You're pointing out the fundamental contradiction of capitalism - bosses make a profit by paying workers less than their value - that is the basis of Marxism. We are all extremely aware that your boss needs to underpay you to "make any money, or even break even". It is literally the reason we oppose capitalism.
So you propose they pay you exactly the amount you make them, and the company goes broke in the process, so now you also make nothing since you don't have a job?
No, we propose that there not be a group of people (capitalists) who own the business just so they can extract profit from the worker's labor. The workers should collectively own the firm. We recognize that there are two primary classes in society: those who work for a wage that is less than the value they generate (the working class) and those who own a business and extract profit by underpaying their workers (the capitalist class). These classes are inherently in conflict, and the only resolution to that is socialism, which removes the capitalist class from the equation entirely.
So the people who put in the most risk and started the company get nothing more than someone who joined 20 years later? How do you expect companies to get created if the owner constantly loses more and more of their company the bigger it gets? Why risk any of this money in the company when it isn't even his anymore?
Since they run the business I assume they will be making a lot more than the rest of the employees, right?
State and worker directed capital funds that vet and invest in new firms.
Do you really think that can work? I think you will have a very hard time getting people to agree to put their money into stuff like this.
We will structure access to capital such that we don't depend on profit-sucking capitalists to grant it to us.
Ah, yeah, let's just restructure the whole system into some untested idea, that's going to go over great with everyone. How would you even start making this change?
Since they run the business I assume they will be making a lot more than the rest of the employees, right?
It's important to note that in many cases, owners do not run the business - they hire someone else to do it for them. Now, if the founder (not an owner in this context) remains in a prominent and valuable leadership position, they will probably be one of the highest paid people in the firm. But we're talking a difference of 3x-10x the lowest paid worker at the most, not the 400x you see in CEOs today. Ultimately pay decisions are made by the board, which is elected by workers (and potentially union leadership, community members, government regulators, etc, as befits the particular firm).
Do you really think that can work? I think you will have a very hard time getting people to agree to put their money into stuff like this.
I mean, co-ops and governments all over the world already do it, so yes, I don't see why it would suddenly stop working.
Ah, yeah, let's just restructure the whole system into some untested idea, that's going to go over great with everyone. How would you even start making this change?
Again, you're speaking to a bunch of revolutionary Marxists. We do, in fact, want to restructure the whole system. That's what I'm telling you. We want to fundamentally change the way property ownership works. The only way it would happen is if there's a mass popular movement to make it happen, so those of us in capitalist countries spend our time organizing around this, creating parties and other groups that can hopefully bring about this change. These ideas not untested, however - many countries implement some component of worker ownership and state planning into their economy at all kinds of different scales. Some countries operate under Marxist governments that work to implement these on a society-wide scale, often with a great deal of success. We can learn from that success and from the mistakes those governments made/make. Not untested at all.
The owner at the very least risked a lot of time and money to get the business going, and it would have been a while before they hired someone else to do the job. It's not like they just sat back and did nothing.
The owner took on 100x+ the risk any employee is, should they not get rewarded for taking that risk?
I mean, co-ops and governments all over the world already do it, so yes, I don't see why it would suddenly stop working.
On a very small scale they sometimes work, when they get larger scale they usually have a CEO and upper management like any other business. In the end it's really not that different. Look at REI for example, it's a co-op, has a CEO, and at least in my area has pretty average pay and benefits. They have laid off people recently due to profit concerns, and have ok ratings on job sites. What is the advantage to these exactly?
These ideas not untested, however - many countries implement some component of worker ownership and state planning into their economy at all kinds of different scales
Can you give me the best example of a current city, country, or whatever that is closest to what you think is best for the US to change to?
The owner at the very least risked a lot of time and money to get the business going, and it would have been a while before they hired someone else to do the job. It's not like they just sat back and did nothing.
This is absolutely not always the case. Many businesses (most, I'd bet) predate their current owner. And what is the risk? I don't get why this obsession with undefined "risk" is so important. What's the absolute worst case scenario? Their business shuts down and they have to go work for a wage like everyone else?
On a very small scale they sometimes work, when they get larger scale they usually have a CEO and upper management like any other business. In the end it's really not that different. Look at REI for example, it's a co-op, has a CEO, and at least in my area has pretty average pay and benefits. They have laid off people recently due to profit concerns, and have ok ratings on job sites. What is the advantage to these exactly?
REI is a consumer co-op, not a worker co-op, and that's mostly just a marketing gimmick. If you go to the store, you can pay $20 to become a "Co-op Member" for life and get discounts. I'm talking about worker co-ops, where the ownership and operation of the firm is shared among its employees. There are shitloads of these at small scales, but there are a few big ones - Mondragon and others in Spain, Uralungal in India, Huawei in China, etc. In my city, the largest industrial laundry operation is a worker co-op, and they have a practice of providing capital and expertise to other local businesses to convert into co-ops. However, it should be noted that the conditions for a worker co-op in capitalism are very different than they would be under socialism. In capitalism, they are at a competitive disadvantage on the market, because they will pay their workers more and thus have tighter margins. In socialism, that's not an issue.
Can you give me the best example of a current city, country, or whatever that is closest to what you think is best for the US to change to?
Economically, China, Cuba, and Vietnam operate under Marxist governments using different approaches to planned economies that place a large emphasis on worker power within businesses. It's been enormously successful for all of their development and quality of life. You could look at a number of Latin American countries where socialist parties contest with liberal/capitalist parties in electoral politics and see the success they tend to have under the more left wing governments. Here, Bolivia is an excellent example. They've had a socialist party (MAS) in power for over a decade and quality of life, life expectancy, poverty levels, literacy, public health, and education have all improved dramatically. But they are not truly a socialist country (even in the restricted sense of the explicitly Marxist states I mentioned above) because they still operate in a mixed economy where the capitalist class wields massive economic and political power, and the socialist parties in power work to restrain the capitalists and build alternative models. Nowhere on earth aiming for socialism isn't in a process of active struggle against the global capitalist powers-that-be, and that struggle looks very different under different circumstances. I don't just want the US to change to the Chinese model or something, but I do want an economic model much closer to the examples I've given here, though substantially adjusted to the conditions of the US (and the need for the US to make reparations for imperialism).
I don't get why this obsession with undefined "risk" is so important. What's the absolute worst case scenario? Their business shuts down and they have to go work for a wage like everyone else?
The risk is losing their life savings or having debt the likes of which makes your student debt look like nothing. If the risk means nothing to you, you should try it, make a great business that follows your ideals, and if you fail no big deal, right?
Economically, China, Cuba, and Vietnam operate under Marxist governments using different approaches to planned economies that place a large emphasis on worker power within businesses
As I suspected, your examples are of countries that are not exactly great places to live, and where US companies go to get the cheapest labor they can. They have worse workers rights than the US
Nowhere on earth aiming for socialism isn't in a process of active struggle against the global capitalist powers-that-be, and that struggle looks very different under different circumstances
It sounds like we really shouldn't be trying for that if it only works when everyone does it. It's one thing to try and change a country, but to change the whole world? Might as well be impossible.
I don't just want the US to change to the Chinese model or something, but I do want an economic model much closer to the examples I've given here, though substantially adjusted to the conditions of the US (and the need for the US to make reparations for imperialism).
I just can't picture how that would look though, which is why I asked for the examples. It sounds like there really isn't a great example of where you think the US should go?
You're pointing out the fundamental contradiction of capitalism - bosses make a profit by paying workers less than their value - that is the basis of Marxism. We are all extremely aware that your boss needs to underpay you to "make any money, or even break even". It is literally the reason we oppose capitalism.
So you propose they pay you exactly the amount you make them, and the company goes broke in the process, so now you also make nothing since you don't have a job?
No, we propose that there not be a group of people (capitalists) who own the business just so they can extract profit from the worker's labor. The workers should collectively own the firm. We recognize that there are two primary classes in society: those who work for a wage that is less than the value they generate (the working class) and those who own a business and extract profit by underpaying their workers (the capitalist class). These classes are inherently in conflict, and the only resolution to that is socialism, which removes the capitalist class from the equation entirely.
So the people who put in the most risk and started the company get nothing more than someone who joined 20 years later? How do you expect companies to get created if the owner constantly loses more and more of their company the bigger it gets? Why risk any of this money in the company when it isn't even his anymore?
What's the risk they take? Will they be killed if their business fails to turn a profit?
Oh no, they'll might have to work for a wage like the people they were exploiting.
It's a huge financial risk to start a business, most require a lot of upfront costs.
They'll get as much as they continue to put in.
State and worker directed capital funds that vet and invest in new firms.
We will structure access to capital such that we don't depend on profit-sucking capitalists to grant it to us.
Since they run the business I assume they will be making a lot more than the rest of the employees, right?
Do you really think that can work? I think you will have a very hard time getting people to agree to put their money into stuff like this.
Ah, yeah, let's just restructure the whole system into some untested idea, that's going to go over great with everyone. How would you even start making this change?
It's important to note that in many cases, owners do not run the business - they hire someone else to do it for them. Now, if the founder (not an owner in this context) remains in a prominent and valuable leadership position, they will probably be one of the highest paid people in the firm. But we're talking a difference of 3x-10x the lowest paid worker at the most, not the 400x you see in CEOs today. Ultimately pay decisions are made by the board, which is elected by workers (and potentially union leadership, community members, government regulators, etc, as befits the particular firm).
I mean, co-ops and governments all over the world already do it, so yes, I don't see why it would suddenly stop working.
Again, you're speaking to a bunch of revolutionary Marxists. We do, in fact, want to restructure the whole system. That's what I'm telling you. We want to fundamentally change the way property ownership works. The only way it would happen is if there's a mass popular movement to make it happen, so those of us in capitalist countries spend our time organizing around this, creating parties and other groups that can hopefully bring about this change. These ideas not untested, however - many countries implement some component of worker ownership and state planning into their economy at all kinds of different scales. Some countries operate under Marxist governments that work to implement these on a society-wide scale, often with a great deal of success. We can learn from that success and from the mistakes those governments made/make. Not untested at all.
The owner at the very least risked a lot of time and money to get the business going, and it would have been a while before they hired someone else to do the job. It's not like they just sat back and did nothing.
The owner took on 100x+ the risk any employee is, should they not get rewarded for taking that risk?
On a very small scale they sometimes work, when they get larger scale they usually have a CEO and upper management like any other business. In the end it's really not that different. Look at REI for example, it's a co-op, has a CEO, and at least in my area has pretty average pay and benefits. They have laid off people recently due to profit concerns, and have ok ratings on job sites. What is the advantage to these exactly?
Can you give me the best example of a current city, country, or whatever that is closest to what you think is best for the US to change to?
This is absolutely not always the case. Many businesses (most, I'd bet) predate their current owner. And what is the risk? I don't get why this obsession with undefined "risk" is so important. What's the absolute worst case scenario? Their business shuts down and they have to go work for a wage like everyone else?
REI is a consumer co-op, not a worker co-op, and that's mostly just a marketing gimmick. If you go to the store, you can pay $20 to become a "Co-op Member" for life and get discounts. I'm talking about worker co-ops, where the ownership and operation of the firm is shared among its employees. There are shitloads of these at small scales, but there are a few big ones - Mondragon and others in Spain, Uralungal in India, Huawei in China, etc. In my city, the largest industrial laundry operation is a worker co-op, and they have a practice of providing capital and expertise to other local businesses to convert into co-ops. However, it should be noted that the conditions for a worker co-op in capitalism are very different than they would be under socialism. In capitalism, they are at a competitive disadvantage on the market, because they will pay their workers more and thus have tighter margins. In socialism, that's not an issue.
Economically, China, Cuba, and Vietnam operate under Marxist governments using different approaches to planned economies that place a large emphasis on worker power within businesses. It's been enormously successful for all of their development and quality of life. You could look at a number of Latin American countries where socialist parties contest with liberal/capitalist parties in electoral politics and see the success they tend to have under the more left wing governments. Here, Bolivia is an excellent example. They've had a socialist party (MAS) in power for over a decade and quality of life, life expectancy, poverty levels, literacy, public health, and education have all improved dramatically. But they are not truly a socialist country (even in the restricted sense of the explicitly Marxist states I mentioned above) because they still operate in a mixed economy where the capitalist class wields massive economic and political power, and the socialist parties in power work to restrain the capitalists and build alternative models. Nowhere on earth aiming for socialism isn't in a process of active struggle against the global capitalist powers-that-be, and that struggle looks very different under different circumstances. I don't just want the US to change to the Chinese model or something, but I do want an economic model much closer to the examples I've given here, though substantially adjusted to the conditions of the US (and the need for the US to make reparations for imperialism).
The risk is losing their life savings or having debt the likes of which makes your student debt look like nothing. If the risk means nothing to you, you should try it, make a great business that follows your ideals, and if you fail no big deal, right?
As I suspected, your examples are of countries that are not exactly great places to live, and where US companies go to get the cheapest labor they can. They have worse workers rights than the US
It sounds like we really shouldn't be trying for that if it only works when everyone does it. It's one thing to try and change a country, but to change the whole world? Might as well be impossible.
I just can't picture how that would look though, which is why I asked for the examples. It sounds like there really isn't a great example of where you think the US should go?