Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work

Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work.

Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?

If you are self employed, purchase your own materials, purchase your own workspace and tools, and spend your own time, you can own your own products.

If you work a someone else's workspace, produce using their purchased supplies, with tools they purchased, you do not own that product.

Hey OP, why don't you and your commie buddies pool your resources together to start your own business?

Or better yet, why don't you quit your job and find one of the millions of established employee-owned businesses?

you can buy stock at the place you work.

The concept of work is to provide the "other half" of the deal (aka manager to worker, vice versa) by either collecting resources or assembling them. However, issues with ethics and the actual reason for management when burger flipper, to truck driver, thru middle management are considered regular workers.

TL;DR
Workers and managers support each other but gets unfair at an industrial level (McDonald's)

>the workers should own the places they work at
>so let's take the workplaces away from the workers and hand them over to the government so that the government has capital to employ people, but the workers do not
>also we do not want the workers owning the places they work since we don't want them do whatever they want with the workplace that they own, like employing people to work for them
:^)

>Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work.
why should they?

Gather a couple of your fellows and try making it work.
Except it won't because otherwise that would be the rule already.

>youre boss is your slave master! Support communism!

>*overthrow the old order and establish communist utopia

>now bureaucrat is your slave master. Speak out and go to gulag

Dumb commie.

> Communism is an inherently flawed economic practice

That's my 2 cents on the matter

Why don't they buy it then

Explain to me why commies are so fucking retarded

Autism

You're confusing/conflating workers and capitalists.

Thanks, but you didn't answer OP's question.

Because resources cost money you imbecile troglodyte.
If you can't affort it, well tough luck, you'll just have to work under someone who can. Or do you commie fucks actually think that the MoP just spawn out of nowhere?
>Sage

That's the beauty of capitalism, go start a co-op.

If the workers own the place they work at, they can choose to do what they want with their workplace, like deciding to become the managers of the workplace to oversee other workers so they can grow their capital and increase their business benefiting everyone.
Communist pieces of shit talk a lot about ownership yet seem to have zero idea what ownership even means.

why would you own something someone else paid for?
You didn't build the factory or your workplace
You didn't fund the creation or came up with the idea for the workplace

Retarded commie is retarded

>resources cost money

You fell for the exchange value spook

Because they throw themselves into this "gimmie free shit mentality" so much to the point that they believe that anyone who is better off than them inherintly owes them something.

They own the bussiness because they invested in the capital. They own the capital. They hired the workforce. THEY OWN THE FUCKING BUSSINESS YOU NIGGERTARD

Because workers would murder eachother if that was the case

unions destroy everything they touch
>dude give me 6 hour workday and 20 dollar minimum wage
>wtf why is everything made in China where are muh jarbs!?!?!

You are asking the wrong question.If a capitalist wants to start a business, they basically never do it by investing their own capital. They do it by taking out a loan from a bank and then paying that bank interest on the loan. Banks do not actually lend the capitalist the capital, they create it out of nothing through a process called 'fractional reserve banking.' New capital is created, not lent, when a "loan" is taken out. The question you should ask is why should the interest payments from the creation of new capital go to enrich private individuals and not be "socialized" for the benefit of everyone, to fund the government without taxation of the people for example? (((Karl Marx))) never asked that question, and may not have understood how finance actually works

because without the capital the business wouldn't exist

>they invested in the capital
There is no capital without labor friendo

Because it is someone Else's property.

1: "Should" has no place in the discussion of natural rights. Either you have them or you do not. The right to property is one such right rationally derived from nature.

2: If you do not believe in the right to property then why ought the workers to own their places of work? Are you implying that there is a right to own property collectively, but not individually? If so, why? Upon what grounds do you make this claim?

3: Why shouldn't a person be allowed to utilize his resources as he pleases if it harms nobody? By what moral law do you claim that owning a business is an act of violence? If I build an oven but I require a helper to operate it, why should that oven become equally his as it is mine when it was my resources that allowed its construction?

Why do you think that you have the philosophic legitimacy to demand answers of me, when it is YOU who are proposing revolutionary action? Clearly the burden of argument falls upon you, not me.

Value can be empirically derived, and Max Stirner was not a real philosopher.

calling something a spook is not an argument

if you really think everything is a spook then you might as well stop posting entirely

Don't blame the unions.

1: "Should" has no place in the discussion of natural rights. Either you have them or you do not. The right to property is one such right rationally derived from nature

Explain banking

Every one prefers to be his own boss. The only reason that someone would work for someone else would be that they derive a higher income from the employer than they could earn self employed. If anyone is being exploited, it is the business owner. He is paying his workers more than they could generate through their own efforts.

explain to me why non-white humanoids should be classed as 'people'

>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?
They own the business because they own the capital (or have control of it if the fiat-jews own it). A group of 10000 average joes cant own the business because they will never all agree on decisions.

Bootstraping a business is OK too, capital just makes things easier to grow. Cooperative ownership has nothing to do with it.

Because capital is not magic pixie dust that appears out of nowhere.

Fuck off you mong

Heh

It's called owning stock.

this is getting real deep man.

>Flag
>Obvious troll
Man invests tons of his own money to start a company, buy tools, machines or whatever. Employs people for their work.
>Somehow entitles the workers to own the place with zero risk
Do commies really believe this? Fucking children.

>Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work
Implying they're not allowed to
>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?
because freedom.

Of what relevance is the admittedly corrupt banking establishment to the existence of property rights?

Hired a small biz company to do my yard work. Worked for me for 10 years. Employee of biz leaves to start his own biz. Tries to get me to use his biz because he worked on my yard for 3 years. Tell him no because previous employer biz has been top notch for past 10 years. Previous biz hired ethnic worker to replace him. Does same good job. Why should I hire you to do the job when I am no disappoint with previous company. He be mad. Wave to him when I see him driving on roads. Now he gives me finger when he sees me. I feel like I made a good decision regardless what this millennial jitterbug thinks.

>the right to property is one such right rationally derived from nature

The right to property yes, the right to private property, no.

>If you do not believe in the right to property then why ought the workers to own their places of work? Are you implying that there is a right to own property collectively, but not individually? If so, why? Upon what grounds do you make this claim?

Yes, there is a right to own private property collectively (as in the whole of society) because productive property belongs to the entire society. When people meme "workers own the means of production" they mean the means of production are owned socially and choices are made democratically. The grounds upon which I make this claim is that the foundational basis of the stake associated with
private property is arbitrary and from a historical perspective, only enforced with ruthless force against the majority of the population, which is unjust.

>3: Why shouldn't a person be allowed to utilize his resources as he pleases if it harms nobody? By what moral law do you claim that owning a business is an act of violence? If I build an oven but I require a helper to operate it, why should that oven become equally his as it is mine when it was my resources that allowed its construction?

You should be able to utilize resources if it harms nobody. But the act of owning a business is an act of violence because you have expropriated social production that belongs to the entirety of society for yourself and have thus deprived the entirety of society of the right to decide where that socially useful excess production ought to go.

If you build an oven, the resources you extracted to build it (iron, magnesium, etc) belong to the entirety of society and as a result, society has a claim to that oven if you are not solely using it for your personal (use value) benefit

Because if they owned the business they would no longer simply be workers would they. They would be business owners.
> Whats stopping that working owner from hiring a worker do do his task "nothing"
>You create a subcontract nightmare where the man on the bottom makes NOTHING.

Yeah if I start my own business it comes from my own labour.

>I work
>I earn
>I buy propterty
>I produce goods
>I can now pay workers
>repeat cycle

Capitalism works because it creates incentive for independance. Communism is good for niggers

They should own it because they hold all the capital. They invested in it, put their efforts into it, and grew it to a point where he needed people to handle the minutiae that's below his or her expertise

This is called "capitalism" and unlike your shitty fairy tale system, it actually works and doesn't kill millions of people in its implementation, you fucking communist hack.

Explain why they should. Inb4 muh capitalists profit off of their labor surplus.
Yes they do. And in exchange they pay workers for their labor. What gives a worker the right to steal someone else's property?

Mutual interest

I used to believe something like this in the past, but if you carefully examine the economic environment today, you would realize that it's significantly harder to stay afloat starting your own business today than it would have been several decades ago.

A lot of the successful businesses today come from opening shop at the right time. If they had to start over today, I'd be willing to bet my right nutsack that they wouldn't be successful.

They are free to self employ them selves instead of stealing someone elses property.

Work in a cpitalist society is done in mind of the contract of the employer and employee.

The employer owns the means of production, the raw materials and manages the sales.

Thus what right does some lazy fuck have to try and steal that property?

Communis hasn't and will never work.

>if I start my own business it comes from my own labor

Nothing wrong until "I can now pay workers" largely because you are not paying them for the full value of their labor.

>50+ replies

Explain to me why summer posters reply to bait.

first post best post

>they hold the capital
The capital is formed from natural resources which belong to the entirety of society, not the person who arbitrarily signs a deed for it

>it doesn't kill millions of people
Lmao tell that to the entirety of Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East

If workers were not paid for the full value of their labor they would not be working there and would find a better job, or employ themselves since their labor is so valuable.

he answered it in the best and most simple way.
is deny that property exists, please now hand over your PC, your lunchbox and your legoblocks you fucking schoolyard bolshevik.

He did.

"Capital is not pixie dust that appears out of nowhere"

Wrong, fool. It is created out of nothing by central banks and through fractional reserve lending.

If workers were being paid the full value of their labor, how would the capitalist make any money? Wouldn't every dime go to the workers and none to the owner of capital?

By definition, workers can't be paid the full value of their labor in a capitalist system or the capitalist gets nothing

Because they couldn't manage it effectively and it is the owner's property, it is their genius that created this effective business. If the workers really don't like working for some intelligent, industrious, genetically superior guy who holds his rightful place in the hierarchy the workers can open a partnership, but of course they are all too dumb to actually make anything work without some sort of authoritarian, communism can't even work, and needs an autocratic, tyrannical dictator to actually hold itself together for the few years before people either become tired of their bullshit and realize they were duped for power and rebel, or the state runs out of money and natural resources because of their inefficient system and then the whole Goddamn thing collapses. Marxism as an idea is ridiculous and there are a lot of other faults with their ideology to the point where anybody who unironically identifies themselves as a Marxist is retarded.

>The right to property yes, the right to private property, no.
Why? The distinction is clearly arbitrary.

>Yes, there is a right to own private property collectively (as in the whole of society) because productive property belongs to the entire society.
Why? The distinction is clearly arbitrary. On what grounds do you make this claim?

>The grounds upon which I make this claim is that the foundational basis of the stake associated with private property is arbitrary and from a historical perspective, only enforced with ruthless force against the majority of the population, which is unjust.
I fail to see how collective ownership of the means of production is any less arbitrary than individual ownership. Societies don't exist, there is no societal personhood. A "society" is merely a group of individuals who live near each other and sometimes interact.

>You should be able to utilize resources if it harms nobody. But the act of owning a business is an act of violence because you have expropriated social production that belongs to the entirety of society for yourself and have thus deprived the entirety of society of the right to decide where that socially useful excess production ought to go.
On what grounds can you claim the collective ownership of all resources in society? What is the basis for this argument? Society does not exist, I have never seen one in nature and I can think of no rights that a non-person could have.

Personhood entails the right to property. What is yours is yours. There is no animal called "society" that has the right to property. The closest that exists is the State. By what right can the state own property, but an individual cannot?

Nor was I before I started my own business. But my workers have economic freedom to continue the cycle.

The problem is that mass immigration has devalued labor.

Lmao so capital didn't exist before central banks?

Except it's the market itself which determines the value of the labor they put into their jobs, not some greedy business owner. Money is a unit of measurement for value, much like pounds is a unit of measurement for weight. You can't make a feather weigh more by arbitrarily assigning more pounds to it, and you can't make a job worth more value by arbitrarily assigning more money to jobs that aren't worth that much.

LTV is a nice idea twisted to try to implement absolutely retarded systems like ancom

Capitalism sucks but at least shit gets done and we're not all wallowing in our own drum circle squalor like commies want

Thats not how it works. A man will invest 10% capital and get the other 90% from the banking system. The bankimg system creates the 90% from nothing.

This is the best answer. While using the interest on the new capital to fund government might work. The problem comes from the source. The money can never pay itself back due to interest attached to its creation. A dollar out of thin air with a 1% interest rate can never pay back $1.01.

Interest, or rather debt backed currency is naturally inflationary and therefore naturally vertical funneling over time as less and less people are able to stay ahead of the depreciation of the currency.

If you were in an interview for a job, how would you like to be evaluated? By how much stuff you have? (Asset or gold backed currency). What you promise to do? (Debt backed currency). Or what you yourself have actually done? (GDP or labor backed currency).

The latter is what Germany did between 1932 and 1939. Interest free labor treasury certificate notes could only be issued by the treasury to pay for the labor to construct public works. The autobahn was funded this way. Labor treasury certificates were redeemable in marks and vise versa, like gold used to be. So basically the treasury department could issue notes and buy them back to keep the economy level without boom-crash cycles. In 7 years, Germany went from europes poorest economy to the world's 2nd largest.

exactly and how would be reinvestment or upgrading the machines or any technological advancement we possible if every dollar went to the worker.
ah right it's not possible, that why socialist economies stagnate, then fall into recession.
hmm.. really tickles my porperty right.

> it is their genius that created this effective business

So opening a shitty convenience store in the 80s-90s and netting $6 million in cash is "genius"?

I'd like to have what your smoking.
If my uncle were so smart and a "genius", how come he didn't catch on to the fact that the internet and amazon, in particular, would steal all his business? Why didn't he create his own internet store?

Running a successful business is 90% luck.

>the act of owning a business is an act of violence

have you actually said this out loud once and listened to yourself?

>Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work.

Own? I thought communists don't believe in property. Owning something is fundamentally connected with property. If you believe in property after all, seizing someone else's property is fine, all is fair in love and war. But since it's hostile takeover, you might encounter some resistance.
May the best man win.

Because workers are dumb, corrupt and unable to organize effectively by themselves.

>>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?
>Why should someone own a business simply because they have started it

What are you dumb?

That doesn't even make sense, and you don't even know what capitalism is.
>workers can't be paid the full value of their labor in a capitalist system
When you actually understand what words mean what you are essentially saying is that the only way a worker can get paid what he deserves for their labor is if the government has a complete monopoly on the production. Which we know is false since governments are incredibly inefficient, and even if they weren't they still need to make a profit because you can't operate at a loss forever.
You don't even know what you are saying. You're just spewing words.

But that is incorrect. The only empirical value of labor that has yet been found is the market value. How much you sell something for--by definition--is its value. Every worker who agrees to a wage is selling his labor for the value of that labor.

The Labor Theory of Value did not even need to be debunked because no evidence for it ever existed. Literally inventing a new definition of value that cannot be tested or analyzed is not sound economics.

>Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work.

they could, it's called cooperation, however most workers are mindless twats with no marketing and management skills and would probably run the said business to the ground

>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?

because they have the vision and the skill to make a good enough portfolio to convince the holders of capital, he is a good investment

>Explain to me why workers shouldn't own the places they work.
>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?

You either starve businesses of the capital they need to industrialize, buy machinery, make improvements, expand, buy real estate, buy materials, and other infrastructure, or you have to hyper restrict the flow of workers, as removing an incompetent or evil owner is very difficult..

Existing labor unions COULD collectively and continuously use dues to buy stock in whatever companies their members worked at. But they don't. And economically it's a terrible idea for them to do so.

The distinction is artificial.

I find it amazing that marxists are so focused on economic principles, but seem to understand them so poorly. Was fractional reserve banking in widespread use in Marx's age?

Sounds like your uncle didn't realize the world changing around him and failed to change with it.

>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?
they don't hold the capital if they bought the means of production already, they hold the means of production as an investment, the workers hold minor shares in the assets wealth by working there and get paid dividends
youre saying that those with the least stock in a company should own the most inexplicably

In most businesses you can't put any random person you find and expect it to be succesful.

Many people could own their own business but choose not to. Why?

Because it's an investment that is extremely risky and time consuming. So people choose to have a safer option, which is to work for someone else with a fixed salary.

Not everyone who own a business is a super rich guy that can spend all the money he wants in businesses.

So collective bargaining objectively makes workers better?

This graphic explains a lot.

tell me why someone shouldnt be allowed to sign a contract that gets them x money for y work

>Hurr durr I like this therefore its mine gibs me that

- Commie logic

"What is the relevance of fractional reserve bankimg to property rights"

Fractional reserve banking is a legal construct by which society allows new property/capital to be created out of thin air. The question is why the benefits of that process should be private. Private property is fully compatible with public banking. Why should bankers get free stuff they did not work for because of a government program called fractional reserve?

>the distinction is clearly arbitrary
No it is not, it is based on the difference between use value and exchange value which is calculated in excess of that use value.

Private property is that productive property which creates value in excess of its use value and funnels that to its owner.

A shovel you use to build a garden in your backyard does not create value in excess of the use value of the shovel. A shovel you give to a working landscaper/employee as the owner of a landscaping business does.

>I fail to see how collective ownership of the means of production is any less arbitrary than individual ownership.

Because there is democratic control and input from all of society to which the means of production ultimately belong as opposed to no accountability and direction in the hands of an individual owner.

>On what grounds can you claim the collective ownership of all resources in society?

Because all resources belong to society as a whole and the alternative is an arbitrary claims process based on force of arms and intense violence directed towards the vast majority.

>Society does not exist
Not sure how I can help you if you don't believe in the concept of society - humans are social animals who rely upon one and other for development and advancement and survival

Communists have a problem with it being voluntary.
If there was no contract and people were forced to do y to get x, they would be ok with it. These ''people'' want literal slavery.

Stalin knew to get shit done in only 5 years

No it's the market that determines the exchange value of the commodity produced by labor, which has the purpose of obfuscating the fact that actual/use value comes only from labor.

This means that the worker is not compensated for the full value of the labor the input

They can if they want to but in most cases they don't. They can buy stock so what's your point?

I agree, but that fact that he's financially successful from opening his own business doesn't mean he's a "genius". He was just lucky to be born at a time when there weren't 50 immigrants around each block doing the same exact shit.

Anyone claiming that the younger generation today has the same opportunities to make money as the older generations did several decades ago is either a moron or a liar.

Because God owns workers and everything else.
Checkmate niggertheists

Depends on which school of socialist thought you follow:

(1) In syndicalism, the union/workers' council makes the decision as to how much money will go towards investment/R&D as opposed to the capitalist.

(2) In a planned economy, the planners make that decision based on democratic input from the entire population

Also, the Soviet Union had a far higher % of its GDP as investment than almost any capitalist economy other than Japan. The fact that capitalist economies continuously underinvest in the future is actually one of the best arguments for socialism

Idk man our current society perpetuates violence on a massive scale rn. What I'm saying doesn't sound so silly in that light

>Why should someone own a business simply because they hold capital?

Since freedom is pretty fuckin' important to most people, you should explain why they shouldn't own a business if the hold capital.

Then again, screw other people who need products, services, and jobs. Maybe the guy who holds capital should just live on his principal and not invest it in anything except their own needs.

You idiot.

"Capital didnt exist before central banks" before fractional reserve banking, you would have to put up 100% of the capital, or actually loan it at 1:1 from someone else. With fractional reserve, you lut down 1p% and the other 90% is created by a bamk. Im not saying fractional reserve is a bad thing, I am asking why the benefits of it should go to private individuals, or what moral right private individuals & banks have to captial created through a legal fiction