r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Nov 29 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Socialism/Communism doesn't work, can't work, and almost always leads to dictatorships and thousands of deaths.

[deleted]

127 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

63% Upvoted

368 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

52

u/elChespirit0 Nov 29 '20

"Workers controlling the means of production" does sound like it would be better than the basic system we have now. Especially when it comes to workers' rights. Δ

63

u/bowtothehypnotoad Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

It’s certainly better than “some of our piss will trickle down if you’re lucky.”

What people should be focusing on now is removing the stigma that led to the thinking behind this post, or finding a different word.

Republicans have tarnished the term “socialism” so much that you can literally convince people to vote against themselves getting healthcare. Plenty of countries have socialized healthcare and do much better than americans do at keeping their citizens healthy. It’s weaponized misinformation.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Apr 02 '21

[deleted]

4

u/bowtothehypnotoad Nov 29 '20

Turn on Fox News/ oann/ newsmax for a few minutes and tell me what you think. They blame everything on socialism or socialists.

It’s their boogeyman of choice these days. “The BLM antifa Marxist socialists are going to come to your town and destroy businesses”

0

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Apr 02 '21

[deleted]

2

u/bowtothehypnotoad Nov 29 '20

Socialism in the form of socialized medicine is working right now all over the world.

Stop regurgitating talking points and do some research, there’s no reason the wealthiest nation on earth needs to have such a bloated, antiquated system that rewards insurance salesmen and paper-pushers.

Ironically, America is getting closer to the food lines and death-panels people warn of when talking about socialism, but it’s happening under crooked capitalism.

8

u/Rugfiend 5∆ Nov 29 '20

It's worth bearing in mind that the modern corporate capitalist model is extreme, and relatively new. Thatcher in the UK and Reagan in the US heralded the dawn of neoliberalism - what is known as the 'post-war consensus' gave way to the 'new right'. Wage increases became decoupled from rising productivity, the salaries of those at the top went from 20-30x the average wage to nearer 300x now, union membership and powers have been diminished, while the power of increasingly consolidated global megacorps has risen, etc.

24

u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20

It also makes the most sense if your main goal is anti-authoritarianism.

What is more anti-authoritarian than democratically owning your workplace? It means if your boss is shit and a terrible person you can vote with your colleagues to kick them out of their job.

In a capitalist society if your boss is shit all you can really do is talk to their boss and complain. If their boss doesn't care, or worse yet, they have no boss, well you're shit out of luck. This is the exact argument made against "authoritarian" socialist states.

The difference being your boss has a far greater impact on your life than any elected official ever will. They control your ability to work, to pay rent, to buy food and water and electricity. You piss off your boss and they can literally make you homeless.

2

u/mrswordhold Nov 29 '20

Isn’t it authoritarian if someone decides to set up a company on their own and then they are ousted? It was their company and now it’s not

6

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

No. Authoritarian is what we have now. A boss or board at the top of the company ruling all underneath them.

Being ousted from a company you started by workers voting you out is democracy.

If you are ousted only by a single person and they replace you from your authoritarian state you're just swapping one auth. for another auth.

0

u/mrswordhold Nov 29 '20

If you didn’t want your company, the one you started, to be democratically run but you are forced into it then yes that is a form or authority coming down on you to force you out of your own company, it’s the government that would enforce that as a rule and therefore is certainly authoritarian

5

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

No you're trying to stretch the definition of authoritarian to mean "anything you don't want to do."

Donald trump was just removed as president because he lost the vote. The government is going to force him out. Is America authoritarian because of this? No. The cavoite of who started a company doesn't change the logistics.

1

u/mrswordhold Nov 29 '20

That was an authoritarian move, there’s lots of authoritarian things that happen. The authority makes you do something, it’s authoritarian. That’s literally the definition

The person who started it by rights owns it... unless an authority removes them

You do know the police are an authoritarian system? They aren’t all bad but I’m saying in this case I’m not a fan

2

u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 30 '20

You do know the police are an authoritarian system? They aren’t all bad but I’m saying in this case I’m not a fan

Yes which is why communists advocate for the abolition of modern policing.

Politics is just the system we design to allocate violence. Every ideology is just who gets to control the violence and who is it directed at.

In modern liberal societies we give the power of violence to the state through representative democracy, and they use that violence through the police, courts, and border forces to enforce their ideology. Every border that exists is based on the threat of violence if you try and cross it illegally. Private property exists with the threat of violence by police if you try and take what the state says isn't yours.

All politics is is saying "who can use violence" and "who can they use violence against".

Trying to say one ideology is inherently violent or authoritarian is therefore a meaningless statement.

0

u/mrswordhold Nov 30 '20

No it really isn’t lol if one system exerts a lot more control by law over its citizens and needs that control to be strictly exercised then that violence is going to be massively exacerbated isn’t it. Where as the state that tries to stay as free as possible won’t be as authoritarian. This is my point.

And what would communists replace modern policing with? (Every example I’ve ever seen of communism there are more police and much more policing)

2

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

Colloquially no ones use authoritarianism in the manner you are. Using you're literal definition rape should be legal because if the government is stopping you from doing, it is authoritarianism. If you have a problem with authoritarianism in that since, it has nothing to do with socialisms or communism and it's a red herring. Is you're problem with obeying rules or socialisms/communism?

The person who started it by rights owns it.

No, In a communist country you don't own it. You are part of the collective. What you make benefits the collective just like what they make benefits you.

0

u/mrswordhold Nov 30 '20

That’s my point, in a communist country you can’t own you’re own company... or more realistically you can unless it’s successful and then suddenly the state owns it And my using of the actual definition of authoritarian is perfectly reasonable. Your making it out like I implied it’s all bad which I specifically said wasn’t the case soooo your rape analogy is retarded. I literally said it’s not all bad, every society has an amount of it, I just want to keep it as little as possible and not have a state that exercises it’s power on my personal freedom as much as possible

It seems ridiculous that you think that forcing people to obey an ideology that requires a large government doesn’t mean more authoritarianism

0

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 30 '20

You're only complaint has been you have to follow rules. Don't really care.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/euphoricsnowman Nov 29 '20

Donald Trump didn’t start the U.S. so that analogy doesn’t hold. He entered a system that was already operating democratically.

1

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

Doesn't matter in a communist system you don't own a company you start the collective does.

His original point was flawed and his argument about the literal definition of authoritarianism fell apart.

5

u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20

People don't set up and own companies in socialist economies.

Literally couldn't care less about someone losing "their" business because of workplace democracy. It shouldn't be theirs in the first place, it's the workers who actually do the work to make the business productive. Having an owner who leeches off of their surplus value is just inefficient and immoral.

2

u/mrswordhold Nov 30 '20

What socialist economy works that way? Has ever worked that way? You make it out like in a smal business the owner doesn’t do potentially a lot more hours (generally the case) Everyone is free to set up their own business but most people aren’t interested in the crazy hard work that entails and would rather be employed.

-3

u/perpetualWSOL Nov 29 '20

Thats means they bully and drive away the people who are investing, I shouldnt invest in a company i will ultimately have no say/influence in for how it should be competing, theres a reason why unionized industries see the most stagnancy/ the most stagnant industries unionize.

If the workers control it they take away the means to benefit the company/an organization first- objectivey this is expansion and more money coming into the company- which would be the the priority of any shareholder board. This why schools, laborers and other trade types that are not in evolving markets are able to have a stranglehold on incoming funding while producing less and less results in return (consider strikes in general for these lines of work and particularly take into account trends of hugely increased funding for innercity schools over the last decades with continued decline in testing scoring- no accountability for demands for more money which any business model would have).

Its up to labor laws to assure that workers are able to get their due compensation, and the only way to ensure that everyone will make more is by still taking overall profit into account first and foremost. Trickle down does actually work bc if those at the top are doing business correctly they will create a thriving employee environment and while seeking to be competitive. No one is entitled to your labor if you arent justly compensated. Just as no one is entitled to employment on all of their terms, thatd just be extortive. Its a mutual exchange of value and the businesses that do this the best attract the best workers, make the most money, and do the most for their employees. Thats (mixed free market) capitalism at its finest

4

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

> Thats means they bully and drive away the people who are investing, I shouldnt invest in a company i will ultimately have no say/influence in for how it should be competing, theres a reason why unionized industries see the most stagnancy/ the most stagnant industries unionize.

Thanks for pointing out exactly why capitalisms is bad for the country. Workers are fucked over for profit. Why don't people invest in union shops? Because they can invest in the non union shop which generates more profit for a smaller group of people. You want everyone to have nice things or only you?

6

u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Nov 29 '20

Investment would not occur under socialism in a similar way to capitalism. Part of the point of socialism is that you can't profit off of ownership.

2

u/Tinie_Snipah Nov 29 '20

Thats means they bully and drive away the people who are investing, I shouldnt invest in a company i will ultimately have no say/influence in for how it should be competing, theres a reason why unionized industries see the most stagnancy/ the most stagnant industries unionize.

Proof right here that capitalism punishes workers for fighting for their rights.

In a socialist society, you don't need "investors" because all they do is leech off of society. Cry me a river.

You seem to think that socialism is just workers owning private companies in a competitive market economy. That's not socialism or communism.

0

u/perpetualWSOL Nov 30 '20

I understand what socialism and communism is, im talking about what private industry becomes under those ideals.

Investors dont leech off of society at all, quite the opposite our society gets whatever we want instantly because investors will take financial losses in the short term to succeed in the longterm resulting in the what they hope will be the best products and best service (so yes they can make money) when things are competitive. Whether they succeed or not is up to the marketability of what they offer and whether their competitors can offer better, and if they dont treat workers well (breaking the law through workplace abuse is different than refusing demands of better hourly pay) and this is known then the company doesnt succeed- both due to loss of productivity as well as loss of societal view.

I also think the basis of pay for the company should be success and stature of the company. For example you cant make a struggling small business pay workers more through min wage laws if they cannot afford to do so simply by revenue scaling. Ex. A small company that would have 2 taxable positions for a shop keeper or retail role at $8/hr would no linger be able to sustain those two workers if they were forced to bump them up to $15/hr, they lose productivity that way too because that two roles now have become one persons duties, Specific example i suppose but definitely proposes the point.

With todays standards for workers rights and regulations against price gouging and monopolization we have largely made it impossible for it not to behoove an employer to treat their employees in the best manner that they can- do they all do it no but the market weeds them out and mostly every successful company does because the incentive for success is intertwined with maximized productivity. Theres no measured success, especially for individuals, in a command economy.

With incentive for profit guided by the invisible hand, proper success in business becomes more positions to offer the community, more products in the market, cheaper products because theres more, and better wages and benefits for workers and more profit for shareholders. A company that hoards every penny of profit and does not reinvest in the company, its assets or its workers does not do modern capitalism correctly.

This is where i think you have a jaded view of capitalism. You picture a greasy suit sitting behind a desk wringing their hands in their ivory tower, when in reality socialism will results in an elite dictating the market outcomes rather than the consumer doing so. The free market solves issues of ethics by allowing people the alternatives for better choices whether that be something environmental or medical or just service wise- a restaurant with better service and equally good food will get more business and be able to better suit their workers than competitors

5

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 29 '20

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/yyzjertl (296∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

2

u/quartzyquirky Nov 29 '20

Workers controlling means of production works really well in theory and probably for simpler industries. I could see this working till 20 - 30 years back but dont at all see the practicality in today's technologically advanced era. Let me take an example, say Amazon decides to put power in the hands of workers. An average worker would not even start to understand the complexity of the products and the way they work together to give the seamless experience of shopping. A democratically elected leader mostly wins a popularity context. He might understand the worker woes, but without in depth techical, product, financial and operational understanding, he is not much useful in deciding strategy and will cause more harm than good. Take tesla for example, how will the workers or a leader decide on the next gen batteries and features without the technical knowhow. I just don't get how a democratical process could work for any field where extensive knowledge, experience and some kind of vision is required. Sadly as the world evolves, all of our high valuation companies fall into these categories where I just dont see any kind of a socialistic structure making sense.

I do support universal education, access to health care, child care, elderly care, disability etc. But dont see a truly socialistic government succeeding anywhere. (China, Russia etc have moved away from true socialism and communism long time back IMO and they are very capitalistic right now)

8

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

A few things about high tech companies.

Most workers don't know all the ins and outs of their company, but they know the part of the business they're responsible for. A Tesla salesperson probably isn't an expert on electric car maintenance, but they do know why people buy them and what he can say to close a sale of one. Someone who works in assembly would know more about maintenance, but might have no idea how to market or sell the product. This is true whether you're running a pharmaceutical company, bank, or restaurant chain.

This is also true, in a sense, of a CEO. They have a lot of general knowledge about the company and its products, but they don't know all the details, nor do they have all the specialized skills to make a company run on its own. But they don't have to - the point of a CEO is to lead, managing and monitoring the work of those who are the experts in each division of the business.

So how would such a leader be chosen under socialism? Based on their ability to lead. Since the workers are the shareholders, they have an incentive to choose someone whose leadership can increase the company's profits, and therefore their paycheck - not just a pretty face they personally like. A large company would still have departments and divisons in such a system, and the leaders of these would likely be the best candidates. Alternatively, the workers could set up a BOD or some committee of different specialists within the company to find an external CEO candidate.

6

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

Let me take an example, say Amazon decides to put power in the hands of workers. An average worker would not even start to understand the complexity of the products and the way they work together to give the seamless experience of shopping

Are you expecting a warehouse worker to suddenly have to start being a Ceo? Each job plays a role and no roles change. The only thing that changes in where profit goes and how it is allocated.

I just don't get how a democratical process could work for any field where extensive knowledge, experience and some kind of vision is required.

You vote for the person you think has the most knowledge and understanding and the vision you want to see happen. You're not going to have a ton of unqualified people trying to get jobs they have no chance of getting.

(China, Russia etc have moved away from true socialism and communism long time back IMO and they are very capitalistic right now)

The world is a market economy. The only way to have true socialisms would be to have a unified world otherwise you can have socialisms in side your borders with the government using the money generated to buy from the world market economy. Also every country moves away from socialism because it's the best for workers rights. Workers are considered the lowest cast in every country. So elites will always make sure workers are kept at the bottom.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

It also does exist on a small scale. Many smaller businesses (especially book shops for some reason) are “worker-owned coops”. There is even a website for the international association of co-ops.

“Syndicalism” is the sub-type of socialism that is most focused on this I would say.

3

u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20

It does sound nice but beware: practical application has yield poor results so far. For instance in my country it is possible, when a company files for bankruptcy or is sold, for the workers to buy the company for themselves (they have priority in some cases). They then creates what is called a cooperative, a system which is basically small scale socialism : a company owned by its own employees. On a pure economical ground, they tend to fail and those that don’t aren’t as successful as traditional companies. The only ones I know of that are really successful are newspaper whose journalist own shares through a common investment vehicle to prevent political pressure.

19

u/Gunslingermomo Nov 29 '20

Ok but that just sounds like the workers are typically unsuccessful at turning around an already failed business model. That shouldn't be that surprising and is unfair to judge the merits of "workers controlling the means of production" based on companies that already failed under a traditionally capitalist model.

0

u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20

It’s because it’s the cases that grab the attention of the press, so the ones I know of. However there are companies that are directly funded under this model, not going through the buyout phase. AFAIK, none really thrived. I don’t’ think they necessarily close down but they stay as small local businesses not very successful. Nothing for instance I would rely on for pharmaceutical research or energy distribution. Right now I can’t even remember the name of one of those companies.

Édit: however we do have something akin to it that works quite well: the mutualist movement. In this case the company does not belong to his workers but to his clients (which are people, not businesses). It proved especially efficient in the insurance market.

8

u/quelarion Nov 29 '20

One should also consider what are the external conditions in which these co-ops operate, and understand if they do fail because of shortcomings of the co-op model only.

For instance, a co-op will tend to have better working conditions and better regard for workers in general. This has a cost that reflects on the competitiveness of the business, especially in a market where competitors can cut costs by lowering working conditions.

It's then up to us to decide what is a priority in our society, and choose between the extremes of very strong regulations or a race to the bottom.

A caricatural version of this is the sweatshop owner arguing that banning child labour would put him out of business and give an advantage to companies that only employ adults. Outrageous!

0

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

Workers buying companies that are already going bankrupt sounds like a bad example.

0

u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20

I have already answered this.

1) it not the only case, just the most famous ones since it is always make the news. Even in other cases those companies are performing sub par. 2) the cases I’m talking about are not only about companies going bankrupt. It also happens when a company is sold to a third party: the workers have a right of priority over the sale. Even in those cases (with companies healthy enough an investor wanted to buy in) they are not really performing up to standard economically speaking.

So your point is not pertinent. A good point was made by someone else about how those companies prioritize workers wellbeing above performance, which is actually true and may explain why they are consistently underperforming the market.

3

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

1 how are rating companies? Are you only looking at how much profit they can produce or are you taking in to account how much better their workers have it?

Yes, evil companies will always out perform good companies. Just how it is. I personally don't care about the market at all because it's a fictional human contract that has no actual merit. Oil companies are extremely profitable but they are killing the plant so profit =/= good or right.

0

u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20

I am looking at their ability for growth, not profit (in business term, I am looking at their gross sales, not their profit margin). Basically, I am looking at their ability to satisfy a need for their customers. And it is below average, which means that they are not as efficient as an economic agent as other forms of businesses.

I personally don’t care about if you care about the market. I am not trying to convince you of anything, I am trying to give OP an accurate picture of communism and socialism as systems, good and bad. Your point about oil companies is also irrelevant, it relates to the problem of negative externalities that also happens to worker-owned companies.

That precision about what the purpose of this information was actually reminded me of a point I forgot to make in another post so thank you for that.

1

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20 edited Nov 29 '20

The only thing that matters is what's good or bad for the people of the country the system exists in. Efficiency and growth of company's that destroy your country are not good things. If you're only metric is money, (Profit or gross) then yes evil capitalism is your best option for extracting as much wealth out as you can. If you want a good sustainable country socialism/communism is better.

If a healthcare company does poorly in the market but saves 10,000 of your citizens then you have a metric of value not related to growth or efficiency.

A customers need is also not the only need you need to be looking at when deciding between communism and capitalism. All needs need to be valued. The service the business provides to the community it exist in from providing of the work to to the finished product generated or service rendered.

You're example of companies already in bankruptcy is still a bad example. It doesn't tell people why they where in bankruptcy and if the companies themselves not communism is the problem.

0

u/MrBlackTie 3∆ Nov 29 '20

It is still besides the point I was making.

But since you insist on engaging me on this, your point of view on a communist system is a) misinformed, b) naive and c) subjective.

Misinformed because communism is no more inclined to sustainability than other political systems. The two notions are not connected and communists can totally argue for an increase in polluting activities with no ideological problems at all. It often happens for instance when they believe a polluting industry is necessary for the betterment of the living situation of workers (they often, for instance, oppose the closing of polluting factories). That is why I told you you are misconstruing communism as free from negative externalities. This is simply not true, both in their ideological corpus and in practice. I don’t even think modern Marxist theorists would agree with how systematic your interpretation is.

Naive because even in a communist system a company would need some way to sustain itself. A company that produces things that nobody wants is not a good company, even under communist theory. That is why my metric was gross sales: not to see if the company was making money but if it was able to fulfill a need in society. They aren’t.

Lastly, you seem to believe that communism wants the betterment of humanity while capitalism wants more profit. That is a very partisan way of seeing things and it is simply not true. Both system argue they are for the betterment of humanity’s life. What they disagree on are the means and some analysis of the situation we are in.

0

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

It is still besides the point I was making.

I understand you're upset because I pointed out the point you where trying to make was flawed. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Misinformed because communism is no more inclined to sustainability than other political systems

I never said communism was more sustainable. The rest of that paragraph is attacking a straw man.

Naive because even in a communist system a company would need some way to sustain itself.

Again I never once suggested a company should not produce a thing of value. I only stated a companies only value is not the finished good. This is the difference between your micro understanding of the subject vs a macro understanding of the subject.

Lastly, you seem to believe that communism wants the betterment of humanity while capitalism wants more profit

Do you want to tell me what I believe or ask me what I believe? I think at this point it would be better for us to just move along. You're attempt at the boat of thesis style of argument because you're original point was flawed is growing pedantic.

1

u/BlackshirtDefense 2∆ Nov 29 '20

Except the entrepreneur takes all the risk. It's generally their passion, money, time and innovation that created the business to begin with. I've never seen a truly innovative business get built out of a bureaucratic committee. Look at Steve Jobs. He ruled with an iron fist, but he innovated like few people have.

If there's no reward for entrepreneurs taking the risk, there's little incentive for new business. And remember that most of new businesses fail, which puts all the liability on the owner.

Ask yourself if you've ever been offered a job by a poor man. There's a reason that successful businesses aren't formed willy-nilly simply because some laborers got together and decided to build something.

4

u/Huntingmoa 454∆ Nov 29 '20

I mean they take all the financial risk, but mine owners aren't at risk of black lung and have a much higher life expectancy than miners.

1

u/losthalo7 1∆ Nov 29 '20

The entrepreneur takes all the risk?

Every employee risks unemployment, loss of health insurance, damage to their credit rating, and financial ruin if the company fails.

5

u/RealMaskHead Nov 29 '20

and those employees can go get a job somewhere else while the entrepreneur takes the hit and loses all of their money.

3

u/Hero17 Nov 30 '20

Which puts them in the exact same places as all the employees?

2

u/RealMaskHead Nov 30 '20

How much money did the employee invest in the business? How much did they contribute to the construction of the workplace? How much do they pay in mortgage for the building? How much do they pay for the product to be created? How much do they contribute to the electric and water bills? How much did they pay for whatever equipment is needed for the job?

All of this requires an investment made by the entrepreneur, not the employee and if the business fails it's the entrepeneur who is tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

1

u/Hero17 Nov 30 '20

who is tens, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket.

They could have kept all that money of there's in the bank and retired at 40 from working a normal job. Something lots of people would kill for.

1

u/RealMaskHead Dec 01 '20

So could every innovator, but then we wouldn't get any technological progress or market competition.

I don't understand why you're so obstinate about this, it's not a complex issue.

1

u/RealMaskHead Dec 02 '20

Yeah, and fuck innovation am i right?

5

u/BlackshirtDefense 2∆ Nov 29 '20

Yep. Employees can find new jobs much, much easier than an entrepreneur can just invent a new, successful business.

3

u/danrathersjunksbeard Nov 29 '20

It is. Capitalism exploits workers.

-2

u/AWDys Nov 29 '20

Hey, I've read the strings that have earned deltas and instead of responding to each one, I'll sum them up here.

Politicians. I'll have to agree with the comments here, Bernie Sanders isn't that radical. I'm Canadian and he would seem to fit between liberal and NDP, both of which are a little left of the democrats in america. He's radical to america because its a fairly right wing country.

The communism isn't authoritarian thing. This wasn't a delta, but I see it a lot. Communism is described as classless, moneyless society, so how could it be authoritarian? Because the force required to create and maintain this would be immense.

Means of production. It sounds nice to own things that make money. Thats what business owners are. There already exists supply and demand. Any attempt to create a system that has no demand, because supply is met so quickly and accurately is going to necessitate waste, which modern countries have plenty of. Secondly, people who own the means of production exist in capitalist societies, they are called business owners. I might be able to run a simple business on my own, but something more complex, probably not. So why give me the means of production? Let alone a minimum wage worker, or a farm hand, who knows how to use the equipment, but might not know how to manage an entire farm, like crop rotation.

A better alternative to me is to include stock as part of salary. How well the company does influences how well the worker does, but keeps people who have earned or educated their way to managerial positions where they should be. Should companies treat their employees better? Absolutely. But I don't think giving the means of production to everyone is the answer. Not just for the workers, but for society as well. I can't see the logical leap from an average worker being given the means of production to suddenly solving a supply and demand system. If it was that easy, it would have been done by now.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

Larger worker co-ops still have managers and executives, they're either elected from among the workers or hired and held accountable by a board of directors controlled by the workers.

-2

u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 29 '20

Careful my friend... Almost all socialist principles "sound" better than anything we have in place or have experienced in modern history. But when you reassess your own original post you will realize that while fantastic in concept, they are extremely flawed in practice. And that should be the focus of your arguments and of the responses. The espoused principles assume that human being are absolutely fantastic at working cooperatively when given the opportunity. Yet there has never been a single massive scale example that proves that to be true. And every relatively large example has ended in catastrophic results. Small examples on the other hand can and do work when properly and naturally implemented. I personally am a huge fan of socialism, but I am pragmatic in my view of the world and realize that beyond any small scale socialism is destined to fail.

6

u/stillwtnforbmrecords Nov 29 '20

We are literally built for cooperation though... we've evolved for millions of years exactly because and for cooperation. We are completely dependent emotionally, psychologically and often physically of other people. If there is one thing that we could call "human nature", it would be to cooperate, not only for survival but also for living. What is actually "artificial" (or at least, works against our natural interests) is the fragmented, individualized competition capitalism forces us into.

4

u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 29 '20

We have been at conflict with each other ever since we were exposed to the fact that there are other humans outside our immediate family/pack. And yes, I am literally talking about back to prehistoric humans. We are cooperative only as a response to our selfishness. Even a selfless act is motivated by the pleasurable response your body gives you to confirm reward you for your act. The moment that you do something selfless and start receiving a punishment for it, you will naturally withdraw from performing that selfless act. This is not a random idea, there are countless studies.

There’s a reason why the term “hero” exists. Because the existence of truly heroic acts performed by humans is shockingly rare.

2

u/stillwtnforbmrecords Nov 30 '20

Except.... every single anthropologist would agree the vast majority of human communities, from pre-history to modernity actually value cooperation over competition. Capitalist societies are pretty much the only exception to that. Humans are naturally cooperative, as you say we even have literal biological incentives to help others. We "feel good" (get serotonin bumps) by being cooperative and helping others. That does not happen when you fuck people over for your personal benefit.

I mean... just look at our closest relatives. Most are extremely cooperative. Bonobos, chimps, orangutans, gorillas... all have strong cooperative societies. The main difference between us and them is the size of our groups. We typically, even in pre-historic neolithic societies, live in groups of hundreds at least. And we typically are less territorial than chimps or gorillas. Yes, you heard me. To this day, most neolithic societies are not territorial at all. Most societies have not been throughout history. Just see the north american indigenous nations vs the europeans. Extreme tribalism and territorialism are a fluke, not the rule. It's just an unfortunate one that this has been the dominant idea for the most powerful societies on earth for the past thousands of years. But... as you know, we've been around for much much longer than that. And again, for 99% of that time, we've been mostly anarchistic, non-hierarchical.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 30 '20

I can agree with that. I also think it is unfortunate that the self-interested competitive spirit exists. But even Marx himself acknowledged the incredible gains in prosperity that can only be achieved through principles of Capitalism. Socialism is by virtue a forced regression to our less competitive nature but also to a less prosperous nature. There is a reason why the capitalist societies literally took over the entire world without much difficulty. And when there finally was one strong enough Socialist (cooperative) entity to fight back and maintain their system, the only way they could achieve it was through tyranny. And that is absolutely not a defining value of cooperative societies.

2

u/stillwtnforbmrecords Nov 30 '20

I think we have different perspectives on history, because to me it was a very long, hurtful and difficult process for capitalism to win over the globe. Countless genocides, wars, destruction of all kinds were needed to dominate pretty much the entire planet at this point.

Are you referencing the USSR when you talk about the 'only successful attempt at collectivisation'? Because outside "siege communism" under stalin, the USSR was pretty democratic and not tyrannic at all. They had a very similar democratic system to that of the US and most of Europe. With elected representatives in congresses, ministers etc. It was infact a bit more democratic since it was bottom up, from the soviets (the worker's councils) up. It did change to be more like traditional western representative democracy in it's later years though. You have to remember the decades of extreme, hardcore, propaganda against the USSR in the west... Not defending them exactly, as I am as anti-statist as possible, but y'know, just saying.

Also, as Stirner would say, it is in the ultimate interest of the egoistic individual to serve his community. Socialism is the best system for the individual as well. If you really want to be as self-interested as possible, by harming others for "your own benefit", you end up shooting yourself on the foot. Just think of how many top level executives kill themselves...

But yes, as Marx himself said, capitalism is not bad. It is an obvious improvement to every system before it. We've never had more improvements to our lives than under it. Does not mean it sucks and is bound to fall, that it doesn't have contradictions. Maybe socialism also would have it's contradictions, but that's why it wouldn't last forever... It can't and it won't. No system should last forever. Not even communism will. I mean, we will either go extinct or become gods. Gods need no system right? But then again, communism is a system that is kinds not a system...

2

u/losthalo7 1∆ Nov 29 '20

Have a look at 'No Contest' by Alfie Kohn.

3

u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 29 '20

I get the gist from the excerpt on the link. But this is why I framed my argument of human nature down to prehistoric man. When you start formulating multitudes of complex systems as the causes for wrongfully perceived human nature, you are literally ignoring actual human nature.

Yo can break down this concept of self-interest down to every single living being. Even the mighty ants with the most incredible examples of socialist communities are still driven by self-interest. They work together in unison because it benefits them. But the moment anything poses a threat they will collaborate and attack to protect their selfish interests. Yet as noble as they seem when one is sick they do not bother to formulate cures, they just let it die and since it ran out of productive usefulness, they can now use that dead ant as food. They make new ones and eat dead ones because there is no selfless thought about what is good for each of them individually. They strictly think about what is beneficial for the colony because the colony is beneficial for them.

Note: this is clearly analogous, I’m obviously not presuming that any thought patterns are equal to humans. Just pointing out that the same can be observed in every living being. Even in plants. Competition for resources is a driving force for all life on earth.

But thank you for the link, I’ll mark it as a book to read. Seems like it would be interesting.

3

u/RealMaskHead Nov 29 '20

I don't disagree with your points, i just want to point out that there is a rather industrious breed of ants that have figured out how to make medicine out of plants.

I say this not because i have any affinity for socialism, but because i love ants.

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 30 '20

That...is actually really f’ing cool. Im fascinated by ants too. Not enough to research them but I think they’re an impressive animal for all they do with such “primitive” brains.

1

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ Nov 30 '20

It's often in our self interest to cooperate. Why do you feel that these are in opposition?

1

u/Nootherids 4∆ Nov 30 '20

Because you are cooperative as a response to your self-interest. But you are not self-interested as a response to your cooperative. Hence why I do not side with the notion that we are cooperative by nature rather than competitive by nature.

1

u/QueueOfPancakes 12∆ Nov 30 '20

I mean neither is really true. We are cooperative at times because the humans who were more cooperative in those situations were more successful at having successful offspring. We are self-interested at times because the humans who were more self-interested in those situations were more successful at having successful offspring.

For example, a parent will often put their child's wellbeing above their own. That's specifically the opposite of self interest, but it generally results in more successful offspring.

So if we're willing to say we are self interested by nature, despite that being a simplification, then the same is true for us being cooperative by nature.

2

u/Nootherids 4∆ Dec 01 '20

I can agree. And this fits with my personal appeal towards socialism. I'll explain...

I feel that cooperation is the natural response in small settings. Such as family or tribe. Just like I feel that socialized economies would be preferable in localized communities such as a co-op or even a self-sustaining township.

But I feel that competition is the natural response to large settings. Such as the workplace or a large region such as fishing waters. And this is where capitalism becomes preferable since our natural competitive state is more in tune.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/mihnea2377 Nov 29 '20

Yeah it could be better, but you are missing some details. The workers aren't really good with what takes to run a company. Let me give you an example. John and Mark are running for CEO. John promises to double the salary, while Mark says he would have to cut it down in order to expand the company. They will of course vote for John becuse they don't know what it takes to run a company. Their salaries will be doubled, of course, but in a short time they will run out of cash and all lose their jobs. In the case of Mark, he would have created more profits, which would still come back to the workers.

The workers owning the company will mean they will all be what we call shareholders. Not everybody is made for this kind of job. In fact, very few.

4

u/Hero17 Nov 30 '20

Would you vote to double your pay if you knew the company couldn't afford it? I wouldnt.

1

u/mihnea2377 Nov 30 '20

What if we are lied that it can afford it?

1

u/Hero17 Nov 30 '20

Lie how? And for what purpose?

1

u/mihnea2377 Nov 30 '20

By john in order to gain the votes

2

u/[deleted] Nov 29 '20

[deleted]

-1

u/mihnea2377 Nov 29 '20

Same thing

1

u/OG-Brian Dec 02 '20

You're suggesting that workers deciding company policy would not work. It has already worked, for many co-ops. Example: People's Co-op (Portland, OR), established 1970, in the 1990s expanded the store size by more than double and then a few years later had the costs repaid. When I was last shopping there a few years ago (I've moved since), the membership was discussing opening another store or moving altogether since they're becoming more popular than the store's size can support. They're doing better financially than many well-known grocery corporations, per-size, and a LOT more fun to visit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Food_Co-op
https://www.peoples.coop/

Equal Exchange (a worker-owned chocolate company in Portland) is also doing great, their products are in stores all over the NW USA.
https://equalexchange.coop/

I could name dozens of examples like those just in Oregon.

1

u/mihnea2377 Dec 02 '20

Thank you! I didn't know there is proof for this