Socialism

Ok I get where you coming from there but can the worker efficiently manage a firm don't they need someone with management skills to help guide things along? Think of it as the worth of their labor is 10 usd but the only get payed 7 USD then aren't they simply paying for a manager. So in essence they get the fruits of their labor then 30% of their paychecks for someone to lead them. I guess they could have a BOD to discuss who they will higher to lead them and howmuch of their check to forefit.

 

Think of the role of hierarchy in capitalism. It serves 2 primary roles: division of labour criteria and a means to divide and conquer (and eliminate the threat of solidarity on firm economic rents). Within worker ownership the latter disappears. Of course we'd expect to see management structures democratically chosen within firms. However, that reflects productivity criteria only. That provides one explanation for the higher productivity levels secured in worker owned companies

 

Ok I understand but that brings up the question are the workers talented enough to manage themselves because i dont mean to soud harsh but let's face it there's a reason Joe blow is flipping burgers and not managing a buisness.

 

James Sinegal, Costco Founder and CEO. there's your working Joe Blow who successfully managed a business (and considered one of the best business leaders in modern times, especially retail -- up there with Sam Walton)

 

Everyone tries to make their politics sound utopian. Socialism has failed in the past and that's why it hasn't taken root.

 

Yeah is that the norm that we can expect that someone like him will in most cases rise up?

 

Yeah, rather pointless of you to keep placing quotes around statements nobody has made. Instead of constantly running from the topic of discussion, Address it. This is your thread. You picked the topic.

Address these statements and step away from the strawmen if you can.

 

What companies would that be? The ones you imagined?

 

Do you really think he would have achieved the same results if he and every worker got one vote to make decisions for the firm, instead of him making those decisions? Do you think he would have made the same effort if the workers had voted to pay him $24k a year like they make?

 

It always seems to work so well when they imagine it, but seems to always perform pitifully whenever they implement it. They are much better as critics of the capitalist system, than they are at implementing their system

 

Its easy to see why socialism hasnt taken root. They need first the government to seize the means of production from the capitalist and extract the wealth of the rich, to give it to the workers. They havent been able to convince many governments to do this. Reivers so called voluntary socialism requires the government to extract the wealth of the rich, to give to the workers so they can start their socialist enterprises.

 

Socialism has failed in the past because authoritarian opportunistic monsters co-opted every attempt and turned it into state capitalism.

 

Have you noticed Reiver doesnt give you anything to listen to. He hides in the corner whenever anyone tries to extract from him ANY details of this socialism he longs for. All you get are sweeping, meaningless generalities like protection of labour property rights.

 

Requires an authoritarian to implement it. Owners of capital generally arent willing to just hand it over to the government.

 

No, it doesn't. Government doesn't need to be involved. You'd know this if you actually studied socialism.

 

As I said, your 'not supply and demand, supply and demand' approach is very useful as it advertises a core failure in right wing thought: a complete inability to understand the labour market (and 'real' non supply/demand factors, as offered by the institutionalists, marxists and post-keynesians)

Already have; laughed at every one. The idea that supply/demand determination is reliant on perfect competition is cretinous. All 4 market structures in neoclassical analysis 'theory of the firm' use supply and demand. You've made an error, nothing more. When asked to provide non-supply/demand factors, you've given supply/demand factors!

Now, stop dodging, let's see you refer to non supply/demand factors. Consider wage norms. What repercussion do you think that has for our understanding of the efficiency of capitalism's labour markets?

 

How are you going to obtain the means of production? Reivers brand of socialism requires the government to implement a wealth tax to extract the wealth from the rich, to give to the workers. How would you do it?

 

Reiver also subscribes to the Austrian school of capitalism, which is at odds with socialism. At some point you're going to have to realize that Reiver is a very confused individual who has no idea what he's on about.

Anyway, I would petition the government to allow me and any signers to form an autonomous community within the U.S. free from their intervention and economic woes.

Since capitalists will never allow us to be so free, that will likely never happen. So I'm content to settle for supporting socialist business startups.

 

You best ask for a name change!

I don't subscribe to the austrian school. I adopt a pluralist approach that embraces multiple schools. It is factual to remark that market socialism can be embedded within austrian analysis. An understanding of Hayekian knowledge confirms that.

 

Hey, congratulations. You finally dropped the quotation marks around statements Ive never made. And its not my approach. That was one of your many strawmen.

No, thats another strawman as well. What I said was

Supply is a quantity of what is supplied. Demand is a quantity that is demanded. Just two factors among the many factors that effect price

 

No, he foolishly thinks Burczak is a part of the Austrian school of thought. Bucczak is a marxist, trying to win over those from the Austrian school of thought

Nah, he just avoids any specifics he might have to defend.

By that I would assume you mean free from taxes.

 

I'm glad that you're ashamed of what you've said.

'Assumes perfect competiton'! It doesn't. All neoclassical market structures are based on supply/demand.

This made me laugh. You're even getting the basics wrong. Demand is given by the marginal revenue productivity of labour. 'Quantity demanded' is the equilibrium choice.

 

Another fib! Golly, didn't see that coming. Burczak is able to take Hayek's critique of market socialism (based on the socialist calculation debate and the distributed and tacit qualities of knowledge) and show that it cannot in fact reject socialism (only rejecting the idea of the socialist planner being able to mimic the walrasian auctioneer)

 

The Austrians and Hayek would disagree.

 

You'll find significant support for the analysis provided amongst the Austrians. It might surprise you but its you fellows (and your homogeneity) that are the outliers.

What you would need to do is show that the market socialism approach incapable of avoiding the twin knowledge problems. Good luck with that! Of course the ultimate problem with the Austrians is that they lack a coherent theory of the firm or detailed understanding of the labour market. They still put you to shame mind you!