Capitalism is economic tyranny Socialism is economic democracy.

Social Security is not socialism, as it has nothing whatever to do with collective ownership of the means of production. It's just a government transfer program.

 

No reason why the workers can't be the share holders

They didn't contribute equally with cash but they all keep it functioning.

The risk is going with a smaller or no wage to begin but sticking through to see that it works.

Because they can make more money starting a good company then with the available jobs.

Yes they would just like the the capitalist owners.

They take on all the hardship when they are all equal.

Elon would like a word. He literally cut jobs to make twitter more profitable.

No they get a piece of the pie when they are accepted into the company.

Yes just like capitalist owners.

 

No, it doesn't exist without the work of the producer whose decisions and initiative caused the capital to exist rather than not exist, and to be applied to further production.

That's a bald non sequitur fallacy, as the workers did not contribute equally to the business and therefore have no right to equal shares of it. What they did contribute, they have already been paid market value for, and thus have no right to any more.

So it will be a political decision based on personal relationships, loyalty, networking, pressure, lobbying, etc. -- i.e., all the garbage that socialists tend to specialize in -- rather than on actual contribution or what is best for production, efficiency, or the enterprise. Check.

No, that's just absurd garbage with no basis in fact. People will work harder for 100% of their individual contributions to production than for 1% of them.

Maybe you have never had a job in a private business...? The best workers get more responsibility and more money.

As I already proved to you, the problem with capitalism is not the employer-employee relationship, it is the landowner-land user relationship. Until you can find a willingness to know that fact, you will continue to have nothing interesting, informative or accurate to say on the subject.

 

There is an excellent reason: they did not choose to devote their purchasing power to acquisition of shares.

No, the producer keeps it functioning, and the workers have already been paid for their respective contributions.

That is what the producer does, not the workers.

But not under socialism.

No, because they did not choose to devote their own earned purchasing power to buying it.

They can never all be equal or make equal contributions. You merely want those who make smaller contributions to be privileged to take some of what the more productive contribute.

And he is responsible if it doesn't work. Just because people have jobs doesn't mean they are contributing commensurately to production. Especially in a large organization, there are often people who are not contributing enough to justify their wages. A good manager will try to identify such people and either fire them or put them to work in some other role where they can earn their keep.

I.e., without making any commensurate contribution to the pie. Check.

You don't know anything about capitalist owners, as proved by your refusal to distinguish between the very, very different roles played under capitalism by the owner of producer goods, the owner of natural resources and/or monopoly privileges, and the producer whose decisions and initiative cause the product to exist rather than not exist.

 

Everything the poster said about the hundred seat bicycle is true of state collectivism.

The only person here who doesn't get what collectivism is, is you. You're running with a 20thC aristocrat's absurd fantasy, instead of looking at how it works in reality .. all over the world, and throughout all human history. If it's not voluntary, it's absolutely a hundred seat bicycle.

 

1) or start your own business, or farm off grid, or join a collective, or improve your qualifications, or any one of the many options available to you under capitalism.

2) work harder than you need to because you have to carry freeloaders .. despite earning not a cent more than they earn. and you can't quit.

 

IOW it's just another capitalist corporation.

 

On the contrary .. you're receiving plenty of considered response. You've been soundly beaten, that's all that's happened.

You came in with a 'socialism' which is no socialism at all. Calling what is actually ordinary capitalism, socialism, because person/s type A owns it and not person/s type B, is an exercise in posturing. That's literally all you're doing.

 

Absolutely nothing.

 

Denial ain't just a river in Africa...

 

Ironic.

 

At any point to do you plan on actually making an effort of rebuttal that is debatable?

Yes, every circumstance listed as to why socialism fails is applicable to shared ownership of production.

Now pull you big boy pants up and defend your agenda in the face of these realities or run along.

 

ESOPs at the individual corporate level is a completely different thing than an entire economic system. Regardless, ESOPs and Co-OPs have their own set of problems and issues.

Not to mention, usually these are formed and instituted into existing companies, largely as a transition and exit strategy for owners.... who make a ton of profit off them.

ESOPs are also largely burdened under debt, because the new "owners", the employees don't actually bring the capital necessary to truly buy ownership out.

It's a glorified profit sharing program, and with many pitfalls.

You also ignored my point about these shortfalls during periods of economic downturn, and the "shareholders" financial responsibility to keep the company going... because it's a known shortfall you don't want to address.

Let's be honest about your true intentions. You want to be rewarded the profits while assuming no risk or liability, and that's precisely why many of these types of employee owned types of business fail.

And no, they don't buy a share and get a vote on everything. There is still a management structure, still with some earning more than others (large wage disparity) and a Board of Directors.

Cop out.

Isnt it difficult to keep defending something that whenever the faults are presented you have to deflect?

Are the new owners of one share going to work for free when times are tough? Yes or no?

Blah blah blah "I'm superior in my opinions, you don't agree because you're ignorant" blah blah blah.

No, I don't agree because anybody that has ever interacted with humans knows that your ideological fantasy is rife with faults you don't want to admit.

That fact is, every profitable company out there represented risk at one point and somebody assumed that risk. A result of that risk is reaping the rewards.

 

Great post!

 

People who talk about "human nature" seem to forget that humans are tribal social animals by nature we are conditioned to become self centered and individualistic by our society.

There is also the hierarchy of needs. Capitalism fails to meet the basics and thus hurts the nation as a whole. Under socialism everyone's physiological needs are met. Everyone's safety needs are also for the most part met. Thus crime becomes less because as peoples needs are met they become more kind and loving to the people around them. No justification or need to hurt someone to get buy. As esteem goes up people work harder, they might not have the ability to become millionaires or billionaires but they have enough money to feed and clothe and house their family and to enjoy life.

They also have opportunities for the most part to do what you love in work, because jobs are organized by committees and the 90%+ are public sector people are able to see what jobs or sectors need people and work there accordingly while making a living comfortable wage. People also only have to work 1 job so they can spend time with their families and be happier overall. That helps with mental health.

After all that the desire from those in society who are creative and motivated by self actualization not money will work to advance society technologically, and though standard of life things.

Take out the NEED for money (I need to make money so my family doesn't starve or go homeless) capitalism collapses like a house of cards in the wind. No one will put up with any of the crap they currently do once every job pays a living wage because then then money can not be used as a bargaining chip literally no more people staying because of a shortage of places to work.

 

It seems you don't know a rebuttal from your butt. I gave you plenty of rebuttal to anything that was actually "rebuttable". If you think there were "circumstances" that need more of an answer, pose them clearly and without snide insults. I'm not answering any more rude and insulting attacks.

 

GARBAGE. Chimpanzees, gorillas, and gibbons are also tribal social animals, and all of them are far more self-centered than human beings, as well as more violent. Marx was a pre-Darwinian, and never came to terms with the fact of evolution. All socialists are infected with his ignorance.

Dude, you are making me laugh again. It is not only INDISPUTABLE but GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that capitalism has done a far better job of meeting people's basic needs than any previous system, certainly far better than socialism, and is inferior only to geoism.

Laughably wrong. ACTUAL socialist economies do a thoroughly rotten job of meeting people's physiological needs, and consequently kill millions of them.

People don't hurt others to get by.

Except you made that up, and no such thing actually happens in actual socialist economies.

All that is just your junior high school fantasy Plan for the World. It has no basis in reality or history.

More nonsense unconnected to reality. Socialism will always be worse than capitalism at meeting people's needs for a very simple and indisputable reason: when socialists steal factories, there are fewer factories available for production; but when capitalists steal land, the amount of land available for production stays exactly the same. Producers just have to pay the landowners for permission to use it.

 

Of course they are more violent than humans they evolved to use their strength as their best asset. They aren't self centered except when it comes to mating. Humans are weak, and only survived through cooperation. If someone didn't act in a social manner and help the tribe or pack, they would die because they got left behind or kicked out. As civilisation grew we needed leaders but still everyone had their role to play. Individualism is uniquely strong in America.

Capitalism took the land from the peasants which they had worked and lived on for generations and gave it to private individuals who now said you have to pay me to use the land. That is on Capitalism point blank. That's why peasants, serfs and slaves, lived longer than laborers and indentured servants in early capitalist Europe, because it was about getting as much work for as little money and that meant awful working conditions, the individual didn't matter only the labor they provided to turn into capital. Free labor was better protected because well they didn't cost anything and still made money. When slaves live longer than employees you know your system is awful.

Totalitarian rulers killed millions to keep power, socialism/communism wasn't the issue. Before Stalin the standard of living greatly improved for everyone in the soviet union compared to the great depression west. Pre totalitarian north korea was doing better than the south.

Yes people do unless they are part of the 2% of the population without empathy even then people have to justify their actions to themselves be okay with the potential risks and consequences and have all that not be a major disruption to their lives. That's why countries with low rates of poverty have low rates of violent crimes. When life is good there is no reason to turn to a life of crime.

It's been proven that employees who feel appreciated and that they are fairly compensated work harder than those who don't. The hybrid socialist capitalist countries in Europe operate this way.

What's a fantasy is that you think everyone with a good idea would just sit on it and refuse to work towards improving humanity if they couldn't get rich from it. That's not how anyone who actually works in science or technology works, people do it because they LIKE it, and they enjoy discovering and creating the money is a perk. It's a capitalist talking point that is shoved down everyones throat that riches is the only thing that makes people work hard.

If and when socialism comes to power in a democratic country it will perform better for the people. In every democratic country that has moved closer to socialism and further away from capitalism quality of life improves.

 

Buh bye.

When you have a defendable agenda in the face of reality, let me know.

Anybody can create these utopians ideologies and solve all the worlds problems, especially when done in a vacuum not considering all factors.

Here is a fact. In the few short centuries the United States has been around, it's capitalist system has pulled far more people out of poverty than it has put in. It's why its the #1 desirable location for immigrants in the world, admitting over 900,000 annually.

It isn't an economic problem you have, it's an entitlement one. What would you do if you were forced to live on your own independent of society? Would you survive? That's the prime question. If not, that isn't a problem of society or it's economic system to fix, that's your issue and your look at society a a means of mitigating it.

 

You don't get to destabalize the world, put global sanctions on anti capitalist countries (see the 20th century embargos against communist and socialist states) and the claim all the people displaced and fleeing from the awful situations caused by the capitalist nations are choosing us because we are the best option. Its because we are the closest country to them. Trust me if they could they'd be in Canada or their own home country right now.

 

You presuppose a Disneyesque view of human nature. Especially my bold.

No, people won't magically become all lovely and kind and non-greedy because you up the minimum wage. Those determined to fail, will just fail at a higher price. Remember that the vast majority of those who won't do anything to increase their own worth, are determined to fail. Nothing will change, because it isn't a result of lack of money. It's a character flaw.

And we're conditioned by the Welfare State to be isolationist. Welfare is a deliberate action against the interdependent tribal/family unit.

 

BINGO!

 

This.

Pure Communism won't work in large groups. Pure Capitalism won't work either. You need a healthy mix.

 

I agree that capitalism is anti-democratic. But so is freedom. Democracy taken to an absolute extreme would mean we all get to vote on everything you get to do, and can enslave you.

 

Capitalism is an economic system and a social structure that accompanies it. What is "communism"?