A World Without Capitalism and Tradable Shares?

[Andylusion]

So everyone gets an equal say. Steve Jobs has exactly as much influence as Carrot Top. Lovely.

Some German corporations already have union members with voting privileges sitting on their boards of directors, and some of those worker votes prevented German corporations from outsourcing their jobs to China. Most adults spend a third of their lives in a workplace where democracy does not apply. Changing that reality is what socialism is all about.

The Typical Workplace Is a Dictatorship. But It Doesn’t Have To Be.

I've read up on German corporation and their unions. One key difference between US Unions, and German Unions, is that German Unions are pro-corporate.

It's much easier to give people a vote on the board, when they are fully invested in the success of the company. US based Unions are distinctly anti-company, which results in the destruction of the company.

You can see this pattern constantly. Examples are endless. Hostess, the company offered several options to the Union to become profitable again, and save the company. The Union refused. The company declared bankruptcy, and sold off. The Union members all lost their jobs. Someone else purchased the remains of the company in bankruptcy court, and opened the exact same factory, making the exact same products, just without all the Union members.

This is why Unions are shrinking. It's not because of government, or because of evil Capitalist, but rather Unions simply destroying their jobs and themselves.

The same is true of Chrysler and GM, both of which were destroyed by the Unions.

Again, it's a bit hard to give people a vote, who openly want to destroy your business.

Hmmm... sucks to have ability.

The ability of a few to exploit the human labor of the many sucks even more.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia

"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The ability of a few to exploit the human labor of the many sucks even more.

Yeah, but does it? Because pre-1978 China was an impoverished hell hole. Just like post Chavez Venezuela today is a hell hole.

If being "exploited" is so much worse, why is it that in places where no exploitation exists, people are starving?

 

[georgephillip]

They were also more useful.

Useful at what, exploiting natural resources that belong to all Americans?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Useful at what, exploiting natural resources that belong to all Americans?

Who did that? How? Be specific.

 

[georgephillip]

f it means I gotta work more, I'll keep mum about my abilities, and be very vocal about my needs

Any ability you possess doesn't include imagination or critical thinking.

" Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

"II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

"III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia

 

[Andylusion]

If not capitalism and free markets then what?

Consider the possibility that Democracy is not compatible with capitalism but fascism is.
View attachment 454247
"Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbours and the broader public."

Economic democracy - Wikipedia.

We already have that to a some extent

In America consumers decide what the factories produce by what sells and what does

corporations are free to be worker owned and some like Harley Davidson are

but its not a very good system or most companies would be doing it

because where will a bunch of workers going to find the money to start a billion dollar business?

they may scrape a few bucks together, but not enough to get the project off the ground

The only thing I would argue, is that generally speaking, the claims of employee owned and operated, are more claim than reality.

For example, it's true that German unions have a vote on the companies executive board. But that's it. They have a vote. One vote in a dozen.

And workers, while being promoted to the public as having this huge equality with management, and "economic democracy" nonsense, in reality have no more real power than they did before.

I remember reading about the darling of left-wing ideology, the Mondragon, and you read statements by people who worked for the company, and other than being told how empowered they are, still had to show up on time, still had to work the whole day, and still got paid no more or less than any other working in a similar job.

About the only thing that makes any of these "employee owned" companies, actually owned by the employees, is the fact they have stock in the company.

Well... news flash people... most companies have employee stock purchase programs. Walmart does. Is Walmart employee owned now? No? Then why do you consider Harley Davidson to be? Employees at Harley Davidson have no more influence on the directions of the company, than do cashiers at Walmart. What makes one better than the other?

 

[georgephillip]

In a free market, and a free society, that's how it ought to be. It's not the role of government to maximize revenue

Neither free markets nor societies would tolerate robber barons becoming rich by exploiting common resources, customers, and their workers. Only capitalist markets and societies would allow parasites to maximize revenues by socializing costs.

Robber Barons: US History for kids ***

"The Rise of the Robber Barons for kids: The Great American Capitalists

"The Robber Barons amassed wealth and power during the period of intense economic and industrial growth following the American Civil War.

"The Robber Barons were businessmen, the great American Capitalists, who created massive business organizations, known as trusts, that enabled them to monopolize major industries which gave them the power to regulate the supply and price of products and commodities - refer to Rise of Big Business and Corporations.

"It was a turbulent time in American history when the super-rich 'Robber Barons' took their ruthless control over major industries that sparked demonstrations protests from workers that resulted in riots and strikes in the towns and cities of the United States during the US Industrial Revolution.

"Robber Barons Definition: These men earned the title of 'Robber Barons' due to their greed and ruthlessness, their unethical business practices, unscrupulous tactics and their total lack of concern for their workers, their customers or their competitors."

 

[georgephillip]

Right. That's why government must remain limited in scope and reach. Otherwise it's just another vehicle for avarice.

Do you understand corporations bribed corrupt politicians to obtain vast private fortunes from exploiting common resources like the land that railroads acquired on either side of the tracks they laid down? Limiting the scope of government to control corruption created the problem, and your solution is to further reduce governmental authority?

 

[Andylusion]

f it means I gotta work more, I'll keep mum about my abilities, and be very vocal about my needs

Any ability you possess doesn't include imagination or critical thinking.

" Nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.

"II. Every citizen will be a public man, sustained by, supported by, and occupied at the public expense.

"III. Every citizen will make his particular contribution to the activities of the community according to his capacity, his talent and his age; it is on this basis that his duties will be determined, in conformity with the distributive laws."
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs - Wikipedia

Where is society going to get the money and or material wealth to sustain me?

You can't answer business, because there won't be any business. You can't answer from the work of others, because there won't be any work of others to take.

How do you plan to take care of anyone?

In 2001 the impoverished Gujarat India had a massive Earthquake that flattens most cities.
In 2010 Haiti had an Earthquake that levels most of Port-au-Prince.

10 years after the 2010 Haiti Earthquake, much of Haiti is still in ruins.

Meanwhile Gujarat India, has risen from object poverty.
Prior to the Earthquake, most people had no electricity, and even fewer had running water, and roads were just dirt.

That was how Gujarat looked after the 2001 Earthquake.

Today, Gujarat looks like this.

People live in modern homes, with electricity and normal utilities on paved streets.

So what was the difference? How did one Earthquake result in economic growth, while Haiti with over tens of Billions poured into it, is still in object poverty?

The simple answer is, Gujarat engaged in Capitalism, and Haiti rejected Capitalism.

While Gujarat started free economic zones, and deregulated everything, Haiti nearly abandoned property rights.

While Haiti had charities unable to rebuild homes, because no one had clear ownership of the property, Gujarat was telling companies they could own the property, provided they built their own utilities. The government would not be responsible for sewers or water, or electricity. Companies came in, building their own water works, which then started residential service for the local people who had never had running water before.

While Haiti had squatters rights, which allowed people to move into condemned homes, preventing the owners from rebuilding the damaged houses, Gujarat had quickly moving in to clear rubble from damaged buildings, and tearing them down and rebuilding them, and buying up property to build modern apartments for locals and new residents who had never had electricity before.

In short, we've seen how your system plays out. Your system results in people living in mud huts, and tents, 10 years after an Earthquake, while people without billions of charity, are now living in modern homes, with modern utilities.

You can repeat that system until the end of time, but it still doesn't work.

 

[georgephillip]

That's funny!!

Communist systems can't even feed their own people.

Capitalists starve people to death for profit.

Why are there still famines?.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's funny!!

Communist systems can't even feed their own people.

Capitalists starve people to death for profit.
View attachment 454439
Why are there still famines?.

Capitalists starve people to death for profit.

How could anyone make money by starving people? Be specific.

 

[Andylusion]

Right. That's why government must remain limited in scope and reach. Otherwise it's just another vehicle for avarice.

Do you understand corporations bribed corrupt politicians to obtain vast private fortunes from exploiting common resources like the land that railroads acquired on either side of the tracks they laid down? Limiting the scope of government to control corruption created the problem, and your solution is to further reduce governmental authority?

No I don't accept that claim. 1800GOTJUNK, did not bribe anyone. They made money, by providing a service.

Are there some companies that bribed politicians? Maybe, I don't know for certain. But that would be the minority.

Did railroads bribe politicians? Maybe. Again, the minority.

And the biggest problem with that claim, is that if you have government run corporations, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then it's even worse. Fannie and Freddie were openly caught cooking the books in clear fraud. Nothing happened to anyone involved. Is that what you want?

Better to not have corporations run by the government, where they can abuse the public with full government support.

 

[georgephillip]

Copy and paste for the win!

Do you propose to make selling your shares illegal?

Definition of yes
(Entry 1 of 2)
1—used as a function word to express assent or agreement are you ready? Yes, I am

Definition of YES

 

[Andylusion]

That's funny!!

Communist systems can't even feed their own people.

Capitalists starve people to death for profit.
View attachment 454439
Why are there still famines?.

Simply not true. Just not true.

 

[Andylusion]

In a free market, and a free society, that's how it ought to be. It's not the role of government to maximize revenue

Neither free markets nor societies would tolerate robber barons becoming rich by exploiting common resources, customers, and their workers. Only capitalist markets and societies would allow parasites to maximize revenues by socializing costs.

Robber Barons: US History for kids ***

"The Rise of the Robber Barons for kids: The Great American Capitalists

"The Robber Barons amassed wealth and power during the period of intense economic and industrial growth following the American Civil War.

"The Robber Barons were businessmen, the great American Capitalists, who created massive business organizations, known as trusts, that enabled them to monopolize major industries which gave them the power to regulate the supply and price of products and commodities - refer to Rise of Big Business and Corporations.

"It was a turbulent time in American history when the super-rich 'Robber Barons' took their ruthless control over major industries that sparked demonstrations protests from workers that resulted in riots and strikes in the towns and cities of the United States during the US Industrial Revolution.

"Robber Barons Definition: These men earned the title of 'Robber Barons' due to their greed and ruthlessness, their unethical business practices, unscrupulous tactics and their total lack of concern for their workers, their customers or their competitors."

Neither free markets nor societies would tolerate robber barons becoming rich by exploiting common resources, customers, and their workers. Only capitalist markets and societies would allow parasites to maximize revenues by socializing costs.

Why would a free market not tolerate people getting rich, and others getting poor?

Poor people exist because they make bad choices.

The only way to not have poor and rich, is by denying freedom, because as long as people have freedom, some will make good choices and become wealthy, and some will make bad choices and become poor.

 

[Andylusion]

They were also more useful.

Useful at what, exploiting natural resources that belong to all Americans?

I reject the idea that any natural resource belongs to all Americans.

Tell me... under my house is dirt. It's a natural resource.

Why do you think you have any right whatsoever to the dirt under my house? Why? Because some woman somewhere spread her legs for some man? Because you sucked her tits? Because you pooped?

You have a right to something, when you earn it. When you exchange value for value.

You do not have a right to ANYTHING... simply because you are an American.

 

[Mac-7]

The Robber Barons were businessmen, the great American Capitalists, who created massive business organizations, known as trusts, that enabled them to monopolize major industries which gave them the power to regulate the supply and price of products and commodities - refer to Rise of Big Business and Corporations.

That sounds like FaceBook, Google, and Twitter today

 

[georgephillip]

How would a company ever exist to begin with, without the money to buy the property, build the buildings, buy or have built the machinery, and setup all the work stations?

Possibly in a similar fashion to privately held companies today. A group of workers would apply for a zero-interest loan from the Federal Reserve and then apply worker-self-directed enterprise principles to follow a path laid out by Koch Industries:
Political activities of the Koch brothers - Wikipedia

Privately held company - Wikipedia

"Though less visible than their publicly traded counterparts, private companies have major importance in the world's economy.

"In 2008, the 441 largest private companies in the United States accounted for US$1,800,000,000,000 ($1.8 trillion) in revenues and employed 6.2 million people, according to Forbes."

 

[georgephillip]

Where does that money come from? Because the typical way to getting that capital, is by selling shares of the company, but you just said they can't be bought or sold, thus no one would have any reason to give money to a company.

Where did the money for Mondragon come from?

Mondragon Corporation - Wikipedia

"The Mondragon Corporation is a corporation and federation of worker cooperatives based in the Basque region of Spain.

"It is the largest cooperative in the world.[4]

"It was founded in the town of Mondragon in 1956 by José María Arizmendiarrieta and a group of his students at a technical college he founded. Its first product was paraffin heaters.

"It is the seventh-largest Spanish company in terms of asset turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country.

"At the end of 2016, it employed 74,117 people in 257 companies and organizations in four areas of activity: finance, industry, retail and knowledge."

Capital gains are not the only source of compensating initial investors/workers. Imagine a WSDE cooperative version of a successful tech company earning a billion$ a year.

No individual associated with such an enterprise could earn more than one percent of total revenues.

No employee of such an enterprise would earn less than ten percent of the highest paid worker.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How would a company ever exist to begin with, without the money to buy the property, build the buildings, buy or have built the machinery, and setup all the work stations?

Possibly in a similar fashion to privately held companies today. A group of workers would apply for a zero-interest loan from the Federal Reserve and then apply worker-self-directed enterprise principles to follow a path laid out by Koch Industries:
Political activities of the Koch brothers - Wikipedia

Privately held company - Wikipedia

"Though less visible than their publicly traded counterparts, private companies have major importance in the world's economy.

"In 2008, the 441 largest private companies in the United States accounted for US$1,800,000,000,000 ($1.8 trillion) in revenues and employed 6.2 million people, according to Forbes."

Privately held doesn't mean employee owned, right?
You understand that, don't you?

 

[georgephillip]

Because there are no equities to turbocharge with massive fictitious capital, finance becomes delightfully boring—and stable.

Well that's true, that if you destroy the banking system, the banking system won't have any problems. I agree with that.

But that would also ignore the fact that you will harm the reallocation of resources. Meaning, that one thing banks do, is move resources from investors to producers.

Public banks could allocate resources as effectively as private banks without the rampant speculation that has crashed this economy three times in twenty years:

Overthrow the Speculators

"Speculators at megabanks or investment firms such as Goldman Sachs are not, in a strict sense, capitalists.

"They do not make money from the means of production.

"Rather, they ignore or rewrite the law — ostensibly put in place to protect the vulnerable from the powerful — to steal from everyone, including their shareholders.

"They are parasites.

"They feed off the carcass of industrial capitalism.

"They produce nothing.

"They make nothing.

"They just manipulate money.

"Speculation in the 17th century was a crime.

"Speculators were hanged.

"We can wrest back control of our economy, and finally our political system, from corporate speculators only by building local movements that decentralize economic power through the creation of hundreds of publicly owned state, county and city banks."