|
|||||||||||||
Capitalism is Opposed to Human Happiness Debate, Volume 2
Posts #111-#115
Post #111
CNT-FAI Radical wrote: I see you still don't understand the concept of shareholding. You don't need to give everyone a whole factory or mine. You can give everyone a share of the factory or mine. You'd still hire "employees" to work, but they too will own shares. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: How do you know that? Maybe they didn't design the machinery, but maybe they made it in a previous job. Or maybe they mined ore for it in a previous job. Or maybe they transported it in a previous job. All of these are necessary to the production and distribution of capital. Or maybe you're beginning to lose your sense :) CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Huh? no one "made" the ore. Who said anything about keeping? Ownership is a prerequisite for selling. The workers who made the machinery but cannot use it would of course sell it, because they own it! CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Huh? who said anything about capital formation ceasing? I didn't say anything opposed to interaction of worker cooperatives. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Capitalism has evolved. There's quite a bit more economic democracy in the U.S. than in many, even most other places, though the last few decades have seen a trend away from it, unfortunately. After all, If there are more capitalists than workers, then the situation is reversed: If a worker says no, he can work on someone else's capital, i.e. for some other "capitalist". If a capitalist says no, he might not find another worker. It's not about "capital" vs. "labor", it's about distribution of capital. BTW appeal to authority is not an argument. Post #112
Quote: Don't understand why workers should have no bargaining power. In most industrialized countries you've got a guaranteed minimal income (very basic of course), but workers usually earn more. About the capital stuff. In the end individuals or companys will always need investment (credit/shares). Nobody will give you any money without some kind of return (interest rates/dividends). Now of course workers generate capital but its often the business model which decides how productive this capital is. E.g. the search engine of altavista was as good as the one from google, but google's clean and simple interface made it a success. Of course some workers may have had that idea. Actually a problem google (and other tech companies) face are employees which leave the company when they have a good idea and start their own business. Actually google is a bad example, mostly cited because it made its founders very rich. Most tech companies stay small or get bought and use almost all their income for paying salaries. Post #113
CNT-FAI Radical wrote: Then this whole thread makes no sense to me. You present your ideas how the the current structure of companies should be abolished, how all companies should operate, who should own what, who should get profits, who should have the right to manage what, how everybody should be able to "claim the full fruit of their labors", etc. And then you say there would be no laws. You've been talking about laws the whole time, otherwise I don't know what you're talking about. In one place you said "shouldn't we ask what system best serves this purpose?" and now you say there should be no system. You talk of ownership, yet you say there should be no laws. The concept of ownership is a legal one, ownership is all about laws against other people using something. CNT-FAI Radical wrote: This again makes no sense. Arie talks about one "cooperative" hiring workers from another for an agreed upon payment, without sharing profits from capital with them, something you call "living off others". You said that all workers should always share the profits from the capital they work on. You present opposite views, and then you say his view is your view. Post #114
Arie wrote: I said no such thing. I made no moral judgements on "legitimacy". What's legitimate depends on the law, so there is no point arguing which law is legitimate, since that's circular. All I did was to present a case that CNT-FAI-Radical's system as I understood it would generate much worse results in terms of productivity than capitalism or even the normal state-monopoly-on-capital socialism. Post #115
Rugoz wrote: Neither do I: Of course workers should have bargaining power. Not sure what you're responding to. Rugoz wrote: The contention is whether the capital is theirs to give: According to RADICAL, or anti-capitalists in general, the capital belongs to those who work it, if it belongs to anyone at all, so it doesn't belong to whoever is preventing them from using it until they make a deal (i.e. the "capitalist"). Rugoz wrote: Often the value of one's work is greatly increased by the business or company in which he works. This comes from interaction with contributions of other workers who provide services that increase the value of one's work, but also from "capital" owned by the shareholders or owners. Again, an anti-capitalist would argue that this capital does not belong to them, that it belongs to the workers using it. Rugoz wrote: I suppose that would be the anti-capitalist ideal: Everyone gets paid for their work, and nobody gets paid for anything above and beyond work, i.e. "profit". I'm assuming the founders pay themselves a salary as well. The issue then is whether the pay is sufficient to allow for savings.
|
