You're viewing a single thread.
-
Socialists don't hate markets, they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market.
Workers owning the means of production just means the workers are doing the same work but they are in ownership of the factory and the profits. They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
-
They will still sell the products they produce in a marketplace.
There is no rule that states they have to sell squat in a marketplace. They could, but they also couldn't. That's the whole point of the workers owning the means of production - the workers involved makes those deicisions, not a capitalist or bureaucratic parasite class.
-
So every company remodeled after REI, got it.
-
Permanently Deleted
-
labor vouchers
Or as normal people call it, "money"
-
Permanently Deleted
-
-
Marxists do hate Markets though
We love oversimplifying generalizations that make us look like absolute buffoons though.
At least according to trustworthy sources, i.e. your gut feeling.
/s
-
Permanently Deleted
-
Right, and Marxists are characterized by their complete lack of reasoning skills, so they have to blindly parrot everything Marx has ever said, especially the stuff that obviously doesn't work out. This is actually core marxist thinking.
/s
-
Permanently Deleted
-
-
-
-
-
How would that even work.
It's very very easy to do something like have a capitalist system where business and the rich are taxed. But you aren't on about that.
You could divide everything up today. But with change and new business ideas that system will never work. You think the people would want to invest in new automation, new ways of working, new industries. If it means growth and job losses? No never. Just look at the western car industry, or any big government owned industry. People don't want change, even things like running a factory 24/7 instead of a nice 9-5 is difficult.
Then Japan's comes along and does all this new stuff and puts most of the western workforce out of business.
-
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
-
Cool, what is your preferred replacement and does everyone in this thread agree? You have managed to continue criticism but not offer a replacement yet again.
-
The ole can have criticism without perfect solutions response. Cool, how useless and pointless of you.
-
I'm confused, isn't criticism without alternatives itself useless and pointless?
-
No, it broadens and deepens understanding.
Alternatives come from that understanding. Criticism is the fundamental step towards alternatives.
-
No, it broadens and deepens understanding
How exactly do you come to that conclusion?
Edit: "Thing bad" doesn't broaden or deepen anything. "Thing has specific shortcomings which aren't present in specific alternative to thing" is a useful criticism. Criticism without alternatives is just called complaining.
-
"thing has specific shortcomings" is a useful criticism.
-
Not always, sometimes it's just an acknowledgement of insurmountable facts. Pointing out the inability of a particular engine to overcome the laws of thermodynamics to output more energy than is input is not useful criticism. Pointing out the mortality of individuals is not useful criticism. Those shortcomings are specific, but unless there's some alternative that doesn't have those shortcomings, those aren't useful observations, they're pointless complaints.
-
youre wrong.
if we're talking about the input requirements of some engine to drive its load and those don't match then "yells in thermodynamics" is an incredibly useful criticism.
if we're talking about a project that relies on one person then discussing their mortality is an incredibly useful criticism.
in this case, the thing we're talking about is markets and the comment youre accusing of being a pointless complaint is
I, a socialist, hate markets. They are simplistic and functional artifacts of the available way to pass information.
which is an absolutely useful criticism. relying on markets to pass information is a holdover from before we had better methods to do so. the most profitable companies now use data outside the marketplace to make decisions to the point of developing enormous networks to collect, store, parse, interpret and disseminate that information. Cybersyn, the socialist version of this technology, allowed such powerful subversion of american plots against Chile that the only alternative was a fascist military coup.
so it's not a pointless complaint, but an accurate distillation of criticism most recently offered up to the american public eye as the book The Peoples Republic of Walmart.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I, a socialist don't. I think however they should be tightly regulated. And kept away from basic necessitys.
Markets have proven time and again to only serve oligarchs, or create oligarchs to serve. When left to their own wont. If we can choose to participate or not in the markets. Then there is no issue with markets. When we're slaves to the markets as we currently are however. No one is free.
-
Markets have lots of issues; you just named a bunch. Markets are subject to all kinds of hidden information manipulation contrary to prompting non cooperation and solving for individual maximums via exploitation like you literally outlined. Your wish to magically regulate them is just going to be corrupted.
-
Which is why I specifically mentioned decoupling from necessities. Regardless it seems like we are both blocked from the community LOL. But it's not like I expected more from the community based around memes
-
-
-
So, you would never trade with someone else something you have for something they have? You want to be entirely self sufficient?
If this isn't true, why do think markets serve no purpose?
-
Do you really think all exchange of goods is a market?
-
Yes. Do you not?
-
So Christmas gifts are a market?
-
No because I don't give you a gift only if you give me one. It's not a transaction. They are gifts.
...but you turned it into a semantic point. If I farm sheep and you bake bread, it's a market when I trade you wool for bread. If trade even as basic as this can't occur then you're relying on everyone to be self-sufficient.
The alternative is you're expecting everyone to put everything they produce into a kitty which is distributed to all, and I think that is a sure fire recipe for everyone to go hungry and for society to stagnate. There's little incentive to be productive, and no incentive to be inventive.
-
Hunger is such a poor motivator.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
They can do that under capitalism. Several companies are owned by their workers. Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
-
Did... did I say they couldn't? I think this continues to be a misunderstanding of what socialists believe.
-
So ah... What's the issue then? You can have what you want under capitalism. Attacking the system is forcing your own on others. This is unironically what makes socialism unpopular in the context of history.
-
Did I attack the system in my comment or did I give a bare bones breakdown of what socialism is?
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892938
https://lemmy.ml/comment/2892727
Maybe even check my other posts in this thread to get a better idea of my opinion on this instead of jumping to conclusions.
-
They said it in the first comment
they hate workers not having any power or democratic choice in how they interact in the market
-
Good luck here lol
-
The western left doesn't agree on one form of socialism to align around so it is both impossible to criticize with any specificity and serves as a catch-all in opposition to the current system. It breaks down when they suddenly have to align on specific policies.
-
That's a good thing; socialism is a fledgling idea. It needs discoure and experimentation. The attack that lack of exact details and perfect cohesion is an empty one.
-
Wanting to burn down the system without a coherent and specific approach to replace it only hurts people.
-
Permanently Deleted
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nothing stops them! except shitty wages that are not enough to pay your absurdly high bills for housing, utility and shitty food plus competition which does not treat their eorkers fair and is therefore much more profitable and can easily destroy your worker-friendly cooperative, which they totally will do because CAPITALISM
-
Excuses... People always have an excuse for why they didn't do something.
-
You're asking people with little to no resources to take on people who have all the resources.
You don't seem like you understand modern capitalism.
-
People will donate a significant portion of their wages to ineffectual radical politicians but won't bother to consolidate capital to support co-ops. That's the actual system I see.
-
What poor people do you think are donating wages to "radical politicians"? Have you ever met any poor people?
-
-
I do. I am not asking anyone to do anything. I am pointing out they are free to start their own business and compete if they think they can do better.
Nobody thought Sears could be beat and now they're mostly gone.
Starbucks started with a small investment and now look at them.
I think people want to make excuses for everything because they don't want to take the risk or don't know how to run a company. It's easier than actually going out there and doing it. Running a company is hard work. It is a risk. I have done it several times. Never made an ass load of money but I left each one to the employees when I was done. Each one they ran right into the ground.
-
Wanna loan me $850,000 so I can start my own business? If it works I'll pay you back in 20 years.
-
What’s the business plan?
-
Okay I said I was done talking with you but I actually love any excuse to nerd out on this so here:
The state of California has mandated compostable household and business waste be separated out and picked up separately much like recycling is already separated. This is a law that is already in effect; however, they have declined to enforce it so far. They have recently began making statements that they will begin enforcing the law and fining businesses and property owners for not complying.
Many small municipalities (and some big ones) have not even started setting up the infrastructure to do so. They're way behind.
This means there is a captive market for a company providing those services. A potentially huge market.
Now anyone can set up a waste collection service, it's pretty standardized, but here's where my idea is different. A technology called pyrolization.. It mostly requires organic materials, lots of em. In essence, it's burning without fire. The input is organic material, the output is a stable carbon-rich solid called biochar (similar to charcoal except not as flammable), and something called syngas, which is similar to natural gas. With the right machinery, the process produces energy and is carbon-negative.
The carbon-negative aspect is the selling point. Do you know how many carbon-negative businesses there are? You could probably count them, globally, on both hands. This would play EXTREMELY well in California.
Pyrolysis is not a new technology, but applying it at scale is. Currently it's mainly in use as a way of processing human waste. There's a company called BioForceTech in the Bay Area that has a successfully operating pyrolysis machine processing human waste, and they have machines globally that also process feedstock like wood chips and nut shells. Municipal organic waste would require a sorting machine for sure, but other than that it could use their machine just fine. And the sorting machine wouldn't have to be as complex as those in municipal compost systems: if plastic gets mixed into your compost, that's bad. If plastic gets mixed into something you're just going to burn and bury, not a huge deal.
$850,000 is not enough to set something up like this on the municipal level. That would take millions. It's enough to get buy-in from BioForceTech, ReCology (bay area waste management company that has experience with waste-gas powered trucks, and compost sorting machines), investors, and local and state government (the state has several grant and loan programs for "green" businesses, especially in waste collection).
In my opinion the biggest, most profitable market would be Santa Clara County or Alameda County, both in the bay area and both have limited compost pickup presently. But that's a big bite to chew and I think beyond the capabilities of a new business. Something like small towns in Mendocino County would be perfect - small enough that they don't have municipal organics collection aside from maybe yard trimmings, liberal enough that the carbon-negative aspect would play well, rural enough to have plenty of cheap land for a processing facility.
So that's our market. We get to charge customers for the pickup, and then sell the power generated as "clean energy". Not to mention the whole thing functions like a peaker plant. When electricity prices are low, you can adjust the output ratio to create more biochar - adding to the carbon-negative selling point (and getting some money from cap and trade). When electricity prices are high, you can get more syngas and burn it as carbon-neutral energy.
The one thing I'm not very familiar on and would need to consult experts on is the regulations involved in the "selling electricity" aspect. The regulatory burden may make that part not feasible, I just don't know enough about it.
-
-
-
-
-
Surprise, when there are obstacles standing in the way of your goals, people may mention those obstacles when asked about progress towards their goals. What an absolute flaccid take.
-
-
-
Nothing in America stops the workers from owning the factory or the profits.
Fully stop? No, not technically. But our society makes it as close to impossible as it can be without being illegal
-
Give an example. That is hyperbolic as hell since there are several successful ones out there.
-
Look at the current environment in America. Look at the absence of worker co-ops besides like Winco. Why aren't there more? What factors are at play that is seemingly preventinf the natural formation of worker co-ops if they are allowed? Are children taught they can do that? Do people getting MBAs learn this in their classes? There are a lot of questions to ask here. While we do have some examples, for whatever reason they are not common here. I do think it has something to do with the resources the average citizen has available, the current ecosystems within existing markets, and all around education of the average American citizen.
-
Law enforcement?
-
They are more common than you think. They appear to be grocery stores and engineering firms. Just do a quick google and you will find hundreds of them, many you have heard of.
-
-
-
-
Only in the most technical of technical senses. Much like "there's nothing stopping someone who's born poor from becoming a millionaire". Legally? No. Practically? Yes, there's so freakin many barriers to such a thing happening, it's almost statistically impossible. It's so rare that when it happens it makes national headlines.
-
Not really I grew up poor and I’m a millionaire. It’s not that hard of a bar to cross.
I think you should google how many millionaires there are in America. That number would shock you.
-
Ok now I know you're a troll. And a liar.
Poor people who became millionaires exist, but they're a rounding error. I don't think you're one of them, though I bet you tell yourself that. Having daddy pay for your tuition or whatever is just conveniently left out.
Actually, I bet you're not even a millionaire.
Whatever it is, the point is that what you're claiming is so statistically rare, I don't believe you. And then you're also claiming it's common.
Ergo, troll.
I'm done talking with you.
-
Over 6% of the population. That’s from 2019. I suspect that number is even higher now.
My Uncle Sam paid for my school.
-
-
-
-
Banks frequently do.
-
Banks frequently what? I think people don't understand the concept of capitalism. It means somebody has to inject the capital. The bank isn't a charity. Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan. Every company has to start with some form of capital injection but the workers could do it if they wanted. If you and your friend want to compete with Starbucks, nothing is stopping you.
-
I don't have access to the same network of third world slaves that Starbucks does.
-
As someone in the industry, I can say you actually do. It's scary how easy it is to buy coffee harvested by literal or effectively slaves.
-
What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee.
-
You clearly know nothing of the coffee industry. Don't speak on a topic if you literally know nothing. Third wave coffee exists because of the inherent abuse of the workers who actually harvest coffee. That you're so naive to even think that the person behind the counter is the end of who is part of Starbucks is shockingly sad considering how much you're trying to fight for something that is dependent on you needing a much better understanding of what you're talking about.
-
Literally everything this person has said about how the coffee industry works has been wrong.
-
You think Starbucks owns slave labor? Otherwise, my point is solid. They do not.
-
I never said Starbucks owns the slave labor. But to ignore the influence they have is outstandingly naive. Like, do you think at all before replying? Are you in middle school and have any idea how the real world operates?
-
So you ignored what was said but felt compelled to say something silly to try to win points? If you are not paying attention to the conversation then say nothing.
-
What did I ignore? You only had one or two sentences there. I replied to it and pointed out how it's faulty. You'll need to help me out because I think you're using some other form of the English language or dialogue model than the rest of those who speak the language use.
-
-
-
-
-
What do you think coffee is? Do you think people with colored hair just magically conjure coffee out of the ether?
-
You just said a lot of something that made zero sense.
You think the people working at Starbucks are slaves?
-
You clearly don't understand what coffee is or how many hands it has to pass through before it even gets to the barista.
-
-
-
You do realize that coffee beans grow in the tropics.... right?
They aren't growin em in fuckin Seattle.
-
Starbucks doesn't own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler..
-
I think the point the other user was trying to make is that Starbucks already has connections, and they are able to source their coffee from more shady sources if they really want to. Someone starting out new has no such connections and will pay a higher price for their beans than Starbucks, ergo, they have to find something else to compete on other than price (which I think is possible, I live near many local coffee shops, including some worker co-ops). However, you're still dealing with Starbucks having a larger presence than you, economically, and them being able to source cheaper goods due to economies of scale. I would think you're already familiar with this. You're correct in asserting that you're stuck just having to "believe" your sources don't use slave labor, because you're sourcing it from another country. Starbucks at least has the money to check on such things, if they so choose.
The point that I was trying to make was that Starbucks works with more than just the people at the counter, which is how you characterized it. Moving goalposts now isn't very helpful.
-
That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger. If you make a better product then people may choose to go with your product. Coffee isn't a price sensitive product. It is a high margin product. People are not going to Starbucks because they're cheaper.
-
I don't disagree, but you characterized it differently in a previous comment. If you don't want people jumping to conclusions, maybe leave out the hyperbole and try to focus on what you actually want to get across. Obviously "What third word slaves make your coffee at Starbucks? It’s normally some teeny something green haired person making your coffee." is majorly hyperbolic if you're aware of bad working conditions in other countries. You could have said as much and made the argument you're making now.
Seriously, to others it just feels like moving goalposts.
-
That is what happened when starbucks started as well. Other people were larger.
No. It wasn't. Starbucks was a 'first' in many ways. It was prior to third wave. First will always have advantages.
-
-
-
Starbucks doesn’t own the farms. They buy the beans from the people growing them. The exact same thing you would do if you started a coffee chain or you would buy from a wholesaler…
It's so insanely more complicated than that. Not all farms are equal.
-
-
-
-
-
but the workers could do it if they wanted
Yeah, and a third party candidate could be voted into every seat and the presidency, but it's so stacked against it occurring, it's effectively impossible.
The state of the economy today is what's stopping a vast majority of people from doing so. You can open a coffee shop and survive, but you could never compete against Starbucks. You would not even dent their bottom line. You would need hundreds of millions of dollars to realistically compete. Capitalism has brought us to a point where a majority of folks need to sell their idea to investors, further separating most workers from the value of their work.
Edit: I'm really tired of the naive and childish defenses most people put up for capitalism. "Nothing is stopping you." Yeah and "nothing" is stopping a transgender women from becoming our next president by the same definition of "nothing". Might as well say nothing is stopping you from passing through walls as quantum mechanics says it's possible.
-
WE will never have a third party nor would I want one. We would need 6-10 parties. That is the only way this gets better.
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger. You don't. If you are trying to make a living for your coop, you just need to make enough for all of you to do that.
Dutch Brothers is doing well and they're not near the size of Starbbucks. Peets has always done well.
-
Dutch brothers by revenue is essentially a drive through energy drink stand, not a coffee company and Peet's is owned by a holding company that got rich off of Nazi work camp labor.
-
Peers wasn’t started by jab. They were purchased later by jab.
Both have competed with Starbucks.
Actually the guy who started Starbucks worked for Peet’s.
That’s the point. Peet’s was the Starbucks until Starbucks started.
I’ve owned a few coffee places but I focused more on the old coffeehouse experience. It’s a different model entirely.
I may do it again. I always did ok but people want quick service.
-
Peet's had 4 stores before it started changing hands, Peet's and Starbucks famously did not compete with each other for years, and Starbucks wasn't even selling brewed coffee before it was taken over by Shultz and venture capital.
But from my experience in the industry, your confident incorrectness is perfectly in character for a coffee shop owner.
-
You haven't owned coffee places. You've been entirely wrong on how to source coffee plus your description of what even makes coffee. If you used to own them, you probably ran them into the ground. You're objectively wrong on coffee production.
-
Since I never talked about growing coffee or production. I have no clue what you’re babbling about.
All I can tell is you have no clue about coffee at all.
-
-
-
-
You seem to think to compete, you have to grow larger.
You need to at least meet inflation, if not outpace it. Moreover, you're not competing if you aren't actually trying to battle. Competition breeds innovation. If you do not compete and do not get better or try to improve, society would degrade and regress. Come on. Before you respond next time, just think about what the consequence of what you're saying is before.you actually hit the button. It saves us a lot of time.
-
It’s coffee. It just needs to be coffee. You don’t have to be the largest coffee place. You just kneed to provide the workers a solid income and pay the bills.
-
-
-
-
Typically they will want collateral such as your home for a large loan.
You know the great majority of people don't have any such collateral, right? Holy privilege, dude
-
-
Own outright? Or have a mortgage?
Even if, hypothetically, 65% of people owned their homes outright, that's still over a third of the population who can't even consider getting a loan like you described.
And for those that COULD, they're betting their entire life on it. People with money can afford to take risks. It's not an even playing field, at all.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Do they actually trust their coworkers to run the company without tanking it almost immediatly? Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up, let alone actually having input on how the business is run.
-
I trust my average coworker much more than the average CEO.
-
Highly depends on your coworkers. My current coworkers? Yeah they're great, we have two electrical engineers on my team, buncha geniuses.
My last job? Oh man I wouldn't trust those guys as far as I could throw em.
-
And how did you feel about upper management at that job?
-
Untrustworthy but at least smart.
-
-
-
-
Some of the workers may be managerial. But the managerial workers don't own a disproportionate amount of the company, and they're not considered the "superior" of any other workers.
-
You must need a better job. I've had plenty of workplaces where I could count on everyone around me.
You know, the hiring manager usually has something to do with the quality of people hired. Maybe you could talk to them instead?
-
If I made my hiring manager worried more about quality I wouldn't be hired
-
That doesn't really change the overall point. People are stupid. It's the single biggest sticking point in democracy, socialism, communism, really anything except dictatorship/technocracy/oligarchy/etc. Any system where you cede power to the masses runs the risk of the masses being utterly stupid.
I think it's worth it, because stupid is better than evil, but it's still a point worth considering.
-
-
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks without fucking something up
This is a problem with the company you work for, not your coworkers. I'm sure if they were paid more, were given more agency, and received better training, they'd be better elployees
-
Either that or the reason they purposefully hire meth-addled freaks is because they want desperate people who won't fight for any of those things.
Source: Friend who works in a warehouse and has coworkers who are obviously there to get a paycheck to afford their fix and then move on. It's the company culture. They could choose to hire better people, or mentor the people who could grow, they don't.
-
No, they're just idiots. Myself and others have had the same training and responsibilities and do fine. It's not that difficult of a job.
-
-
Most of my coworkers can barely make it through their own tasks
I guess you haven't met many CEOs, then.
-
Didn't say they run it. The person who runs it can be simply another employee. It's just there are no outside investors and everyone has a vote on the board. You put someone in charge you trust but everyone as a whole has a say in big picture stuff with the person at the top being day to day and being held accountable to employees and not investors.
Capitalism fundamentally changes the relationship between workers and their work. One takes the value they create and gives it to someone else. One doesn't.
-
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else? I certainly wouldn't put up with all the complications of leading a bunch of people without being paid extra.
-
But why would this employee put in that more work than anybody else? Just to get the same amount of compensation as anybody else?
Who said that's the case?
-
Than I don't really get the idea. Could you elaborate?
- As far as I understood, the company's shares belong to the employees ("everyone gets a seat on the board") and those elect a director which in turn organises the work structure, assigns roles etc. Correct?
- Can he be replaced at all times?
- How is the compensation of the employees determined?
- How are employees handled which are not performing their duties?
- Can employees be fired?
- How can employees join and leave the company?
- Do they return their shares on leaving?
- Can they buy and sell their shares?
- How do new employees get their shares? Are they assigned or bought?
- How is capital raised for large long-term investments like a new machine?
- If the employees bring up the capital, do they get interest?
- What if no capital can be raised? Is the company terminated?
- Can some employees put in more capital than others?
- Is the financial gain distributed equally between the employees?
-
-
-
-
@lightnsfw @dingus
You really think the people currently running your company are any different from those other coworkers?-
Yes I think so, because the people running the company have no interest in listening to the positions of the workers, especially if it makes them less money.
When the people working in the company have a democratic vote, they at least have a choice and don't have big mistakes dictated from upon high.
At least then, the workers can agree they all made a shitty mistake together. It doesn't mean workers are infallible. All humans are fallible. All humans make mistakes. The difference is the power dynamic, nothing else.
-
I think they have education related to the running of a large company whereas most of my coworkers barely made it through their IT certs and have some of the stupidest takes regarding how things should be done I've ever heard in my life.
-
Education related to the exploitation of their workers
Ftfy
-
-
-
You must be a joy to work with.
-
I'm great to work with. No one has to worry if the task they assign me is going to be done right and on time.
-
-
-