What's wrong with worker control of the means of production?
Under capitalism the source of investment is surplus wealth held mostly by the upper class. The upper class then charges the working class explicit and implicit rental costs in exchange for access to capital and housing.
Over time this creates huge inequality and it means the condition of the working class doesn't improve as much as it ought to
Other urls found in this thread:
Try this expirement on a small scale, try opening a restaraunt or other small business that is worker controlled. Lets see how long it lasts. If it can't be made to work on a small scale, how do you expect it to work on much larger scale, say a city, state or country?
Those vegans sound like they didn't get the idea. You have to follow certain rules as well and provide a service.
Marx noted, besides that, that capitalists and workplace dictatorship might be more effective from the standpoint of squeezing out a surplus from your labourers. So workplace democracies would find it hard to survive
In a capitalist economy
Non-marxist AnCom here
Enjoy your DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat.
Marxists are damaging to the cause
Okay, so it's pretty important that you know where the money is going in a capitalist system.
First, most of it goes to maintenance and pay. Worker's salaries, refreshing supplies, replacing broken parts, etc.
Then a portion of remaining money gets spent on growth. Building new factories, restaurants, stores, etc.
Then the owner gets whatever is left, but this is only after it's all been taxed and split between the owners or stockholders.
Is the owner making more than the worker? Certainly, but it's not like most of the money the business makes isn't going towards the business itself, and it is actually very important that the owner makes more, as this is called incentive. Since starting a business is a risk that can leave you in a lot of debt, there needs to be an incentive of reward.
"But why have competition at all?" you may ask. It keeps businesses efficient. The free market follows the ideal of "survival of the fittest", the business that can produce the most for the lowest cost will surpass the others.
Now, I'm no libertarian, in fact I'm a fascist, but we fascists recognize that while we don't like our workers to be exploited if we have the government take over everything it will be a bureaucratic nightmare and nothing will get done, so we instead have private businesses compete on the free market, but direct them to be useful to the nation. That is the goal of corporatism. I can explain that in greater detail later.
Drink bleach, Jahans.
So your proposed system has to have ideal and perfect conditions in order to survive. If any unforseen variable arises it fails. And the only way to impose a dictatorship is either through dishonesty or reaction. Out of curiosity though which job would you want in a dictator ship of the proletariat. Agricultural laborer or Mineral extraction?
socialism is for fucking retards come join the real men in the world of ancap
annime is for queers
Nothing as long as there's no niggers to show up late and do a half assed job
Nothing. Go for it. Start a business where every worker controls the means of production, and every new person you hire on gets an equal share.
literally not an argument
it isnt your retarded man baby who wants to suck off the government nipples
You need a profit incentives in a capitalist system to stop them just consuming their capital, but my point is they shouldn't be able to make profits on their surplus wealth in the first place; it should be owned collectively.
I support a market economy, but with worker control of the workplace. They will copy the most productive techniques- if that's what they want to do. Some of them will choose to be less productive but more comfy
Incidentally, are there divisions between fascists and National Socialists? Because Socialism is a completely different economic system to fascism
Paid labour can't compete with slavery either
But I don't have any
lol collective slave mentality beta male
Don't have any capital
>communism
>a government
Governments are immoral
Nice meme though
lol your an ancom the worst of the worst. How can you logically say governments are immoral when our ancom i agree that they are but ur a communist lol.
Ancoms don't need to make sense; they just have to feel superior
You are free to form a collectively owned business in our current capitalist economy. I have no problem with a worker owned business, as long as they pay their taxes and the workers don't try to "liberate" all the other business in a revolution.
National Socialism is basically fascism with some racial stuff thrown in. Classical fascism tends to favor civic nationalism, whereas National Socialism tends to favor ethno-nationalism.
your not much higher on the totem pole buddy
fuck off anime fag
Have you read the 10 planks of communism?
>goes to an anime image board
>complains about anime images
People like you are the reason communism is a dirty word. You literally confirm in people's minds that idiot dictators like Lenin and Stalin were actual communists and not state capitalists / totalitarians
You are deluded, Marx would despise authoritarians like you.
fuck off fag welcome to the Sup Forums revolution this isnt your home anymore it is now ours
go hang yourself for treason against the white race nigger
No
But there won't be many worker owned businesses because workers are too poor to set up businesses and the capitalists don't worry about their workers so can't push prices lower.
The system itself stops workers having that freedom, or at least using it
I thought National Socialists might be socialists. It's weird you have all this stuff about masculinity and struggle and unity, but essentially they are allowing unearned income and a very wealthy parasitic class that eventually doesn't even work and is richer than everyone else
I've read them but not really analysed them.
From what I remember they were pretty meh, more of a system for transferring into state communism
Because the workers never do. Its a lie. A dictator always end up with all the power and money because the people who support him are the same people who unironically think socialsm works
>creates huge inequality
Life is never equal, never has been, never will be.
Nature is not equal, never has been, never will be.
>HEY, LET'S TRY TO OVERRULE ALL OF HUMAN EXISTENCE BY CREATING SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE CREATED!!!!
Gas all commie retards now, you're too fucking dumb to exist.
Marx was an authoritarian, I don't know how you didn't realise. He supported violent revolution, state ownership of all firms, and total liquidation of the capitalist class
>What's wrong with worker control of the means of production?
Because then there's nobody to blame if something does wrong. it's impossible to assign responsibility when everything is collective controlled and planned
>> violent thief
Nigger-tier ideology
There can be some inequality due to inequality of natural talents without introducing the kind of huge inequalities that capitalism creates.
Capitalism amplifies and widens the differences over time, to the point where the capitalist class actually does nothing except live off unearned income
A system for replacing capitalism? Please explain.
>worker control of the means of production?
> dindus and wetbacks controlling the means of production
good idea, Germany will be happy to sell you new machinery every 5 years
You can either save up and combine your resources, or you can get a loan from a bank. Also, if the workers are getting paid too little, they can form a union for collective bargaining power. The Mondragon Corporation did it, you should be able to as well.
Strasserists are basically socialist versions of National Socialist. Fascists tend to be more about duty and unity with hierarchy than whatever it is socialists are about. Yes, workers will get less than the owners (although they can still form their own business if they want) but that is the price they pay for efficient business that allows the nation to grow. The government makes sure the working class isn't getting too screwed over and that the businesses are benefiting the nation. These benefits can then be spent on projects that benefit the workers again. It's sort of like a second taxes that you pay, you don't keep everything you build but the resources certainly aren't wasted either. Besides, happiness stops increasing once income passes about $75,000, there's not much of a point to making everyone rich, as long as they can feed themselves and live a comfortable life then the rest of the money can be spent on greater things.
>implying anyone will buy german goods once the dindus and wetbacks have "seized the means of production"
Only way I do socialism is if there is also nationalism involved. National Socialism is much, much better. Listen to some George Lincoln Rockwell, OP. He did a great speech about it.
That business closed for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that their operating hours weren't very compatible with the locals' schedules. I looked up the reviews and they had good things to say about the food but less than positive things about service times.
I know a lot of cooperatively operated businesses that function very well.
Fascism doesn't really involve true socialism, Strasserism is closer to what the OP is talking about.
I know the video you're probably thinking about though.
What about Seychelles, (temporarily) Yugoslavia, and other such examples?
What would you call nationalism combined with the nordic model in norway, denmark, sweden? That is very capitalists markets and free enterprise but with publicly funded healthcare. It is clearly not socialist because the workers do not own the means of production
Inequality in talents and differences between individuals aren't necessarily the totality of factors that predispose the current system to forming huge inequalities in wealth and status.
It's clearly supposed to usher in the 'state communism' phase prior to the state withering away. Not really to necessarily make the economy function better. He even said some of the stuff there might seem counterproductive
Hitler banned unions though. Wages were stagnant or decreasing for most of the 30s.
I get your argument how it's like paying taxes, but it's really a tax paid to the wealthy instead of the state. It would be better if the state just took over investment, wouldn't it?
As for $75,000 hardly anybody makes close to that in the UK. And there are gains just from what I think would be a more harmonious society and working arrangement
If dindus aren't working in a factory or shop, they don't own it. If they are working there, they own it and the profits entailed to proper management.
we have no production
we voted out to fuck you up soci scum
What's your next move?
Those are just mixed economies, when they are that far to the left they might be called "social democracy".
Now, if they went back to the corporatist system they had back from the 1900's to 1970's (which, as the graph shows, was the years their economy grew the most), then combined that with some authoritarianism and nationalism, then they could be considered
>What's wrong with worker control of the means of production?
1) the said means of production don't belong to the workers and would not have been created if it was to be forcefully handed over to them in the first place.
2) You need decision-making. What belongs to everybody belongs to nobody. "The workers" means nobody is concretely in charge, so that nobody is ever accountable for anything.
Socialism is chaos, an envious child's wet dream. Becoming an adult = growing out of socialist illusions.
Distributism is the only legitimate economic model.
Who will buy and maintain the expensive machines?
Who will market the goods?
Who will make the insurance payments?
Will you faggots stop replying to this pinko shit - this exact thread is on here 43 times a day
>don't belong to the workers
Correct
>would not have been created if it was to be forcefully handed over to them in the first place.
They could have, so you don't know.
Socialist systems can create means of production too
>you need decision making
Correct
>nobody is concretely in charge, so that nobody is ever accountable for anything.
The workers who make decisions will be accountable, and will hold each other accountable.
They will also lose money
>who will buy the machines?
In my model the state
>maintain the machines
The workers
>market the goods
The workers I guess
Though in Korea the state paid some advertising costs for young companies when they were industrialising and it seemed to work well
>insurance payments
What kind of insurance senpai
>Hitler banned unions though
He replaced them with the German Labour Force. Fascism favors making the state as powerful as possible, so having a bunch of possibly socialist trade unions around was a risk to Germany at the time, especially with the Soviet Union next door and revolutions springing up in various locations.
>I get your argument how it's like paying taxes, but it's really a tax paid to the wealthy instead of the state.
The wealthy will still be taxed on that money, and most of that wealth flowing upwards will be spent on new projects to strengthen the state (roads, technology, etc.). If they do end up hoarding the wealth, then they won't do as well in the market, and the state will stop favoring them.
Democracy is an inherently inefficient method of decision-making. It gives idiots an equal say in how the production process is to be executed. Idiots make the allocation of scarce resources unnecessarily inflated.
It's decent. I've never heard another person advocate for it on Sup Forums before.
Economics based on the family as the least divisible economic unit with subsidiarity as its cornerstone. It can be intermixed with any other model, but every model benefits from its inclusion, and that includes fascism, monarchy, etc.
>he replaced them with the GLF
Were they the ones that raised the work week and lowered wages?
>tax capitalist profits
Generates revenue and reduces stratification, but promotes consumption of the surplus wealth on frivolities
Socialists want the surplus wealth to be made to work for everyone and produce goods
Very accurate description. I like you.
>What's wrong with worker control of the means of production?
Nothing. In fact you and your best buds and like minded individuals can start your own co-op or commune or what ever you want in the states. Nothing stops you. Except efficiency.
>Were they the ones that raised the work week and lowered wages?
It wasn't all bad. Germany was in a recession, yet he lowered unemployment by 18%, he offered subsidized holidays, cheap theatre trips. etc.
Cheers. "Economics for Helen" is one book Sup Forums would benefit from reading. Of course he also wrote "The Jews" but I think most Sup Forumsacks could skip that one. Very prolific. Chesterton was a great judge of character to recognize his genius.
Like I said, efficiency of the kind you're talking about doesn't make something good
Paid labour can't compete with slavery
He borrowed a lot of money as well
Sure he got results but how much of a miracle is it
You're a child speaking from your dreams. There's a reason why it never works, and it's not a lack of trying.
>The workers who make decisions will be accountable, and will hold each other accountable.
>They will also lose money
Rejoice, it already exists: it's called publicly listed companies and there you have kamarad-workers using means of production that belong to other kamarad-workers and being held accountable for it.
The only issue is, some kamarad-workers are smarter, more hard-working or well connected than others so they own more shares of the means of production which upsets the purists because muh equality can never be accomplished as they would like it.
Socialism that works is called capitalism. That's where people are held accountable . Next
>What's wrong with worker control of the means of production?
It goes against human nature, which is why it will always fail.
Why dont you understand how free market economics is about incentives/disincentives?
Why is it such a hard thing to understand?
To answer your question, nothing is wrong with workers controlling the means of production.
It's possible now. Just get yourself and some buddies together and start a business where every employee is also an equal stakeholder.
I believe such businesses even exist. Check em out.
>worker control of the means of production?
What the fuck does that even mean?
That never really works though, you just replace a despotic monarchy with a despotic state.
As always, socialists have a hazy idea of property. If it's my shit, I can do what I want with it. No one should be forced to allow access to anything except emergency services.
>it already exists
Not in most workplaces.
In my workplace I have only a limited incentive, really, to work hard, and no incentive at all to get everyone else to work hard. Even when they're slacking I don't bother telling them off because it would get them annoyed a me and I have no incentive
No capitalist bosses, just workers making things
>worker control of the means of production
Explain what you think this means.
>just workers making things
That is literally the most retarded thing I have ever read.
>What's wrong with worker control of the means of production?
The rabble is too unfit to control any complex industrial process.
>Under capitalism the source of investment is surplus wealth
The source of ivestment is anything thats valuable.
>held mostly by the upper class.
Who are there by virtue of their mental superiority and better breeding.
>The upper class then charges the working class explicit and implicit rental costs
So?
>Over time this creates huge inequality
Thats the point you shmuck. Losers dont deserve to win.
>and it means the condition of the working class doesn't improve as much as it ought to
Far more than it ought to.
>what the fuck does that even mean?
Ayo hol'up bruh, lemme explain:
1) put all workers and all means of production in the same room
2) let the former seize control of the latter
3) ???
4) Success! Equality achieved
If you want to collectively share something, make sure you collectively pay for it too. That said, the business owner will probably work without pay for years in order to get the business going, and it's on him that all the risks are, not the worker.
If the business fails, who's punished? The owner, or the worker? That's right, the owner.
This is why we need a high reward to make sure we get people to take risks.
And as people here have previously pointed out, nobody is stopping you and your friends from making a cooperatively owned business.
>No capitalist bosses, just workers making things
So then who acts as mediator? Who operates logistics? Where does finance control come from?
I can't believe anyone would want this if they can employ a few minutes of critical thinking here.
Does everyone in this abominable thread use "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably? There are fucking important distinctions. In a socialism, the means of production ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY THE WORKERS. THEY ARE CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
It's a communism where a commune controls the means of production.
And if people think it would work, then they can open their own fucking business and put themselves on the level of workers instead of trying to destroy every other business.
Go live in Venezuela and find out
>I was employed to build the castle
>Therefore I own the castle
There's noting inherently wrong with it, but a group of people [workers] in this case have to start their own business and jointly run it.
Bottom up, not top down.
I think that's where most socialists get it utterly wrong. What they tend to propose is just glorified theft.
Also, for the record, the OP's suggestion already exists (assuming he means worker-owned means of production). One example is the Mondragon Cooperative in Spain. A historical example was GEN MacArthur's restructuring of Taiwan after WWII (which led to its incredible economic might for such a tiny nation). There are many other examples.
The problem is that when your currency is based on debt, and is in fact the representation of public debt to private parties at interest for which the debt always exceeds the totality of money created, power automatically accumulates in the hands of the lenders over time. It is a mathematical guarantee.
As a result, such a worker-owned system can only exist in small pockets in the modern world, as virtually all currency in the world today represents sovereign debt to private interests, interests whose hands are guaranteed to gradually become strong enough to buy up all worker-owned means of production over time. WWII was an attempt to resist this oft' nicknamed 'octopus,' as was the American Revolutionary War, as were many other wars.
So yu be sayin we ah be kangs?
>Who acts as mediator
>Who operates logistics
>Where does finance control come from
Easy. There will just be some workers with more administrative power than other workers :^)
Right wingers in a nutshell
What western socialists are proposing is not the same as Venezuela, but i guess you did not actually bother to read their policy proposals
...
Because the means of production inherently do have to be produced. This creation of capital has to have desire to be created.
The real question you should ask is why socialists with your ideals haven't pooled together their resources to produce new means of production so they can improve the conditions of the working class.
Communists are murderous trash and if you think you are one, you need to drink bleach.
>who acts as a mediator
Huh?
>who operates logistics
They might elect someone
That still counts as workers making things
>financial control
There wouldn't be any finances, I think
I've been using socialism to mean worker control of the memes of production
How does it feel knowing you'll always be an ugly parasitic bottom feeding kike?
You seriously think niggers will work without someone cracking the whip?
>There wouldn't be any finances, I think
So why is anyone making anything?
Why would anyone work for others for no reason?
Is there someone with a gun making them work?
Finances as in borrowing and debt.
Eh yeah, financial control I guess would be settled by someone or other
Most people probably don't care that much, but maybe it could be elected and they could find something to argue about
By which I now mean the flow of money
>being this retarded
Is there a name for this fairy world you live on?
who makes the initial investment in a communism? how come commies always have to seize means that were paid for by capitalist?
>settled by someone or other
See this is the problem with you people.
You aren't informed on the general way of things, so delegating these duties to "someone or other" sounds reasonable to you.
Like all commie shits, you still have a lot to learn.
I'm just fairly indifferent as to how workers choose to divide 'control of finances' when they control their workplace
They could have a special person do it or one person could have that as one of his duties instead of mopping the floor idgaf
I don't know how it works in utopian communism but I'm saying the state should do it from tax revenues and have long term plans like protecting the environment and rectifying imbalances
>you have to work for an employer in capitalism
honestly you're fucking retarded
more 8 chan leftypol idiocy
Sage