Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Electrical coops are owned by the customers, not the workers, and are profit oriented to some extent, if only to accumulate funds for maintenance and expansion. The workers have little to no say in how the coops are operated, so to employees, the coops act just like any other corporation.
Don't try to lecture me on cash, etc. I've forgotten more on those topics than you ever knew. None of the drivel you are spouting is new. It's been hashed over numerous times. If it worked, we would be moving in that direction, but we aren't. Your themes assume all humans want to be like every other human, with no individuality and no desire to try something daring and risky to better their lives.
1. I mentioned that it my post, because I knew that already. Community needs and resources are handled by those who use it, as it should be. Electric power sources are a constant service, not a production of individual goods.
2. Just a bunch of baloney here. Mutual Aid is the basis of all evolution and survival. That is why even in a predatory capitalist environment were it is disincentivized it still exists. The CNT in Catalonia was successful, the Korean anarchist association was successful, the Zapatistas are successful.
All have been destroyed or have tried to been destroyed by outside forces. The Zapatistas only survived due to outside support against Mexican government thuggery. The forces in power may hate real socialism and freedom, but it’ll win the day.
You ignore the fact that so many powerful corps and states are dedicated to destroying self reliance. Thomas Sankara was killed by European forces, the Kurds who are building a self sustaining territory are being constantly attacked by all sides in the Middle East, and yet the global socialist movement strives forward, because people have a desire to live a egalitarian free society of peace and cooperation.
Edit: furthermore I have no problem with individualism, I’m more of an individual than you are, it’s just that capitalist believe some people have the right to exploit others and cause massive external damage for self gain. That is incredibly anti individual freedoms.
The problem with a company controlled and ran by the workers, is the workers do not have the knowledge to make a company successful. There still has to be management, to run the company and make it viable.
Top management jobs, have to be handled by people that know what they are doing. A number of companies were going under, until a CEO that knew how to solve problems that existed in the company came into the company.
A lot of companies have been ready to go under, until they found top manager that could turn a company around and make it successful.
How many of you aware, that some of these turn around managers, went to work for $1 per year. Their big incomes, would only happen when the company got back to being profitable, and at different attainment goals, they were to receive a bonus, stock, etc. They only got big money, if they saved the company and turned it around. They then got a percentage of the increase they brought into the company. Kind of like a salesman (I never worked at anything but a commission salesman, or paid an override on salesmen that worked for me, from the time I got out of the navy in 1954) on commission. He/She gets a percentage of their sales, as their only pay. If a sales manager, he/she gets a portion of the sales made by the salesmen/saleswoman under the manager.
If a salesman is successful, then they make money, if not they fail out of the business. Example: Real Estate salesmen/women. 80% of all home sales, are made by the top 20% of the salespeople. The typical salesperson, will go broke and fail out of the business when they go broke.
I spent my first 10 years working in Furniture Stores (good solid middle class stores). Within a year, I was earning $125,000 plus in today's dollars. 4 years were spent in a top quality department store selling furniture. A major sale furnishing a quality home for a top executive, doctor, etc. often earned me in a couple of hours, more money than the sales clerks earned in a year.
After 10 years, I moved into the corporate world, and worked up to be division sales manager over everything west of the Mississippi River. After 8 years, I left and went into the real estate business. I spent a year before entering the business, taking University Courses, that taught me the business. I went into Investment Brokerage, handling investors like a stock broker does, buying, selling, and exchanging real estate for my pool of investors. This is when I learned what earning real money is like. I only sold 6 houses for personal residence in all the years in the business, and only handled those 6 clients as they were personal friends that I helped buy a home. I have sold as many as 14 houses in one day, and still hold the record for that county over 30 years later.
There are people on this thread, who think that all Real Estate commissions into a pot, and every salesman/woman should get an equal share of the pot, and no one would make a decent living. My opinion that those salespeople that did not earn a commission for that month, should have $0, and I should have what I earned.
Example. A Realtor came to me with a farm he had for sale for 2 years. I went out to look at it, which was about 1/4 mile outside the city limits. There was a long narrow 10 acres with a house, a barn, and an Alkali Pond. Not worth much, but I drove down a dirt road to the other 30 acres, which was a nice square property, that sloped down to a good quality middle class subdivision, with streets, and utilities stubbed up next to the 30 acres. I went back to my office and I wrote a contract that I would buy the farm at asking price, with 10 acre part to be separated from the other part of the farm at closing, acting as a principal and not as an agent and received no commission. The other 30 acres to me, with the privilege of paying off 5 acres at a time, by paying 1/6th of the present value of the 30 acres. The owners to carry the mortgage. I traded the 10 acre part for a home equity, which I sold the home to an investor with a lease for 2 years by a very large electronic firm. That was where I came up with the money to close on the property. I now owned 30 prime development acres, which I immediately sold for $100,000 profit to me. Under the principals of some on this forum, as I was a Realtor, I should have had to put that $ 100,000 into the pot to be divided between all Realtors in town. I don't think so. That 40 acres had been on the market for 2+ years, and I was the only one to figure out how to make this property valuable enough, to get my $100,000. No one even tried to sell the property. Share it, I DON'T THINK SO. And this example really happened. Over the years, I made more money in my own account, than I did from from commissions. Agents brought me a lot of problem properties that were not selling. Most of them, I wanted nothing to do with. The ones I saw as an opportunity, and the pay off was enough to make it worth my while, I would act as a principal and take a profit (often substantial) rather than a commission. Total time spent from start to finish, was about 6 hours of my time.
It is the same principal for a big corporation. The bottom rung (hourly workers), do not have the knowledge or experience to run a big corporation. There are very few people that can run one successfully. Those that can, are being well paid, with the majority of their income not from a salary, but from a share of the profits. The more profits, the more they make, as it should be.
The problem with a company controlled and ran by the workers, is the workers do not have the knowledge to make a company successful. There still has to be management, to run the company and make it viable.
Top management jobs, have to be handled by people that know what they are doing. A number of companies were going under, until a CEO that knew how to solve problems that existed in the company came into the company.
A lot of companies have been ready to go under, until they found top manager that could turn a company around and make it successful.
How many of you aware, that some of these turn around managers, went to work for $1 per year. Their big incomes, would only happen when the company got back to being profitable, and at different attainment goals, they were to receive a bonus, stock, etc. They only got big money, if they saved the company and turned it around. They then got a percentage of the increase they brought into the company. Kind of like a salesman (I never worked at anything but a commission salesman, or paid an override on salesmen that worked for me, from the time I got out of the navy in 1954) on commission. He/She gets a percentage of their sales, as their only pay. If a sales manager, he/she gets a portion of the sales made by the salesmen/saleswoman under the manager.
If a salesman is successful, then they make money, if not they fail out of the business. Example: Real Estate salesmen/women. 80% of all home sales, are made by the top 20% of the salespeople. The typical salesperson, will go broke and fail out of the business when they go broke.
I spent my first 10 years working in Furniture Stores (good solid middle class stores). Within a year, I was earning $125,000 plus in today's dollars. 4 years were spent in a top quality department store selling furniture. A major sale furnishing a quality home for a top executive, doctor, etc. often earned me in a couple of hours, more money than the sales clerks earned in a year.
After 10 years, I moved into the corporate world, and worked up to be division sales manager over everything west of the Mississippi River. After 8 years, I left and went into the real estate business. I spent a year before entering the business, taking University Courses, that taught me the business. I went into Investment Brokerage, handling investors like a stock broker does, buying, selling, and exchanging real estate for my pool of investors. This is when I learned what earning real money is like. I only sold 6 houses for personal residence in all the years in the business, and only handled those 6 clients as they were personal friends that I helped buy a home. I have sold as many as 14 houses in one day, and still hold the record for that county over 30 years later.
There are people on this thread, who think that all Real Estate commissions into a pot, and every salesman/woman should get an equal share of the pot, and no one would make a decent living. My opinion that those salespeople that did not earn a commission for that month, should have $0, and I should have what I earned.
Example. A Realtor came to me with a farm he had for sale for 2 years. I went out to look at it, which was about 1/4 mile outside the city limits. There was a long narrow 10 acres with a house, a barn, and an Alkali Pond. Not worth much, but I drove down a dirt road to the other 30 acres, which was a nice square property, that sloped down to a good quality middle class subdivision, with streets, and utilities stubbed up next to the 30 acres. I went back to my office and I wrote a contract that I would buy the farm at asking price, with 10 acre part to be separated from the other part of the farm at closing, acting as a principal and not as an agent and received no commission. The other 30 acres to me, with the privilege of paying off 5 acres at a time, by paying 1/6th of the present value of the 30 acres. The owners to carry the mortgage. I traded the 10 acre part for a home equity, which I sold the home to an investor with a lease for 2 years by a very large electronic firm. That was where I came up with the money to close on the property. I now owned 30 prime development acres, which I immediately sold for $100,000 profit to me. Under the principals of some on this forum, as I was a Realtor, I should have had to put that $ 100,000 into the pot to be divided between all Realtors in town. I don't think so. That 40 acres had been on the market for 2+ years, and I was the only one to figure out how to make this property valuable enough, to get my $100,000. No one even tried to sell the property. Share it, I DON'T THINK SO. And this example really happened. Over the years, I made more money in my own account, than I did from from commissions. Agents brought me a lot of problem properties that were not selling. Most of them, I wanted nothing to do with. The ones I saw as an opportunity, and the pay off was enough to make it worth my while, I would act as a principal and take a profit (often substantial) rather than a commission. Total time spent from start to finish, was about 6 hours of my time.
It is the same principal for a big corporation. The bottom rung (hourly workers), do not have the knowledge or experience to run a big corporation. There are very few people that can run one successfully. Those that can, are being well paid, with the majority of their income not from a salary, but from a share of the profits. The more profits, the more they make, as it should be.
The entire premise of your argument relays on a for profit model. If production isn't the end goal and instead helping form a profit, then yes, an organized leadership is needed to manipulate labor, mitigate personal freedoms, and distribute capital as to best maximize production while lower costs. By the same token production to meet needs using shared resources and knowledge should require mutual agreement. That doesn't mean ever worker gets to do whatever they want, but the production methods and distribution of capital would have to pass multiple checks and balances before and could affect the entire work place. Similarly having equal say does not mean everyone has the same role, logistical, technical, and organizational work still exist in production centers, but these jobs are handled as part of the production cycle.
Even assuming it is a for profit model, your argument again falls apart. Having worker ownership and worker management are separate but necessary factors. By itself your argument can be applied to a country: Average Americans don't understand how international or domestic policy work, so they shouldn't have a say in its creation.
I think we can agree this claim is ridiculous, neither of us would want a politburo running our country for us. The reason democratic organizations can work is because people play different roles. Just because everyone has a say doesn't mean everyone manages the same thing. That is why in real life worker cooperatives don't turn out how you suppose and are actually very successful, because having legislative and democratic influences in management doesn't lead to one random worker making decisions about product distribution or the such.
I don't, I think companies should be worker run democratically since they are the ones who keep the company operating, not the ones who manage the capital.
Most workers can't even spell Malaysia, much less find it on a map.
Workers do not know how to manage Capital. If workers knew how to manage Capital, they wouldn't be workers, they would be management.
The reason workers do not manage Capital is because they would make all the wrong decisions at all the wrong times, and quickly be out of a job.
Democracy doesn't work where Capital is involved. Capital requires authoritarian or authoritative management.
Marx's principles look good on paper, but don't work in reality. If you allowed crop-land to be managed by the community, the community would argue over what crops to plant, and they would continue arguing right past planting time, and so they would starve to death, because by the time they finally came to an agreement on what crops to plant, it would be too late to plant and harvest them.
The overwhelming vast majority of people are simply ignorant and totally lacking in vision. They don't have the necessary expertise to make the best decisions.
Those few people who do have the necessary expertise and vision rise to the level of management and beyond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Yes, they do get the majority of the capital output as they own it all.
They don't own it all. The shareholders own it. You don't even understand basic business principles.
Most workers can't even spell Malaysia, much less find it on a map.
Workers do not know how to manage Capital. If workers knew how to manage Capital, they wouldn't be workers, they would be management.
The reason workers do not manage Capital is because they would make all the wrong decisions at all the wrong times, and quickly be out of a job.
Democracy doesn't work where Capital is involved. Capital requires authoritarian or authoritative management.
Marx's principles look good on paper, but don't work in reality. If you allowed crop-land to be managed by the community, the community would argue over what crops to plant, and they would continue arguing right past planting time, and so they would starve to death, because by the time they finally came to an agreement on what crops to plant, it would be too late to plant and harvest them.
The overwhelming vast majority of people are simply ignorant and totally lacking in vision. They don't have the necessary expertise to make the best decisions.
Those few people who do have the necessary expertise and vision rise to the level of management and beyond.
They don't own it all. The shareholders own it. You don't even understand basic business principles.
1. I responded to this same argument in the post above
2. I was speaking of control of capital. The shareholders own the capital, and the board manages (there is overlap obviously).
A lot of misdirection on this thread. I would assume most people here would perfer to transfer our system into a politburo as that would be more ‘efficient’.
A lot of misdirection on this thread. I would assume most people here would perfer to transfer our system into a politburo as that would be more ‘efficient’.
actually i think all would "perfer" to have a rational discussion about realistic ideas that can actually make our economy better instead of beating the dead horses of failed economic theories that liberal arts degrees from New Hampshire think have merit in the 21st century.
actually i think all would "perfer" to have a rational discussion about realistic ideas that can actually make our economy better instead of beating the dead horses of failed economic theories that liberal arts degrees from New Hampshire think have merit in the 21st century.
All IMHO of course.
Besides most not acknowledging my main arguments, I’ll repeat economic models based off of mutual aid and natural law exist all across our country and create wealth capital for places the state and private industry have left. Just read up on evergreen as an example.
People who want to solve social, economic, and foreign policy must first understand that these issues are created by the political and economic institutions that run our country. If people want to be free, they must be allowed to control their own fate, not have it be controlled by corporate and state alliances.
Besides most not acknowledging my main arguments, I’ll repeat economic models based off of mutual aid and natural law exist all across our country and create wealth capital for places the state and private industry have left. Just read up on evergreen as an example.
People who want to solve social, economic, and foreign policy must first understand that these issues are created by the political and economic institutions that run our country. If people want to be free, they must be allowed to control their own fate, not have it be controlled by corporate and state alliances.
Maybe that's where your arguments fail with me, I'm already free, I'm an american.
Maybe that's where your arguments fail with me, I'm already free, I'm an american.
1. Freedom is a global issue
2. Maybe you are, but due to economic control, many aren’t
The only sustainable model is one where egalitarian and cooperative aid are the basis of economic development, not personal profit for a few.
Many did fine during the monarchies in Europe and weren’t slave, but there model wasn’t sustainable. Conversely today having a corporate system where decentralized authoritarian forces push for lower wages in Hati to build goods for American consumers who are manipulated by mass marketing, excess production, and state intervention is not only antithetical to free values, but also destructive to the environment and will lead to less freedom for workers domestically.
Suggesting a better system that is being tried on a large scale all ready to improve the current should be considered openly, but the current practicing powers don’t want to give that power up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
