Capitalism, A Worker's Best Friend?

That isn't collective bargaining. You need to be more consistent (which is going to be difficult as you'd need to refer to socialism which is, by definition, inconsistent with your fascism)

 

I'm fascist in a Hobbesian sense of understanding human nature which is primarily selfish, egotistical, and self pursuing of individuals in an existence of constant competition.

You cannot in any manner hope for voluntary cooperation to take place on the level of human beings because it doesn't work which the collapse of communism has proven time and time again.

In the absence of voluntary cooperation you have mandatory enforced cooperation through various interventions led by the state. This is why I'm a fascist and also because of democracy where individualism or privatization eventually creates monopolies by individuals which they then horde over the rest of society. Democracy always becomes corrupted by a small minority that constantly suckers a majority of the population and democracies always collapse overtime. Democracy is a relatively young government experiment, it has existed what a couple hundred years now? The most successful form of government organization by comparison which was the precursor to fascism is monarchy and it lasted for thousands of years concerning human history. Which of the two is more efficient in organization?

If you can think of a better position than mine I am all ears open to suggestion.

 

I didn't ask "why are you a fascist?". I noted that you used collective bargaining inappropriately and that the socialist analysis behind worker ownership is inconsistent with fascism (which feeds off guff like the theory of the elites)

 

I told you my belief why I regard voluntary socialism as being unachievable but of course you won't respond on that. I also told you why I think a fascist model of socialism is more workable and achievable.

 

Again, completely irrelevant to what I said. You referred to collective bargaining. You referred to it inappropriately. Your subsequent response is actually inconsistent with fascism. Didn't you know? I appreciate fascist reference to the economy is rather rare!

 

You have no interest in listening to other people's positions other than your own and clearly are unable to debate in the slightest. Whatever man....

 

Debate? You never respond to the point. By referring to worker ownership you've shown inconsistency with fascist elite theory. Don't get me wrong now, I'm glad that you're attacking the nonsensical nature of fascism. Well done!

 

There's nothing contradictory of worker ownership under state regulation and intervention led by the state, presumably under a fascist one. More hot air from you.....

 

Weird response. You've taken a nonsensical comparison and pretended an argument, again completely ignoring my critique. Worker ownership is not consistent with the theory of the elites (a fascist approach that suggests decision making should be the left to a 'superior minority' and the workers should do as they are told)

 

You need the right kind of strong man ruler with a socialist mindset to make such a platform work along with a heavily bureaucratic oversight committee who answers solely to said leader which there would be no room for political dissension.

Great thing about a singular ruler is if things go wrong there is only one person to blame instead of democracy where you have thousands of people trying to control things at once causing all sorts of chaos or confusion.

The superior elite committee would be one person and that one person's best interests is to keep the nation, people, or workers happy if they want to avoid a political coup and uprising.

If there are more than one ruler where you have multiple rulers nobody knows who to blame or be held responsible for national actions where instead all you have is a bunch of inefficient inactivity with a whole lot of people not wanting to take public responsibility for anything of their actions. All the while they're doing that which is more likely they're lining up filling their pockets from the national public treasury in total unaccountability or no oversight!

[Like the modern day senate and congress of the United States as example.]

 

So just a rehashing of the theory of the elite and no actual reference to democracy within the workplace? Shame to see your argument devolving.

 

I already stated that workers would be shareholders within the company or businesses they make a living out of. You haven't in any way given an adequate criticism of that.

 

I referred, from the start, to democracy within the workplace. You returned with an inaccurate reference to collective bargaining. We now see that you don't actually support democracy at all, but have a warped reference to the theory of the elites (which, by definition, insults the worker and sees him/her as nothing more than a wage slave).

 

No, the leader of said fascist nation would ensure fair wages to the working classes providing economic prosperity to all and while being the supreme leader has the power to disrupt any kind of trade monopolies or private institutions who get in the way of that.

If the banks get too powerful and out of line the government sends soldiers to the CEO's houses telling them to get back in line or be faced with the option of facing a firing squad.

What's your socialism do in contrast? Hope for the best concerning voluntary socialism and the democratic process which various individuals can influence or control outside of government?

Nope, I'll take my version of socialism over yours any day of the week.

You still haven't stated why workers being shareholders of companies or businesses is a terrible thing.

 

As I said, complete rejection of democracy in the workplace. Why do you do think workers are incapable of improving decision making? Economic theory and empirical evidence shows otherwise. Aren't we just again demonstrating how fascist demands arent consistent with any resemblance of economic reality?

 

The workers would have a democratic process of bargaining power with the business owner and have a shared stake as shareholders also. Their democratic influence would be limited inside the business but not outside of it as that would be the oversight of the state.

Both the business owner and workers would be subject to state regulation concerning business practices. The business owner will still make profit for themselves but will also be subject to a certain national standard or criteria for their workers. Any unfair wages or rejection of providing at least some kind of fair benefits for their workers would be heavily frowned upon to which they'll be regulated heavily at every inch of their life including fines.

 

That's nothing but fluff. Bargaining isn't a reference to democracy within the workplace. You've already been informed of that. It's typically nothing more than trying to reduce inefficient rents received by the employer. Rambling on about state regulation also won't help your argument. We already know that you want a state that celebrates the theory of the elites, ensuring contempt for the individual worker. The idea that state can eliminate unfair wage is as ludicrous as the state capitalists believing they can mimic the Walrasian Auctioneer.

 

The thing that has always made me a skeptic of democracy is the belief in democracy of the state yet no democracy of the workplace. Well, if you have no democracy in the workplace it would seem that democracy at the state level or of government is an illusion and mirage because the workplace has more control over people's personal lives than the government does.

Why are you against a democratic workplace environment where workers are shareholders of the place they're employed? How odd for a socialist to take such a stance.

 

A nonsensical effort. I've referred to the importance of workplace democracy. In contrast, you've applied a standard crass theory of the elites. Bargaining isn't democracy. It is typically a reaction to a lack of democracy (e.g. rents secured by employers underpaying their workers).

As mentioned, fascism only pretends to cater for the worker. Ultimately it has nothing but contemptuous rejection of the individual's skills and their positive influence on decision making. It requires that contempt to justify cretinous focus on a false class destined to lead.

 

The main people against such things are the workers themselves.

I typically buy into to any business I join.

However that is not to say that I will always be willing to sell some of my business to anyone who joins.
In the end I built it, I worked the hardest for it and have invested too much time effort money and blood to give it away to the first yahoo who comes along and wants to take it over.
I've been forced out of my own companies in the past. It's not a pleasant experience.

In a publicly traded company, a corporation, all workers have the ability to buy shares in their company.
Commies make like this is some big deal that is being denied them, but in a great many cases this is simply untrue.

Once you are a shareholder, you do get a vote.

Most people however don't want to buy in.
It's that simple.
They have other plans for their money. They just want to get paid for their labours and go home at 5.

So currently, the norm is voluntary shareholding for the workforce.
And it works.
Companies get funding. Workers get jobs with pay cheques.

Why force change on a functional system that people are happy with?
It evolved the way it evolved because that is what works best.
Some bright twonk from university having a better idea and forcing it on every one?
Do one mate. Jog on.
How to kill the economy 101.

 

Another odd post. "Workers can buy shares" does nothing for democracy in the company. It neither protects the value of worker labour or improves decision-making in hierarchical organisations suffering from the effects of distributed knowledge.

Its a shame that right wingers aren't aware of Hayek! You'd have thought they'd have picked up the basics in their anti-socialist ranting.

 

Socialism cannot survive without Capitalism's profits.

 

Basic error. The market is not specific to capitalism, where much of the profit is actually rent and therefore about market failure.

 

Why do you have such a problem with workers being shareholders of a company enjoying profits as much as the owner themselves?

It's a win-win, the business owner still has their business making money and workers besides their hourly paycheck have the ability to make even more money within the company they're laboring for.

That's not communism, communism would be no business owner present at all where the company becomes state property where there is essentially no difference in wages whatsoever.

 

What's your solution to democracy in the workplace and wages for the working class?

Tell me what your ideal vision for government and society is in terms of economics.