cooperatives.

Dirk said:

Yes, only i also see the workplace as a possible mobilising area for community development and social programs.

Click to expand...

A company is formed to perform a specific purpose - build cars, serve hamburgers, grow corn, sell groceries. As expected, everything it does is geared towards that purpose and it is generally most efficient and successful in working toward that purpose. Other than providing a wage and benefits to its emplyees, community development and social programs are outside the operations of the company.

Community development and social programs are the realm of government, religion, charities, and the people in the community. Companies can and do contribute, but to think that business has the direct responsibility for social programs and community development and should be the primary vehicle is wrong.

If all of the employees of a company want to get togethor and do some community service, they can do that on their own time.

Dirk said:

Right, allow me to explain. The traditional definition of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, and egalitarianism. Socialism does not equate state ownership. Libertarians oppose state ownership, and where i'm from, libertarianism is considered a form of socialism. In Britain and when on here, however, i've learned to use "libertarian socialism". .

Click to expand...

In a small town, worker ownership and control can be done but in any population of significant size it will never work. In a large population, how are you going to make decisions? Is everyone going to get togethor, educate themselves on the issue, and vote? All nations that have gone down this road end up with state ownership.

Dirk said:

RightWhat's more, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

This is not settled yet. One of the most interesting developments in economics has occured in the past 10 years as a result of China taking over Kong Kong. Could a communist nation like China run a capitalist city like Hong Kong? It turns out, yes.

It appears that a democratic government needs an economy based on capitalism, but capitalism does not need democracry.

Dirk said:

Dean, being the owners, they make the decisions, whether through representative or direct democracy, or consensus decision-making, or whatever system they decide on. They are not pawns being moved around, they have unprecedented control over their destinies. As it is in many places now - indeed most - a hierarchical system binds workers into subservience. They are pawns.

Click to expand...

This idea is from liberal talking points and class warfare. People do not have unlimited freedom. People make decisions, and the result of those decisions limits their future choices. If I get a job, get married, buy a house, have children, I have put severe restraints on what I can do. I have obligations to family and to people that have loaned me money. People depend on me, and I don't have the luxury - and it is a luxury - of simply changing my lifestyle. This limitation in my freedom may make me a pawn, but I put myself in that position. Over time, I can get myself out of it. It's not the fault of my employer.

This applies to everyone from the corporate CEO to the janitor. Everyone has obligations and responsibilities.

There is a reason there are so many hierarchical systems. Everyone is talented in something, nobody is talented in everything. Some people are experts in finance, those people excel in banking and insurance and investment, and that is what they should be doing. A banker should not be designing a bridge, thats what the engineer should be doing. The engineer should be in charge of the bridge and his decision should not be overruled by the banker.

In all groups of people, there are going to be experts and leaders who are going to take charge and get the job done. A company is formed by people who are experts in that subject, they know what they want to do, its their money and reputation on the line, and they get to make the decisions.

Looks as though the source article for the thread has disappeared. It comes up with a 404.

dave said:

A company is formed to perform a specific purpose - build cars, serve hamburgers, grow corn, sell groceries. As expected, everything it does is geared towards that purpose and it is generally most efficient and successful in working toward that purpose. Other than providing a wage and benefits to its emplyees, community development and social programs are outside the operations of the company.

Community development and social programs are the realm of government, religion, charities, and the people in the community. Companies can and do contribute, but to think that business has the direct responsibility for social programs and community development and should be the primary vehicle is wrong.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you appear to have been mislead about the nature of the conversation. I was presenting what might (and indeed has done so) happen in libertarian socialist society.

If all of the employees of a company want to get together and do some community service, they can do that on their own time.

Click to expand...

Yah. But the workplace and a cooperative is often a major organising point. They often donate to schools or suchlike. They could play a part in funding my idea of an LHS, were it ever to come to fruition.

In a small town, worker ownership and control can be done but in any population of significant size it will never work. In a large population, how are you going to make decisions? Is everyone going to get togethor, educate themselves on the issue, and vote? All nations that have gone down this road end up with state ownership.

Click to expand...

Which is why libertarian socialism is always pre-packaged with localism and free federation. You are absolutely right - it's easier to mobilise as a community. It is not true that people that organise along these lines tend toward state ownership. I can't think of a single example, in fact. State ownership as socialism has always been applied by certain groups of people and enforced through coercion.

This is not settled yet. One of the most interesting developments in economics has occured in the past 10 years as a result of China taking over Kong Kong. Could a communist nation like China run a capitalist city like Hong Kong? It turns out, yes.

It appears that a democratic government needs an economy based on capitalism, but capitalism does not need democracry.

Click to expand...

You have taken incorrect definitions of both capitalism and socialism. Or as you incorrectly claim, "communism" - which i believe is either impossible or unbelievably unlikely. Capitalism, in the traditional sense, is simply "free markets" twinned with private property. Socialism, in the traditional sense, is merely worker-ownership of the means of production. These principles are by no means incompatible and can exist within a single society.

This idea is from liberal talking points and class warfare. People do not have unlimited freedom. People make decisions, and the result of those decisions limits their future choices. If I get a job, get married, buy a house, have children, I have put severe restraints on what I can do. I have obligations to family and to people that have loaned me money. People depend on me, and I don't have the luxury - and it is a luxury - of simply changing my lifestyle. This limitation in my freedom may make me a pawn, but I put myself in that position. Over time, I can get myself out of it. It's not the fault of my employer.

This applies to everyone from the corporate CEO to the janitor. Everyone has obligations and responsibilities.

There is a reason there are so many hierarchical systems. Everyone is talented in something, nobody is talented in everything. Some people are experts in finance, those people excel in banking and insurance and investment, and that is what they should be doing. A banker should not be designing a bridge, thats what the engineer should be doing. The engineer should be in charge of the bridge and his decision should not be overruled by the banker.

In all groups of people, there are going to be experts and leaders who are going to take charge and get the job done. A company is formed by people who are experts in that subject, they know what they want to do, its their money and reputation on the line, and they get to make the decisions.

Click to expand...

When you're talking about a workplace, people have their responsibilities, according to faculties. As you say, an engineer's decision has nothing to do with a banker - though why they would be working in the same workplace is beyond me - i presume it's another misunderstanding of yours.

Socalism - traditionally - is merely the idea that workers own the means of production. Some socialists understand this as using the state to work on behalf of the workers and own businesses. Libertarian socialists, such as myself, understand it differently and see that - through our own opinions and evidence from example - workers in a particular workplace can organise, independent of a ruler, a hierarchy, or indeed a ruling body, and run the workplace without a bourgeois master. Or masters. It could also conceivably be a representatives system. It differs, depending on the wishes of the workers there.