Socialism is profitable!

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#4
An aspect of socialism more then an ideology. Workers controlling the means of production in this case.

Opening/Original Post
Ah, i see. Absolutely.

In fact, it leaves far more free profit without all that dosh going into bonuses and maintaining the whole administrative employee paradigm.

I think that all employees should own their own workplace because that workplace is the product of their labour. And i think that people have an inherent right to that, which should be recognised in society.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#5
Ah, i see. Absolutely.

In fact, it leaves far more free profit without all that dosh going into bonuses and maintaining the whole administrative employee paradigm.

I think that all employees should own their own workplace because that workplace is the product of their labour. And i think that people have an inherent right to that, which should be recognised in society.
Indeed. According to this blog (admittedly old but still relevant) my company is outperforming our #1 (and frankly only relevant) competitor, Wal-Mart.

And Fortune ranks us as the 101st best company to work for out of 10,000 and we've been in the top 500 every year that the list has been compiled. We have truck drivers and janitors that have retired rich due to ownership. 31% employee-owned by direct action from corporate and over 50% employee-owned when combined with what employees have bought and only employees and board members are allowed to buy company stock so the company is always 100% owned by the people who work for it.

We receive benefits (part- and full-time), job protection (no lay-offs) and other such perks without paying dues to greedy unions as the workers directly control the company. Still run by it's founding family too, so the original 'no giving the worker the short straw' policy of the company's founder is still upheld. :)

And yet people think it's a bad thing. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Likes: 1 person

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#6
Indeed. According to this blog (admittedly old but still relevant) my company is outperforming our #1 (and frankly only relevant) competitor, Wal-Mart.

And Fortune ranks us as the 101st best company to work for out of 10,000 and we've been in the top 500 every year that the list has been compiled. We have truck drivers and janitors that have retired rich due to ownership. 31% employee-owned by direct action from corporate and over 50% employee-owned when combined with what employees have bought and only employees and board members are allowed to buy company stock so the company is always 100% owned by the people who work for it.

We receive benefits (part- and full-time), job protection (no lay-offs) and other such perks without paying dues to greedy unions as the workers directly control the company. Still run by it's founding family too, so the original 'no giving the worker the short straw' policy of the company's founder is still upheld. :)

And yet people think it's a bad thing. :confused:
Some people are morons.

Some people are corporate slaves.

Some people constitute the bourgeoisie.

Good luck to you, comrade. It's a minefield out there.

But yeah, i absolutely support employee ownership - along with democracy in the workplace. I support FaSinPat and the Reclaiming movement as well.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#7
Sorry guys, but you both really need to look at the facts. Dirk claims that socialism allows for free profit, but forgets to look at the economic laws of supply and demand and the effect that taxes and government interference has on them.

And David, you do realize that Publix is a PRIVATE company, right? Also, Wal-Mart has similar stock options for its workers and it still has had great growth. Both companies are private, so you can't really make a case for socialism based on the success of either. Not only that, but Publix may have better growth in the grocery market, but Walmart still has great productivity and market share in that market, not to mention its business is also in a lot of other areas. Also, you need to be wary of such studies because there are other studies that will tell you just the opposite and the reality of the matter is that so many consumers continue to shop at WalMart because they are satisfied in one way or another- whether it be fair prices or service. No one is forcing people to shop at Walmart, yet despite all of the bad media from anti-corporation groups, a VERY LARGE amount of Americans and people around the world still willingly shop there.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#8
Sorry guys, but you both really need to look at the facts. Dirk claims that socialism allows for free profit, but forgets to look at the economic laws of supply and demand and the effect that taxes and government interference has on them.

And David, you do realize that Publix is a PRIVATE company, right? Also, Wal-Mart has similar stock options for its workers and it still has had great growth. Both companies are private, so you can't really make a case for socialism based on the success of either. Not only that, but Publix may have better growth in the grocery market, but Walmart still has great productivity and market share in that market, not to mention its business is also in a lot of other areas. Also, you need to be wary of such studies because there are other studies that will tell you just the opposite and the reality of the matter is that so many consumers continue to shop at WalMart because they are satisfied in one way or another- whether it be fair prices or service. No one is forcing people to shop at Walmart, yet despite all of the bad media from anti-corporation groups, a VERY LARGE amount of Americans and people around the world still willingly shop there.
Private in this case means not publicly traded.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#9
Private in this case means not publicly traded.
By private I mean NOT government controlled. How are you making a case for socialism with this stuff? These companies are the private sector- they are the result of capitalism.
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#10
By private I mean NOT government controlled. How are you making a case for socialism with this stuff? These companies are the private sector- they are the result of capitalism.
Socialism is worker rule, not gov't control... Workers running the companies as opposed to outside investors and profit driven execs, while not socialism isn't exactly capitalism ether.

Besides, I'm talking more bout the philosophy of workers controlling the means of production then actual socialism as I already made clear to Dirk.
 
Likes: 1 person

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#11
Socialism is worker rule, not gov't control... Workers running the companies as opposed to outside investors and profit driven execs, while not socialism isn't exactly capitalism ether.

Besides, I'm talking more bout the philosophy of workers controlling the means of production then actual socialism as I already made clear to Dirk.
Do you really think that company has no CEOs or corporate executives? Do you really think it has no majority investors/board of directors? You need some sort of management to run a company- otherwise it is just chaos. The workers may own some of the company, but that isn't a argument for socialism because you still have higher rule. Also, in capitalism you can buy stocks of a company too, so again, where is the argument for worker rule?
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#12
Do you really think that company has no CEOs or corporate executives? Do you really think it has no majority investors/board of directors? You need some sort of management to run a company- otherwise it is just chaos. The workers may own some of the company, but that isn't a argument for socialism because you still have higher rule. Also, in capitalism you can buy stocks of a company too, so again, where is the argument for worker rule?
Yes their is an executive branch but that doesn't mean that the execs have a majority. Many worker-owned companies are employee-owned 50%+.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#13
Yes their is an executive branch but that doesn't mean that the execs have a majority. Many worker-owned companies are employee-owned 50%+.
Ok, but how are you making an argument for socialism because of this? This exact situation can happen in a free market- there could be a company that offers shares to all of its workers. You do not need the government to do this because obviously as in this example it happened without the government mandating it. So why not support capitalism since it can clearly give the same result?
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#14
Ok, but how are you making an argument for socialism because of this? This exact situation can happen in a free market- there could be a company that offers shares to all of its workers. You do not need the government to do this because obviously as in this example it happened without the government mandating it. So why not support capitalism since it can clearly give the same result?
Because capitalism is greed and greed in contrary to civilization. Will capitalism abolish money? Will capitalism grantee democratic rule? Will capitalism eliminate class devisions? Will capitalism ensure the hardest most important workers are placed above the well born and manipulators of money?
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#15
Because capitalism is greed and greed in contrary to civilization. Will capitalism abolish money? Will capitalism grantee democratic rule? Will capitalism eliminate class devisions? Will capitalism ensure the hardest most important workers are placed above the well born and manipulators of money?
Consider this- those workers at that company are working there because they need to. They need money to survive and that is why they are there. There is nothing wrong with caring about oneself and protecting oneself- it is human nature to try to survive.

In a economically capitalistic nation, classes and such are virtually non-existent because people are viewed as individuals, not as collectivist groups which socialism likes to do when there is talk of redistribution and such. In a true capitalist economy, the bigger corporations and such would not have as much power because government would be a lot smaller and it would not have the authority to give contracts and such to these companies that give them so much power over the common man. Everything would be controlled by supply and demand- essentially if the majority of people were unhappy with something they would stop using that thing and that company would fail. Your example of worker-owned companies is completely possible in capitalism. Also, since free markets call for small government, they are the most conducive to democracy because bigger states are always more prone to corruption by those who try to manipulate things.

Before I go on, I really want to know what kind of socialist you are/ what kind of socialism you see as the optimal socio-economic policy. Are you a believer in left-libertarianism, where the state is abolished and the people live and share resources or are you more of a believer in the state-owned sort of socialism that many Marxists believe in? Also, do believe in redistribution of wealth or are you just for worker-owned companies?
 
Jul 26, 2009
5,666
406
Opa Locka
#16
Consider this- those workers at that company are working there because they need to. They need money to survive and that is why they are there. There is nothing wrong with caring about oneself and protecting oneself- it is human nature to try to survive.

In a economically capitalistic nation, classes and such are virtually non-existent because people are viewed as individuals, not as collectivist groups which socialism likes to do when there is talk of redistribution and such. In a true capitalist economy, the bigger corporations and such would not have as much power because government would be a lot smaller and it would not have the authority to give contracts and such to these companies that give them so much power over the common man. Everything would be controlled by supply and demand- essentially if the majority of people were unhappy with something they would stop using that thing and that company would fail. Your example of worker-owned companies is completely possible in capitalism. Also, since free markets call for small government, they are the most conducive to democracy because bigger states are always more prone to corruption by those who try to manipulate things.

Before I go on, I really want to know what kind of socialist you are/ what kind of socialism you see as the optimal socio-economic policy. Are you a believer in left-libertarianism, where the state is abolished and the people live and share resources or are you more of a believer in the state-owned sort of socialism that many Marxists believe in? Also, do believe in redistribution of wealth or are you just for worker-owned companies?
I believe that gov't is needed (every attempt at anarchy leads to Somalia in my experience) but I also believe that the gov't exists only at the discretion and support of the people and that it's only reason for existing is to maintain law and order and provide a social safety net. I believe that all gov't should be no larger then needed to maintain the standards I've stated and that it should be highly decentralized (but not to the point if becoming ineffectual) and democratic.

I believe that industries should be controlled directly by the workers and that the needed organization currently handled by execs should be instead handled by democratically elected but fully empowered soviets (not the gov't). I believe that money, originally conceived to provide stability to unstable barter economies, is an outdated system and should be abolished replaced by a system of greater effort/quality/importance = more. I don't believe in the welfare-state and hold that anyone who doesn't work who can work (excepting retirees) should be kicked to the curb. Socialism is worker-rule, not a social leach utopia.

Basically what the USSR was meant to be.
 

myp

Site Founder
Jan 14, 2009
5,841
50
#17
Without money, how do you propose people exchange goods? The barter system was very inefficient and it would be very hard to implement that in today's world with the very large and diverse amount of goods that we have.

As for the soviets, how do you feel that would work? Would everyone vote for the soviets or only the people in the industry? Also, what would keep people from corrupting the soviets like they corrupt governments today? Also, consider the fact that in a truly capitalist situation, consumers are free to stop buying products from companies they don't like and workers are free to leave companies that they don't like (so long as they didn't sign a contract.) If enough people aren't willing to work for a company, the company would have to raise wages or benefits- it all depends on what people are willing to work for. And if a company is not able to innovate and create goods that people want, no one will buy their products and the company will lose money/go under. The common people actually have a lot of power in capitalism because they essentially control which companies survive and what sort of payment workers get. It would all eventually move towards market equilibrium, which is not only optimal for growth, but allows for supply and demand numbers that both sides are willingly agreeing to. The problem with today's "capitalism" is that it is not capitalism- the government regulates and favors too many parts of markets which cause these distortions and give certain groups more power. In free market capitalism not only would you not have that and not only would common people have more power, but you don't run the risk of corrupt soviets as in your proposed situation. I know you said they'd be elected, but there is always time between elections when a disliked and corrupt soviet may still have the power to rule until they are voted out.
 

Dirk

Anarchist
Apr 27, 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#20
Sorry guys, but you both really need to look at the facts. Dirk claims that socialism allows for free profit, but forgets to look at the economic laws of supply and demand and the effect that taxes and government interference has on them.
You really don't know me, do you?

I presume, of course, that you aren't being intentionally fickle.

By private I mean NOT government controlled. How are you making a case for socialism with this stuff? These companies are the private sector- they are the result of capitalism.
Actually, they are the result of opposition to capitalism.

A worker's cooperative - which is what this is - is owned by its workers. This is the vehicle for workers' control of the means of production. This is quite definitely socialism.

And "private" does not mean the absence of Government control. It is a prerequisite for private enterprise, but is not the precise meaning. For example, i oppose both private and Government ownership.

Yes their is an executive branch but that doesn't mean that the execs have a majority. Many worker-owned companies are employee-owned 50%+.
Indeed, i know workplaces that are entirely 100% run by its employees.

Ok, but how are you making an argument for socialism because of this? This exact situation can happen in a free market- there could be a company that offers shares to all of its workers. You do not need the government to do this because obviously as in this example it happened without the government mandating it. So why not support capitalism since it can clearly give the same result?
A free market is not limited to capitalism. Libertarian socialism also involves a free market. In any case, there will always be a market. If the aim was to destroy the market, socialists would be truly deluded.

Capitalism can not give the same result. Or rather, it could hypothetically, but simply wouldn't. Because capitalism is based on private property and a tool of the bourgeoisie. That's also why free market capitalism is slightly oxymoronic.

And now i regret saying that because it is an argument i probably won't be bothered to finish. And too much of a challenge to the status quo for anyone to believe me.
 

Similar Discussions