PDA

View Full Version : Democratically Run Corporations



CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 07:07 AM
I've seen Wei Wu Wei--and other liberals outside this forum, including Michael Moore, tout the idea of having corporations be run as a democracy--where every decision is made by a vote of it's employees.
What I want to know is why anyone would ever support such a system? Sure, such a system MIGHT be good for a small to medium sized company, but if you want to expand let's say to 1,000 employees, 2000 employees, you're not going to get much consensus and the corporation will be in gridlock.

I've noticed a lot of liberals seem to have a huge beef with CEOs--Why? I think this idea of a "Democratically run corporation" is an extension of the anti-CEO/corporation mindset. And really, saying they're Democratically run is being fair. The way these systems work is basically Marxist--Putting the means of production (in this case, control of the company) in the hands of the Proletariat--the workers. It doesn't work and would only kill corporate growth. And forget the idea of mergers and acquisitions with this kind of corporate set up.

djones520
10-07-2010, 07:28 AM
Yeah... shareholders. Thats what they do. They elect the people to make the decisions, things like that.

Just like we do with our government. Go figure.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 07:30 AM
Yeah... shareholders. Thats what they do. They elect the people to make the decisions, things like that.

Just like we do with our government. Go figure.

I'm not talking about a shareholder system. I'm talking about a company like Michael Moore or We Wu Wei pushed where the workers--not the shareholders--are literally in charge. Similar, but also quite different.

I personally love the idea of a powerful CEO in a corporation. I don't believe in workplace democracy outside of the idea of shareholders.

djones520
10-07-2010, 07:32 AM
I'm not talking about a shareholder system. I'm talking about a company like Michael Moore or We Wu Wei pushed where the workers--not the shareholders--are literally in charge.

And how would that ever work?

djones520
10-07-2010, 07:37 AM
So lets look at small businesses. Why should the person who put the capital forward to create the business, give joe schmoe that he hired off the street any decision in how the business operates?

Why should High School Diploma Bob working the stamping press get any say in trade agreements with other companies that have been designed by people who spent years learning the skill to create those, and months working the deals out?

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 07:38 AM
The workers ARE the "shareholders" because they literally own the company. Sometimes companies are declared public and their assets and production can be put to public good if it's a necessary item like food or medicine.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 07:39 AM
And how would that ever work?

I have no idea. I'm not pushing this idea. I'm asking people like Wu Wei, who have pushed this kind of system, to tell me how it would work.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 07:40 AM
The workers ARE the "shareholders" because they literally own the company. Sometimes companies are declared public and their assets and production can be put to public good if it's a necessary item like food or medicine.

And if it's a say 20,000 person company, should all 20,000 employees own the company collectively?

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 07:42 AM
It's similar to cooperative farm operations where people divide up the labor and also all of the food produced. These small-scale cooperative living arrangements are extremely efficient and work to fulfill their purpose. These that I've seen usually aim simply at producing what they need, not producing a profit, but a company can still produce a profit while keeping the interest of the workers in mind (albiet not usually a huge enormous profit, but healthy profits divided up more equitabally so for almost everyone working (except upper management), this results of a pay increase.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 07:43 AM
And if it's a say 20,000 person company, should all 20,000 employees own the company collectively?

It can be broken up or joined together. Say each branch can be divided up, they can make decisions on small scales and vote for group representatives for large scale decisions. This is like saying democracy isn't possible todaybecause "pure direct democracy" isn't realistic with large societies.

djones520
10-07-2010, 07:46 AM
Ok, you still need to answer the question of why the people who put forth the capital who create these businesses should give the people THEY hire an equal ownership stock of their property.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 07:48 AM
Ok, you still need to answer the question of why the people who put forth the capital who create these businesses should give the people THEY hire an equal ownership stock of their property.

Actually this can be beneficial for the entrepenuers if done right:


Like other business creation support schemes, Business and employment co-operatives (BECs) enable budding entrepreneurs to experiment with their business idea while benefiting from a secure income. The innovation BECs introduce is that once the business is established the entrepreneur is not forced to leave and set up independently, but can stay and become a full member of the co-operative. The micro-enterprises thus combine to form one multi-activity enterprise whose members provide a mutually supportive environment for each other.

A BEC thus provides budding business people with an easy transition from inactivity to self-employment, but in a collective framework. Intending entrepreneurs pass through three stages:

* First, they remain technically unemployed but develop their business idea under the wing of the BEC;
* Next, if it looks like being a success, they become a ‘salaried entrepreneur’ with the security of a part-time employment contract;
* Finally they become a self-sufficient business, sharing in the ownership and management of the co-operative.

BECs allow a small business person to achieve control over their working life, but with the support of a group of people who are facing the same problems and want to pool their enthusiasm and expertise. They help to overcome one of the most discouraging features of becoming self-employed – isolation. They thus lower the bar for becoming an entrepreneur, and open up new horizons for people who have ambition but who lack the skills or confidence needed to set off entirely on their own – or who simply want to carry on an in dependent economic activity but within a supportive group context.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 07:51 AM
Basically what they've tried is not forcing entrepenuers to fork up the capital. Instead they only need the ideas, the skills, and the desire. They are then given support to develop the idea, and once the idea is developed they can work for their company and be a part of it and benefit from it, along with everyone else who can participate:



Stage 1 – Supported entrepreneur

Initially, the 'candidate business' works up their idea while remaining legally unemployed. They continue to receive unemployment benefit while developing a marketable product or service, testing the market and establishing a client base. The BEC handles the business administration and accounting.

Stage 2 - Salaried entrepreneur

The entrepreneur agrees to a part-time employment contract with the BEC, and in return pays over 10% of sales. They continue to build up the business and receive training, administrative support, and social insurance coverage. The salary grows as the business grows.

Stage 3 - Member entrepreneur

When the business is self-supporting, the entrepreneur can choose to join the BEC as a full voting member, and take part in its management, continuing to pay an administration charge of 10% of sales. Optionally, the business can spin off as a totally independent entity.




This is a very pro-business plan, it's just anti-one-person-exploiting-every-other-person.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 07:56 AM
I'm not talking about a shareholder system. I'm talking about a company like Michael Moore or We Wu Wei pushed where the workers--not the shareholders--are literally in charge. Similar, but also quite different.

Totally unworkeable.

An ordinary staffer does not have the skillset or ability to make such decisions, as they are not trained and qualified to be involved in such decisions. Sixty different people and sixty different ideas on how to run things?

No.


I personally love the idea of a powerful CEO in a corporation. I don't believe in workplace democracy outside of the idea of shareholders.

Precisely. I'll give you an example.. a company I worked with did a merge with another organisation offshore. The logistics and law and procedures, not to mention the complexities involved, are tremendous.


And if it's a say 20,000 person company, should all 20,000 employees own the company collectively?

No, How can they? If they have the funds to be able to do this, why would they be working in the first place? A 20,000 employee company would have a turnover in the billions...Joe Mail Room wouldn't have the first idea where to begin..or he wouldnt be a drone in a mail room.


It can be broken up or joined together.

And just how much time in the workforce do you have, pray tell?


Say each branch can be divided up, they can make decisions on small scales and vote for group representatives for large scale decisions

Like a major share issue, an IPO, a merger, the decision whether or not to leave as plant open? Not even remotely possible, as they do not have the knowledge and understanding of the issues and complexities involved.

And the law and the procedures.....their skills and abilities fall far short of even beginning to understand what is involved.


This is like saying democracy isn't possible today because "pure direct democracy" isn't realistic with large societies.

Cases are not parallel and you know it.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 07:56 AM
What's wrong with a more typical corporation, with a CEO and Divisional Heads or Executives running the company? Personally one of my favorite companies was one which was run by the founder, who was also the CEO and Chairman of the Board. He and his wife (who was the co-founder), along with members of the board and several appointed executives were shareholders.

That company ran incredibly well from their founding in 1979 to 1995 with steadily increasing growth, and in 1995 the company exploded in growth by acquiring smaller companies over the next year and a half. They themselves were bought out in 1996 by a massive corporation; At the time, they were the largest and most profitable company in their industry. They continued expanding until 1998.

Sadly, the company that bought them out turned out to be incredibly corrupt (Cendant) and the scandal of their parent company resulted in a gigantic loss of profitability for them.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 07:57 AM
This is a very pro-business plan, it's just anti-one-person-exploiting-every-other-person.

Where do you work?

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 08:06 AM
Totally unworkeable.

An ordinary staffer does not have the skillset or ability to make such decisions, as they are not trained and qualified to be involved in such decisions. Sixty different people and sixty different ideas on how to run things?

Two things:

1. This is why education is extremely important for everyone.
2. Just because it's democratic doesn't mean everything is done by vote and every vote is a simple majority - this is the most basic form of democracy but we all know this doesn't work. A business coop can use representatives when dealing with larger-scale decisions, and they can also hire managers who also vote and are given the authority (and higher pay for the responsibility and skills) to make micromanagement decisions that perhaps don't require calling a vote for every issue.



No, How can they? If they have the funds to be able to do this, why would they be working in the first place? A 20,000 employee company would have a turnover in the billions...Joe Mail Room wouldn't have the first idea where to begin..or he wouldnt be a drone in a mail room.

You're still working in the old framework. I'm proposing a plan where you don't have to be super wealthy to own a company, you only need your sweat and labor ethic. You are workingin the framework that says workers shoudln't be self-governed or self-actualized.




And just how much time in the workforce do you have, pray tell?

Plenty.




Like a major share issue, an IPO, a merger, the decision whether or not to leave as plant open? Not even remotely possible, as they do not have the knowledge and understanding of the issues and complexities involved.

And the law and the procedures.....their skills and abilities fall far short of even beginning to understand what is involved.



Cases are not parallel and you know it.


Again you are assuming that workers are too dumb or unskilled to make proper decisions. I will not argue that there are plenty of aspects of running a business that the average worker isn't knowledgable about, this is why workers are more than able to employ more business partners (more workers) as managers, or even CEOs.

The difference is that they aren't claiming ownership over all of the production, and that from this framework decisions are made from the working people up. A CEO of this company is no longer forced (by competition with other CEOs) to drop labor costs as low as possible or cut corners on workplace safety or workers benefits. They can still make a lot of money without being greedy and taking health benefits from everyone else (some working business cooperative CEO's make 2-5 times the amount of a worker, while with our current system a CEO can make more in a single hour than their worker makes in a year).

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 08:12 AM
What's wrong with a more typical corporation, with a CEO and Divisional Heads or Executives running the company? Personally one of my favorite companies was one which was run by the founder, who was also the CEO and Chairman of the Board. He and his wife (who was the co-founder), along with members of the board and several appointed executives were shareholders.

That company ran incredibly well from their founding in 1979 to 1995 with steadily increasing growth, and in 1995 the company exploded in growth by acquiring smaller companies over the next year and a half. They themselves were bought out in 1996 by a massive corporation; At the time, they were the largest and most profitable company in their industry. They continued expanding until 1998.

Sadly, the company that bought them out turned out to be incredibly corrupt (Cendant) and the scandal of their parent company resulted in a gigantic loss of profitability for them.

There's nothing wrong with it if your only goal is profits at the expense of literally any other concern that may arise.

It's not wrong because it's not producing enough profits (the vast majority of which goes to a few people with majority stock share or billion-dollar-compensation packages) it's wrong because it's organizational structure is exploitative to it's employees, to it's consumers, and to the community surrounding it. It actively drains our society because even if it's bad for 90% of us, as long as it benefits the ruling class it's still okay.

Then we wonder how politicians (from both parties which are Sold Out) can cut taxes on the wealthiest people in the world, then start 2 wars, then when we run out of money we raise the retirement age for social security benefits? This should be (I think) clear as day how one group is exploiting the other.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 08:14 AM
I find it interesting that for an ideological wing (right wing, capitalists, conservatives) that thinks corporations should NOT be run like democracies, they consistently elect former CEO's or business execs into public office and often allude to running government in the same fashion as running a business.

Absurd? I think so.

Does this mean they want our government to be run like a private business? and democracy doesn't belong in the workplace? ahhhh

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 08:27 AM
Again you are assuming that workers are too dumb or unskilled to make proper decisions.

Because they are. Fact.


I will not argue that there are plenty of aspects of running a business that the average worker isn't knowledgable about, this is why workers are more than able to employ more business partners (more workers) as managers, or even CEOs.

The difference is that they aren't claiming ownership over all of the production, and that from this framework decisions are made from the working people up

Except that the CEO is in charge, and more often than not, it's HIS company that HE started and HIS money invested.


. A CEO of this company is no longer forced (by competition with other CEOs) to drop labor costs as low as possible or cut corners on workplace safety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_safety) or workers benefits.

A blatant lie. There are already laws in place re occupational health and safety.


They can still make a lot of money without being greedy and taking health benefits from everyone else (some working business cooperative CEO's make 2-5 times the amount of a worker, while with our current system a CEO can make more in a single hour than their worker makes in a year).

Because they are way smarter than the moron who empties the garbage and the market pays them what they are worth.

Where do you work?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 08:27 AM
I find it interesting that for an ideological wing (right wing, capitalists, conservatives) that thinks corporations should NOT be run like democracies, they consistently elect former CEO's or business execs into public office and often allude to running government in the same fashion as running a business.

Absurd? I think so.

Does this mean they want our government to be run like a private business? and democracy doesn't belong in the workplace? ahhhh

I think when people say they think the government should be run like a business, they mean that the government should be fiscally responsible and should spend within it's means, similar to any successful business. Wanting former CEOs in elected office is a reflection of that idea--A CEO who ran a company well and in the black could responsibly bring this country back into the black.
The Federal Government (I'm talking solely the Executive Branch) is as it is run like a corporation anyway, except it's a corporation that's exceeding it's boundaries. A person who has both political experience, that is, knowing the limits placed on government by the constitution, with a working experience of successfully running a business into the black, could be a good mix.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 08:35 AM
I find it interesting that for an ideological wing (right wing, capitalists, conservatives) that thinks corporations should NOT be run like democracies, they consistently elect former CEO's or business execs into public office and often allude to running government in the same fashion as running a business.

Because they have the experience and the training, such as managing billion dollar budgets.

Can you do this?


Absurd? I think so.

You? Definitely.


Does this mean they want our government to be run like a private business? and democracy doesn't belong in the workplace

If we had a government that wasn't in deficit, yes. Means lower taxes, higher wages, less inflation, lower prices on basic goods and a high employment rate. A nation or state that has a positive balance of payments is doing it right, a state or government that fucks up and winds up trillions of dollars in debt and slams the taxpayer with added charges for the "welfare state" deserves the boot.

If more governments were run like businesses, to make profit and cause its citizens tio pay LESS tax, we'd all be better off. I want whats earned by me, to be kept by me, not to be taxed out of existence to pay for some doper fuckwit who hasnt worked a day in his or her life.

Bad government takes from me the fruits of MY labour and MY work, to subsidise some pov who wants to sit on his couch and eat Cheetos all day whilst posting on DU.

Or to pay for "green power" based on a massive hoax for an artificial crisis called "global warming", which is nothing more than a grab for power. I want to pay LESS TAX, not more.

I want less government, not more.

I want less government intrusion into my life, less "nanny state" crap.

WHERE DO YOU WORK?

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 08:35 AM
Because they are. Fact.

You may think the vast majority of Americans are stupid, I think they should be empowered.




Except that the CEO is in charge, and more often than not, it's HIS company that HE started and HIS money invested.

Yes, this claim of ownership is the best argument FOR the status quo "BUT IT'S MIINNEEE!"




A blatant lie. There are already laws in place re occupational health and safety.

You means laws that only exist thanks to socialist activists, workers rights groups, and union-backed strikes?

The capitalist class fought tooth and nail to keep workplace safety laws in the bag, as well as fighting minimum wage every step of the way, also child labor laws and basic workplace standards like overtime.

It's NOT in their interests to have these things, anything that benefits the majority of Americans at the expense of the ruling class isn't considered in our society, our entire system is made by and made for the ruling elite.




Because they are way smarter than the moron who empties the garbage and the market pays them what they are worth.

"the market" doesn't exist. There's no invisible hand. the owner pays him as litlte as he can get away with, and without loads of capital of his own, the worker cannot fight back, and must accept the measly table scraps tossed to him.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 08:38 AM
I think when people say they think the government should be run like a business, they mean that the government should be fiscally responsible and should spend within it's means, similar to any successful business. Wanting former CEOs in elected office is a reflection of that idea--A CEO who ran a company well and in the black could responsibly bring this country back into the black.
The Federal Government (I'm talking solely the Executive Branch) is as it is run like a corporation anyway, except it's a corporation that's exceeding it's boundaries. A person who has both political experience, that is, knowing the limits placed on government by the constitution, with a working experience of successfully running a business into the black, could be a good mix.

Successful CEO's are skilled at funneling massive amounts of money upwards into the hands of a few people. This is who I want running my country.

CEOs are supposed to demonstrate profits, governments are not. Governments are expected to pay out entitlement programs that tax payers pay into , while business leaders are doing everything they can to cut these programs.

Today we have pharmaceutical companies burning huge stockpiles of medicines and vaccines because they can't sell them at a profit, while people are dying of illness.

We have farms burning huge stocks of food to keep the price artificially inflated, while people are literally starving in the streets.

The Dollar Before The People

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 08:41 AM
You may think the vast majority of Americans are stupid, I think they should be empowered.

I think you're an idiot with a serious case of wallet envy.


Yes, this claim of ownership is the best argument FOR the status quo "BUT IT'S MIINNEEE!"

Yes it is, they worked for it, they made it work, they spent fifteen hour days, they took all the risks. It's theirs.


You means laws that only exist thanks to socialist activists, workers rights groups, and union-backed strikes?

No, as a matter of fact,The evolotion of those laws and practises is far more complex than that.


The capitalist class fought tooth and nail to keep workplace safety laws in the bag, as well as fighting minimum wage every step of the way, also child labor laws and basic workplace standards like overtime.

Wrong.


It's NOT in their interests to have these things, anything that benefits the majority of Americans at the expense of the ruling class isn't considered in our society, our entire system is made by and made for the ruling elite.

There is no ruling class, there is no ruling elite save in that fevered imagination of yours that is drooling at the very tiny chance to get your hands on money you never worked for

What is a socialist?
One who has yearnings
For equal division of unequal earnings
Idler or drug addict, they yell and they holler
To fork out their dime and pocket your dollar.

Sod off, swampy.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 08:43 AM
Successful CEO's are skilled at funneling massive amounts of money upwards into the hands of a few people. This is who I want running my country.

Successful CEO's ruin companies that employ thousands of people. Bad CEO's or Presidents like Oblahblah send people into debt and unemployment.


CEOs are supposed to demonstrate profits, governments are not. Governments are expected to pay out entitlement programs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entitlement_programs) that tax payers pay into , while business leaders are doing everything they can to cut these programs.

Where's it say that in the US Constitution?


Today we have pharmaceutical companies burning huge stockpiles of medicines and vaccines because they can't sell them at a profit, while people are dying of illness.

Proof.


We have farms burning huge stocks of food to keep the price artificially inflated, while people are literally starving in the streets.

The Dollar Before The People

Prove it.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 08:45 AM
If we had a government that wasn't in deficit, yes. Means lower taxes, higher wages, less inflation, lower prices on basic goods and a high employment rate.

How is this run like a business? Business want to maximize money coming in and minimize cost, so shouldn't they INCREASE taxes and decrease entitlement spending?

Also, why is a deficit inherently bad? Don't businesses take on debt all the time? That's part of growth in our system.


A nation or state that has a positive balance of payments is doing it right, a state or government that fucks up and winds up trillions of dollars in debt and slams the taxpayer with added charges for the "welfare state" deserves the boot.

Wall Street elites and bankers crashed the economy, and they benefited enormously from it.

Our wealthy elite is doing better today than they have in years, while the rest of working America is suffering through a recession.

They're doing so great because we bailed them out, so that we could save our precious capitalist system AT ANY COST.

Totally wrong on every level.


If more governments were run like businesses, to make profit and cause its citizens tio pay LESS tax, we'd all be better off. I want whats earned by me, to be kept by me, not to be taxed out of existence to pay for some doper fuckwit who hasnt worked a day in his or her life.

Bad government takes from me the fruits of MY labour and MY work, to subsidise some pov who wants to sit on his couch and eat Cheetos all day whilst posting on DU.

No see that's the whole point, this is about giving power who DO work.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 08:48 AM
No see that's the whole point, this is about giving power who DO work.

Where have you worked, and where do you work now?

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 08:53 AM
Example: I design a computer game, taking three years of all my own work to create it.It sells madly and brings in millions.I then start a company and hire people..and you seem to think that they have some "right" to the benefits of something they did NOTHING to create?

Why the hell should I?

What did they do to earn what I worked my ass off for?

Nothing...therefore they are "entitled" to jack shit. Let them work alone for three years and create a game and market it and perfect it themselves.

It's mine.
I worked for it
I made it.
I marketed it.
I worked night and day for years.
I live in a major mansion with a nice car and my family want for nothing.

Why?

Because of me. Not because of anyone else. Me. I don't work to give some jackass druggie a free ride because he is "entitled"..he is "entitled" to NOTHING.

You dont like that?

Tough shit.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 09:02 AM
This, by the way, from a troll, who thinks that someone has the "right" to break into a home to "steal food" :rolleyes:

No one has a "RIGHT" to commit a crime.

warpig
10-07-2010, 09:57 AM
One can look at the state of Chrysler before Iaccoca took over to get a sense of how that can go wrong. Production just produced cars, irregardless of what sales needed and they developed huge back lots of vehicles no one was selling or ordering. Yet the workers worked everyday, even when not needed. When Iaccoca took over he stopped the practice, sent cars out to the dealers, lowered the inventory and set the company on a path to recovery where they paid back the loan they received years early.
A co-oped company would be like any other government run office, the buck stops no where.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 09:58 AM
I find it interesting that for an ideological wing (right wing, capitalists, conservatives) that thinks corporations should NOT be run like democracies, they consistently elect former CEO's or business execs into public office and often allude to running government in the same fashion as running a business.

Absurd? I think so.

Does this mean they want our government to be run like a private business? and democracy doesn't belong in the workplace? ahhhh


Where have you worked, and where do you work now?

He's been asked that many times by different people here and has refused to answer.

Odysseus
10-07-2010, 10:04 AM
The workers ARE the "shareholders" because they literally own the company. Sometimes companies are declared public and their assets and production can be put to public good if it's a necessary item like food or medicine.
You may want to look up the definition of "ownership". Seriously.

It's similar to cooperative farm operations where people divide up the labor and also all of the food produced. These small-scale cooperative living arrangements are extremely efficient and work to fulfill their purpose. These that I've seen usually aim simply at producing what they need, not producing a profit, but a company can still produce a profit while keeping the interest of the workers in mind (albiet not usually a huge enormous profit, but healthy profits divided up more equitabally so for almost everyone working (except upper management), this results of a pay increase.

And they invarably fail. The Jamestown and Massachussetts Bay colonies were originally set up on those lines, and the results were that the colonies almost perished. The colonists eventually abandoned the model and moved to a system of individually owned holdings.

I have to ask this, although I'm dreading the answer. Just what subject do you teach?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 10:06 AM
You may want to look up the definition of "ownership". Seriously.


And they invarably fail. The Jamestown and Massachussetts Bay colonies were originally set up on those lines, and the results were that the colonies almost perished. The colonists eventually abandoned the model and moved to a system of individually owned holdings.

I have to ask this, although I'm dreading the answer. Just what subject do you teach?

I'm going to guess either History, Constitutional Law (or some Political Sci course), or Sociology.

Gingersnap
10-07-2010, 11:00 AM
And how would that ever work?

It would work exactly like family-owned businesses work right now. If your family owns a business, you'll know exactly what I mean. Either everybody works like dogs both on and off the clock or some people don't work as hard and they get a huge ration of shit 24/7 for being slackers. Everybody gets the free bonus of gossip and intrusive peer pressure. Hiring is done collectively so if you don't have an in with the family, your application gets thrown out. If you do get hired because you're dating the first cousin of the supervisor, you'd better treat that girl right because they'll all stick up for her (even if she's a psycho bitch) and they'll get rid of you.

Even if collective businesses start out with relative strangers, over time they become like families and not in a Hallmark kind of way. There's a lot of ideological, lifestyle, and political conformity required. The peer pressure is brutal because there is no way to appeal to an "uninterested" authority. Where simple majorities decide policy, all it takes is one extra vote to send the business down the road to disaster. That's why so many collective work efforts have failed in this country and we've been trying it in one form or another for hundreds of years.

NJCardFan
10-07-2010, 12:10 PM
I find it interesting that for an ideological wing (right wing, capitalists, conservatives) that thinks corporations should NOT be run like democracies, they consistently elect former CEO's or business execs into public office and often allude to running government in the same fashion as running a business.

The fact that Wee Wee cannot see the difference is pretty sad. I'm going to try to break this down for him like he's a 2 year old...at least his brain is:

I want to own a Widgit factory. I go borrow the capital to start said factory. I am risking my neck to do so. I get said factory built, then I hire people to produce these Widgits. I hire 50 people to make these widgits. Now I ask. These 50 people did not put one dime into the start up to this company while I put myself in debt. So, why should I turn the operation of my factory over to them? I'm the one ultimately at risk here. Now, if these 50 people paid me an equal share of the startup cost, then yes, they would have an equal say but since they didn't, they either run things my way or they can go somewhere else to work.

Now, let's look at the way government works. The government takes from the people the capital it needs and, unlike a business, if it overspends, it takes more and more. If a business ran the same way the government runs, it would be bankrupt in 15 minutes.

djones520
10-07-2010, 12:15 PM
It would work exactly like family-owned businesses work right now. If your family owns a business, you'll know exactly what I mean. Either everybody works like dogs both on and off the clock or some people don't work as hard and they get a huge ration of shit 24/7 for being slackers. Everybody gets the free bonus of gossip and intrusive peer pressure. Hiring is done collectively so if you don't have an in with the family, your application gets thrown out. If you do get hired because you're dating the first cousin of the supervisor, you'd better treat that girl right because they'll all stick up for her (even if she's a psycho bitch) and they'll get rid of you.

Even if collective businesses start out with relative strangers, over time they become like families and not in a Hallmark kind of way. There's a lot of ideological, lifestyle, and political conformity required. The peer pressure is brutal because there is no way to appeal to an "uninterested" authority. Where simple majorities decide policy, all it takes is one extra vote to send the business down the road to disaster. That's why so many collective work efforts have failed in this country and we've been trying it in one form or another for hundreds of years.

Which fails to answer my question. How would that ever work? This is America. Home of the lazy.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 12:17 PM
It would work exactly like family-owned businesses work right now. If your family owns a business, you'll know exactly what I mean. Either everybody works like dogs both on and off the clock or some people don't work as hard and they get a huge ration of shit 24/7 for being slackers. Everybody gets the free bonus of gossip and intrusive peer pressure. Hiring is done collectively so if you don't have an in with the family, your application gets thrown out. If you do get hired because you're dating the first cousin of the supervisor, you'd better treat that girl right because they'll all stick up for her (even if she's a psycho bitch) and they'll get rid of you.

Even if collective businesses start out with relative strangers, over time they become like families and not in a Hallmark kind of way. There's a lot of ideological, lifestyle, and political conformity required. The peer pressure is brutal because there is no way to appeal to an "uninterested" authority. Where simple majorities decide policy, all it takes is one extra vote to send the business down the road to disaster. That's why so many collective work efforts have failed in this country and we've been trying it in one form or another for hundreds of years.

It doesn't have to be micromanaged by simple majority votes. Managers and other specialists can be hired. Rules like 2/3rd votes for important issues can work too

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 12:18 PM
There is nothing wrong with Democratically run business. As long as they use THEIR private property. Don't tell me how to use mine. After all, running a business as you see fit is the essence of freedom.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 12:21 PM
Which fails to answer my question. How would that ever work? This is America. Home of the lazy.

people don't have the consciousness for freedom? change their material circumstances, and it will change their consciousness. Let them know their hand is on their own drivers wheel, that they are being given responsibility over more aspects of their lives and also more rights. Let people become more self-determined and these terrible work habits will go away.

It's easy to slack off and blank out if you're going to a job you hate just so you can pay your bills, but if youre working on something that matters to you, like building your own addition to your home or planting your own garden or making decisions towards your own cooperative company, it's actually rewarding. There's something intrinsically good about hard work, given that the person knows to what end they are working and they are personally motivated.

Odysseus
10-07-2010, 12:21 PM
I'm going to guess either History, Constitutional Law (or some Political Sci course), or Sociology.

Sociology might make sense, but I can't imagine him teaching poli sci. He is just too ignorant of history and too ideologically blinkered to be any good at it (which doesn't exclude it as a subject, it just means that the schools are in worse shape than we thought). But, it definitely has to be a soft area. A math or science teacher would be more grounded in reality, and even a gym teacher would have a better understanding of human nature and competition. If he taught a foreign language, he'd be constantly writing in that language to show up our "ignorance", so that's unlikely, and there's no way that he teaches anything associated with classics. I'm guessing that he teaches a particularly fluffy English curriculum, the kind where they read authors based on gender or race, rather than quality (they might as well select them based on height), or possibly a music or art course. Of course, that's assuming that he teaches at the high or middle school level. If he's on the faculty of a college (community, rather than university), he could teach anything from Gameboy studies to Medievel Basket Weaving.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 12:23 PM
There is nothing wrong with Democratically run business. As long as they use THEIR private property. Don't tell me how to use mine. After all, running a business as you see fit is the essence of freedom.

How exactly is the essence of freedom in running a business?

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 12:24 PM
For the record, I'm not interested in giving out my personal identifiable information to a bunch of pissed off internet creeps. That's not how I roll.

I know you guys may care an awful lot about me, but I'd rather talk about the issues. I'm glad this thread was posted.

Zafod
10-07-2010, 12:29 PM
I think the chickens have come home to roost in wie wie boys empty head....

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 12:30 PM
You may want to look up the definition of "ownership". Seriously.


And they invarably fail. The Jamestown and Massachussetts Bay colonies were originally set up on those lines, and the results were that the colonies almost perished. The colonists eventually abandoned the model and moved to a system of individually owned holdings.

I have to ask this, although I'm dreading the answer. Just what subject do you teach?


How exactly is the essence of freedom in running a business?

By starting a business, choosing who you want to be hire, choosing how the earnings are to be divied up, who will own the company etc.
And if you join a company, you are playing by their own rules. No one is forcing you join them or remain with them.

Zafod
10-07-2010, 12:30 PM
For the record, I'm not interested in giving out my personal identifiable information to a bunch of pissed off internet creeps. That's not how I roll.

I know you guys may care an awful lot about me, but I'd rather talk about the issues. I'm glad this thread was posted.

pussy.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 12:31 PM
For the record, I'm not interested in giving out my personal identifiable information to a bunch of pissed off internet creeps. That's not how I roll.

I know you guys may care an awful lot about me, but I'd rather talk about the issues. I'm glad this thread was posted.

We're not asking for where you work, just what subject you teach.

Gingersnap
10-07-2010, 12:37 PM
people don't have the consciousness for freedom? change their material circumstances, and it will change their consciousness. Let them know their hand is on their own drivers wheel, that they are being given responsibility over more aspects of their lives and also more rights. Let people become more self-determined and these terrible work habits will go away.

It's easy to slack off and blank out if you're going to a job you hate just so you can pay your bills, but if youre working on something that matters to you, like building your own addition to your home or planting your own garden or making decisions towards your own cooperative company, it's actually rewarding. There's something intrinsically good about hard work, given that the person knows to what end they are working and they are personally motivated.

This is true, unfortunately, most "work" is not the intrinsically rewarding kind. You're talking about the pleasure that comes from mastering and implementing craft skills. Most work today is necessarily detached from any easily seen end product.

Aside from that, collectives are still psychologically abusive to members who don't share the company view.

Sonnabend
10-07-2010, 12:38 PM
people don't have the consciousness for freedom? change their material circumstances, and it will change their consciousness. Let them know their hand is on their own drivers wheel, that they are being given responsibility over more aspects of their lives and also more rights.

..and just what rights would those be, pray tell? The rights over other people's property, savings, businesses.?

What rights? Explain.


Let people become more self-determined and these terrible work habits will go away.

They can do that now.


It's easy to slack off and blank out if you're going to a job you hate just so you can pay your bills, but if youre working on something that matters to you, like building your own addition to your home or planting your own garden or making decisions towards your own cooperative company, it's actually rewarding. There's something intrinsically good about hard work, given that the person knows to what end they are working and they are personally motivated.

..and then be told to hand over those hard earned benefits to someone else because they" have a right to them?" :rolleyes:

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 12:48 PM
How exactly is the essence of freedom in running a business?

I should have said using your private property as you see fit is the essence of freedom.

You know self ownership....fruits of your labor.....things socialists have no use for.

Go ask a Native American about the importance of property rights.

Bailey
10-07-2010, 12:50 PM
For the record, I'm not interested in giving out my personal identifiable information to a bunch of pissed off internet creeps. That's not how I roll.

I know you guys may care an awful lot about me, but I'd rather talk about the issues. I'm glad this thread was posted.

Why cant you answer the question? What subject do you teach? If you think that will identify you then you're a bigger dummie then I thought.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 01:44 PM
This is true, unfortunately, most "work" is not the intrinsically rewarding kind. You're talking about the pleasure that comes from mastering and implementing craft skills. Most work today is necessarily detached from any easily seen end product.

That's why it helps if workers have more say in their job. I mean someone still needs to be a janitor but if the janitor feels like he is an equal part of the company and has an input in how things are run, then even his work is a rewarding part of his life.




..and just what rights would those be, pray tell? The rights over other people's property, savings, businesses.?

Rights to affordable health insurance. Rights to quality education. Rights to affordable housing. Rights to safe working conditions. Rights to the fruits of one's own labor. Rights to all the basics needed to live and the opportunity to pursue happiness and luxury.





..and then be told to hand over those hard earned benefits to someone else because they" have a right to them?" :rolleyes:

No not at all, the hard earned benefits belong to the people who do the work.

JB
10-07-2010, 01:58 PM
For the record, I'm not interested in giving out my personal identifiable information to a bunch of pissed off internet creeps. That's not how I roll.

I know you guys may care an awful lot about me, but I'd rather talk about the issues. I'm glad this thread was posted.Get over yourself. No one cares anything about you. We already know you roll commie.

And hey, Dum-Dum...you do realize your IP address is giving out more personally identifiable information to site management than saying "I teach English" ever could? Badcat could find you in three seconds.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 02:31 PM
For the record, I'm not interested in giving out my personal identifiable information to a bunch of pissed off internet creeps. That's not how I roll.

I know you guys may care an awful lot about me, but I'd rather talk about the issues. I'm glad this thread was posted.


That's why it helps if workers have more say in their job. I mean someone still needs to be a janitor but if the janitor feels like he is an equal part of the company and has an input in how things are run, then even his work is a rewarding part of his life.





Rights to affordable health insurance. Rights to quality education. Rights to affordable housing. Rights to safe working conditions. Rights to the fruits of one's own labor. Rights to all the basics needed to live and the opportunity to pursue happiness and luxury.






No not at all, the hard earned benefits belong to the people who do the work.

The janitor is just that, the janitor.
You stupid commie fuck.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 02:36 PM
The values of a society are that of the ruling class. We are educated day after day to love our corporate overlords. We respond with knee-jerk emotional response when someone argues against Massa.

Bailey
10-07-2010, 02:44 PM
The values of a society are that of the ruling class. We are educated day after day to love our corporate overlords. We respond with knee-jerk emotional response when someone argues against Massa.

Answer the question, what subject do you teach?

Zafod
10-07-2010, 02:48 PM
Answer the question, what subject do you teach?

he wont. he is a pussy

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 02:49 PM
The values of a society are that of the ruling class. We are educated day after day to love our corporate overlords. We respond with knee-jerk emotional response when someone argues against Massa.

Isn't it ironic that what Marx wished to elimintate ultimately ends exactly in an antithesis. Instead of many corporations to lord over us, you now trade for one massive corporate state to do so......and it NEVER withers away.

I'm not one of them,....but this is probably why I have more sympathy for anarchists.
In today's time ANYONE who preaches less government is a breath or fresh air from Progressives.

More freedom please.

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 03:29 PM
Isn't it ironic that what Marx wished to elimintate ultimately ends exactly in an antithesis. Instead of many corporations to lord over us, you now trade for one massive corporate state to do so......and it NEVER withers away.

I'm not one of them,....but this is probably why I have more sympathy for anarchists.
In today's time ANYONE who preaches less government is a breath or fresh air from Progressives.

More freedom please.

So would you support things to help weaken the corporate-government marriage? like say...limits on campaign financing or lobbyists?

because....as long as a few people hold the majority of the wealth, and they are free to use that power to influence government, we will NEVER have a government that isn't in bed with an economic ruling class

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 03:46 PM
So would you support things to help weaken the corporate-government marriage? like say...limits on campaign financing or lobbyists?

because....as long as a few people hold the majority of the wealth, and they are free to use that power to influence government, we will NEVER have a government that isn't in bed with an economic ruling class

Are those the only answers?

Here's a novel idea.....How about decentralization? How about more influence by our local government's.
If the the Federal government doesn't have the power to tax me into oblivion, it doesn't have the power to feed the beast. Corporations aren't free market entities. They are what occurs with a powerful central authority feeds it.

Here's another novel idea. How about I have a "choice" instead of "legalized theft" by the Fed as to where my voluntary contribution to society goes?

In short, I'm not for passing more "laws" to make something happen that that's never going to happen.


One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation - Thomas Brackett Reed


Every man who puts money into the hands of a “government”(so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will - Lysander Spooner


Wow...So much wisdom...so few willing to take heed and learn from it. :(

Wei Wu Wei
10-07-2010, 04:02 PM
I don't think unregulated Capitalism (or even regulated capitalism for that matter) can alleviate the problems of our society such as poverty, illness, ethnic antagonism, extremely high rates of crime, ect.

I don't think these are missteps or blemishes on capitalism, but symptoms of it's nature as inherently exploitative. Much of what people take for granted today, social security, reasonable working hours, overtime laws, wage laws, workplace safety laws, temporary unemployment benefits, ect. were fought for on behalf of every American by socialists, communists, and organized labor.

Wild west capitalism was proven horrifically exploitative during the rise of industry and into the early 20th century. While there is a price to pay for social services or government regulation, we've seen time and time again in history that without some oversight the system drives itself to collapse. A massive quick upward funneling of wealth and the destabalization of the system paid for with the sweat and pain of working americans.


Now is it possible AT ALL to eliminate or significantly reduce the size of government? It doesn't seem so. Our society is just too large. Our population has TRIPLED in a single century, and population growth is exponential. Just imagine how hard it would be to coordinate crime stopping efforts or exploitative actions by one extremely powerful group over a weaker group? It seems as if a centralized system of power is necessary, but perhaps it is not.

I can imagine communities run as large self-sustaining cooperatives that exchange goods with one another, with a weak federal structure that allows for inter-community interaction. I do think that if this was achieved we could eliminate poverty entirely. We already have more than enough food and medicine for everyone in the United States but it's bad for markets to keep everyone fed and healthy. The absence of real poverty would decrease crime and perhaps allow for a looser federal structure, but this seems so far away from the reality today that talking about losing the federal structure before organizing into functional small-groups is putting the carriage before the horse.

Zafod
10-07-2010, 04:38 PM
so what do you teach?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-07-2010, 05:03 PM
so what do you teach?

Hating America 101.

Zafod
10-07-2010, 06:02 PM
Hating America 101.

I doubt he is a teacher at all. Just another lib who has to lie about what he does. Prob a 10 year community college student who refuses to graduate....

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 06:08 PM
INow is it possible AT ALL to eliminate or significantly reduce the size of government? It doesn't seem so. Our society is just too large. Our population has TRIPLED in a single century, and population growth is exponential. Just imagine how hard it would be to coordinate crime stopping efforts or exploitative actions by one extremely powerful group over a weaker group? It seems as if a centralized system of power is necessary, but perhaps it is not.
.

Cmon...that is complete horseshat.

If you COMPLETELY eliminated the income tax, the federal budget would still take in what it did in 1997 dollars.

I'm sure most people could live with that. That's just the beginning of what I would see happen.

Zafod
10-07-2010, 06:29 PM
so wei wei, what do you teach?

warpig
10-07-2010, 06:32 PM
so wei wei, what do you teach?

Failed economic systems 101?

Molon Labe
10-07-2010, 06:52 PM
I don't think unregulated Capitalism (or even regulated capitalism for that matter) can alleviate the problems of our society such as poverty, illness, ethnic antagonism, extremely high rates of crime, ect..

And I don't think. No... I absolutely know that unregulated unfettered government can't alleviate any societal problems either.


I can imagine communities run as large self-sustaining cooperatives that exchange goods with one another, with a weak federal structure that allows for inter-community interaction. I do think that if this was achieved we could eliminate poverty entirely. We already have more than enough food and medicine for everyone in the United States but it's bad for markets to keep everyone fed and healthy. The absence of real poverty would decrease crime and perhaps allow for a looser federal structure, but this seems so far away from the reality today that talking about losing the federal structure before organizing into functional small-groups is putting the carriage before the horse.

I don't know if you've been watching food prices over the last couple of years, but we are approaching a pretty serious situation.
Do you know what the biggest contributing factor is to me not being able to afford healthy food? It's Guvment' subsidies to keep sugar prices up and corn prices down. It's eliminating the ability for small farms to compete in a true free market for things like poultry. Tyson and Perdue didn't become the only two national producers of chicken because they did it "best" or have the most tasty products.
And your beloved small cooperetive farms are dying because of these restrictions on the little guys and they are born right out of (KEY WORD HERE) PROGRESSIVE ideas. I make no distinction between Democrats that do this and Republican who both dabble in progressive ignorance.

Zafod
10-07-2010, 07:04 PM
Failed economic systems 101?

sounds about right. he is a pussy for sure.

JB
10-07-2010, 08:07 PM
I don't think unregulated Capitalism (or even regulated capitalism for that matter) can alleviate the problems of our society such as poverty, illness, ethnic antagonism, extremely high rates of crime, ect.

I don't think these are missteps or blemishes on capitalism, but symptoms of it's nature as inherently exploitative. Much of what people take for granted today, social security, reasonable working hours, overtime laws, wage laws, workplace safety laws, temporary unemployment benefits, ect. were fought for on behalf of every American by socialists, communists, and organized labor.

Wild west capitalism was proven horrifically exploitative during the rise of industry and into the early 20th century. While there is a price to pay for social services or government regulation, we've seen time and time again in history that without some oversight the system drives itself to collapse. A massive quick upward funneling of wealth and the destabalization of the system paid for with the sweat and pain of working americans.


Now is it possible AT ALL to eliminate or significantly reduce the size of government? It doesn't seem so. Our society is just too large. Our population has TRIPLED in a single century, and population growth is exponential. Just imagine how hard it would be to coordinate crime stopping efforts or exploitative actions by one extremely powerful group over a weaker group? It seems as if a centralized system of power is necessary, but perhaps it is not.

I can imagine communities run as large self-sustaining cooperatives that exchange goods with one another, with a weak federal structure that allows for inter-community interaction. I do think that if this was achieved we could eliminate poverty entirely. We already have more than enough food and medicine for everyone in the United States but it's bad for markets to keep everyone fed and healthy. The absence of real poverty would decrease crime and perhaps allow for a looser federal structure, but this seems so far away from the reality today that talking about losing the federal structure before organizing into functional small-groups is putting the carriage before the horse.This is the funniest if not the most naive post I ever have seen on CU. I'm quoting the entire thing for posterity.

I can't imagine how sheltered a life you must live. You know nothing about business and the importance of profit. The Constitution. The 10th amendment. Motivation. Or game theory. None of it. Nothing. I don't know where you went to school but you should ask for your money back.

This "system" you propose would collapse before the final harvest. Too funny.

Sonnabend
10-08-2010, 01:49 AM
Do you know what the biggest contributing factor is to me not being able to afford healthy food? It's Guvment' subsidies to keep sugar prices up and corn prices down.

And AGW hysteria in green "biofuels".

Constitutionally Speaking
10-08-2010, 04:49 AM
I have no problem with "Democratically run" corporations IF the workers put up the mortgages on THEIR homes to finance payroll.

I have no problem IF the workers spend the first 5 years of the business sleeping in the back room because all of their money goes to pay the "workers" salaries (who have a home) and they cannot afford a home of their own.

I have no problem with "Democratically run" corporations IF the "workers" are going to be personally held legally liable when some scammer comes along, fakes a fall and sues them for all they are worth.

I have no problem with "Democratically run" corporations IF the "workers" are willing to go to jail/pay huge fines/legal settlements when one of their employees breaks the law/hurts someone on company time.

I have no problem with "Democratically run" corporations as long as the "workers" go without pay when times are tough.

I have no problem with "Democratically run" corporations at all. The problem is very few of the "workers" DESERVE to run a corporation - they haven't put their asses on the line to earn it yet.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 11:44 AM
One of the main objections I see (understandably) is how to dela with initial investments of capital (because in the US someone has to fork up some cash and take on some risk, and it's usually only the owner, not the workers).


I've already addressed by examining how real cooperatives deal with this issue:



Like other business creation support schemes, Business and employment co-operatives (BECs) enable budding entrepreneurs to experiment with their business idea while benefiting from a secure income. The innovation BECs introduce is that once the business is established the entrepreneur is not forced to leave and set up independently, but can stay and become a full member of the co-operative. The micro-enterprises thus combine to form one multi-activity enterprise whose members provide a mutually supportive environment for each other.

A BEC thus provides budding business people with an easy transition from inactivity to self-employment, but in a collective framework. Intending entrepreneurs pass through three stages:

* First, they remain technically unemployed but develop their business idea under the wing of the BEC;
* Next, if it looks like being a success, they become a ‘salaried entrepreneur’ with the security of a part-time employment contract;
* Finally they become a self-sufficient business, sharing in the ownership and management of the co-operative.

BECs allow a small business person to achieve control over their working life, but with the support of a group of people who are facing the same problems and want to pool their enthusiasm and expertise. They help to overcome one of the most discouraging features of becoming self-employed – isolation. They thus lower the bar for becoming an entrepreneur, and open up new horizons for people who have ambition but who lack the skills or confidence needed to set off entirely on their own – or who simply want to carry on an in dependent economic activity but within a supportive group context.

and then this three-stage plan:





Stage 1 – Supported entrepreneur

Initially, the 'candidate business' works up their idea while remaining legally unemployed. They continue to receive unemployment benefit while developing a marketable product or service, testing the market and establishing a client base. The BEC handles the business administration and accounting.

Stage 2 - Salaried entrepreneur

The entrepreneur agrees to a part-time employment contract with the BEC, and in return pays over 10% of sales. They continue to build up the business and receive training, administrative support, and social insurance coverage. The salary grows as the business grows.

Stage 3 - Member entrepreneur

When the business is self-supporting, the entrepreneur can choose to join the BEC as a full voting member, and take part in its management, continuing to pay an administration charge of 10% of sales. Optionally, the business can spin off as a totally independent entity.


This way you don't end up with one entrepenuer with a good idea taking on all the risk, and in fact it allows people who have good ideas and work ethic to start a business, even if they aren't already loaded with cash.

noonwitch
10-08-2010, 11:55 AM
Isn't Hertz one of those employee-owned businesses?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 12:05 PM
I'm really tired of this communist piece of trash with Jeremiah Wright as his avatar.
America hating ass.

SaintLouieWoman
10-08-2010, 12:26 PM
The workers ARE the "shareholders" because they literally own the company. Sometimes companies are declared public and their assets and production can be put to public good if it's a necessary item like food or medicine.

Sounds lke socialism to me. Nothing like people investng and then having their savings confiscated for the "public good".

Did you say that you are a teacher? God protect your students. You'll turn them into little lib robots. :rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 12:32 PM
I'm really tired of this communist piece of trash with Jeremiah Wright as his avatar.
America hating ass.

You posted a good, thoughtful thread and I come here and respectfully explain my position. I dont know what you're expecting.

Also don't forget you were the one who compared me to Jeremiah Wright, and gave me the idea to use this avatar in the first place. thanks :)

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 12:43 PM
You posted a good, thoughtful thread and I come here and respectfully explain my position. I dont know what you're expecting.

Also don't forget you were the one who compared me to Jeremiah Wright, and gave me the idea to use this avatar in the first place. thanks :)

Yeah, and your position turns out to be, surprise surprise, more socialist horseshit.

And I compared you to Jeremiah Wright because like him, you hate this country.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 12:54 PM
Yeah, and your position turns out to be, surprise surprise, more socialist horseshit.

What's wrong with socialism? Keep in mind the film Red Dawn isn't a legit reason.

SaintLouieWoman
10-08-2010, 12:58 PM
What's wrong with socialism? Keep in mind the film Red Dawn isn't a legit reason.

Why don't you move to a country that has practiced it for a long time? I believe you will be able to answer your own question. :rolleyes:

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 01:06 PM
What's wrong with socialism? Keep in mind the film Red Dawn isn't a legit reason.

See: USSR, Mao's China, Castro's Cuba.

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 01:09 PM
hahaha you were probably still shitting your diapers when The End of History arrived.


maybe I should phrase it in a different way, what's wrong with democratically run businesses like we've been talking about in this thread? i'm not talking about bringing back to soviet union, I don't want to do that, but I am talking about this.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
10-08-2010, 01:26 PM
hahaha you were probably still shitting your diapers when The End of History arrived.


maybe I should phrase it in a different way, what's wrong with democratically run businesses like we've been talking about in this thread? i'm not talking about bringing back to soviet union, I don't want to do that, but I am talking about this.

Socialism always and inevitably leads to the USSR.
It doesn't work. It was tried. It failed.
You just want to institute it any way you can, corporations being just one way to undermine capitalism.

JB
10-08-2010, 01:31 PM
I can imagine communities run as large self-sustaining cooperatives that exchange goods with one another...I do think that if this was achieved we could eliminate poverty entirely. We already have more than enough food...for everyone in the United States but it's bad for markets to keep everyone fed...The absence of real poverty would decrease crime...
Main article: Collectivization in the Soviet Union

In the Soviet Union, collectivization was introduced by Stalin in the late 1920s as a way, according to the theories of communist leaders, to boost agricultural production through the organization of land and labor into large-scale collective farms (kolkhozy). At the same time, Soviet leaders argued that collectivization would free poor peasants from economic servitude under the kulaks. Stalin believed that the goals of collectivization could be achieved voluntarily, but when the new farms failed to attract the number of peasants hoped, the government blamed the oppression of the kulaks and resorted to forceful implementation of the plan, by murder and wholesale deportation of farmers to Siberia. Millions of unfortunates who remained died of starvation, and the centuries-old system of farming was destroyed in one of the most fertile regions in the world for farming, once called "the breadbasket of Europe". The immediate effect of forced collectivization was to reduce grain output and almost halve livestock, thus producing major famines in 1932 and 1933.

In 1932-1933, an estimated 3.1–7 million people, mainly in Ukraine, died from famine after Stalin forced the peasants into the collectives (this famine is known in Ukraine as Holodomor). Most modern historians believe that this famine was caused by the sudden disruption of production brought on by collective farming policies and mass seizure of property (the proceeds of which were used, according to Aleksandr Bushkov, to accelerate industrial development). These policies were implemented by the government of the Soviet Union, of which Ukraine was then a part. Some believe that, due to unreasonably high government quotas, farmers often received far less for their labor than they did before collectivization, and some refused to work; others retaliated by destroying their crops. It was not until 1940 that agricultural production finally surpassed its pre-collectivization levels.

Since Soviet Agriculture is replete with failures, Western critics argues that economic systems based on planning and social ownership are unworkable in theory and practice.

Main article: Collectivization in Hungary

In Hungary, agricultural collectivization was attempted a number of times between 1948 and 1956 (with disastrous results), until it was finally successful in the early 1960s under János Kádár.

The first serious attempt at collectivization based on Stalinist agricultural policy was undertaken in July 1948. Both economic and direct police pressure were used to coerce peasants to join cooperatives, but large numbers opted instead to leave their villages. In the early 1950s, only one-quarter of peasants had agreed to join cooperatives. In the spring of 1955 the drive for collectivization was renewed, again using physical force to encourage membership, but this second wave also ended in dismal failure. After the events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the Hungarian regime opted for a more gradual collectivization drive. The main wave of collectivization occurred between 1959 and 1961, and at the end of this period more than 95% of agricultural land in Hungary had become the property of collective farms. In February 1961, the Central Committee declared that collectivization had been completed. This quick success should not be confused with enthusiastic adoption of collective idealism on the part of the peasants. Still, demoralized after two successive (and harsh) collectivization campaigns and the events of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, the peasants were less keen to resist. As membership levels increased, those who remained outside likely grew worried about being permanently left out.
In the late 1980s, the economy of Czechoslovakia stagnated, and the state-owned companies were unable to deal with advent of modern technologies. A few agricultural companies (where the rules were less strict than in state companies) used this situation to start providing high-tech products. For example, the only way to buy a PC-compatible computer in the late 1980s was to get it (for an extremely high price) from one agricultural company acting as a reseller.

After the fall of Communism in Czechoslovakia (1989) subsidies to agriculture were halted with devastating effect. Most of the cooperatives had problems competing with technologically advanced foreign competition and were unable to obtain investment to improve their situation. Quite a large percentage of them collapsed. The others that remained were typically insufficiently funded, lacking competent management, without new machinery and living from day to day. Employment in the agricultural sector dropped significantly (from approx. 3% of the population to approx. 1%).
Socialist Republic of Vietnam
Following the Fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, South Vietnam briefly came under the authority of a Provisional Revolutionary Government, a puppet state under military occupation by North Vietnam, before being officially reunified with the North under Communist rule as the Socialist Republic of Vietnam on July 2, 1976. Upon taking control, the Vietnamese communists banned other political parties, arrested suspects believed to have collaborated with the United States and embarked on a mass campaign of collectivization of farms and factories. Reconstruction of the war-ravaged country was slow and serious humanitarian and economic problems confronted the communist regime. In a historic shift in 1986, the Communist Party of Vietnam implemented free-market reforms known as Đổi Mới (Renovation). With the authority of the state remaining unchallenged, private ownership of farms and companies, deregulation and foreign investment were encouraged. The economy of Vietnam has achieved rapid growth in agricultural and industrial production, construction and housing, exports and foreign investment. However, the power of the Communist Party of Vietnam over all organs of government remains firm.These agriculture cooperatives sound blissful. Where do I sign up?

WuWu...best you imagine something else.

And finally and without shock to anyone:
Agricultural production cooperatives are relatively rare in the world, and known examples are limited to collective farms in former socialist countries and the kibbutzim in Israel. hahahahahaha. (haha's are mine)In case you don't want to read all of the above, and I don't blame you, here is a summary: The shit doesn't work.

I closed the links too quick. ask.com was the source.

Zafod
10-08-2010, 01:53 PM
what subject do you teach wei wei?

that is if you are really a teacher and not a liar

JB
10-08-2010, 02:07 PM
what subject do you teach wei wei?

that is if you are really a teacher and not a liarNo way he has a job. Look at his post times.

He's here at 10AM, 2PM, 5PM, 7PM, 10PM, Midnight, 3AM. That's just CU.

You can't be goofing off on the computer all that time and maintain fulltime employment. Or have a girlfriend. My guess is student that is taking one class a week.

Zafod
10-08-2010, 03:54 PM
No way he has a job. Look at his post times.

He's here at 10AM, 2PM, 5PM, 7PM, 10PM, Midnight, 3AM. That's just CU.

You can't be goofing off on the computer all that time and maintain fulltime employment. Or have a girlfriend. My guess is student that is taking one class a week.

he keeps refusing to answer so I sum it up as him being a liar

Wei Wu Wei
10-08-2010, 07:39 PM
These agriculture cooperatives sound blissful. Where do I sign up?

WuWu...best you imagine something else.

And finally and without shock to anyone:In case you don't want to read all of the above, and I don't blame you, here is a summary: The shit doesn't work.

I closed the links too quick. ask.com was the source.

Yes the entire point of that thread was such a small group collective colony society would work BUT it's too far away from the reality today. The only way this could be done today would be through force but I don't support that. This post was demonstrating the we could do away with the Big Federal Government, but only after we were able to get people to work in self-sustaining cooperatives, but we also already know that you can't force people to do that and expect it to work.

I'm not for forcing such a thing, I mentioned it as a hypothetical future without a strong federal government because with our current population and system complexity minimizing the federal government seems like an impossible ideal .

BadCat
10-08-2010, 07:43 PM
with our current population and system complexity minimizing the federal government seems like an impossible ideal .

Once we eliminate people like you, it won't be.