Originally posted by RedDragon
This sounds like what a stock is. As workers become wealthier, they'll buy their companies' stocks. Increased wealth comes from increased
efficiency. Increased efficiency comes from maximizing profit margins. This is actually how capitalism will evolve into communism. If you try to
force it to happen too early, it will self-destruct via inefficiency. See every country that's tried to do so.
I agree communism should not be forced.
But no, buying stocks is not really worker ownership. For worker ownership to work the whole company must bellong to the workers outright.
How does a worker become wealthier? Most working wages barely keep up with inflation.
See also that most common people owned no stock in the 1800s. Now, everyone does. The trend is clear.
Again though stocks is not worker ownership. Generally people who buy stocks are not the workers of that company, so stock holders are private
owners. Also it doesn't solve the problem of equality because one person can buy more stock than another, so someone can always gain the majority
Worker ownership works on each individual worker earning from their production, as if it's their own company, the means to do that would be owned in
common by all the workers. For example you work for four hours and produce X amount of goods, you will be payed for four hours and the goods you
produced. In capitalism you work eight hours and get paid for four, everything you produce in that unpaid four hours goes to the private owner as
their profit. What the owner takes beyond what you earn is known as surplus value.
Under worker ownership there is no surplus value, you earn the full fruits of your labour, and no one gets unproportionally wealthy from your labour
allowing them to control and manipulate the system.
How would you measure efficiency without profit? How would you reinvest the excess resources created by higher efficiency into other operations
There would no issue of efficiency in that respect, we would be free to produce all we need. There is no need for investment in a economy based on
needs, not profit.
Capitalism creates artificial scarcity in order to maintain high prices and high profits, there would no need for scarcity when the limitation of
having to make profit are removed.
By its very definition, a profit margin is the efficiency level of the resources used relative to the end-product.
In a capitalist economy. You have to change your mindset away from profit because worker ownership is not a profit based economy, it is a needs based
economy. Money is nothing but a tool for control. The problem comes when money is made from a product, but instead of a fair exchange, that money
then can be used to accumilate money without any product involved. This is how capitalist make most of their wealth, 60% of it. 40% from exploiting
In the barter system you exchange product for product, all is equal. No one can take advantage of the economy simply because they have more money.
Recessions are bad ideas going bust. Booms are new ideas being tried. Booms have higher absolute value than recessions. How would you get the
resources to try new ideas without reallocating the resources from the bad ones?
Not exactly. No capitalist economy is never permanent. Even good economies eventually have busts. This is because capitalists have no concern for
communities and will move to cheaper markets, or remove their contribution to the economy, because they are forced to make profit to survive.
Without the need to make profit, and the means of production in the hands of workers (most of us), companies can remain in communities in order to
serve the community. Rather than property being used to make a few people rich, it would be used to supply our communities with what they need.
When you don't have profit to measure efficiency and don't have bidding to determine all the information about resources conveyed in price, you
get a system with no or poor checks on how well resources are used. When you don't use resources well, you get both less out of them (less
investment) and less stuff (lower efficiency). When you get less stuff, you get poor.
I disagree. There are many ways to determine how resources are used. You are trying to look at this from the perspective of capitalism, profit
making for the minority, socialism doesn't work that way. The only thing that keeps resources scarce to the point they have to be micromanaged is
artificial scarcity and the need to make profit. The only limitation on resources is the means to produce, monopolized by a minority and their use
denied unless the owner can make a profit.
edit on 11/15/2012 by ANOK because: (no reason given)